Complaints Report: 1999

Forty one complaints were received in 1999. Up to the end of 1999, the Council had received 581 complaints and hed 50 public hearings.

Five hearings were held in 1999. Reports of the Council's adjudications and mediations appear below.

TED HAYES vs. DAVID BLACK NEWSPAPERS

A Victoria man's complaint that Publisher David Black censored his letter to the editor of one of Black's publications and that Black had censored his own newspapers in their coverage of the Nisga'a treaty was dismissed by the Press Council.

The Council found that one of Hayes letters was published verbatim while a second was edited without distorting Hayes' views.

And while the Council accepted Hayes' point that newspaper owners have a responsibility to allow the presentation of diverse opinion, the Black newspapers did in fact carry a variety of viewpoints through letters to the editor, news stories and opinion columns.

Text of the Adjudication of Jan. 14, 1999:

The British Columbia Press Council has dismissed the complaint lodged by Mr. Ted Hayes against Publisher David Black.

Mr. Hayes made a timely contribution as a private citizen to the ever-continuing debate on the roles and responsibilities of newspapers, owners and editors. He submitted that (a) a ltter to the editor that he wrote to the regional issue of the Peninsula News Review was censored and that (b) Mr. Black had censored his newspapers regarding the Nisga'a Treaty.

On the first matter, the Council found that Mr. Hayes submitted two substantially similar letters, one of which was published unedited. The publication of the second letter, while edited, did not distort Mr. Hayes' views.

On the second matter, the Council accepted the thrust of Mr. Hayes' proposition that the owners of newspaper groups have a responsibility under the Council's Code of Practice to allow the presentation of diverse opinion in their newspapers. The Council found that in the case at hand, Mr. Black's newspapers did in fact carry a diversity of opinion in the form of news stories, letters to the editor and opinion columns.

Mr. Hayes complained that Mr. Black's directive breached Paragraph 4 of the Press Council Code of Practice and the preamble to the Code. The Council found that nothing in the directive breached the Code.

The directive, as outlined in evidence presented at the hearing, was that:

1) The editorial position of the David Black newspapers was to oppose the proposed Nisga'a Treaty.

2) A series of eight columns on the subject by Mel Smith would be run by all David Black newspapers.

3) Existing columnists were free to disagree with the owner's position within their columns.

4) Letters to the editor and news reporting were not to be affected.

5) Editors who disagreed with the owner's policy were not obliged to write against their conscience but would be expected to run material provided to them.

6) Editors who disagreed with the owner's policy were free to express their thoughts on the letters page.

Paragraph 4 of the Code reads: Newspapers should defend their hard won right to exercise the widest possible latitude in expressing opinion, no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinion may be, and to give columnists, editorial cartoonists and others the same latitude in expressing personal opinions.

The Council found that Mr. Black, through his newspapers, had exercised the "hard won right to express opinion," controversial as they were to some and unpopular as they were with the government of B.C., and that he did give columnists and others the same latitude.

His directive had not excluded a diversity of opinion from being expressed in the columns of his newspapers as evidenced by the fact that the papers' coverage included the views of Premier Glen Clark, Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell, Reform Party President Bill Vander Zalm as well as those of ordinary British Columbians.

The Council further found that while it has become customary in Canada for the day-to-day editorial position of a newspaper to be delegated by the owner to a publisher and/or editor, the ultimate obligation and right to direct editorial policy rests with the owner.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

GOVERNMENT OF B.C. vs. DAVID BLACK NEWSPAPERS

A complaint laid by the Government of B.C. against Publisher David Black has been rejected by the Press Council.

The government argued that a directive issued by Black to his editors that they were not to run editorials in favor of the Nisga'a treaty went against the letter and spirit of the Council's constitution and was a breach of the duty to act in the public interest.

Text of the adjudication of Jan. 15, 1999:

The British Columbia Press Council has dismissed the complaint lodged by the Government of B.C. against publisher David Black.

The case arose from a directive given by Mr. Black to his editors that they were not to run editorials in favor of the proposed Nisga'a treaty.

The government had complained that Mr. Black's directive was contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the B.C. Press Council's constitution and Paragraph 4 of the Council's Code of Practice and was a breach of the duty to act in the public interest.

The Council found that nothing in the directive breached either its constitution or its Code of Practice.

Paragraph 4 of the Code reads: Newspapers should defend their hard won right to exercise the widest possible latitude in expressing opinion, no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinion may be, and to give columnists, editorial cartoonists and others the same latitude in expressing personal opinions.

The Council found that Mr. Black, through his newspapers, had exercised the "hard won right to express opinion," controversial as they were to some and unpopular as they were with the government of B.C., and that he did give columnists and others the same latitude. His directive did not result in the exclusion of a range of diverse opinion being expressed in columns and other areas of his newspapers.

The directive, as outlined in evidence presented at the hearing, was that:

1) The editorial position of the David Black newspapers was to oppose the proposed Nisga'a Treaty.

2) A series of eight columns on the subject by Mel Smith would be run by all David Black newspapers.

3) Existing columnists were free to disagree with the owner's position within their columns.

4) Letters to the editor and news reporting were not to be affected.

5) Editors who disagreed with the owner's policy were not obliged to write against their conscience but would be expected to run material provided to them.

6) Editors who disagreed with the owner's policy were free to express their thoughts on the letters page.

The Council further found that the David Black newspapers did in fact carry a diversity of opinion on the Nisga'a Treaty, including those of Premier Glen Clark, Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell, Reform Party President Bill Vander Zalm as well as those of ordinary British Columbians.

With respect to the government's complaint that the directive was a breach of the duty of the David Black newspapers to act in the public interest, the Council held that by leading comment, widening the debate and presenting a range of diverse opinions on matters of public significance, newspapers demonstrate their social responsibility and, at the same time, perform a valuable public service.

The Press Council strongly affirms the widely accepted view of the vital role of newspapers in a free and democratic society as public watchdogs of government and other institutions.

It further finds that while it has become customary in Canada for the day-to-day editorial position of a newspaper to be delegated by the owner to a publisher and/or editor, the ultimate obligation and right to direct editorial policy rests with the owner.

The Council finds that Mr. Black's actions were fully consistend with the traditions of newspapers in democratic societies.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

LOYAL ORANGE ASSOCIATION vs. NEW WESTMINSTER NEWS LEADER

A complaint by the Loyal Orange Association that the New Westminser News Leader published a one-sided and biased story on the association's annual parade was partially upheld by the Press Council.

But Council also found that the Association did not contact the newspaper promptly after the story appeared and did not respond to an offer by the paper to put its points forward through a letter to the editor.

Text of the adjudication of May 13, 1999:

The B.C. Press Council upholds in part a complaint against the New Westminster News Leader by the Loyal Orange Association.

The council found that the newspaper failed to give the Orange Association an opportunity to reply to comments made in a story published July 15, 1998 about the association's annual parade.

It also found that the newspaper inaccurately reflected historical events when describing the Battle of Boyne in 1690.

The council commends the newspaper editor for acknowledging at the hearing these errors and omissions and his regret about the story's imbalance.

It is regrettable that the Orange Association chose deliberately not to contact the newspaper promptly after the article was published. A more timely response could have resulted in an accurate and balanced reporting of the event. The Orange Association also chose not to put their points forward in a letter to the editor page as offered by the editor.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

PATRICK BEIRNE vs. THE PROVINCE

A complaint by Patrick Beirne, of Vancouver, that a picture of a burned child carried by The Province was intrusive and offensive, was dismissed with reservations, by the Press Council.

Council said there was no doubt the picture was disturbing but in the narrow definition of the Council's Code of Practice, there was no clear evidence of a lack of due regard for the well-being of the child and on that ground the complaint was dismissed.

Text of the adjudication of May 14, 1999:

The B.C. Press Council dismisses, with reservations, a complaint brought against The Province by Patrick Beirne.

Beirne objected to the publication of a picture depicting a badly burned child being carried to an ambulance following a fire deliberately set by her mother.

In the narrow definition of the Council's Code of Practice, as it relates to the photographing of children, there was no clear evidence of a lack of dur regard for the well-being of the child or children in question. On those grounds the complaint is dismissed.

However, there is no doubt the photo is disturbing.

The press has to make numerous difficult decisions regarding stories and photographs depicting violent events.

While the Press Council does not adjudicate on matters of "taste," it does encourage newspapers to observe the highest ethical standards, as stressed in the Council's Code of Conduct preamble.

To maintain those standards, particularly in regards to publication of potentially offensive photographs or text, editors must weigh the justification of compelling public interest against what otherwise could be perceived as gratuitous or exploitive publication.

The Press Council considers it very unfortunate that The Province did not advance an effective argument in regard to the public purpose being served through publication of this photo.

As Mr. Beirne pointed out in his submission, in a recent editorial regarding the public release of photographs of the victim in an unrelated murder trial, The Province itself muses: "Will the pictures of her battered body help us and the rest of society ot understand...?"

In this case, that important question remains unanswered, to the public's detriment.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top

WEBSTER'S CORNER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION vs. MAPLE RIDGE PITT MEADOW NEWS

The Press Council noted that columnists are meant to stimulate and arouse public opinion as it dismissed a complaint by the Webster's Corner Community Association against the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows News.

The Association had complained that a column on development of gravel pits in the Maple Ridge area was inaccurate, slanted and failed to truthfully explain the issues involved.

Text of the adjudication of Nov. 25, 1999:

The B.C. Press Council dismissed a complaint filed by the Webster's Corner Community Association against the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadow News for a column published April 21, 1999 and written by Sandy Macdougall.

Community Association President Mary Robson wrote the Press Council to complain that the column in question was inaccurate, slanted and failed to truthfully explain the issue on development of gravel pits.

Although the Press Council found the language in the column to be provocative, it does note that columnists are meant to stimulate and arouse public opinion. The newspaper published on May 2 a letter from a resident of Webster's Corner which rebutted the columnist's claim that only a few people were actively involved in opposing the issue of development of the gravel pits.

The Press Council does regret that an offer made by the newspaper to the association to publish its viewpoint was not pursued by the complainant. It now welcomes a suggestions by the association that a letter sent by it to the newspaper may form the basis of an expression of its viewpoint. The council welcomes the willingness of the newspaper to publish such a response.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top