CBC News publisher John Cruickshank explains his rationale for transferring the reporter that he named in a publicly released letter to the Conservative party but won't name in his blog posting.
Some people have suggested that this kind of interplay between reporter and politician is normal practice in parliamentary reporting, the kind of give-and-take that goes on in the cultivation of sources and pursuit of information. Others condemn it as unethical and unprofessional.
From the beginning, members of the CBC radio and television news operation on Parliament Hill took the position that what happened in this case was neither normal nor in keeping with the practices to which they are committed.
After a thorough, internal investigation, I can only agree with that assessment and the reporter involved has been reassigned to a different job in Toronto where she can receive further training.
Perceptions of partiality
One of the key principles outlined in our handbook is that our journalists must not have any association, or engage in activities, that could reasonably give rise to perceptions of partiality.*
* It seems to be in the credibility section, although Cruickshank doesn't link to it. Here's the text of it:
In an open society, credibility is an essential attribute of a journalistic organization. The credibility of the organization and that of its journalists are interdependent, flowing one from the other.
Credibility is dependent not only on qualities such as accuracy and fairness in reporting and presentation, but also upon avoidance by both the organization and its journalists of associations or contacts which could reasonably give rise to perceptions of partiality. Any situation which could cause reasonable apprehension that a journalist or the organization is biased or under the influence of any pressure group, whether ideological, political, financial, social or cultural, must be avoided.
In the engagement and assignment of persons working in information programs, the organization must be sensitive to their published views, their personal involvements and their associations and backgrounds in order to avoid any perception of bias or of susceptibility to undue influence in the execution of their professional responsibilities.
In order to maintain their own credibility and that of the CBC, on-air personnel, as well as those who edit, produce or manage CBC programs, must avoid publicly identifying themselves in any way with partisan statements or actions on controversial matters.
On the surface, this seems like a straightforward rule. But in the heat of the journalistic hunt, I can understand how it can sometimes be overlooked.
This has not been an easy decision. Our audiences want us to bring them "inside knowledge." As their delegates in the press gallery, we get a front-row seat at a drama they can only watch from a distance.
What's more, I am convinced that the Canadian public is sophisticated enough to realize it is well served by the intense and proper competition for news scoops that exists at every parliamentary, legislative and municipal bureau across the country. That competitive spirit sustains the press in its watchdog function and it is a spirit I hope to encourage at every possible occasion.
But our role at the CBC is different from the private media whose obligation is, ultimately, only to their shareholders.
Our very mandate is to provide Canadians with a view of their political life unobstructed by bias. To do that, we must be detached from partisan interest, and professional and dispassionate in all aspects of our reporting. We must be seen to be all these things as well.
The case in question
When, as in the present instance, it is revealed that a reporter has been collaborating, even if only obliquely, with one party or another, an appearance of partisanship emerges that cannot be dispelled by claims that this is how political reporters interact with their sources.
In this case, our reporter provided questions to two Liberal MPs using her BlackBerry in the hope that these would be put to the former prime minister during the committee hearings.
I accept the reporter's explanation that she did not do this to advantage the Liberals or hurt the Conservatives — that she just wanted answers for her story.
She believed it was permissible to create a temporary alliance of convenience with the Liberals if it would help determine whether Brian Mulroney had lobbied a Tory minister on a recent matter.
But in this kind of information sharing, reporters can become part of the story they are covering, which is not our role. Any time a reporter plants a question and covers the results, they are deceiving their audience about their detachment and fairness.
For our reporters, this makes cultivating sources problematic. We can't make deals that leave us beholden either to members of the government or any opposition party.
I would have liked Mr. Cruickshank to tell me how this squares with the Terry Milewski case from 10 years ago.
Milewski is a veteran Vancouver-based national reporter for CBC TV. He was covering the 1997 APEC Summit and became embroiled in controversy with both the PMO and his CBC bosses (long story). Interestingly, while you can still find the CBC news release about this on the corporate website, you can't find Radio Canada ombudsman Marcel Pepin's report on the matter, which I recall as having substantially exonerated Milewski (the link http://tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/apec/report.html is dead).
Although the link may be dead, I salvaged some excerpts from a March 23, 1999 e-mail I sent to CAJ-L, a listserv for journalists:
"It is also true that the vocabulary used by Mr. Milewski to refer to the government and the police, in his private correspondence, not on air, conveys a clearly skeptical attitude towards the official version of the authorities. This is clumsy, careless perhaps. But it is not evidence, to my mind, that the reporter was biased, in the unacceptable sense of the word. That he could have a penchant towards respect for basic rights and be constantly skeptical regarding official explanations does not constitute, in my opinion, a breach of conduct. No one is asking journalists to pretend they are indifferent and blasé when covering events as controversial as those concerned here. Objectivity must not be confused with dull and pale neutrality."
Pepin found nothing wrong with Milewski's relationship with protestor Craig Jones (the recipient of Milewski's notorious e-mails) or with giving him questions to ask the PMO, and found there was no reasonable basis for an "apprehension of bias" or conflict of interest on Milewski's part. (emphasis mine - BD)
"The journalist was not marching under the banners during the APEC Summit, he was not paid by Jones and his group, he did not use CBC material to promote the cause of this group, and in his reports he constantly supported his claims with documents which he showed on the screen. At no time did he lack loyalty to his employer, or abuse the prestige of his function to promote any ideology whatsoever. He did indeed practise a particularly aggressive form of investigative journalism ... but he did not place himself in a situation of conflict of interest."
Question: Is the CBC's JS&P different from what it was at the time of l'affaire Milewski? Because the Radio-Canada ombudsman found no reasonable basis for an apprehension of bias in that case, where Milewski had advised a protester on what questions to ask the PMO.
If that was okay with Pepin in 1999, what's different about what's-her-name's* case?
* Psst: It's Krista Erickson.