Complaints Report: 2001

Dwight Wenham and the Union of Psychiatric Nurses
vs. The Vancouver Sun - Reasons for Judgement

The B.C. Press Council has upheld in part a complaint brought against the Vancouver Sun by the Union of Psychiatric Nurses. On April 14, 2001 the Vancouver Sun published front-page and inside-page articles on alleged abuse at the now-closed Woodlands Institution for the mentally challenged.

The Sun's investigation was triggered after reporter Kim Pemberton learned that the provincial government had appointed former B.C. ombudsman Dulcie McCallum to review Woodland's records to determine if there was a history of systemic abuse.

Pemberton interviewed a number of former staff members, patients, and patients' parents, and subsequently wrote several related stories outlining alleged sexual, physical and emotional abuse at Woodlands.

The Union of Psychiatric Nurses objected to the Sun's coverage, claiming the serious allegations in its stories were alternatively false, unproved and/or inadequately investigated, and unfairly cast a negative light upon the nurses and other staff members at Woodlands.

Dwight Wenham, director of labour relations for the Union of Psychiatric Nurses, initiated a complaint with the B.C. Press Council.

Mr. Wenham, maintained the Sun had contravened three Guidelines of the Press Council's Code of Practice:

• Guideline 1 -- Accuracy: A newspaper's first duty is to provide the public with accurate information.
• Guideline 2 -- Opportunity to reply: Newspapers should give individuals and organizations a fair and timely opportunity to reply to inaccuracies when the issue is of significant importance or when reasonably called for.
• Guideline 4 -- Comment and Fact: Newspapers and journalists shall strive to avoid expressing comment and conjecture as established fact.

A hearing was held Sept. 19, 2001.

In regard to the complainant's charge that the Sun stories breached the code's guidelines with respect to comment and fact, the Council rejects the argument. The allegations made in the stories were clearly presented as the recollections of named sources.

However, the Council does find the newspaper was in breach of the Guideline 4 when it elevated allegation to fact in an editorial (not written by Pemberton) published April 17/01. Although the editorial began with a reference to the "alleged abuse" at Woodlands, it went on to say that Ms. Pemberton's "investigation has shown that disabled people who were deemed to be 'biters' simply had their teeth pulled out . mentally handicapped girls were assaulted . and adults paraded into showers were hit on the head with a wooden brush."

This paragraph in the editorial suggests these alleged events actually occurred, when as yet they are unproved allegations.

Wenham submitted the Sun had breached Guideline 2 of the Council's Code of Practice in terms of being afforded a timely opportunity to reply to the stories.

At the hearing, Vancouver Sun managing editor Patricia Graham explained that Mr. Wenham's original letter had been misplaced, which was subsequently followed by lengthy dialogue and negotiation that delayed the process. However, Ms. Graham acknowledged that the delay of 17 days between the date the Woodland stories were published and the eventual publication date of Wenham's letter in response was indeed unfortunate.

The Council agrees. Newspapers have a responsibility to give readers, particularly those directly affected by stories, an opportunity to respond as soon as possible. In this instance, that was not done.

Council also notes that newspapers, which criticize events, individuals and organizations, have an obligation to accept and publish criticisms of their own work and actions.

During his presentation, the complainant submitted it was not Council's responsibility to determine the truth of the allegations, but rather to consider whether in publishing them, the Sun breached parts of the Code of Conduct.

With respect to Guideline 1, the complainant made numerous submissions on the matter of accuracy, most based on the assertion that specific events or activities alleged in the Sun's stories had not, or were unlikely to have actually occurred. It is not necessary to address in detail each of these submissions since the complainant conceded it cannot be concluded the events or activities did not occur simply because he or select unionmembers had no knowledge of them. Council does, however, find three instances of inaccuracy.

The Council finds that Ms. Pemberton made reference to a recent court decision, indicating a "judge wrote" of certain events, as if he was confirming they occurred. This was inaccurate. A reading of the court documents indicates the judge was relating the claims of the complainant in the case.

The Council further finds, as acknowledged by Ms. Graham, that the front page headline, "B.C. launches investigation into Woodlands abuse", is misleading. The wording would seem to suggest the ombudsman had just embarked on her investigation when, in fact, at the time the Sun published its stories the government investigation had already been under way for more than six months. (It should be noted that Ms. Pemberton did now write the headlines on the stories).

The Council also finds that an inside-page headline, "Abusers never prosecuted", was inaccurate. Evidence was presented at the hearing revealing at least one Woodland staff member had been prosecuted on a related charge. The Sun acknowledged this error as well, and pointed out the mistake had been "corrected" via Mr. Wenham's published letter to the editor on May 1, 2001.

The Council strongly suggests this form of "correction" is inadequate and can be interpreted as "fudging" by a newspaper. Letters are traditionally presented as opinion. Readers have no way of inferring -- nor should they -- that a differing view presented in a published letter is in fact the newspaper's acknowledgment of an error it committed.

Mistakes made by newspapers should be clearly acknowledged as such, either as a separate item in the news pages, or as an editors affirming note accompanying the letter containing the correction.

Finally, the Council will address what it views as a key issue in this case.

Wenham maintained Ms. Pemberton did an inadequate job of researching the veracity of the allegations, and the credibility of her sources. He submitted the Sun had a duty to contact other sources, such Woodland management personnel and/or relevant union representatives and members, to obtain what he maintained was a substantially different side of the story.

To support this assertion, Mr. Wenham called three registered psychiatric nurses who collectively worked in various units of Woodlands from 1965 to 1995. They denied seeing any of the incidents alleged in the Sun's stories or hearing rumors of such incidents. They acknowledged, however, it was possible such incidents could have taken place without their knowledge.

The Council notes that the questions of balance and fairness are very subjective, and not specifically addressed in the Code of Practice. Therefore, the Council makes no formal ruling on this matter.

However, the Council offers the following comments:
Ms. Pemberton embarked on an ambitious and courageous project -- to uncover what kind of activities may have taken place at Woodlands to initiate a government investigation into alleged abuse. Indeed, she found a considerable number of directly involved sources willing to talk about profoundly disturbing abusive conditions and activities within Woodlands as they recall them.

The witnesses in this case expressed their disappointment that the Sun's stories did not include any account of the positive aspects of Woodlands, nor a reflection of the dedication and compassion of the staff. That may indeed be the core of another story worth telling. However, this was not the Sun's focus in this case.

As Ms. Pemberton pointed out, part of a newspaper's job is to give voice to the voiceless, and expose aspects of society many would prefer to remain in darkness.

However, as she acknowledged during the hearing, a basic tenet of Western journalism is the need to provide a measure of balance in controversial and contentious stories.

When a news story is based primarily upon allegations, it is important that an answering or challenging voice also be presented to give readers an opportunity to reflect upon those allegations and their veracity or accuracy. In this instance, the Council feels the Sun failed.

In the case of The Baileys vs. The Province, 1996, the council noted a columnist had proceeded to publish allegations "without contacting the other parties in the dispute to hear their concerns or give them an opportunity to defend themselves." The Council went on to note that this failure "resulted in omissions of fact that would have given readers a more accurate picture of the dispute. As well, the omissions may have been singly responsible for the dispute reaching the Press Council."

Ms. Pemberton spent considerable time and effort pursuing sources who lent credence to the apparent concern there may have been abuses perpetrated at Woodlands but it appears less effort was expended to find those in positions of authority at Woodlands at the time who could answer to the allegations, such as former management personnel, medical practitioners, psychiatric nurses, custodial staff, or even the dentist who allegedly participated in a policy of pulling the teeth of patients labeled as "biters."

From the testimony heard by the Council, at least some of these individuals were available, if someone wished to find them, and any one of these voices would have added much to the stories. Indeed, the witnesses at this hearing were able to provide alternate, plausible explanations for the teeth pulling, which raises some question about the allegations made by the Sun's sources, two of whom did not specifically mention biting as being a factor in their suspicions of unnecessary teeth-pulling.

Since the Woodland stories were not "breaking news" and as such, subject to deadline pressures, the Sun and Ms. Pemberton had the time to track down the opposing voices which were absent from the stories published. Alternatively, The Sun could have reiterated that these were allegations, thereby reminding readers that the claims were unproven.

Ms. Pemberton testified that she obtained three sources for each allegation in the story and by newspaper standards, that was justification for publishing the claims.

Council appreciates that the nature of newspaper publishing deadlines often does not accommodate full and balanced reporting in initial stories. Frequently, opposing or alternate views are aired in following stories.

This is an important ongoing story, and there will no doubt be more to be published on the matter, not the least of which will be the findings of the McCallum report.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Ms. Graham promised that the witnesses present would be contacted in the future for interviews. Council looks forward to their voices, and those of others involved in the Woodlands sage, being added to this compelling story.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top