Advocates' Society vs Globe and Mail
Anthony Colvin vs Hamilton Spectator
Brenda Lunn vs Peterborough Examiner
G. Robin Cooke vs Hamilton Spectator
Gary Keith vs Espanola Mid-North Monitor
Guy Giorno vs Toronto Star II
Ivan Cohen vs Barrie Examiner
John L. Hill vs Toronto Sun
John Miller vs Port Hope Evening Guide
Julian Fantino vs The Liberal
Maria Paez Victor and Antonio Garcia Danglades vs Toronto Star
Mike Connolly vs Kitchener-Waterloo Record
Morris Prytulak vs Windsor Star and Globe and Mail
Myroslaw Prytulak vs Globe and Mail
Martin Bayer vs Toronto Star
Niagara Regional Police Association vs St. Catharines Standard
Richard Walsh-Bowers & Scott Piatkowski vs Kitchener-Waterloo Record
Valerie Smith vs Toronto Star

Advocates' Society vs Globe and Mail

The Ontario Press Council upheld a complaint against The Globe and Mail over an article that it considers to have inaccurately and unfairly portrayed an Ontario Superior Court justice as sexist.

The complaint by the Advocates’ Society focused on an Aug. 10, 2009, story published under the headline, Can a busy female politician give reliable evidence. A judge says no.

The article dealt with the criminal case against Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien who was accused of promising Terry Kilrea a National Parole Board appointment if he would withdraw from the 2006 mayoralty race.

Quoting his written decision, the story said Justice Douglas Cunningham felt he could not accept the evidence of Lisa MacLeod, MPP for Nepean-Carleton, because leaving her husband and child to commute between Ottawa and Toronto “is a big distraction” for her. It quoted MacLeod as saying “I didn’t know truth had a gender.”

The Advocates’ Society complained that nowhere in his comment on the treatment of MacLeod’s evidence did Justice Cunningham say that a busy woman cannot give reliable evidence. Rather, it was MacLeod herself who said in evidence that she had a number of significant things going on in her life and that she had no clear recollection of what was said to her during the meeting about which she was testifying.

The Globe and Mail said the article was not about the reasons for the decision but about the controversy surrounding the rejection of MacLeod’s testimony and the words the judge used in his ruling. The article by Jane Taber, a columnist who writes about Canadian politics, was expressing a point of view on one aspect of the decision and was not a news report, the newspaper maintained. It added that it subsequently published articles that disagreed with the original viewpoint.

In upholding the complaint, the Press Council considered placement of the article on the front page and the fact that it was not identified as an opinion piece. It suggested that although readers may be aware the author usually writes as a columnist, the article was presented as a straight news story which required that it be fair and balanced.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 1, 2010)

The Advocates’ Society complained that a Globe and Mail article inaccurately and unfairly portrayed Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Cunningham as an example of a man who doesn’t think busy women can handle a political career and who “discounts evidence on the basis of gender.”

The paper defended the article mainly on the grounds that it reflected an opinion. But in so doing, The Globe highlighted an issue that continues to challenge some newspapers and confuse readers: the absence of an “opinion” or “comment” label on material that editors say is not supposed to be a straightforward news story.

The Aug. 10, 2009, article, Can a busy female politician give reliable evidence? A judge says no, focused on a statement by Justice Cunningham that the testimony of MPP Lisa MacLeod should be assigned little weight in a criminal case he was trying.

The trial involved Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien, accused of promising another political candidate a National Parole Board appointment if he would withdraw from the 2006 mayoralty race.

The Globe said its article was about the debate and controversy surrounding MacLeod’s testimony, which Justice Cunningham had rejected. In his judgment, which included four paragraphs about MacLeod’s testimony, Cunningham wrote: “She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa.”

The Advocates’ Society said that nowhere in his treatment of MacLeod’s evidence did Justice Cunningham say a busy woman cannot give reliable evidence. It was MacLeod who declared in testimony that she had a number of significant things going on in her life, the society argues, so the judge did not raise this issue arbitrarily.

The newspaper said Jane Taber, who wrote the article, is a political columnist who was expressing a point of view on one aspect of the judge’s action and that the piece was “not a news report.” It added that it also published opinion articles supporting the judge.

The Press Council notes that while it is true that the writer is normally a columnist, the article was on the front page, was not identified as opinion in any way and would be read by most readers as a straight news story. As such, it would be expected to be contextual and present balancing points of view.

The Council believes a commentary-type label or other visual treatment should be used to convey to readers that the story may reflect personal or one-sided opinion. It adds that the pitfalls of not making the distinctions clear were illustrated in this case.

The Advocates’ Society assumed the article was a news report and complained of bias and lack of context. It concluded the article unjustifiably portrayed the judge as sexist.

The Ontario Press Council upholds the complaint.

Anthony Colvin vs Hamilton Spectator

A complaint that an article in the Hamilton Spectator unfairly connected Anthony Colvin of Freelton to a businessman fined for violating Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

The story, published June 6, 2002, said Colvin had presented himself in 1995 as project director for a recycling operation and that he was “still on board” several months later when Tony DePasquale became president of the venture and announced plans to add a $50-million fibreboard manufacturing plant to his construction-waste recycling operation.

The plant was never built, the recycling plant later closed and in May of last year DePasquale and his firm, Harbour Front Recycling, were fined $40,000 plus victim fine surcharges for violating the Environmental Protection Act in 1999 and 2000.

Colvin said neither he nor the group with whom he was associated was ever in business with De Pasquale or involved in the fibreboard manufacturing plant.

He added that the article said, in effect, “Colvin’s a loser and a possible shyster, so look out, people, for another Harbour Front Recycling fiasco from DePasquale’s friend.”

The Spectator agreed that there was a factual error in the story, accepting Colvin’s statement that he is an economist by training, not a professional engineer. But it maintained that the background information, obtained from files, was accurate and relevant. And in denying that the article condemned Colvin by innuendo, it expressed the belief that Colvin was in fact connected to the fibreboard plant.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 21, 2003)

Anthony Colvin of Freelton accused the Hamilton Spectator of lacking journalistic integrity in publishing an article that connected him to a businessman fined for violating Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act. He said the story, published June 6, 2002, had the effect of making him out to be “a loser and a possible shyster.”

Identified as project director for a recycling firm, Colvin was said in the story to be still on board when Tony DePasquale became president and planned to add a $50-million fibreboard manufacturing plant to the operation. The same paragraph went on to say the plant was never built, the recycling plant later closed, and both DePasquale and his recycling firm were fined for violation of the Environmental Protection Act.

Noting that Colvin said his group was never in any way associated with DePasquale or his proposed plant, the Ontario Press Council believes the article was unfair in that it left the impression he was involved in an illegal scheme.

His complaint is upheld.

Brenda Lunn vs Peterborough Examiner

The Ontario Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Brenda Lunn of Peterborough about publication of her name and the street on which she lives in a Peterborough Examiner article about her brother’s bail hearing.

The story, published Oct. 30, 2007, said her brother, Stuart Robinson, was required to live at her home while awaiting trial on a charge of possession of cocaine and other drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

Lunn, a municipal employee, said her reputation was damaged “personally and professionally” by the article.

The Examiner’s city editor, Bill Glisky, responded that the newspaper’s practice is to publish all information presented in open court that it feels is of interest to the community.

He said editors and reporters responsible for the article did not know Brenda Lunn was a city employee.

Glisky added that Robinson’s lawyer could have asked for a ban on publication of information about the bail hearing but didn’t.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 7, 2008)

Brenda Lunn of Peterborough, a municipal employee, complained that her reputation was damaged by an article published in the Peterborough Examiner Oct. 30, 2007, which reported the release on bail of her brother who was facing a charge of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

Noting that the article said her brother was required to live with her while free on bail, she said “I take great exception to having my name and street in print.”

The Examiner responded that its practice is to publish all information presented in open court that is of interest to the community. It also noted there was no ban on publication of details of the bail hearing.

The Ontario Press Council says it recognizes that the article was embarrassing to Lunn but adds that it is not prepared to criticize the Examiner for publishing accurate information which the newspaper believed was of interest to the community.

The complaint is dismissed.

G. Robin Cooke vs Hamilton Spectator

The Ontario Press Council has dismissed a complaint that the Hamilton Spectator erred in continuing to report that Hamilton-Wentworth elementary school teachers were on strike after the school board locked them out at the end of October 2000.

G. Robin Cooke of Delhi singled out articles published Nov. 15 and 20 which, he said, “did not present facts honestly, fairly and fully.”

He took issue with the headline on the Nov. 15 story, “Province set to end teachers’ walkout,” and the first sentence which referred to proposed back-to-work legislation “that would return striking Hamilton public elementary teachers and 40,000 children to their classrooms.”

He also criticized the headline on the Nov. 20 story, “Parents to battle for end to strike,” and the first sentence which referred to “Hamilton’s 2,300 striking elementary teachers.”

The Spectator drew attention to a reference in the first paragraph of the Nov. 15 article to the school board’s “lockout” and another paragraph that said the teachers “went on strike Oct. 30 and were locked out by the board the next day.” It added that the first paragraph of Nov. 20 story mentioned “efforts to end the lockout and strike.”

The newspaper said the teachers had planned a one-day strike for the Monday, revolving strikes for subsequent days and another full-day job action on the following Friday.

“All of our stories pointed out that it was a strike and a lockout,” the newspaper said, noting that the teachers refused to go back to work when the school board offered to lift the lockout. It quoted the president of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario as saying acceptance of that offer would “lose the momentum of the strike.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (July 12, 2001)

G. Robin Cooke of Delhi complained that articles published in The Hamilton Spectator Nov. 15 and 20, 2000, about a labour dispute between elementary school teachers and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board did not present the facts honestly, fairly and fully.

He maintained that while teachers called a one-day strike for Monday, Oct. 30, and planned revolving strikes on subsequent days, it was incorrect to continue calling their action a strike because they were locked out on the Tuesday.

The Spectator contended that the work stoppage, which was ended by provincial government legislation on Nov. 22, was both a lockout and a strike and said that was made clear in 35 articles.

The Ontario Press Council says it is satisfied that while the teachers were locked out immediately after they called a one-day strike, they subsequently rejected a board offer to lift the lockout and that, in practical terms, they remained on strike. In dismissing the complaint, it notes that the teachers did not complain to the newspaper about references to the dispute as both a strike and lockout.

Gary Keith vs Espanola Mid-North Monitor

The Ontario Press Council has dismissed a complaint that the Espanola Mid-North Monitor published a misleading story under the headline Victory for hydro victim about a trailer park resident whose electricity was cut off.

The story, published May 19, said Gord (Skip) Kemsley had been fighting for 10 months to have sewer costs removed from the bill he received from Espanola Regional Hydro which included charges for water, sewers and electricity.

Gary Keith, Hydro general manager, complained that the article contained many false statements. He said there was no victory for Kemsley -- his hydro had been cut off the previous December because his payments were in arrears. And, he added, the sub-headline, Utility to reimburse trailer park tenant, was wrong – “There is nothing to reimburse the tenant.”

The article was based on a May 6 letter from the Ontario Energy Board to the chief financial officer of Espanola Regional Hydro Distribution Corporation, which said:

“. . . billing and payment information provided to us by the customer shows that he submitted sufficient funds to cover amounts owing for electricity. It appears that the customer subtracted amounts owing for sewer charges from the total bill, but paid electricity charges in full. . . .

“Given that it appears Mr. Kemsley did pay electricity charges in full, it appears he may have been improperly disconnected.”

Keith said Kemsley made a notation on his cheques that he did not want any of the money to go to sewer charges but Regional Hydro staff did not know this because they do not see the cheques. As a result, he added, any payment was divided among the three services, meaning that all received less than the billed amount. And when hydro arrears reached $50 his electricity was cut off.

The Press Council recognizes that the May 6 letter contained inaccuracies but concluded that the article was a reasonably accurate reflection of its content.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 3, 2004)

Gary Keith, general manager of Espanola Regional Hydro, complained that an article published in the Espanola Mid-North Monitor May 19 was “very misleading” and contained many false statements.

The article, headlined Victory for hydro victim, reported that trailer park resident Gord (Skip) Kemsley had succeeded in his campaign to have his sewer charges removed from the bill received from Hydro.

Keith said the sub-headline Utility to reimburse trailer park tenant was wrong, that “there is nothing to reimburse the tenant.” Taking issue with the statement that Kemsley had won a victory, he said Kemsley’s hydro had been disconnected the previous December because he was in arrears.

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that there may have been some misunderstanding of the combined billing system for water, hydro and sewers. But in dismissing the complaint, it says it believes the article was a reasonably accurate rendition of the contents of a May 6 letter from the director of marketing operations for the Ontario Energy Board, which said: “Given that it appears Mr. Kemsley did pay electricity charges in full, it appears he may have been improperly disconnected.”

Guy Giorno vs Toronto Star II

A complaint by Guy Giorno that the Toronto Star published a “clarification” of a reference to him when it should have been called a “correction” has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.The reference to Giorno, a senior adviser in the Mike Harris government, was at the end of an article published Sept. 1, 2005, about the judicial inquiry into the shooting death in Ipperwash Provincial Park of Dudley George.Citing the comments of Julie Jai, former director of legal services for the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, the sentence said:“Jai testified that former attorney general Charles Harnick seemed sensitive to special native fishing and hunting rights, but those concerns didn’t appear to be shared by Hodgson, Hutton or Guy Giorno.” After receiving a complaint that Jai did not make such a statement about Giorno, the Star published what it described as a clarification. It read: “An article on the Ipperwash inquiry that appeared in the Star Sept. 1 reported on the testimony given by Julie Jai, a former provincial bureaucrat. The Star wishes to make clear that she did not testify about the personal views of Guy Giorno, a senior aide to then premier Mike Harris, on the rights of native or aboriginal people.” Giorno wrote that in describing the item as a clarification the Star refused to acknowledge its error. A letter from his lawyer said a review of the transcript of the hearing showed that “at no point does Ms. Jai provide any testimony in relation to the personal views or position of Mr. Giorno on the issues of special native fishing or hunting rights.” The letter added that the testimony speaks only to the government’s position concerning these issues.

The Star’s reply to Giorno said:

“We agree that Ms. Jai was not testifying about anyone’s personal views and it was not the reporter’s intent to suggest that was the case. We do not believe a reasonable reader would conclude, upon reading the sentence in question, that the reporter was writing about your personal views….

“On the unlikely chance that any reader would think the last sentence of the story referred to your personal views, we decided to publish a clarification.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 6, 2006)

Guy Giorno of Toronto, a former senior adviser in the Mike Harris government, complained that the Toronto Star published a “clarification” of a reference to him when, in fact, it warranted a “correction.”

His complaint referred to the last sentence of an article published Sept. 1, 2005, about the judicial inquiry into the 1995 shooting death in Ipperwash Provincial Park of Dudley George.

The sentence, attributed to Julie Jai, former director of legal services for the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, read:

“Jai testified that former attorney general Charles Harnick seemed sensitive to special native fishing and hunting rights, but those concerns didn’t appear to be shared by Hodgson, Hutton or Guy Giorno.”

What was described as a clarification, published Sept. 19, said:

“An article on the Ipperwash inquiry that appeared in the Star Sept. 1 reported on the testimony given by Julie Jai, a former provincial bureaucrat. The Star wishes to make clear that she did not testify about the personal views of Guy Giorno, a senior aide to then premier Mike Harris, on the rights of native or aboriginal people.”

The Star responded that it did not believe a reasonable reader would conclude, on reading the sentence, that the reporter was writing about Giorno’s personal views.

The Ontario Press Council believes clarifications should be reserved for statements that require further explanation but are not clearly wrong. In this case, it sees the reference to Giorno as being incorrectly attributed to Jai and therefore a misstatement of fact deserving a correction.

The complaint is upheld.

Ivan Cohen vs Barrie Examiner

The Ontario Press Council has dismissed, with one reservation, a complaint by Ivan Cohen that the Barrie Examiner erred in saying, in connection with his conviction for possession and distribution of child porn, that “he was caught with images of children as young as three having sex with adult men.”

“I was not caught with any images of child pornography on any of approximately 1,370 diskettes and multiple computers,” Cohen said in his letter of complaint. He added that the RCMP forensic crime laboratory in Ottawa reported “No images found” after seizure of non-functional hard drive.

He maintained that the one charge of possession related to a brief text document on one diskette referring to a 14-year-old girl and a boyfriend doing something after school. And he said police had modified their charge of possession to include the words “and written materials” because they never did find any child pornography images on his computers or diskettes.

The story, entitled “Cops upset by light sentences for kiddie porn,” was published Sept. 23, 2002. The Examiner said it was based on “information the newspaper holds to be completely accurate.”

“The Barrie Examiner did not publish incorrect information nor did it fail to honour a commitment to publish a correction. No such commitment was ever given.”

In dismissing the complaint, the Press Council noted that the judge who originally sentenced Cohen to 14 months in prison made the following statements, all referring to child porn:

“On November 28, 1996, Mr. Cohen sent pornographic images to Detective Constable Litchfield. . . . On December 31, 1996, he sent Detective Constable Litchfield four more. . . .In April, 1997, Mr. Cohen transmitted to Corporal Smith three pornographic images.”

The Council’s view was that in light of these statements, the newspaper had reasonable grounds for writing that Cohen was “caught” with child pornography.

At the same time, the Press Council agreed that the article should have included an explanation why the court of appeal in 2001 reduced his penalty to a conditional sentence of 14 months to be served at home.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 20, 2003)

Ivan Cohen complained about an article published in the Barrie Examiner Sept. 23, 2002, that said he was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography

after being “caught with images of children as young as three having sex with adult men.”

He said police never found any child pornography images on his computers and diskettes. And he suggested a reference to his sentence being reduced to house arrest should have included the judges’ reasons.

The Examiner noted that the judge who originally sentenced Cohen to 14 months in jail said that in 1996 and 1997 he had sent pornographic images of prepubescent females to various police detectives. And in denying that it had “trivialized the revised sentence,” it said the appeal court did not exonerate him.

The Ontario Press Council says that, in view of explicit comment by the sentencing judge that it was Cohen who had transmitted pornographic images, it believes the Examiner was justified in saying he was “caught” with them.

It suggests the article might have included a brief explanation of why the appeal court reduced his sentence, including the fact that he had no prior criminal record and that the Supreme Court of Canada had declared that conditional sentences may be adequate deterrents.

But with this reservation, it dismisses the complaint.

John L. Hill vs Toronto Sun

The Ontario Press Council has upheld in part a complaint that an article in the Toronto Sun published Aug. 9,2006, implied that the Correctional Service of Canada is making “outrageous payments to inmates for no apparent good reasons.”

The article, from the Sun’s Ottawa bureau, said $1.2 million was paid to criminals in the first six months of 2006 to settle lawsuits.

John L. Hill of Toronto, solicitor for one of the two inmates named in the story, conceded that the individual facts are accurate but that the it should have explained the rationale for the payments to a named individual without which it was unfair and unbalanced.

He contended that an ordinary reader would conclude from the story as written that exorbitant payments were made to undeserving inmates with no real control over these expenditures. He added that if the article were only about payments to inmates, the name of his client should have been omitted.

The Sun’s managing editor responded that Hill was making an unwarranted assumption about conclusions the public would draw from reading the article. In his opinion, the story was fair and balanced.

Declaring that the Sun had not intended to insinuate payments to inmates were outrageous or undeserved, he pointed to the lead paragraph that specifically itemized lawsuits over “intrusive drug searches, exposure to second-hand smoke, inadequate medical treatment and injuries

suffered during brawls behind bars.”

He added that the focus of Hill's complaint appeared to be the word "outrageous," which is in the last paragraph and ids a quote from Steve Sullivan, a well-respected advocate for victims of crime.

He added that the focus of Hill’s complaint appeared to be the word “outrageous,” which is in the last paragraph and is a quote from Steve Sullivan, a well-respected advocate for victims of crime.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 26, 2006)

Text of the adjudication:

The Ontario Press Council upholds John L. Hill’s complaint insofar as the story implies that substantial taxpayer monies were voluntarily paid by the federal government solely to settle complaints when, in fact, a significant number of these payments were made pursuant to court judgments following trials.

The Press Council believes this implication could have been avoided by including this additional and clearly relevant fact.

However, the council supports the right of the newspaper to use names from public documents.

John Miller vs Port Hope Evening Guide

In a departure from its usual practice, the Ontario Press Council has ruled that publication of a letter to the editor adequately redressed a complaint by John Miller of Port Hope against the Port Hope Evening Guide.

Miller, president of Families Against Radiation Exposure, a citizens’ group, complained that an article published June 23, 2005, erroneously interpreted the position of FARE in its attitude toward Cameco Corp., a nuclear energy firm, which wishes to expand its Port Hope operations.

He objected to the description of his group as anti-nuclear activists, complained that what was intended as private correspondence with the editor was published, without his permission, as a letter to the editor, and said his group was not given a chance to respond to the article.

The Guide defended the article as a snapshot of where the many-faceted debate over Cameco stands after two years of articles and letters to the editor.

In dismissing the complaint with one reservation, the Press Council decided that Miller’s 13-paragraph letter was better than a correction in responding to the article, especially since its location in the paper was flagged on Page 1.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 14, 2006)

John Miller of Port Hope, president of Families Against Radiation Exposure,complained that an article published in the Port Hope Evening Guide on June 23, 2005, about Cameco Corp., the nuclear energy company, was inaccurate, one-sided and opinionated.

He said his attempt to get the newspaper to correct errors resulted in his private note to the editor being printed as a letter to the editor without consulting him. He added that before the article was published, the writer did not get back to him after he returned her call.

The newspaper said 75 per cent of letters to the editor now come by e-mail and Miller’s did not say it was a private note. It added that 190 articles over a six-month period demonstrate that by no means is the Guide in the habit of one-sided reporting.

The Ontario Press Council does not normally accept that a letter to the editor redresses a complaint but it believes the prominence given to Miller’s comprehensive 13-paragraph letter and that of another critic, which were flagged on Page 1, was an adequate response in this case.

The Council says it is obvious that this was an analysis and thus permitted more latitude for the writer’s views than a straight news story.

It believes it was unfair to write that Miller was not available to comment on what it describes as “his group’s perceived fear mongering,” especially since it appears he left a phone message for the reporter.

But with this reservation, the Council dismisses the complaint.

Julian Fantino vs The Liberal

An article containing criticism of a York Region policing program was flawed by the lack of balancing comment, the Press Council said in upholding a complaint against The Liberal by Julian Fantino, then region police chief.

Chief Fantino, who has since become chief in Toronto, criticized a Jan. 30 article that quoted the York Region police union president as saying CORE (Community-Oriented Response) units introduced in 1999 by Chief Fantino, was a “good idea at a bad time,” a “luxury we can’t afford.”

The article contained only the views of the union (two direct quotes from its president and two from the editor of the police association magazine) and omitted comment from management, he said.

Commenting on the fact that the writer said he tried but failed to reach him, Chief Fantino said he should have sought comment from two deputy chiefs, the public information officer, unit commanders or the CORE officers themselves.

In addition to lack of balance, he said the story was misleading in suggesting there were only 21 recruits proposed in this year’s budget when the correct figure was 41. And in response to a comment from the police association’s magazine editor, who was quoted as saying “Many front-line officers feel they have been thrown to the wolves in order to staff specialized units,” Chief Fantino said CORE units are in fact front-line officers.

Noting the chief’s remark that negative reporting began when he announced he was leaving York Region, the reporter said the story was not written with malicious intent. He added that if anyone had pointed out an inaccuracy it would have been corrected promptly, but the first word of the complaint was a letter that arrived from the Press Council.



The reporter said he tried for several weeks to contact Chief Fantino but he was inaccessible. He said he believed the chief himself was needed to answer comments in the story because he didn’t think others would have been comfortable commenting.

For example, he said, the public relations officer doesn’t comment on “political” issues.

The Liberal’s editor said the story was in the works for a few days and she would have liked to include the chief’s comments. “If he had called, we’d have leapt at the chance to do a follow-up story.”

Chief Fantino said he was not aware of any phone calls from The Liberal. And he maintained it was not a political issue, rather a policy matter which could have been discussed by a representative of the police services board.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (July 13, 2000)

Julian Fantino complained of a “lack of fairness and balance” in an article about policing in York Region that was published in The Liberal Jan. 30. The article quoted the police union president as criticizing the timing of the introduction of CORE (Community-Oriented Response) units, a program he brought in when he was region police chief before leaving to take the same position in Toronto.

Chief Fantino was not reached for comment prior to publication of the story but maintained that the newspaper should have sought reaction from senior officers or the police services board.

Noting that the first word the newspaper had that Chief Fantino was unhappy with the article was when the Ontario Press Council sent a copy of the complaint to The Liberal four days later, the Council suggests a reasonable course of action would have been for the chief to first contact the paper either in person or in writing. It is satisfied that The Liberal would have published his criticism.

At the same time the Council believes the newspaper, after failing to reach the chief, was at fault for not seeking balancing comment from other sources and incorporating it into the story..

The complaint is upheld.

Maria Paez Victor and Antonio Garcia Danglades vs Toronto Star

A series of articles on Venezuela published in May 2006 lacked balance because of the absence of comment from government representatives,

the Ontario Press Council says in upholding a complaint against the Toronto Star.

María Páez Victor and Antonio García Danglades of Toronto complained that the articles relied on opponents of President Hugo Chávez for what they described as erroneous information about poverty and unemployment.

They said the articles neglected to attribute to opposition sources the statement that 100,000 Venezuelans had been murdered since Chávez was elected in 1998, and that poverty remains “stubbornly high,” having “risen to more than 50 per cent during Chávez’s reign.”

They said unemployment fell in 2006 to 10.1 per cent from 13.5 in March 2005 and the rate of poverty declined 10 per cent in a year

Declaring that its “strong interest” in interviewing Chávez and/or government representatives was clear, the Star cited communications between the Venezuelan embassy in Washington and Caracas seeking to arrange such interviews. “The opportunity was offered and, in fact, aggressively pursued, but the government chose to ignore the requests.”

In response the complainants said “not even the most rabid Chávez opponents accuse the Venezuelan government of not giving access to the international media – something that they are quite eager to do.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 13, 2007)

Maria Páez Victor and Antonio García Danglades of Toronto complained that a series of four articles on Venezuela published in the Toronto Star in May 2006 contained erroneous information about poverty and crime, lacked balance and did not include interviews with members of the government but relied on sources opposed to the regime of President Hugo Chávez.

The Star said its strong interest in interviewing Chavez and/or government ministers was clear but that the government chose to ignore its requests. It added that, in the absence of information from government representatives, its reporter sought to provide balance by conducting many interviews with Venezuelans.

The Ontario Press Council says it believes only comment from government officials could offset criticism of the Venezuelan regime contained in the articles.

It recognizes repeated appeals sent by way of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington failed to provide the reporter with access to government representatives in Caracas.

Having exhausted appeals made through official channels prior to leaving for Venezuela, however, the Press Council suggests the reporter could have used the warm recommendations from the Washington embassy and old-fashioned door knocking in a further effort to get to government spokespersons.

In upholding the complaint, the Council says that despite efforts to provide balance through interviews with ordinary Venezuelans, it regards the lack of official comment as a significant deficiency.

Mikie Connolly vs Kitchener-Waterloo Record

The Kitchener-Waterloo Record was tardy in its decision to publish a clarification of repeated misleading references to former city councillor Mike Connolly’s role in a controversial deal for construction of a recreation park in northeast Waterloo, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding a complaint against the newspaper.

The development, known as RIM Park, was originally expected to cost the city $112.9 million with interest at 4.73 per cent but the figure ballooned to $227.9 million with the interest rate as high as 9.1. The city lodged a lawsuit in June 2001 against MFP Financial Services Ltd. of Mississauga, with whom it had reached the deal.

Connolly complained that The Record, in articles about the project, consistently portrayed him as a councillor more responsible than other councillors, “despite my many attempts to correct their error.”

He cited a number of articles and letters to the editor which said, in one form or another, that Connolly was chair of the city’s finance committee when the contracts were signed in the fall of 2000.

“I was chair of Waterloo’s finance committee for the 2000 budget deliberations,” he wrote in his letter of complaint. “This was the only time I chaired the committee. When the agreement with MFP Financial Services Ltd. was signed, budget deliberations were long over and the finance committee had ceased to exist. Obviously, I could not have been the chair of the committee during the discussions involving MFP.”

Connolly said he complained to a reporter about a story published on May 23 and continued to draw attention to what he describe as “recurring errors” but it wasn’t until July 7 that The Record published a clarification which said:

“In articles and letters about the RIM Park project published in The Record, Mike Connolly has been referred to as the former chairman of the finance committee. In fact, the City of Waterloo has no finance committee. Connolly served as chairman of finance and in that role chaired budget talks and was responsible for dealing with citizens’ and councillors’ concerns.”

The Record said it erred in referring to Connolly as chairman of the finance committee and allowing letter writers to do the same. But it suggested the focus on Connolly wasn’t unreasonable since he had a role of some prominence, having had two lengthy articles published in the paper, the first defending the park project and second questioning the deal.

Referring to an editorial that referred to Connolly, the former mayor, chief administrative officer and treasurer as individuals who would be remembered as the truth about the park deal emerged, The Record said that, in mentioning Connolly and not all of the councillors, it was considering his political background, his former position as chair of finance and his spirited defence of RIM Park.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 23, 2002)

Mike Connolly of Waterloo complained that The Kitchener-Waterloo Record consistently portrayed him as a city councillor more responsible than other councillors for a controversial lease-back deal with MFP Financial Services Ltd. of Mississauga to finance the huge RIM Park in northeast Waterloo.

The Record admitted there had been some confusion early on about Connolly’s role, such as identifying him as the former chairman of the finance committee when, in fact, Waterloo has no standing finance committee.

The newspaper also conceded that it had erred in permitting publication of letters that referred to him by that title. And it ultimately published a clarification.

The Ontario Press Council notes that Connolly first complained to a reporter about a reference in a story published May 23, 2001, and subsequently complained to the newspaper about similar references in stories that ran on June 8, June 22 and June 26.

Maintaining that The Record was unnecessarily tardy in taking 45 days before publishing the clarification on July 7, the Council upholds the complaint.

Morris Prytulak and Marsha Skrypuch vs Windsor Star and Globe and Mail

The Ontario Press Council says it is not prepared to fault newspapers for describing as Ukrainian-born a person whose birthplace is within the borders of Ukraine even though the area happens to be a German-speaking enclave.The Council has dismissed, with one reservation, complaints against The Globe and Mail and Windsor Star involving stories about Michael Seifert of Vancouver, described as a former SS officer, convicted in absentia by an Italian court of raping, torturing and killing prisoners at a Nazi concentration camp in Italy during the Second World War. He is appealing an extradition order.The Council’s reservation is that once newspapers learn that Seifert’s birthplace of Landau is in a German-speaking enclave they should include it in their stories.Morris Prytulak of Windsor complained that the description of Seifert as Ukrainian-born in a Globe and Mail article from Vancouver published Aug. 28, 2003, wasn’t “merely irrational and false, it’s downright malicious, racist and obscene.” Insisting that Seifert is, in fact, German, Prytulak wrote that his “always reliable Encyclopedia of Ukraine Map and Gazetteer doesn’t list any Landau, including the town of Landau, in Ukraine.” A Globe editor said an internet search showed it is a community near Odessa.Prytulak’s complaint against the Windsor Star involved four stories in 2000 and 2002 which described Seifert variously as Ukrainian-born and “of Ukrainian origin.” One article was accompanied by a photograph with a caption that called him a “Ukrainian SS guard.” He accused the Star of falsifying Seifert’s ethnicity and questioned why the newspaper was “convinced that any of its captive readers are, or ought to be, interested in a Vancouver resident’s activities, which occurred half a century ago, half a world away, and have no connection to Canada.” Responding to Prytulak’s contention that Seifert’s ethnicity is irrelevant, the Star said the information was contained in news service stories and its editor decided not to delete it. “Where a person was born is often mentioned in stories relating to Nazi war criminals,” it said, adding that a search of court documents supports the statement that Seifert was born in Ukraine. Marsha Skrypuch of Brantford, who complained that the Globe and Mail article misleads readers, wrote that it also misidentified as Ukrainian another suspected war criminal, Otto Sein.“It doesn’t take much investigative digging to realize that ‘Seifert’ and “Stein’ are not Ukrainian names. Both of these men are of German heritage. . . .Your news article slanders people of Ukrainian heritage and directs hate toward them.” She added that Seifert, besides being born in a German colony, uses a German translator in court and has never identified himself as anything but German.The Globe and Mail replied that it did not label Seifert as Ukrainian; that it merely reported testimony from tribunals and hearings in two countries.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 18, 2004)

Morris Prytulak of Windsor complained that the Windsor Star and Globe and Mail deliberately misrepresented the ethnicity of Michael Seifert in articles about the retired Vancouver sawmill worker accused of committing a series of brutal murders while serving as a Nazi prison guard in Italy during the Second World War. Objecting to references to Seifert as Ukrainian-born or “of Ukrainian origin,” Prytulak said his ethnicity is irrelevant; that he bears a German name and was an officer in the exclusively German SS.The Globe and Mail, noting that Seifert admitted to police that he was born in Landau, a German-speaking enclave in Ukraine, said it merely reported testimony from tribunals and hearings in Canada and Italy. And the Windsor Star, in denying that it had fabricated his ethnicity, said a search of court documents showed be was born in Ukraine. A second complaint against The Globe and Mail came from Marsha Skrypuch of Brantford who said the newspaper failed to put Seifert’s thnic “misidentification into context.” The Ontario Press Council agrees with the need for sensitivity in references to race and national origin in stories about criminal charges that might unfairly associate an entire group with anti-social activity. It also recognizes that Ukrainian-Canadians are sensitive to suggestions that a Ukrainian might have served with the Nazi SS, Hitler’s special security service. It is satisfied, however, that Seifert’s birthplace is Landau, a German-speaking town near Odessa in Ukraine.While it does not find fault with stories that simply referred to him as Ukrainian before his ethnicity became apparent, it believes it is important that subsequent articles make clear that he is ethnically German.With this reservation, it dismisses the complaints.

Myroslaw Prytulak vs Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail, responding to a complaint before the Ontario Press Council, has conceded that referring to the people of the former Soviet Union simply as Russians is an inaccuracy.

Myroslaw Prytulak of Windsor complained that a Moscow story published May 10 erred in saying 27 or 28 million Russians died during the Second World War. He said he was “unable to unravel the motives behind the Globe’s decision to airbrush the enormous losses by other East European countries, especially since their losses were much greater than those of Russia.”

Prytulak maintained that Russia’s losses were 5.8 million, including 1.8 million military and 4.0 million civilians, and that, by way of comparison, Ukraine’s losses were 8.0 million including 2.5 million military and 5.5 million civilians.

The highest estimate of Soviet (not just Russian) losses that he found was in the website of the Guinness World Records, which said “The Soviet Union lost an estimate 26.6 million of its citizens.”

The Globe said that before the war the terms “Soviet citizens” and “Russians” were synonymous in every day usage and that the reporter probably saw them as interchangeable. “It was an imprecise description but the writer was not trying to mislead or misinform.”

Offering to publish a correction now, the newspaper’s representative at the Press Council hearing said he regretted that it wasn’t corrected at the time. “Our reporter slipped and we didn’t correct him.”

He added that he resented the suggestion that The Globe and Mail had attempted to “discredit and intimidate” Prytulak, that it “arrogantly refused to redress” the dispute without involving the Press Council, and that it was trying to “airbrush” the enormous losses of other Eastern European nations.

He said the newspaper receives 300 credible letters every day and cannot reply to every one of the 288 it doesn’t publish.

Myroslaw Prytulak of Windsor complained that a Globe and Mail article from Moscow published May 10 erred in stating that 27 or 28 million Russians died during the Second World War when, in fact, the figure included millions of non-Russian citizens of the Soviet Union.

The newspaper said that before the war the terms “Soviet citizens” and “Russians” were considered synonymous in everyday usage and that the reporter saw the terms as interchangeable. But it ultimately conceded that the reference was inaccurate and, after expressing regret that it wasn’t corrected at the time, offered to print a correction now.

The Ontario Press Council commends the newspaper for its offer but, in upholding the complaint, expresses its regret that the inaccuracy was not corrected when first brought to its attention.

At the same time, it rejects the charge that the newspaper attempted to “airbrush” the enormous losses suffered by other Eastern European countries and sought to “discredit and intimidate” the complainant.

Mailed Oct. 27, 2005

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 3, 2005)

Myroslaw Prytulak of Windsor complained that a Globe and Mail article from Moscow published May 10 erred in stating that 27 or 28 million Russians died during the Second World War when, in fact, the figure included millions of non-Russian citizens of the Soviet Union.

The newspaper said that before the war the terms “Soviet citizens” and “Russians” were considered synonymous in everyday usage and that the reporter saw the terms as interchangeable. But it ultimately conceded that the reference was inaccurate and, after expressing regret that it wasn’t corrected at the time, offered to print a correction now.

The Ontario Press Council commends the newspaper for its offer but, in upholding the complaint, expresses its regret that the inaccuracy was not corrected when first brought to its attention.

At the same time, it rejects the charge that the newspaper attempted to “airbrush” the enormous losses suffered by other Eastern European countries and sought to “discredit and intimidate” the complainant.

NEWSPAPER CONCEDES ARTICLE UNFAIR

A complaint that a Toronto Star story about the conviction of 14 Manitoulin Island residents for unsafe hunting and selling venison was "unbalanced, misleading and inaccurate" was upheld by the Press Council.

The complaint, lodged by Martin Bayer in his position as tribal chair of the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin, involved a freelance article published June 29, 1997, which, the Star admitted at a Press Council hearing, was "unfair and unbalanced" and contained a series of mistakes that should never have happened.

The newspaper sought to make amends by sending a staff reporter to the island to take a fresh look at the situation. Mr. Bayer agreed that a 1,300-word story, published July 30, 1997, was balanced but said it neglected to correct factual errors that appeared in the original article.

Maintaining that the freelance article failed to tell both sides of the story, Mr. Bayer said it omitted the fact that the judge had suspended the sentences against the 14, of whom 13 were aboriginals. He maintained it was wrong in saying the issue of aboriginal and treaty rights was not raised for fear that it would set a nation-wide precedent if this defence was rejected.

He said the story left a number of erroneous impressions: that bullet holes in cottages can only be attributed to native hunters; that there was "large-scale commercialization of venison," and that automatic Kalashnikov rifles were used on the island when the only reference to the weapons involved allegations of poaching in the London-Simcoe area.

He described as "horrifically misleading" a paragraph that said a 12-year-old boy on a bicycle had been mistaken for a deer and fatally shot at night by resident aboriginals when, in fact, the incident happened 20 years ago, the victim did not die and two men were charged with criminal negligence, not manslaughter as the story said.

The Star, while conceding it could offer no defence of the story, said it vigorously defended its efforts to deal with the problem. It said it was not fair to suggest the reference to use of Kalashnikovs in the London area left the impression they were used on the island. It added that an invitation to the Chiefs to write an article on Manitoulin hunting was still open.

While it could not guarantee that mistakes would never happen in future, it said it was circulating details of this case among editors so they would be alert to the pitfalls of handling freelance stories.

The newspaper said it didn't see any simple way of writing a concise correction, which was why it decided to send its own reporter to the island to interview individuals on all sides and produce a balanced article.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 29, 1998)

Martin Bayer, tribal chair of the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin, complained that a Toronto Star story published June 29, 1997, about charges of unsafe hunting and the sale of deer meat was "unbalanced, misleading and inaccurate."

The freelance article said that, after a marathon trial, a court had convicted 14 Manitoulin Island residents on charges including trespassing on private land, selling venison, unsafe hunting and assaulting a peace officer.

Mr. Bayer complained that the story omitted the fact that the judge had suspended sentences against the 14, that the writer neglected to obtain comment from the defendants' side, erred in saying the defence did not raise the issue of aboriginal and treaty rights, omitted reference to the fact no proof was presented that there was large-scale commercial deer-hunting, and incorrectly conveyed the impression that bullet holes in cottages could be attributed to native hunters. He said the story was wrong in saying a 12-year-old boy riding a bike had been fatally shot by hunters, that it was irrelevant since the incident occurred nearly 20 years ago and no one died. He added that a reference to the use of automatic Kalashnikov rifles by hunters in the London-Simcoe area left the erroneous impression that such weapons were used on Manitoulin.

At an Ontario Press Council hearing, the Star conceded that the story was "unfair and unbalanced" and contained a series of mistakes that should never have happened. However, it said it did not see a simple way of dealing with the mistakes in a published correction. Instead it decided to send a staff reporter to Manitoulin to do a follow-up article. Mr. Bayer conceded that the second story was balanced but said it did not correct the specific errors of the first article.

In upholding the complaint, the Press Council noted that a letter to the editor, written by Chief Glen Hare and distributed five days after appearance of the flawed article, detailed the errors. While the letter was longer than most published in the Star, the Council saw the errors as serious enough to warrant publication of an agreed-upon version as a way of setting the record straight.

POLICE COMPLAINT DISMISSED

A complaint that coverage by The St. Catharines Standard of police union affairs over a period of months presented a biased and distorted picture of the Niagara Regional Police Association’s executive was dismissed.

The association singled out 17 articles published between Nov. 8, 1999, and Feb. 14, 2000, which, it said, repeatedly misrepresented it.

“Despite objections, The Standard has persisted in its efforts to portray the executive of the NRPA inaccurately,” said a letter to the Press Council from Paul DiSimoni, the association’s president. “Articles and editorials have sensationalized issues and aggravated an already delicate management/labour relations situation.”

Of particular concern to the association president were articles suggesting that union leaders were attending seminars in the United States to learn how to mount a political campaign and that the association was conspiring with the Police Services Board to get rid of the police chief, who had since resigned. The union also objected to an article that said grievances were rising because the association was positioning itself for the negotiations.

The citizens of Niagara have suffered needlessly and are questioning the effectiveness of their police service due to the biased and distorted reporting found in The Standard, ” the association said, adding that it decided to bring its concerns to the Press Council after the failure of efforts to reach an understanding with the newspaper.

The Standard provided an item-by-item response to the association’s list of complaints. It maintained it had no hidden agenda; that its only interest was in investigating whether the apparent alliance between the police services board and the police association was adversely affecting the role of the police. And it said it believed the only way to satisfy the association would be to drop the story altogether.

The newspaper said it believed the complaint was in part the result of a vendetta against one reporter who, it said, refused to “compromise his commitment to the reader.” It said there were no complaints for several months until the reporter began to write stories focusing “on the NRPA and its attempts to inappropriately influence police management and board members.”

The Standard had since assigned another reporter to the police beat, an action it said it to

took reluctantly because it was convinced the association would otherwise not deal with the newspaper, making it difficult to obtain balance in its coverage.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (July 14, 2000)

The Niagara Region Police Association complained that articles over a period of months in the St. Catharines Standard were negative and misleading and contained “inherent bias” against the association. It said it sought to reach an understanding with the newspaper but, when that failed, it felt its only recourse was to take its case to the Ontario Press Council.

It presented a package of detailed comments on 17 articles published between Nov. 8, 1999, and Feb. 14, 2000, which, it said, repeatedly misrepresented its actions. The stories dealt primarily with moves to get the chief of police to resign.

The Press Council, after examining the association’s comments, the newspaper’s equally detailed reply, and hearing oral presentations from the two sides, says it found no evidence of obvious bias although the newspaper’s vigorous pursuit of the story may have contributed to some apprehension among association officers.

It noted that the newspaper made some mistakes but generally acted promptly to correct them when they were drawn to its attention. And although the complaint involved editorials and columns as well as news stories, the Council is satisfied that the newspaper was careful to flag articles of opinion. It also noted that the Standard continued trying to maintain contact with association officials in the face of their refusal to talk to one of its reporters. And it suggests that the newspaper displayed goodwill in switching its police beat reporter in an effort to restore communications with the association.

In dismissing the complaint, the Council says the absence of contact between the association and the newspaper benefits no one and it would like to see the two sides make a renewed attempt to resolve their differences.

Richard Walsh-Bowers and Scott Piatkowski vs Kitchener-Waterloo Record

A complaint that coverage by The Kitchener-Waterloo Record of the 2000 federal election campaign in the riding of Kitchener-Waterloo “unfairly excluded” the New Democratic Party candidate has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

Richard Walsh-Bowers of Wallenstein, the NDP candidate, and Scott Piatkowski of Waterloo described The Record’s coverage as biased, an accusation they withdrew at the hearing of their complaint, and as “deliberately skewed,” a charge the Council rejected.

They complained that Walsh-Bowers’s nomination received only a single sentence at the bottom of an article about another party in another riding; that the Progressive Conservative party got more coverage for not having a candidate; that two substantial articles on the CBC’s Cross-Country Checkup phone-in show originating in Kitchener did not mention Walsh-Bowers while naming the Liberal representative more than 20 times, and that an election-day article mentioned the campaigns of the Canadian Alliance, Liberals and Conservatives but omitted the NDP.

The Record, maintaining its coverage was neither unfair nor unbalanced, said the NDP and Walsh-Bowers were included in advance stories, riding profiles, platform coverage and an all-candidates meeting sponsored by the newspaper.

“You compare the number of times Mr. Walsh-Bowers’s name was mentioned in one article, yet ignore the fact that in the overall election coverage of the ward, his name was mentioned just four times fewer than the incumbent and more times than any other candidate,” The Record wrote in response to the complaint.

Explaining that as a regional newspaper it covered four local ridings and five surrounding rural ridings, it added: “Our approach was to look at region-wide issues and voter concerns whenever possible. Often that meant not contacting all major party candidates in each riding though as a general rule of thumb we would speak to someone from each party whenever possible.”

The complaint was made in February 2001 but a decision to adjudicate it was delayed because the complainants did not recall that they had been asked to advise the Press Council whether or not they were satisfied with The Record’s response

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 22, 2002)

Richard Walsh-Bowers of Wallenstein and Scott Piatkowski of Waterloo complained that the Kitchener-Waterloo Record’s coverage of the 2000 federal election campaign in Kitchener-Waterloo riding systematically excluded New Democratic Party candidate Walsh-Bowers.

The Record, noting that it covered four local ridings and five surrounding rural ridings, maintained that its coverage was neither unfair nor unbalanced.

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that newsworthiness dictates that the volume of coverage will vary from candidate to candidate. But it believes that, as the only daily newspaper in the community, The Record has a responsibility to provide reasonably comprehensive coverage of the region.

As examples of what it considers to be a pattern of unbalanced coverage, the Council suggests the nomination of the NDP candidate, despite his acclamation, deserved more than a single sentence at the bottom of a story about a Progressive Conservative nominating controversy and that an election day story should have included at least some reference to the NDP representative.

The Council upholds the complaint, and while rejecting the charge that coverage was deliberately skewed, believes the newspaper was obligated to provide fair coverage of the NDP campaign.

SHOCK ROCK STORY CRITICIZED

The Press Council dismissed, with reservations, a complaint about a front-page story in the Toronto Star that described reaction to the Marilyn Manson shock rock band as a "tempest in a T-shirt."

Valerie Smith of Brampton maintained she was lumped in with critics said to have made untrue claims that Marilyn Manson concerts involve scenes of bestiality, animal sacrifice, ritual rapes and the distribution of free cocaine and marijuana to concert-goers.

She also described the article, published July 30, 1997, as an opinion piece incorrectly presented as a straight news story.

The Press Council said it did not see the story as opinion but suggested it should have been labeled "analysis." It added that the article might well have made clear that Canadian critics were not among those accusing the band of portraying bestiality and the like.

Ms. Smith, an opponent of media violence who distributed information in a campaign to get Canadian cities to cancel the band's appearances, said "this trend to agenda journalism or opinion pieces masquerading as real journalism is very disturbing .I expect biased coverage from columnists but I did not expect this from a reporter."

She criticized the first paragraph of the story "Meet Marilyn Manson tempest in a T-shirt" suggesting it trivialized a group named for serial killers and whose leader had recorded one of his albums in the house where Charles Manson committed several murders." She added it was her opinion that the writer "wanted to show that the issue was trivial, silly, a tempest in a teapot, and when the facts got in the way, he got rid of them."

The reporter said he was trying to elevate the level of debate by placing the controversy over the band (which had had a Calgary concert canceled) in a broader context than the "he-said-she-said" type of story. He said it would fall under the description of analysis but not opinion. And he said the first paragraph was not meant as a joke.

The Star's entertainment editor said the article sought to put the issues in historical context by explaining that the shocking on-stage actions were the sort of thing that had been often done before by other groups seeking notoriety. He explained that the story was published under the heading "Up Front," a platform for analyses and background pieces, articles that don't fit the style of straight news reports in which the gist of the news is in the first few paragraphs.

Referring to Ms. Smith's claim that she was in effect included among misleading critics, the newspaper noted that the American Family Association was identified later in the story as the group accusing the band of bestiality and the like.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 18, 1998)

Valerie Smith of Brampton complained that a front-page story published in the Toronto Star July 30, 1997, about the Marilyn Manson shock rock band was an opinion piece incorrectly presented as a straight news report and that it had the effect of misrepresenting her position as a critic of the group.

The Ontario Press Council does not see the article as an opinion piece and it does not agree that the first paragraph, which described reaction to the group as a "tempest in a T-shirt," trivialized the controversy involving its on-stage actions.

Suggesting that use of the heading "Up Front" to identify the article might not be understood by all readers to mean the article was a feature or a background piece rather than a straightforward news story, the Council believes it should have been labeled "analysis."

The Council is also of the opinion that the article could have made clear Canadians were not among "critics" who claimed the Marilyn Manson concerts involve scenes of such activities as bestiality, animal sacrifice and on-stage rape.

But with these reservations, it dismisses the complaint.

TOP OF PAGE