The Press Council's constitution instructs it to deal with:

1) Specific, unsatisfied complaints from the public about the conduct of the press in gathering and publishing news, opinion and advertising; and,

2) complaints from members of the press about the conduct of individuals and organizations toward the press.

How does a member of the public complain about the conduct of the press?

Write a letter; the Council insists that all complaints be in writing. Specify the nature of the complaint and the particular conduct involved. Enclose any pertinent physical evidence such as clippings or correspondence with the newspaper. Photocopies are satisfactory. Fax and e-mail are also acceptable as long as they are accompanied by copies of the material that is the subject of the complaint.

What happens next?

If the newspaper has not been previously apprised of the complaint or if there is no evidence that it has been given an opportunity to answer, Council sends it a copy of the correspondence and asks it to respond to the complainant. Even if the complainant provides written evidence of an unsuccessful attempt to obtain satisfactory redress from the newspaper, the correspondence may still be sent to the newspaper to give it a further opportunity to respond to, and possibly redress, the complaint. If the newspaper does not choose to respond further or if the complainant finds its response unsatisfactory, the complaint goes to the Executive Committee which considers whether to recommend adjudication. If it favors adjudication, the complaint can proceed to a hearing. If it does not believe the complaint should be adjudicated, its recommendation is subject to review by the full Council at its next meeting.

What is the nature of a hearing?

The Council assigns detailed examination of complaints to its Inquiry Committee made up of five Council members. Three, including the committee chair, represent the public. Two are professional members - that is, they work for newspapers. An employee of a newspaper involved in a complaint may not participate. The committee invites both parties to provide written evidence and to attend a hearing to discuss the case.

The hearing is informal. No one is sworn, no one may be accompanied by counsel, there is no cross-examination. The complainant speaks first, describing the complaint. The newspaper responds. Each has an opportunity for rebuttal. Committee members then ask questions. There is no direct exchange between the parties. Questions one has for the other must be put through the chair.

The committee then discusses the issue privately and decides on a recommendation to the Council which makes the final decision. The newspaper has an obligation to publish a fair account of the Council's decision including the text of the adjudication.

How does a member of the press complain about the conduct of individuals and organizations toward the press?

Again, write a letter, stating the specifics. The individual organization involved will be given a chance to provide satisfactory redress. If that isn't done, the Council will arrange a hearing, open to press and public, before the full Council which will reach its adjudication as promptly as possible.

Are there restrictions or conditions?

The Council has placed only three restrictions on the type of complaints it will deal with. They are complaints about published opinion, about treatment of letters to the editor, and about issues that are general in nature.

On opinion, the Council in 1986 approved a policy statement on complaints about opinions contained in newspaper editorials and opinion columns or articles. The statement, updated in 1997, codified Council practice since 1972 of not hearing a complaint based only on a difference of opinion between the complainant and the newspaper.

In early 1985, the Council announced it would not deal with complaints about rejection of letters to the editor unless the Council considered that the issue involved warranted an exception to the general rule.

The statement on letters reads:

"Since its inception in mid-1972, the Ontario Press Council had adjudicated virtually all specific, unsatisfied complaints it received from the public about the conduct of the press.

"However, experience in complaints concerned solely with letters to the editor has prompted the Council to adopt a selective approach. Effective Feb. 1, 1985, it will deal with such a complaint only when convinced by the circumstances that the significance of the issue involved merits exception.

"The Council itself will make the decision in each case, accepting or rejecting recommendations from the Executive Committee which examines all unsatisfied complaints on behalf of the Council.

"The policy decision follows a general statement issued in February, 1984, in announcing adjudications rejecting three complaints about non-publication of letters. That statement said:

"'The continuing flow of complaints to the Council on rejection of letters to the editor illustrates the deep feelings many people have about the particular issues involved. Each writer believes that the newspaper should give his or her letter precedence over others. Rejection breeds disappointment and a sense of frustration.

"'The Council understands the nature of and the reasons for these feelings and has this in mind when dealing with complaints, along with other factors like letter content and fairness.

"'The Council also examines the practical problems confronting a newspaper that receives more letters than it can find space for. It knows that a letters editor faces hard choices every day, again and again discarding interesting and intelligent comments for want of space.

"'Its experience in dealing with letters complaints leads the Council to believe that newspapers usually apply sound judgments in selecting letters, making sure that they give readers a collection of lively and informed comment on a wide range of issues.

"'In addition to quality of letters and the space available, the Council keeps in mind the basic principle that a newspaper's responsibilities under the law and to the market place for what it publishes call for an unfettered right to decide what to publish, what not to publish, and how to edit what it does publish.

"'Moreover, newspapers must guard against defamatory or slanderous comment, yet aim at fair and generous access to people seeking to express opinion in letters to the editor, subject to the limitations of space.

"'The foregoing factors may help guide people who feel moved to complain about rejection of a letter.'"

Accuracy

The question of whether newspapers should be held responsible for the accuracy of information in letters to the editor was considered by Council in 1995. It took the position that, aside from obvious factual errors, newspapers should not be held accountable for the content.

It said newspapers should not be expected to check the premises on which opinions in letters are based; that if they were required to do so it would change the way they operate and impose an impossible burden on them, and that it's wrong to say they should not publish anything that comes in the mail without first investigating the truth or accuracy of every fact.

Libellous letters

While these are the Council's opinions on the ethical questions involving publication of letters, it is also worth noting that Ontario newspapers are protected against litigation for publishing a potentially libellous opinion in a letter as long as someone (not necessarily the author or publisher) could honestly hold that opinion.

Headlines

At one time the practice of most newspapers was to publish letters to the editor under commonplace, often dull, headlines even if the content of the letter was hard-hitting and provocative. In recent years, headlines have come to more closely reflect what the letter says, often employing a quotation from the letter itself. In a 1999 ruling, the Press Council, noting the headline word "disingenous" describing a religious group, said it had become accepted journalistic practice to use the writer's own words in the headline. It later agreed that such practice is acceptable as long as the chosen words fit the context of the letter.

Right of reply

As opposed to letters that merely express opinions on current topics, a situation that deserves special consideration is the right to respond to a personal attack or criticism contained in a published letter to the editor. The Press Council believes that in the interest of fairness the newspaper should be prepared to publish a reasonable reply.

Complaints must be specific

As to complaints that are general in nature, the Council's constitution states the restriction by saying that the Council deals with "specific" complaints about the conduct of the press.

Expenses for complainants

To avoid possible misunderstanding of its policy of paying expenses complainants incur in attending complaint hearings, the Council in 1985 defined allowable expenses and other conditions, as follows:

• transportation to attend hearings: actual costs of economy class fares for bus, plane or train travel, including airport transfers and taxi costs; mileage at the rate paid to Council members (currently 25 cents a kilometre) for essential auto travel.
• meals: reimbursement not exceeding limits that apply to Council members (currently, breakfast $10, lunch $15 and dinner $30).
• accommodation: rarely necessary but when it is the Council must make the reservation (to take advantage of discount rates).
• incidentals: gratuities, taxi fares, parking.

Any other form of expense reimbursement must be authorized in advance by the Council chairman and executive secretary.

Receipts are required for any individual expense exceeding $5.

The Council reserves the right to substitute a phone conference or written briefs or both for a personal hearing when the complainant lives elsewhere than in Ontario."

TOP OF PAGE