Anonymous vs Toronto Sun
David Dyzenhaus vs Globe and Mail
Faye More vs Northumberland Today
George Sheffer vs Wasaga Sun
Hamilton Spectator vs City of Hamilton
Lee Fairbanks vs Hamilton Spectator
Maurice Switzer vs Sudbury Star
Ron Brydges vs St. Catharines Standard
Senator Pat Carney vs Globe and Mail
Susan Weiss vs Toronto Star
Teressa Gibson Smye vs Wellington Advertiser

Anonymous vs Toronto Sun

Publishing a photograph of a woman who just happened to be approaching an apartment building that was the home of a murder suspect was a thoughtless act, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding a complaint against the Toronto Sun.“This violation of my privacy brings back insecurities from the past,” the woman said, explaining that she was concerned about her personal safety if people from her past learned where she lives.She said she did not realize her picture had been taken until she saw it in the newspaper. It clearly showed the street number of the building and the caption identified the street.The Sun’s lawyer wrote that he wasn’t sure why she would feel unsafe or insecure after the photograph was published.“The caption under the photograph does not tie you to the murder or the accused in any way. It does not disclose any personal information about you. The photograph, which shows the address of the building, does not identify your residence so nobody seeing the photograph would know who you are,” The letter added that she was walking in a public place “and there is no law that prohibits anybody from either observing or photographing a public place or anybody who appears in a public place.” The complainant responded that she was not walking on a public sidewalk. “I am on private property entering my building.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 14, 2005)

A Toronto woman complained that her privacy was violated by a Toronto Sun photograph of her wheeling a stroller into an apartment building that was the home of an alleged killer.She said she had reason for concern about her personal safety and that if someone from her past saw the picture they would know where to find her since it showed the building number and the street was identified in the caption.The Sun replied that while it regretted any discomfort she may have felt, “we feel newspapers are legally entitled to run pictures taken in public and without consent.” And the newspaper’s lawyer questioned why she would feel insecure since the caption did not tie her to the murder or accused.The Ontario Press Council has no comment on whether legal issues are involved.Given that she just happened to live in the same building as the alleged killer and had nothing to do with the crime, however, the Council believes it was a thoughtless act to publish her picture in a way that identified her address. The complaint is upheld.

David Dyzenhaus vs Globe and Mail

David Dyzenhaus vs Globe and Mail

A complaint that a freelance reporter assigned by The Globe and Mail neglected to identify herself as a journalist until she had obtained answers to a number of questions was upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

David Dyzenhaus, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Toronto, was attending a conference at Oxford University where, he said, he was approached by a woman who identified herself as a Canadian student up from London to attend the meeting.

He maintained that she did not identify herself as a freelance reporter until their conversation had gone on for some time, at which point he insisted that anything he had said previously was off the record. He added that he learned later she was not a conference delegate.

In my view,” he wrote, “the initial dishonesty is a clear breach of ethics which

is not cured by later honesty or by respecting my wishes as to what was on and off the record.” .

The reporter’s primary interest was to obtain an interview with a professor involved in a scandal over 30 University of Toronto law students accused of lying about their grades. Her article, published Feb. 24, 2001, included a brief comment from Prof. Dyzenhaus.

The Globe and Mail said the editor who assigned the woman was assured that she did identify herself as a freelance reporter in a timely fashion early in the conversation. It apologized for what it described as “the unconventional methods used in this case.” But it added:

“If this interview with the reporter so incensed you, then why did you agree to be quoted? Your participation in this ‘dishonest’ exercise does rather mitigate the alleged damages.”

Prof. Dyzenhaus first complained to The Globe and Mail on Feb. 26, 2001, but did not receive a reply until early April, by which time, he said, he had decided to complain to the Press Council because of what he said was “frustration at my inability to get the courtesy of a response.”



His letter of complaint to the Council said he was “more angry about what he described as The Globe’s indifference, arrogance and attempts to shift the blame to me.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 30, 2001)

David Dyzenhaus, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Toronto, complained that a woman who approached him at a conference at Oxford University did not identify herself as a freelance reporter for The Globe and Mail until he had answered a number of questions. He said he considered her actions a breach of ethics. The newspaper responded that it has been assured she identified herself in a timely fashion.

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that the reporter acted properly in excluding from her story all material that Prof. Dyzenhaus had subsequently ruled as off the record, also that the two-sentence quotation attributed to him and published with his approval was accurate.

But the Council believes the reporter fell short of the behaviour required by the newspaper’s code of conduct which directs its reporters to properly identify themselves and the nature of the story on which they are working. And on this account, it upholds the complaint.

Noting that Prof. Dyzenhaus did not receive a response to his inquiries until more than a month after the story was published, the Press Council is of the view that handling of the complaint was less than efficient.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (Oct. 30, 2001):

David Dyzenhaus, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Toronto, complained that a woman who approached him at a conference at Oxford University did not identify herself as a freelance reporter for The Globe and Mail until he had answered a number of questions. He said he considered her actions a breach of ethics. The newspaper responded that it has been assured she identified herself in a timely fashion.

The Ontario Press Council recognizes that the reporter acted properly in excluding from her story all material that Prof. Dyzenhaus had subsequently ruled as off the record, also that the two-sentence quotation attributed to him and published with his approval was accurate.

But the Council believes the reporter fell short of the behaviour required by the newspaper’s code of conduct which directs its reporters to properly identify themselves and the nature of the story on which they are working. And on this account, it upholds the complaint.

Noting that Prof. Dyzenhaus did not receive a response to his inquiries until more than a month after the story was published, the Press Council is of the view that handling of the complaint was less than efficient.



David Dyzenhaus vs Globe and Mail

A complaint that a freelance reporter assigned by The Globe and Mail neglected to identify herself as a journalist until she had obtained answers to a number of questions was upheld by the Ontario Press Council.

David Dyzenhaus, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Toronto, was attending a conference at Oxford University where, he said, he was approached by a woman who identified herself as a Canadian student up from London to attend the meeting.

He maintained that she did not identify herself as a freelance reporter until their conversation had gone on for some time, at which point he insisted that anything he had said previously was off the record. He added that he learned later she was not a conference delegate.

In my view,” he wrote, “the initial dishonesty is a clear breach of ethics which

is not cured by later honesty or by respecting my wishes as to what was on and off the record.” .

The reporter’s primary interest was to obtain an interview with a professor involved in a scandal over 30 University of Toronto law students accused of lying about their grades. Her article, published Feb. 24, 2001, included a brief comment from Prof. Dyzenhaus.

The Globe and Mail said the editor who assigned the woman was assured that she did identify herself as a freelance reporter in a timely fashion early in the conversation. It apologized for what it described as “the unconventional methods used in this case.” But it added:

“If this interview with the reporter so incensed you, then why did you agree to be quoted? Your participation in this ‘dishonest’ exercise does rather mitigate the alleged damages.”

Prof. Dyzenhaus first complained to The Globe and Mail on Feb. 26, 2001, but did not receive a reply until early April, by which time, he said, he had decided to complain to the Press Council because of what he said was “frustration at my inability to get the courtesy of a response.”



His letter of complaint to the Council said he was “more angry about what he described as The Globe’s indifference, arrogance and attempts to shift the blame to me.”

Faye More vs Northumberland Today

The Ontario Press Council upheld a complaint that an article published in the Port Hope Evening Guide on March 16, 2008, erred in declaring that a study of uranium health-related issues in Port Hope had not been peer reviewed.

Faye More of Port Hope took issue with the first paragraph of the story, which said:

“It is now known that the Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) study of nine Port Hope subjects and two controls has not been peer reviewed as previously claimed by Faye More, chair of the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee.”

The study had concluded that the bodies of Port Hope residents were contaminated by “unnatural species of uranium.”

More said a certificate of peer review for the abstract was issued following the Copenhagen congress of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) in October 2007. She introduced a note from the president of the congress that said the study was passed through a “peer reviewing process” and that the abstract was accepted as a poster.

The newspaper maintained that the note did not constitute confirmation that the study had been peer reviewed, also that “a poster makes claims but it doesn’t make them true.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (May 22, 2009)

Faye More of Port Hope complained about an article published in the Port Hope Evening Guide (now part of Northumberland Today) on May 16, 2008, under the headline Peer review did not take place, meeting told.

She described as “not accurate and maligning” the opening sentence, which reported a controversial study of uranium levels in Port Hope residents had not been peer reviewed as claimed by More, chair of the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee. The article reported that this information came to light at the group’s annual meeting but did not state that it was an Evening Guide reporter, the story’s author, who had made the claim at

the meeting.

More said that, in fact, a certificate of peer review for the abstract was issued following a conference in Copenhagen of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM).

A letter from Lars Friberg, president of the Copenhagen group, said the study had passed through a “peer reviewing process where three reviewers read and scored the abstract.” The abstract was thereby accepted as a poster. Mandy Martin, editorial director for Northumberland Publishers, said that based on the message from Friberg, the paper had concluded that the study did not meet a standard of a “scientific” peer review. She said “a poster makes claims but it doesn’t make them true.” She provided no adequate explanation of what the Evening Guide considered to be a scientific peer review.

In view of Friberg’s note that the study had been through a peer reviewing process, the Ontario Press Council finds the newspaper erred in stating that it had not. The Council finds the newspaper less than forthright in publishing a story refuting the committee’s position, based only on the newspaper representative’s unattributed and unsubstantiated statements at a public meeting.

If the newspaper believed that the committee members had been exaggerating their peer-review claims, it should have shown them the information it had, to allow them to make an informed response. And readers, too, should have had an opportunity to read the information in the newspaper’s possession as well as the committee’s response, in order to come to their own informed conclusion about the matter. In the Council’s opinion, news reports should shed as much light as possible on matters of public interest.

And reporters should avoid whenever possible becoming part of the story they are reporting. But when this is unavoidable their role should always be disclosed.

In addition, the article misled readers when it reported the committee members had reversed their claim that the abstract was peer reviewed. The Council concluded that the complainant Faye More and others had been consistent in their claims regarding peer review.

The complaint is upheld.

George Sheffer vs Wasga Sun

Publishing a letter that takes issue with an editorial is a useful way for a newspaper to establish balance in election coverage but it should ensure that it follows its policy on identifying the letter writer, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding a complaint against the Wasaga Sun.

George Sheffer, former deputy mayor of Wasaga Beach, complained that his defeat in a bid for re-election on Nov. 13, 2006, was attributable to a letter over the name of David Sanderson that strongly criticized an editorial which supported Sheffer.

“Our telephone checks with other Sandersons in Wasaga Beach and neighbouring communities turned up absolutely no evidence of a David Sanderson existing as indicated in the published letter accredited to this mysterious individual,” Sheffer wrote.

The Sun’s managing editor responded that “the newspaper had no evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Sanderson letter and there was no compelling reason not to run it.”

It was explained that the letter came by e-mail, that there were two working days in which to try to contact the writer and that three attempts to make contact by phone were unsuccessful.

The newspaper did not, however, follow its practice of discarding letters for which it is unable to ascertain the authors’ identity.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 31, 2007)

George Sheffer, an unsuccessful candidate for re-election as a councillor in Wasaga Beach, complained that a letter to the editor published in the Wasaga Sun four days before the 2006 municipal election was the main contributing factor in his defeat.

He added that publishing the letter on the Wednesday before the election meant that no response could be printed before the vote. And he maintained that the letter writer was not a registered or eligible voter and that a search for him indicated that he may not exist.

The newspaper’s managing editor said the writer did not respond to the newspaper’s request that he provide private, identifying information. But in view of the fact that the letter appeared to be written by a thinking person and constituted a response to a previously published editorial supporting Sheffer, the Sun decided to print it.

The Ontario Press Council accepts that the Sun had good intentions in providing a forum for a response to an editorial endorsement of Sheffer. But, in upholding the complaint, it says it believes the newspaper was remiss in neglecting to follow its policy of confirming the identity of the writer before publishing the letter.

Hamilton Spectator vs City of Hamilton

The public and press should never have to learn by chance or a leak that a meeting of a municipal council has been convened, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding a complaint by The Hamilton Spectator against the City of Hamilton.

The complaint involved what Mayor Robert E. Wade described as an informal gathering attended by himself and nine of the 15 members of city council to consider concerns about the council’s working relationship with senior management personnel.

The Spectator said it did not take issue with the idea the meeting should be held in camera since discussion was to focus on an identifiable employee (the city manager, who subsequently resigned) and personnel matters are an acceptable reason for excluding the public and press. The newspaper’s concern was that there was never a formal notice of the meeting as required under the city’s procedural bylaw and that the newspaper and the public learned of the meeting only after it was over.

The newspaper also cited the Municipal Act which states:

“Before holding a meeting or part of a meeting that is to be closed to the public, a council or local board shall state by resolution:

“(a) the fact of the holding of the closed meeting; and (b) the general nature of the matter to be considered at the closed meeting.”

In his written reply to the complaint, Mayor Wade challenged The Spectator’s description of the meeting as “secret,” saying there was no attempt to conceal the gathering from anyone who might have seen members of Council arriving and leaving.

Insisting that councillors had not contravened the Municipal Act or the city council’s procedural bylaw, he said there was no agenda, no staff members were present and no specific actions were agreed to.

“Moreover, I feel that informal sessions of this kind can be extremely useful in enabling elected officials to discuss a broad range of issues relating to the municipality, and to understand each other’s viewpoints before the time comes to deliberate on specific courses of actions or recommendations from staff in the more structured setting of a formal meeting of city council.”

In a letter advising that he would not attend the oral hearing of the complaint, the mayor said he noted that the press council properly views its role as that of an ethical body, not a court of law, and that asking it to adjudicate an issue of legal interpretation would be going beyond its self-chosen mandate.

The Press Council, which campaigned for 14 years in the 1970s and ‘80s before the provincial government brought in satisfactory rules for closed meetings, responded that its constitution calls on it “to review and report on attempts to restrict access to information of public interest.” It added that it does not seek to make rulings on the legality of actions taken by newspapers or individuals but is concerned with the fairness of those actions within the context of press freedom and the right of the public to information about actions of government.

While the Press Council most often deals with complaints from readers against newspapers, one of the objects contained in its constitution is “to consider complaints from members of the press about the conduct of individuals and organizations toward the press.” This was only the fourth such complaint adjudicated since the Press Council was founded in 1972.

The Spectator said it decided to bring its complaint to the Press Council because it took six years before it finally won its court case in the 1980s in a complaint about a secret meeting held by what was then the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth.

“It . . . illustrated in stark detail how effectively powerless a citizen is in the face of politicians inclined to do the public’s business behind closed doors.”

In that case, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared that no matter how a meeting might be disguised by the use of terms such as “workshop” or the failure to make a formal report, it was a meeting in camera, “something expressly forbidden under the bylaw.”

The newspaper added that if it had received some assurance that this meeting represented a momentary lapse in judgment, and that such meetings would not be held in future, it would not have come to the Press Council.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 20, 2002)

The Hamilton Spectator complained that Hamilton City Council flouted its own procedural bylaw and the Ontario Municipal Act by failing to give formal notice of an Aug. 27, 2001, meeting called by Mayor Robert E. Wade to consider concerns about the council’s working relationship with senior management.

The mayor maintained that, with the lack of an agenda, the absence of staff members and the fact no specific decisions were reached, councillors had not contravened the city’s bylaw or the Municipal Act.

Noting that municipal councils are required to declare by resolution that they are holding a closed meeting and to identify the general nature of the matter to be considered, the Ontario Press Council says it believes the city council acted improperly.

While the newspaper happened to learn of the meeting and the subject of discussion, the Press Council is concerned that, unless councils follow due process or there happens to be a leak, in-camera meetings might never come to public attention.

On a more general plane, the Press Council sees open meetings as an issue of freedom of the press and the right of the public to information about the activities of their elected representatives. It accepts that legislated rules by which meetings may be closed are reasonable. But it is strongly critical of attempts to circumvent the rules by declaring that a meeting is an informal get-together.

The complaint is upheld.

Lee Fairbanks vs Hamilton Spectator

Appending the credentials of freelance theatre critics to their reviews is good newspaper practice, the Press Council said in adjudicating a complaint against The Hamilton Spectator. The absence of such information from an April 11 review prompted the Council to uphold that one aspect of a complaint by playwright Lee Fairbanks of Hamilton.

Mr. Fairbanks complained that a less than complimentary review of his play involved a conflict of interest since it was written by the director of a play that was being presented around the same time. “I found the review incomprehensible and far below the standards established by The Spectator and expected by the public,” he wrote.

In addition to accusing the critic of “a significant conflict of interest, both from a financial viewpoint and an artistic one,” Mr. Fairbanks complained that The Spectator’s then editor-in-chief was “insulting and abusive” in responding to his complaints, an issue the Press Council declined to deal with.

In a July 31 letter to the newspaper, Mr. Fairbanks declared that his complaint to the Press Council was totally based on the fact that The Spectator did not to print his letter discussing the review. Here again the Council chose not to attempt a ruling because there was some confusion over the newspaper’s first reaction to the letter which was sent by Mr. Fairbanks while his play was still running.

The Spectator rejected the suggestion that the critic’s involvement in local theatre posed a conflict of interest, either artistic or financial. “It is an entirely common practice for media to draw commentators and critics alike from among recognized experts in the field,” it said, adding that the critic was paid a small fee and had nothing to gain from discouraging anyone from attending Mr. Fairbanks’s production.

The newspaper added that it did, however, conclude there was some merit in the concern about disclosing the credentials of freelance critics and has since implemented a policy of appending a tagline to their commentaries outlining their professional qualifications.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 26, 2000)

Playwright Lee Fairbanks of Hamilton complained about what he described as an “incomprehensible” review of his play written by a freelance critic and published in the Hamilton Spectator April 11. He maintained there was both an artistic and financial conflict of interest since the critic was directing his own play at the same time. He said he had been maligned by the newspaper and it should have published his letter to the editor criticizing both the review and the critic. And he said he had been insulted in correspondence with the newspaper’s then editor-in-chief, Kirk LaPointe.

The Spectator, saying that newspapers often hire experts as freelance critics, rejected the charge that there had been conflict of any sort but it did say it has since been appending a tagline at the end of such articles identifying the writer’s credentials. It insisted that it was prepared to publish an edited version of Mr. Fairbanks’s letter, a point challenged by Mr. Fairbanks. And it said it was not the Ontario Press Council’s place to deal with correspondence between Mr. Fairbanks and Mr. Lapointe, a contention with which the Council agrees.

While accepting that it is common practice to use experts as freelance critics, the Press Council says the credentials of the writer who reviewed the Fairbanks play should have been added to the article. The Council upholds this aspect of the complaint.

Mr. Fairbanks wrote to the newspaper July 31 to say that his complaint was then totally based on the fact that The Spectator refused to publish his letter discussing the review.” The Council was unable to decide whether Mr. Fairbanks or the newspaper was responsible for the fact the letter was never published. But given that its policy on letters to the editor extends to newspapers the right to decide what to publish, what not to publish and how to edit what they do publish, it declines to uphold this part of the complaint. At the same time, it regrets that agreement could not have been reached on publication of a mutually acceptable version of the letter.

Maurice Switzer vs The Sudbury Star

Readers normally have a right to answer published personal criticism but it should be balanced with a newspaper’s right to determine when a debate has run its course, the Ontario Press Council says in dismissing a complaint against The Sudbury Star..

Maurice Switzer, director of communications for the Anishinabek Nation/Union of Ontario Indians, complained that The Star refused to publish his response to a thumbs-down item.

The debate began when Switzer wrote an article replying to a column by Gary Ball published in a number of newspapers in March 2001 which criticized court decisions affirming that First Nations people have special rights to hunt and fish.

Switzer’s column, published April 3, said, “Ball and his Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) fellow-travellers who try to minimize aboriginal rights need to be held every bit as accountable for their actions as Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel or Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Darryl Duke.”

Three days later The Star printed an item on the editorial page that said, “Thumbs down to Maurice Switzer, director of communications for the Union of Ontario Indians, for his inflammatory condemnation of fish and game columnist Gary Ball – likening him to Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel and the Ku Klux Klan. . . .Ball’s column was fair and thoughtful commentary. It’s a shame Switzer couldn’t offer the same.”

The Star, explaining that it has a standing policy that limits writers and guest columnists to one submission on an issue, “in short, one kick at the can,” refused to publish an e-mail item from Switzer in which he wrote that The Star’s nameless editor “has now joined ‘award-winning outdoors columnist’ Gary Ball in the company of those who would deny the validity of aboriginal hunting, fishing and treaty rights that have been guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution and Supreme Court of Canada, and supported by the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and International Law.”

In August Switzer submitted another column, published instead as a letter to the editor, in which he described some media coverage of aboriginal affairs as “knee-jerk journalism.” The Star deleted a paragraph that said: “When I took their outdoors columnist to task for equating aboriginal harvesting rights with ‘race-based hunting,’ The Sudbury Star branded me personally with a dreaded ‘THUMBS DOWN.’ The newspaper also refused to print my response asking the editor to articulate his position on aboriginal, treaty, or even human rights.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (November 1, 2002)

Maurice Switzer, director of communications for the Anishinabek Nation/Union of Ontario Indians, complained that The Sudbury Star refused to permit him to respond to a personal attack published on the editorial page of April 6, 2001.

The newspaper on April 3 had published a guest article in which Switzer criticized a column by outdoors writer Gary Ball about aboriginal hunting rights.

“Ball and his Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) fellow-travellers who try to minimize aboriginal rights need to be held every bit as accountable for their actions as Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel or Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Darryl Duke,” Switzer wrote.

Three days later The Star ran a brief thumbs-down item commenting on what it described as “his inflammatory condemnation” of Gary Ball. But, citing a policy that it said limits letter writers and guest columnists to one submission on an issue, it rejected a rejoinder by Switzer sent to the paper on April 17. And it later excised a reference to the thumbs-down item from a Switzer article on racism published Aug. 21.

The Ontario Press Council believes that a newspaper has the right to determine when a debate has run its course. It maintains that, notwithstanding the newspaper’s refusal to publish every word of Switzer’s correspondence, the two lengthy articles it did publish represented fair treatment.

The complaint is dismissed.

Ron Brydges vs St. Catharines Standard

The Ontario Press Council dismissed a complaint that the St. Catharines Standard has shown reluctance to publicize the message of Citizens for a Smart Growth Hospital, a group opposed to a proposal to replace two inner-city hospitals with a facility on a fringe site.

Ron Brydges, co-chair of the group, focused on one letter to the editor that was rejected by the newspaper but said it “repeatedly resisted having our message and information printed in the paper.”

“From the outset we recognized that the community has been both misinformed and uninformed about aspects of this proposal and resultant community impacts,” Brydges wrote.

Explaining why his organization opposes plans for erecting a hospital and cancer care centre on the city’s outskirts, Brydges wrote that “the closure of inner city hospitals will cause further decay to a part of the city that had been earmarked for renewal….”

His complaint was accompanied by letters to the editor that he said The Standard declined to print and news releases and letters to the minister of health that he said were ignored.

The Standard responded that its news pages have reported all sides of the debate and all points of view have found space on the news and editorial pages.

“News releases from Citizens for a Smart Growth Hospital at times reiterated the group’s position and did not contain new information,” the newspaper said, adding that “the group’s concerns have received a full and fair airing in the pages of The Standard.”

The newspaper said that from November 2003 when the group was created until February 2005 when Brydges complained to the Press Council, The Standard published 33 items involving the group, including an 850-word opinion column by Brydges, and 11 letters favoring construction of an inner-city hospital.

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (June 22, 2005)

Ron Brydges of St. Catharines, co-chair of Citizens for a Smart Growth Hospital, complained about coverage by the St.Catharines Standard of his group’s efforts to ensure that a new hospital is built within the city rather than on its fringes.

He cited a number of media releases issued by his organization that the newspaper chose not to report on and letters to the editor that weren’t published.

The Standard replied that it has covered all sides of the complaint, that one of its columnists had written six columns on the hospital plans, including one supporting the group, and that while its editorial position may be at odds with that of Citizens for a Smart Growth Hospital, it has been careful to keep its opinions separate from its news coverage.

The Ontario Press Council does not see any evidence that the Standard’s news columns have been biased against the position taken by the Citizens for a Smart Growth Hospital.

In dismissing the complaint, it says it recognizes that newspapers have the right to decide whether letters to the editor and press releases contain information that warrants publication.

Senator Pat Carney vs Globe and Mail

Inserting into a news story a significant quotation from an unpublished article without proper attribution is questionable journalistic behaviour, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding one aspect of a complaint against The Globe and Mail by Senator Pat Carney.

Senator Carney complained that the newspaper, without having published her opinion article, transferred it to a reporter who included a key quotation in a news story without her permission.

Senator Carney’s column reported on a visit to China during which He Yafei, assistant minister of foreign affairs, said China has second thoughts about investing in Canada because “we have too many rules and regulations” -- part of the quotation published in the news article.

She said the newspaper’s comment editor “took my story, a creation of my own initiative and experience and gave it to another writer who ran it under his byline quoting me without ever talking to me.”

The Globe and Mail responded that the editor had told her he “very much liked the piece and would run it soon. . . .He did not confirm the date because events can happen and overtake any plans for timing,” and that in fact it was an article by the prime minister that overtook it.

“. . . it was both fair and accurate to quote from the article because it was news. There is no copyright on a quote from a piece written by an outside author. . . and with news, permission is not sought before a quote is used.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (October 30, 2007)

Senator Pat Carney complained that The Globe and Mail used a key quotation from her unpublished opinion article in a news story dealing with what it described as the damage to Canada-China business relations resulting from the “frosty nature of the political climate between Ottawa and Beijing.”

She said the newspaper transferred her article to a staff reporter who extracted a sentence that said the Chinese assistant foreign minister had told her at a meeting in Beijing that China is reluctant to invest in Canada due to uncertainty over the relationship and “too many rules and regulations.”

The Globe and Mail said Senator Carney had been told that its opinion editor liked her article and that it intended to publish it. But a decision when to publish the article was delayed, and Carney withdrew it and gave it to the Vancouver Sun.

The newspaper said it intended to publish the article along with a news story about Canada-China relations but that only the news story ran after the Carney article was withdrawn.

The Ontario Press Council says it appears there was a breakdown in communication between the newspaper and Carney. But in upholding one aspect of the complaint, it says inserting into a news story a significant quotation from an unpublished opinion article without proper attribution is questionable journalistic behaviour.

Susan Weiss vs Toronto Star

Susan Weiss of Toronto was unhappy when a photograph of her at a garage sale, taken despite her objections, was published in the Toronto Star in June 2005. She was “livid” when it was republished in September 2006.

Her complaint to the Ontario Press Council was upheld after the Star’s representative conceded at a hearing that “republication of the photo was unforgivable.”

She said she was satisfied when the Star apologized after the first publication, explaining that the photographer had thought her only objection was to being named in the caption. The second publication was to illustrate an article about garage sales. In neither case did the caption identify her by name.

“I know you don’t want an apology from the Star for using your photograph a second time, but we do apologize,” said a letter from the Star’s editor in chief. “The photograph has been flagged in the archive and will not be reused. It should have been flagged after the photograph’s first use and I can’t offer an explanation for why that didn’t happen.”

Responding to a suggestion from Weiss that the Star donate $100 to Habitat for Humanity “to right this wrong,” the letter said:

“The Star donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity each year, so there is no issue with the cause. There is an issue, however, with making a payment for an honest mistake.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 15, 2007)

Susan Weiss of Toronto complained that a photograph of her taken by the Toronto Star despite her objections, was republished a year later. She said she was “livid” when she saw its second appearance as an illustration for an article about garage sales.

The Star apologized after the first publication of the picture, saying the photographer had thought her only objection was to having her name used in the photo caption.

After the photo was republished in September 2006, the Star’s editor in chief

sent Weiss a letter of apology that said:

“The photograph has been flagged in the archive and will not be reused. It should have been flagged after the photograph’s first use and I can’t offer an explanation for why that didn’t happen.”

The Ontario Press Council understands why the newspaper refused her request that it make a charitable donation for what it considered to be an honest mistake. But in upholding the complaint, it says it agrees with the statement made by the Star’s representative at the complaint hearing that “republication of the photo was unforgivable.”

Teressa Gibson Smye vs Wellington Advertiser

Publishers, editors and reporters actively engaged in the operation of a newspaper should not seek or hold political office in its circulation area, the Ontario Press Council says in upholding a complaint against the weekly Wellington Advertiser. The opinion, reiterating a ruling made in 1985, arose from adjudication of a complaint by Teressa Gibson Smye of Rockwood, an unsuccessful candidate in the 2000 mayoralty election in Guelph-Eramosa Township.

She maintained there was a conflict of interest in the fact that the candidate who defeated her, David Adsett, is also editor of The Advertiser.

Smye’s complaint focused on an article published Nov. 10, 2000, which contained Adsett’s replies to five questions posed to mayoral candidates and included a sentence that said simply, “Candidate Teressa Gibson Smye refused to participate.”

She said the article should have included her reasons for declining to answer the questions, contained in a letter to the editor sent Oct. 30. It said she declined to respond to questions in The Advertiser because she believed “a definite conflict of interest not only exists but is readily apparent between your political office and your editorial position at the paper.” The letter added:

“This not only relates to what news is reported but how and when it is reported, if at all. I also do not believe we are operating on a level playing field here, considering I will not have access to your responses prior to publication, while you have the opportunity to review all responses from all candidates.”

Adsett, whose father, a former reeve, owns the newspaper, cited a 1997 editorial, written before he took office as reeve of Eramosa Township, in which he said that in his three previous years as deputy reeve he had not written an opinion article or edited any news reports dealing with council activities.

“That was my promise to residents when I first sought a council seat. With my new position, that same promise is now passed on to residents in Wellington County.”

The Advertiser’s reply to the complainant said that guidelines in effect since 1996, when the paper began expanding coverage of municipal councils in its area, provided that the reporter covering council would have absolute autonomy in deciding what issues to write about and that the reporter and copy editor would determine the final shape and form of the article, the headline and where the story would be placed.

“In no case was Dave Adsett to be told what was being covered, or how. He would not see any news articles until they were completely finished and placed in the newspaper….Further, all editorial comment about any local issues from any municipality in Wellington would be handled by the newsroom staff.”

At one point during the complaint hearing Adsett said, “If it is the suggestion here that I should pack up and quit, forget it.”

The Press Council conceded that Adsett appeared to have made an honest effort to avoid creating grounds for charges of bias but added that it believed the potential for a perception of unfairness remained.

The Council took account of the 1985 hearing involving another weekly newspaper editor serving on the board of education who wrote editorials commenting on a teachers’ strike. The text of that adjudication said:

“The Council believes that a person participating in public events cannot deal fairly and objectively with news and comment about them; and it is improper for a newspaper publisher, editor or reporter to assume the dual roles of both actor and critic by holding office in any public or private body likely to be in the news.”

TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (July 13, 2001)

Teressa Gibson Smye of Rockwood, an unsuccessful candidate in the 2000 mayoralty election in Guelph-Eramosa Township, complained that there was a conflict of interest in the fact that the candidate who defeated her, David Adsett, was also editor of The Wellington Advertiser.

A response to her complaint, written by the paper’s copy editor, insisted that Adsett maintains a hands-off policy with respect to news and editorial coverage of township political affairs.

A specific aspect of Smye’s complaint, with which the Ontario Press Council agrees, is that the newspaper should have published her reasons for declining to answer five questions for mayoral candidates rather than simply reporting that “Candidate Teressa Gibson Smye refused to participate.”

The Council accepts that Adsett appears to have made an honest effort to avoid creating grounds for charges of bias. But it believes the potential for a perception of unfairness remains. And, in upholding the complaint, it says it believes publishers, editors and reporters, while actively engaged in journalism, should not seek or hold elective political office in the newspaper’s distribution area.

TOP OF PAGE