Krista Erickson, characterized as a plucky hackette in a now-defunct satirical rag, will be returning to report from the Hill for CBC TV after the Corpse's ombudsman cleared her of malfeasance in the notorious planted questions affair of 2007.
Here's CBC ombudsman Vince Carlin's full report on the matter.
CBC ombudsman Vince Carlin says a TV reporter who was accused of feeding questions to a Liberal MP during the Mulroney-Scheiber hearings in the fall of 2007 acted out of inexperience, not bias.
CBC reporter Krista Erickson was reassigned to Toronto from Ottawa last January after a senior Conservative official* complained that a CBC reporter fed questions to a Liberal MP to ask former prime minister Brian Mulroney during a parliamentary hearing.
* It was Doug Finley.
She succeeded in having that decision reversed and is scheduled to be back on air from Ottawa next month.
Carlin, in a review made public Friday, praised Erickson as "a journalist of exceptional energy and tenacity" and said he found no bias or partisan interest in her actions.
He said CBC does not allow reporters to provide questions to politicians to be asked at committee hearings or in the Commons. He found, however, that although Erickson did violate CBC policy, it was because she didn't know the rules.
"Ms. Erickson clearly did go 'over the line' in allowing the appearance that she was providing 'script' for certain sources to use," he wrote. "However, it appears to me that she lacked the experience and sensitivity to realize where the line was."
He said she "is not fully versed in CBC's journalistic standards and practices."
"She should not have been placed 'in harm's way' without a better understanding of CBC policy and proper background or training in the difficult business of Parliamentary reporting."
Erickson moved to Ottawa in 2006 after working in Winnipeg for about six years. She had been named anchor of the Winnipeg suppertime newscast in 2004.
However, Carlin said "she had not actually spent a great deal of time as a 'street' reporter and, as far as I can tell, had never covered a legislature on an ongoing basis."
Well, God bless the CBC for giving energetic, tenacious people a chance to cover Parliament Hill without even having covered a provincial legislature first! Bravo!
This nugget was tucked into the bottom of the story:
Carlin suggested that the Conservatives who complained about Erickson may have been trying to distract attention from some of her reporting. He also said CBC management complicated the issue by taking disciplinary action against Erickson.
Here's a snippet of Carlin's final words:
To sum up: Ms. Erickson was pursuing a legitimate and newsworthy story. In her desire to expand her “source” base, she unwisely sent questions to a Liberal source who appears to have moved them through the Liberal Research Bureau. They formed the background for the questioning of Mr. Mulroney, as they might have had she broadcast those questions in a report. I should note that Pablo Rodriguez appears to have written his own questions based on material supplied to him by his colleagues. Due to the nature and specificity of the subject matter, it is not surprising that the language would be similar to the original questions shared by Ms. Erickson.
There is no explicit prohibition in CBC policy of the conduct in question, although it has been the practice of the CBC Ottawa Bureau for the last 30 years to avoid such conduct.
The sections of the policy on Credibility provide general guidance for journalists in thinking about the effects of their actions. The CBC must insure that its journalists understand the implications of the policy in their daily reporting lives. If journalists do appear not to have an understanding of ethical behaviour, they should be closely supervised, or not assigned to the most difficult postings.
CONCLUSION:
Trading information in developing stories is not, per se, a violation of policy. However, when trading can be viewed as direct prompting to action by someone else, CBC’s policy on Credibility comes into play since such an action could cause “a reasonable apprehension of bias.” It is clear, however, that there was no bias at play, no matter how perceived by partisan interests.
CBC News lacks sufficiently clear guidelines on conduct within legislative press galleries.
Before promotion, CBC journalists should be able to demonstrate a grasp of the ethical requirements of the position for which they are being considered.