J-prof Kelly Toughill opined in today's Toronto Star about coverage of the Conrad Black trial by some outlets and journalists who are quite close to the embattled Darwinian capitalist but didn't disclose that fact. One of those journalists, Mark Steyn, tosses a bun back at Toughill.

From Toughill's piece:

The Conrad Black trial is not just about how or whether a Canadian press baron looted one of the world's largest media companies to buy baubles for his wife, it is also about how or whether journalists should divulge their own personal history to the public.

The National Post covered the first week of Black's fraud trial without reminding readers that the accused is the same bold entrepreneur who founded and nurtured the newspaper in their hands.

Maclean's magazine treated readers to a special issue on the Black trial. It included 31 pages of details, but never mentioned that Maclean's relies heavily on Black proteges to produce its admirable journalism – including many of the stories about Black himself. Nor did it reveal that Maclean's publisher, Ken Whyte, may be called as a witness for the defence. Maclean's did mention – briefly, on page 51 – that Black's wife, Barbara Amiel, is a regular columnist for the magazine. ...

Mark Steyn did not tell readers about his connection to Black, in the Maclean's special edition of March 12, but he did hint at it: "Insofar as one can tell, Barbara and Conrad have always found me sparkling and amusing company."

Steyn spent years at the National Post, where he was a political columnist whose conservative views roughly mirrored those of his ultimate boss, Conrad Black. That is important information to help readers frame Steyn's conclusion: "(Conrad and Barbara) were good for readers, good for newspapers, and better for capitalism than a regime of arbitrary regulatory usurpation. What has happened to Hollinger is a disgrace. I hope Conrad Black is acquitted in Chicago."

And here is Steyn's response on Macleans.ca:

What is the preferred model of journalistic integrity Prof Toughill would commend to the ink-stained wretches? Here it comes:

Several of the journalists covering the trial worked for one of his newspapers. Some have told readers about the connection; others have not. Mark Brown, of the Chicago Sun-Times, wrote with glee about the joy of covering a bad boss on trial. The Sun-Times is one of the papers owned by the company Black once controlled, and is accused of bilking.

Sun-Times publisher John Cruikshank wrote a letter to readers at the start of the trial declaring the Black connection, and revealing his distaste for a man he thinks hurt his newspaper.

Are they really such courageous declarations of interest? Aren’t they omitting to mention (at least in the sense that we at Maclean’s omitted to mention Barbara’s column) the most obvious interest of all? That both men work for the usurper regime at what’s left of Hollinger. That’s to say, Brown reports to Cruikshank who reports to the guys who kicked Conrad Black off the board, collapsed his Canadian companies, and launched the gazillion-dollar civil suits that led to this criminal trial? Couldn’t one conclude that, instead of paragons of journalistic integrity, they’re just guys who are cannily sucking up to their current sugar daddies rather than the previous sugar daddy?

Which, by the way, is the default mode of journalistic interest.

... Since Professor Toughill (if nobody else) is panting for it, let me come clean and declare my own interest:

It’s exactly the same as Messrs Brown and Cruikshank. 

That’s to say, I’m a columnist for The Chicago Sun-Times. I work for the same fellows as Brown and Cruikshank do – that’s to say, Gordon Paris and Ray Seitz and the other star prosecution witnesses against Conrad in this case. My interest in this case should logically lead me to pile on with “glee” about a “bad boss on trial”. Yet I feel so strongly about the injustice of this case (and feel free to underscore this passage with the kind of orchestral uplift that would be appropriate if this were an Oscar-winning movie about a crusading journalist directed by George Clooney) that I have chosen to defend the man my current bosses are doing their best to send to the slammer for 101 years. This is not in my economic or career interest.

(By the way, dissenting from one’s current proprietor is usually the best way to get a bauble from the likes of Professor Toughill. The only Canadian newspaper prize I’ve ever got nominated for was for an attack on my then boss, David Asper, which I entered in the National Newspaper Awards just for a joke. As I told my editor, Natasha Hassan, “They’re bound to fall for this.” Sure enough, at the ceremony, an excerpt was read out prefaced by the words: “A columnist who’s not afraid to take on his proprietor…”) 

I could declare the above in every column, but even Mister Ethics Prof might feel I was coming across like a sanctimonious pill. However, in last week’s Maclean’s, I did say:

Full disclosure: I’m still a columnist for the Sun-Times, or I was at the time of writing, and Cruickshank’s my boss; but honestly, if he’s going to disavow the old management he could at least do it with the brio and sadistic glee of Conrad’s fairweather friends in London. 

Professor Toughill chose not to mention that in his column. Doesn’t this raise serious questions about the ethics professor’s ethics? If the Star values its own integrity, it will immediately hire another ethics professor to pronounce on the matter.

Steyn referred to "Mister Ethics Prof " and "his column." He also wrote this near the top: "It must be marvelous to be able to type that phrase with a straight face. Does he get out of the house much?" I believe Prof. Toughill is a female.

Update: I first posted on this this afternoon (sometime after 2 p.m.) revisited Steyn's column later in the day, just on a hunch. The time stamp (12:44:40 p.m.) didn't change, but the references to Toughill's gender were changed to reflect the fact that's she's a female. There was no acknowledgement of the earlier error.

I haven't followed Maclean's coverage of the trial, nor Steyn's in particular, primarily because I perceive Ken Whyte and Mark Steyn to be Black loyalists.

That doesn't necessarily make their views of this particular trial inaccurate; I've heard from reasonably neutral people who have some expertise in criminal law, and they think Black could walk. If he's not guilty -- or even he is, but the prosecution hasn't proven his guilt to the jury's satisfaction -- that's exactly what should happen.

But it does leave me worried that over the trial's course, they would highlight that which is exculpatory of Black and his co-defendants, and play down that evidence which points to his guilt.

Now, on the flip side, what do you do with the columns of the Toronto Star's David Olive, who has written critically about Black on many occasions over the years. If and when he writes on the trial (and he has; click on his name), should one similarly worry that Olive will highlight that which is bad for Black and underplay testimony and evidence which favours the defendant?

To me, the matter is one of more than transparency and disclosure, although I think those are important concepts in journalism.

Perhaps the lesson is that one should read differing perspectives on the same news event -- in this case, Black's trial -- and apply some critical thinking to the various versions. In that way, maybe one can work towards a fuller, hopefully more truthful picture of what's actually going on.