The Windsor Star Should Be Ashamed (Part I)
In my opinion, the Windsor Star, its owners and management owe an apology to the people of Windsor and more particularly to their subscribers.
The Windsor Star knows that the Chief of Staff of Eddie Francis and the Windsor Star's Editorial/Op-ed Editor/Editorial Page Editor are husband and wife but have not reported it. This revelation should be no real shock to readers of this BLOG as I have posted about it previously. But do most other Windsorites know this and what would their reaction be?
Would they be concerned, once they know this information, about the possibility that the Star's coverage of City politics, and more specifically about the Mayor, is not what citizens of Windsor should have expected? Would they be concerned that members of the Star's Editorial Board are giving preferential treatment to the Mayor that may be reflected in Editorials. Would they be concerned that opponents of the Mayor, real or potential, are not given fair treatment in other ways such as access to Guest Columns or to the Letters to the Editor page or failure to report a story or have it edited in a proper fashion?
The issue is NOT John and Norma but the Windsor Star and its hypocrisy.
I have had exchanges of email with John Coleman over the years on a number of issues and as a member of STOPDRTP appeared in front of the Star's Editorial Board. Many of my Letters to the Editor have been published, but not all of them as should be expected.
The Windsor Star knows that the Chief of Staff of Eddie Francis and the Windsor Star's Editorial/Op-ed Editor/Editorial Page Editor are husband and wife but have not reported it. This revelation should be no real shock to readers of this BLOG as I have posted about it previously. But do most other Windsorites know this and what would their reaction be?
Would they be concerned, once they know this information, about the possibility that the Star's coverage of City politics, and more specifically about the Mayor, is not what citizens of Windsor should have expected? Would they be concerned that members of the Star's Editorial Board are giving preferential treatment to the Mayor that may be reflected in Editorials. Would they be concerned that opponents of the Mayor, real or potential, are not given fair treatment in other ways such as access to Guest Columns or to the Letters to the Editor page or failure to report a story or have it edited in a proper fashion?
The issue is NOT John and Norma but the Windsor Star and its hypocrisy.
I have had exchanges of email with John Coleman over the years on a number of issues and as a member of STOPDRTP appeared in front of the Star's Editorial Board. Many of my Letters to the Editor have been published, but not all of them as should be expected.
I do not recall ever meeting Norma Coleman and I think I know who she is since she has been pointed out to me but I do know a bit about her background and her political connections which should make her of value to Windsor and to the Mayor.
If the Star had reported the situation, then one could not complain. But the Star did not. My assumption has always been that the Star and the Mayor are obviously aware of this situation and have taken the appropriate steps to guard against any problem. I have no idea though what they did and neither of them have ever told us. David Wonham raised this issue at his press conference right after he filed his nomination papers. Here is what I said about it:
- "Let me give an example of what some politicos might consider “courage” in Windsor. Dr. Wonham dealt with the Windsor Star right upfront in a very fair and quiet manner. Frankly, to me it showed that he was not a man who was afraid of dealing straight on with an issue that has been an undercurrent for months with many people proposing to run for office. I believe it was the second point of his initial remarks. He pointed out what BLOG readers know that Eddie’s Chief of Staff, Norma Coleman, is married to John Coleman, Editorial Page Editor of the Star. He said that he knew John and that John was a man of integrity and that he knew he would get fair coverage in the Star. That was it, no fuss or muss, issue solved."
So why am I again raising this issue now? Imagine how I gagged at breakfast last Saturday morning when the Star ran the story: "Politicians' roles in media decried."
Why would the Star run a story that talked about politicians and the media and continue not to report about about John and Norma. The Star had the chance to talk about its situation as it discussed that of others but it chose not to do so:
Why would the Star run a story that talked about politicians and the media and continue not to report about about John and Norma. The Star had the chance to talk about its situation as it discussed that of others but it chose not to do so:
- "When Nelson Santos became mayor of Kingsville in 2003, his day job as managing editor for the Kingsville Reporter was significantly changed to avoid a conflict of interest between his roles as an elected official and government watchdog.
His editorial column in the weekly community newspaper was cancelled.
He was no longer allowed to edit political articles.
And he no longer assigned stories having to do with municipal government...
In LaSalle, where LaSalle Post publisher Gary Baxter is a councillor running for mayor, eyebrows have been raised over recent editorial content in the weekly newspaper that featured coverage endorsing Baxter for mayor...
Baxter said he has nothing to do with the layout or content of the paper."
Did you see anywhere in that story what actions the Star took respecting John and his role? Did you see anywhere in that story what actions Eddie took respecting Norma and her role? The Star could talk about others but not about itself.
Obviously, the stories the Star reported upon and the John/Norma situation are not the same but I wonder what the Star's quoted expert would say. He talked about, in the Star story, "this attempt to keep the two positions separate is not enough to eliminate what one media ethics professor called "an inherent conflict" of working both in the media and the government." A rival newspaper editor said "[Residents] expect a paper -- even a community paper -- to be fair and balanced and impartial."
In the circumstances, the Star needs to explain why it has kept this information from its readers. There must have been a deliberate thought process involved which Marty Beneteau, the Star's Editor is now obliged to reveal to its customers and to the citizens of Windsor. This is NOT the first time that Beneteau has been in a situation such as this as I shall post another time. He revealed all before. He must this time again.
There is nothing directly on point since clearly this is a unique situation. Here though is information from the Ontario Press Council site that deals with matters such as this:
The Ontario Press Council has never adopted a formal code of practice, preferring to rely on the precedents of past adjudication decisions, although it has published policy statements on such matters as letters to the editor and opinion….Following is the ethics code of the U.S.-based National Conference of Editorial Writers, reprinted from the Minnesota News Council publication, Newsworthy.
Editorial writers owe it to their integrity and that of their profession to observe the following injunctions:
3) The editorial writer should be constantly alert to conflicts of interest, real or apparent, including those that may arise from financial holdings, secondary employment, holding public office or involvement in political, civic or other organizations… The writer, further to enhance editorial page credibility, also should encourage the institution he or she represents to avoid conflicts of interest, real or apparent.
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST'S ETHICS CODE
Journalists should:
Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
AP GUIDELINES
RESPONSIBILITY: The good newspaper is fair, accurate, honest, responsible, independent and decent. Truth is its guiding principle. It avoids practices that would conflict with the ability to report and present news in a fair, accurate and unbiased manner.
INTEGRITY: The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects. It should provide a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism, especially when such comment is opposed to its editorial positions..
The newspaper should report the news without regard for its own interests, mindful of the need to disclose potential conflicts. It should not give favored news treatment to advertisers or special-interest groups. It should report matters regarding itself or its personnel with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals.
Concern for community, business or personal interests should not cause the newspaper to distort or misrepresent the facts.
INDEPENDENCE: The newspaper and its staff should be free of obligations to news sources and newsmakers. Even the appearance of obligation or conflict of interest should be avoided.
CANADIAN NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION
Statement of Principles
INDEPENDENCE
The newspaper's primary obligation is fidelity to the public good… Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, should be declares. The newspaper should guard its independence from government, commercial and other interests seeking to subvert content for their own purposes.
Obviously, the stories the Star reported upon and the John/Norma situation are not the same but I wonder what the Star's quoted expert would say. He talked about, in the Star story, "this attempt to keep the two positions separate is not enough to eliminate what one media ethics professor called "an inherent conflict" of working both in the media and the government." A rival newspaper editor said "[Residents] expect a paper -- even a community paper -- to be fair and balanced and impartial."
In the circumstances, the Star needs to explain why it has kept this information from its readers. There must have been a deliberate thought process involved which Marty Beneteau, the Star's Editor is now obliged to reveal to its customers and to the citizens of Windsor. This is NOT the first time that Beneteau has been in a situation such as this as I shall post another time. He revealed all before. He must this time again.
There is nothing directly on point since clearly this is a unique situation. Here though is information from the Ontario Press Council site that deals with matters such as this:
The Ontario Press Council has never adopted a formal code of practice, preferring to rely on the precedents of past adjudication decisions, although it has published policy statements on such matters as letters to the editor and opinion….Following is the ethics code of the U.S.-based National Conference of Editorial Writers, reprinted from the Minnesota News Council publication, Newsworthy.
Editorial writers owe it to their integrity and that of their profession to observe the following injunctions:
3) The editorial writer should be constantly alert to conflicts of interest, real or apparent, including those that may arise from financial holdings, secondary employment, holding public office or involvement in political, civic or other organizations… The writer, further to enhance editorial page credibility, also should encourage the institution he or she represents to avoid conflicts of interest, real or apparent.
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST'S ETHICS CODE
Journalists should:
Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
AP GUIDELINES
RESPONSIBILITY: The good newspaper is fair, accurate, honest, responsible, independent and decent. Truth is its guiding principle. It avoids practices that would conflict with the ability to report and present news in a fair, accurate and unbiased manner.
INTEGRITY: The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects. It should provide a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism, especially when such comment is opposed to its editorial positions..
The newspaper should report the news without regard for its own interests, mindful of the need to disclose potential conflicts. It should not give favored news treatment to advertisers or special-interest groups. It should report matters regarding itself or its personnel with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals.
Concern for community, business or personal interests should not cause the newspaper to distort or misrepresent the facts.
INDEPENDENCE: The newspaper and its staff should be free of obligations to news sources and newsmakers. Even the appearance of obligation or conflict of interest should be avoided.
CANADIAN NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION
Statement of Principles
INDEPENDENCE
The newspaper's primary obligation is fidelity to the public good… Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, should be declares. The newspaper should guard its independence from government, commercial and other interests seeking to subvert content for their own purposes.
posted by JoeBlog at 6:57 a.m.
<< Home