Joe's Third OPC Victory Anniversary

I have seen stories in newspapers or read Editorials or columns, as I am sure that you have, that just drive me crazy. They seem so one-sided or unfair or malicious that you have to wonder why they were published in the first place.

Editors and publishers are not dumb. They have reasons why something was done the way it was which may be quite legitimate. They are well aware that they may have to justify what they have published.

They like their jobs too and many newspapers are part of a chain with a head office. They know also that they have readers who can cancel subscriptions or advertisers who can pull their ads and use other media. Major papers in the US have had "boycotts" started against them by groups eg The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. The aim of the groups was not to put the paper out of business but to get the group's message across.

Of course, there is the remedy of a lawsuit if someone feels aggrieved but that is expensive and time-consuming.

Continuing on with this Blog's desire to educate readers, I thought that you might be interested to know that there are other ways to get a remedy from a newspaper. Many trade and professional associations have their codes of conduct and adjudication groups to deal with complaints. Here is an example of one Association, the Ontario Press Council and an excerpt from what they say. Also read about one of the complaints involving Windsor below:

• THIRTY-TWO YEARS OF RULINGS
  
  The Ontario Press Council has chosen not to follow the lead of the United Kingdom Press Complaints Commission and other councils in adopting a formal code of practice for newspapers. Instead it has relied on the decisions reached in previous adjudications of complaints as precedents by which it judges current issues. Following is a sampling of general conclusions reached in the three decades it has been adjudicating public complaints against Ontario newspapers.
  
  A Press Council adjudication represents the collective opinion of a newspaper's conduct shared by people from a broad cross-section of Ontario society and from the newspaper field. It is an opinion that the newspaper undertakes to publish, not an order that the newspaper must obey. Council's dismissal of a complaint about the nature of comment does not mean that it agrees with what has been published.
  
  JOURNALISM OF OPINION
  
  Newspapers should seek to provide light as well as heat in commenting on controversial issues.
  
  In the interest of credibility, a column should disclose any possible conflict of interest on the part of the writer.
  
  Columnists are given wide latitude to express controversial opinions but, when they present what purports to be a statement of fact, they should ensure that it is accurate and, when necessary, provide the source of the information. If the statement is found to be in error, the newspaper should be prepared to promptly publish a correction or clarification.
  
  It may be unfair to print critical comment on an issue without simultaneously or previously publishing a straightforward news story that gives a balanced outline of the facts.
  
  It is not reasonable to expect that an editorial will include every point the newspaper intends to make. There is no reason to expect a newspaper to change its editorial position because a preponderance of published letters to the editor disagrees with it. At the same time, the newspaper has a right to rethink its opinion without having to apologize to critics of its previous position.
  
  A newspaper publishing an unsolicited opinion article should go beyond simply determining that it is not libellous; it should he prepared to accept responsibility jointly with the author for factual errors.
  
  Occasional provocative or controversial columns by copy editors and other non-columnists should be flagged to say the author's opinions are his or her own and not necessarily those of the newspaper.
  
  A columnist may choose to write a sympathetic, one-sided article about an individual but it is important that the subject's credentials be presented accurately.
  
  Newspapers have the right to express controversial or unpopular opinions but readers deserve to know whose opinions they are; provocative statements in an unsigned column should be identified somewhere as the newspaper's viewpoint or should otherwise be attributed.
  
  The Press Council supports free expression of opinion that purports to be based on statistics but believes that readers have the right to know where the statistics come from.
  
  CONDUCT AND PRACTICE
  
  Sometimes the real fault is not in the errors but in the refusal to acknowledge them.
  
  Although a number of stories published over a period of weeks or months about a controversial subject may, when taken together, represent a balanced examination, the Press Council maintains that each article should be able to stand on its own in terms of fairness and balance.
  
  The tendency to generalize on the basis of a relatively small number of interviews is a significant weakness in both news articles and columns of opinion. Equally perilous is the temptation to declare without supporting evidence that public opinion is behind a particular position or group.
  
  A newspaper that publishes significant misinformation, such as an erroneous report that a public facility is to be closed, should be precise in explaining to a complainant just how it intends to publish a correction. A brief item in the usual location for corrections may not be adequate in cases where readers may be misled by the original error.
  
  A newspaper has an inescapable obligation to vigorously pursue comment from any person about whom it plans to publish derogatory accusations and if possible to print it at the same time. It should check, preferably before publication, damaging statements one person attributes to another. When dealing with a sensitive issue, it should endeavour to see that the public is fully and fairly informed, either by giving fair treatment to differing views within the same article or in two articles published simultaneously.
  
  Newspapers should take care to ensure that quotations are complete and accurate although ellipsis may be used to indicate that inconsequential words have been omitted.
  
  Newspapers should be prepared to publish rational criticism of their own performance as long as it is not defamatory.
  
  Reporters must sometimes rely on unnamed sources but such practice should be employed as sparingly as possible and care should be taken to avoid casting suspicion on a group when only one individual is involved.
  
  A newspaper that undertakes what it describes as an unscientific survey of public opinion on a controversial subject should include information about the sampling, including figures on those who declined to be interviewed and who in some instances might be assumed not to share the views of those quoted.
  
  Reliance on the recollection of a conversation overheard weeks earlier as the basis of a direct quotation in a news story is an error in judgment.
  
  The Press Council believes publishers, editors and reporters, while actively engaged in journalism, should not seek or hold elective political office in their newspaper's distribution area.
  
  Newspapers have an obligation to publish a correction promptly on a substantive error, whether they spot it on their own or have it drawn to their attention, particularly if it reflects unfairly on an individual, group or organization.
  
  The Press Council rejects any suggestion that the press should be limited in its editorial freedom but it emphasizes that a newspaper that is the only one in its community has a special responsibility to inform its readers fully on all aspects of local issues.
  
  ETHICS
  
  Journalists writing about matters in which they are personally involved should clearly identify such involvement in every article.
  

Just so you know, the Press Council route has been used before in Windsor and against the Star. In searching the OPC website, I found this:

• Joe McParland vs Windsor Star (Adjudication March 19, 2003)
  
  A complaint that a column in the Windsor Star unfairly condemned a municipal election candidate by innuendo has been upheld by the Ontario Press Council.
  
  The column by Gord Henderson, published Sept. 7, 2002, two days before a byelection, referred to Joe McParland in two sentences that read:
  
  “As for McParland, I don’t understand why his campaign literature didn’t mention that he’s a former priest and that his background as a property manager in the 1980s included helping manage JP’s, a controversial Riverside Drive gay strip club. After all, strip clubs have been a big issue in Ward 2.”
  
  McParland, who was defeated in the byelection, said he found the words “harmful in the extreme and devastating to me as both an individual and a candidate.” He said he decided in 1984 to voluntarily leave the Roman Catholic priesthood after four years of active ministry in which he experienced doubts about his vocation and an emerging awareness of his gay sexual orientation.
  
  Noting that the words “former priest,” “controversial” and “gay strip club” all appear in one sentence, McParland said the innuendo is reprehensible; that readers inferred from those comments that “I am dishonest, deceptive, a child molester, a pedophile, etc.”
  
  The Star said readers deserve to know the background of anyone running for office and that while candidates decide what is to go into their campaign literature, the newspaper’s job is to deal with issues that it sees as important.
  
  The columnist said the priesthood is still a respected profession in Windsor and he thought it would be beneficial to be identified with it. He disagreed with McParland’s contention that strip clubs were never an issue in the campaign. And he said he couldn’t believe readers would assume a person is a pedophile from reading the reference to his former calling as a priest and management of a gay strip club.
  
  The Star’s editor said he viewed the reference as “harmless” and added that he couldn’t imagine how anyone might jump to the conclusion that the column was “slyly impugning your character.”
  Noting criticism of the fact that the column appeared on the last publishing day before the election, the Star said it’s common practice to wait until late in a campaign before writing an overview of an election.
  
  In dealing with McParland’s complaint, the Press Council gave consideration to its long-held policy of extending to columnists wide latitude in expressing controversial or unpopular opinions. But it decided that in this case that policy was overridden by the preamble to its constitution which says, in part, that through the Press Council readers can call Ontario newspapers to account for unfair conduct such as “condemning people by innuendo.”
  
  TEXT OF THE ADJUDICATION (March 19, 2003)
  
  Joe McParland, a candidate in a municipal byelection in Windsor in 2002, complained that two sentences in a Sept. 7 column in The Windsor Star led readers to infer that he was “dishonest, deceptive, a child molester, a pedophile etc.”
  
  The sentences, part of an article published two days before the election, read: “As for McParland, I don’t understand why his campaign literature didn’t mention that he’s a former priest and that his background as a property manager in the 1980s included helping manage JP’s, a controversial Riverside Drive gay strip club. After all, strip clubs have been a big issue in Ward 2.”
  
  McParland said he voluntarily left the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1984 in good standing and for no other reason than “an emerging awareness” of his gay sexual orientation. He described as “reprehensible” the fact that the words “former priest,” “controversial,” and “gaystrip club” all appeared in the same sentence.
  
  The Star responded that the columnist was merely expressing surprise at “key omissions” from McParland’s campaign literature, that reference to his years as a priest would have been viewed as positive by many voters in a largely Catholic city and that strip clubs are a contentious issue in Windsor.
  
  Given the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church, the Ontario Press Council sees the reference to McParland’s departure from the priesthood juxtaposed with his business involvement with a gay strip club as unfairly condemning him by innuendo and upholds the complaint.

The result of all of this was the Star publishing a story on Page 2 "Complaint upheld by press council."

And Happy St.Patrick's Day to you too, Joe!