Complaints Report: 2011

• DIXON VS SIMIKAMEEN

DIXON VS SIMIKAMEEN

The B.C. Press Council has upheld a complaint filed against the Similkameen Spotlight over the publication of stories in its editions of Wednesday, Sept. 14 and Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2011.

Susan Dixon complained to the Press Council that articles published in the Spotlight on Sept. 14, 2011 titled “Alternate director fired for volunteer work” and “Why an Aquatic Centre for Princeton and Area H?” and on Sept. 21 entitled “Bogus document floods town” and “It Backfires!” contravened Articles 1 (Accuracy), 2 (Right of Reply) and 4 (Comment and Fact) of the BCPC Code of Practice.

In a teleconference hearing conducted Friday, Nov. 18, 2011, Ms. Dixon complained that the article “Alternate Director”, written by Dierra Maynard, editor of the Spotlight, presented an inaccurate and one-sided account of the decision by Brad Hope, Area H director for the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen (RDOS), to rescind the appointment of Charles Weber as his alternate director. The decision to rescind Mr. Weber’s appointment centered around a disagreement between Mr. Hope and Mr. Weber about a referendum on Sept. 24 for Princeton and RDOS and Area H residents on a new aquatic centre for the region. The article featured extensive quotes by Weber but no response from Hope.

Ms. Dixon also complained that the article “Why an Aquatic Centre” in the same edition of the Spotlight, written by the Aquatic Centre referendum committee, was presented as a news article rather than an opinion article.
She also complained that the editorial piece “It Backfires!” (Sept. 21) was not balanced, alleging that those who opposed the aquatic centre were called “liars,” and that an article titled “Bogus document floods community” (Sept. 21) was also an opinion piece, “reflecting the opinion of the editor, who is also a member of the Aquatic Centre committee.”

At the hearing, Ms. Maynard confirmed that she had did not contact Mr. Hope for a response prior to publication of the story “Alternate director”. She indicated that she spent extensive time verifying the allegations made by Mr. Weber and reviewing with her publisher and senior staff in her newspaper company. However, she says she did not have time or space to contact Mr. Hope for a response prior to publication and decided to offer him the opportunity to respond in the next edition. She contacted Mr. Hope following the paper’s deadline but prior to the article’s publication, indicating that he would wish to respond to the story in that week’s paper and scheduling an interview with Mr. Hope. Ms. Maynard advised that Mr. Hope later cancelled the interview and instead submitted a letter to the editor, which was published in the Spotlight Sept. 21 along with the complete text of the letter from Mr. Hope to Mr. Weber explaining the decision to remove him as an alternate director.

The article “Why an Aquatic Centre,” which supported a “yes” vote on the upcoming aquatic centre referendum, was published without attribution on a page with the header “News”. At the hearing, Ms. Maynard indicated that the article was written by the aquatic centre referendum committee, but mistakenly ran without attribution and on a page which was headed “News” instead of “Community.” She noted that the Spotlight published a Publisher’s Note in its following edition noting the error about the page heading. The Publisher’s Note did not clarify who wrote the piece.

Ms. Maynard confirmed that she was a member of the Aquatic Centre referendum committee, a fact that was not disclosed in any of the articles cited in the complaint. Ms. Maynard said that she had disclosed her membership on the committee in previous articles in the Spotlight and that it was “common knowledge” in the community.

The Press Council sympathizes with Maynard’s heavy responsibilities operating a newsroom of one under tight timelines. Nevertheless, it finds that when allegations are made against a public official, it is the duty of a newspaper to at least attempt to contact the official named and seek a response and, if the official is unavailable, to either indicate that the official was unavailable or postpone publication until comment can be included. Ms. Maynard chose not to do either and as a result published an incomplete story which, in the Council’s view, contravenes Article 1 of the Code of Practice: “A newspaper's first duty is to provide the public with accurate information. Newspapers should correct inaccuracies promptly.”

The Council notes that right of reply was offered to Mr. Hope following publication and accepted to a limited degree. This satisfies the Council’s requirements on the complaint of a breach of Article 2; however, it does not render the initial story sufficiently complete in the Council’s view.

The Council finds that the article “Why an Aquatic Centre” was an opinion piece presented as a news story, and although it was done inadvertently, the ensuing correction was inadequate. It is therefore a breach of Article 4:“Newspapers and journalists shall strive to avoid expressing comment and conjecture as established fact.”

The Council also wishes to express its concern about the lack of disclosure of Ms. Maynard’s involvement with the referendum committee. While the Press Council understands that journalists at smaller community newspapers will often be involved in civic organizations and projects in their communities, journalists must avoid conflicts of interest whenever possible. If it is absolutely not possible to avoid reporting on an organization or issue one is involved with, such conflicts or potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed on any and all stories where there is a conflict or potential conflict of interest. Journalists, be they at small community newspapers or larger metro dailies, must be held to a basic standard of accuracy, transparency and fairness. To fall short of these simple standards erodes readers’ trust and does a disservice to the communities they cover.

Complaints by year | Complaints by paper | Top