STAY AWAY! · 2016. 12. 29. · THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS SPRING 2006 • VOLUME 12,...

THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS SPRING 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 • $3.95 L’ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES JOURNALISTES–

Inside: Censorship is still taking hold at the Canadian Medical Association Journal

STAY AWAY!STAY AWAY!That's Prime Minister Stephen Harper's

message for the journalists who cover him every day

That's Prime Minister Stephen Harper's message for the journalists who cover him

every day

DEPARTMENTS4 First Word A word on censorship. The problems at the Canadian Medical Association Journal

smack of the kind of information control that journalists abhor.By David McKie

5 JournalismNet Try other search engines. Google may be the most popular tool around, but that doesn't mean its competitors aren't worth checking out.By Julian Sher

6 Politics Stephen Harper versus the Parliamentary press gallery. Round one goes to the primeminister, but will he win the prizefight? Chris Dornan doesn't like Harper's odds.

8 Health Medical journals and the journalists who use them. Some editorial writers andcolumnists use information in these journals to twist the truth to fit their own political agendas.By Catherine Ford

10 Access to Information Impeded access. The federal law can be frustrating, but David Pugliese spells out steps you can take to experience success.

12 Access to Information The trouble with Transport. Former journalism student Darcy Wintonykrecounts the nightmare she endured getting information from Transport Canada.

13 Profile The journalist who helped bring down a government. The Globe and Mail's DanielLeBlanc would never characterize himself that way. He's too modest for that.By Isabelle Laporte

FEATURE15 Censorship and the Canadian A responsible story about Stephen Harper's cabinet appointments fell into an Orwellian

"memory hole."By Amir Attaran

DEPARTMENTS17 Fine Print The right to publish. We should debate where to draw the line.

By Dean Jobb

18 Writer’s Toolbax The art of the telephone interview. It's not as good as a face-to-face encounter, but Don Gibb explains how eliciting information over the phone can be turned into an art form.

20 Tipsheet Fighting for attention. There are concrete steps journalism students must take in order to be taken seriously when doing their assignments.By Ellin Bessner

22 Computer-assisted reporting Breaking a promise. Why is Prime Minister Stephen Harper merely studying reforms to the federal Access-to-Information Act when he had vowed to take immediate action?By Fred Vallance-Jones

23 Books Briefly Lesson plans. Two new books teach us about women journalists and the nuts and bolts of doing investigative stories.By Gillian Steward

24 Ethics To publish or not to publish? The cartoon of Muhammad set off a fierce debate between those on both sides of the free-speech divide. Stephen Ward argues that publishing the image was not a bad idea — that is, if the editors in question had met certain conditions.

25 Blogging I love to blog, but… So far, it's not having the effect on mainstream journalism that people have predicted.By David Akin

26 The Last Word I'm alive! Imagine his surprise when Julian Sher learned of his own demise.

Spring 2006 Volume 12, Number 1

PublisherNick Russell

EditorDavid McKie

Books EditorGillian Steward

Legal AdvisorPeter Jacobsen(Bersenas Jacobsen ChouestThomson Blackburn LLP)

DesignerBonanza Printing & Copying Centre Inc.

PrinterBonanza Printing & Copying Centre Inc.

Editorial BoardChris Cobb,Wendy McLellan,Sean Moore,Catherine Ford,Michelle MacAfee,Lindsay Crysler,John Gushue,Rob Cribb,Rob Washburn

Advertising SalesJohn Dickins

Administrative DirectorJohn Dickins(613)526-8061 Fax: (613)521-3904E-mail: [email protected]

MEDIA is published three timesa year by:Canadian Association ofJournalists,1385 Woodroffe Avenue., B-224Algonquin College Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2G 1V8

Reproduction without the writtenpermission of the publisher isstrictly forbidden

Media is a publication of theCanadian Association of Journalists.It is managed and editedindependently from the CAJ and itscontents do not necessarily reflectthe views of the Association.

Subscriptions: $14.98 (GST incl.) per year,payable in advance

Indexed in the CanadianPeriodical Index.Canada Post Publications CanadianMail Sales Product Agreement No. 182796 ISSN 1198-2209

Cover PhotoCP/Tom Hanson

I N S I D E

Medical Association Journal

MEDIA, SPRING 2006 PAGE 4

FIRST WORDBY DAVID MCKIE

CensorshipIt’s a subject that should make us think

There are many reasons why certain topicsnever make it to print or broadcast, andcensorship is usually part of the equation. It

could be self-censorship that we exercise when itcomes down to a matter of ethics or simple goodtaste. It could be the censorship imposed upon usby outside forces such as governments, or in thecase of the editors of the Canadian MedicalAssociation Journal, their bosses.

The CMAJ should provide a jumping-off pointfor an interesting discussion about censorship,which is why we have asked Amir Attaran to writea piece about an issue bedeviling one of the mostimportant medical publications, not only in NorthAmerica, but the world.

For those who have not followed the issue,Amir's piece provides a nice, neat chronologywith lots of disturbing bits, especially the partsthat deal with the censorship that took hold whenthe Canadian Medical Association decided tospike an article that suggested the Harpergovernment should have appointed a ministerresponsible for public health, just like the Liberalshad done under Paul Martin. That offendingarticle was replaced with an offering, which wasmore favourable to the new government. In aninstructive piece of writing, Amir juxtaposes theoriginal article with the one that ended up incirculation. That subsequent article contains anitalicized reference to the CMA president thatappears to support the new political reality.

He writes:"The italicized quote from CMA President Ruth

Collins-Nakai, calling the abolition of theMinister of State for Public Health more‘workable,’ appears only in the rewritten article;nothing like it exists in the original article. Thuswhat formerly was a neutral report on the Harpergovernment's controversial decision to terminatethe cabinet position responsible for protectingCanadians from such epidemics as avianinfluenza — an epidemic which could killmillions globally — was put down the Orwellian‘memory hole’ and rewritten to invest that actionwith the endorsement of the CMA's top official."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's name alsoarises in another context that has everything to dowith censorship — this time, limiting access tojournalists of the Parliamentary press gallery.Gone is the warm-and-fuzzy politician on thecampaign hustings who surprised journalistswith his open-door policy. For the time beinganyway, Harper has decided to essentially limit

the circumstances under which his ministers willbe available to the national media, basicallymuzzling those ministers. While not totallyunusual, this type of censorship is seen by manyas going beyond the pale. So what happened to thenew and open Stephen Harper who emergedduring the election and benefited from all thatfavourable coverage? Good question, respondsChris Dornan in his piece about the battlebetween the Prime Minister's Office and the pressgallery.

"In hindsight," writes Dornan, "I imaginemany journalists are kicking themselves over howthey covered the election. At the time, theythought they were being fair and even-handed.

Now they have a sneaking suspicion they wereplayed for suckers."

And when it isn't the government of the dayattempting to control the message throughvarious forms of censorship, the federalbureaucracy seems only too happy the fill thevoid. That's what former journalism studentDarcy Wintonyk discovered when she attemptedto extract information from Transport Canadaabout the exemptions that it was applying torequests from journalists in the wake of theterrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11,2001.

"I was also subjected to bullying andintimidation," she recalls. "When repeated phonecalls to my case worker went unanswered for 10days, I received a call from the deputy minister,Robert Dupuis, who warned "if he wanted to, hecould wait up to 90 days to process my request."

And then there is the censorship that is borneout of concerns over constitutional rights andethics. Nowhere was this more apparent than in

the controversy over the caricature of the ProphetMuhammad and the decision by some mediaoutlets to publicize it. Two of Media's columnistsend up coming down on opposite sides of thedebate. In his media law column, Dean Jobbargues that running the picture was not theresponsible thing to do because there are limits tothe notion of freedom of the press.

"The law deals with abuses of the right tofreedom of expression. But common sense andrestraint also come into play. The Canadianmedia, with few exceptions, showed restraint anddid not re-publish the Muhammad cartoonimages."

In his ethics column, Stephen Ward takes aslightly different view, arguing that "a liberalsociety needs a large domain of free speech likethe body needs a large supply of oxygen."

He then continues: "Furthermore, notpublishing the cartoons creates the danger of aslippery slope that leads from the cartoon case tothe next story that offends deeply held beliefs. I donot see how the middle-way editors can publishother culturally controversial images or stories inthe future, if the only test is whether the story isoffensive to devout persons."

And finally, we have an update on a story thatwe published in the last edition of Media. It, too,had to do with censorship, involving the formereditor of the The Record in Springhill, Nova Scotia.Sue Belliveau is suing Advocate Printing andPublishing Co. Ltd., the paper's publisher, forunspecified damages for what she considers to bea constructive dismissal. In the last edition welearned that Belliveau resigned after her paperprinted an apology for her decision to run aphotograph of a dead body. The front coverpicture offended some people, but also conveyedimportant information about a horrific story.Initially, Belliveau's publisher agreed with herdecision to give the photograph prominent play.But then the paper printed an apology for thatdecision — without her permission.

She objected and eventually quit. There wasalso a suggestion that, had she stayed, she wouldbeen placed on a leash, meaning many of herdecisions would be questioned by management.In the end it was a kind of censorship she refusedto live with.

So censorship is the theme that runs throughmany of the stories in this edition of Media. It's atopic that should give us all pause for thoughtfulreflection.

CONTROLLING THE MESSAGE: Securitypersonnel who used to be friendly with

journalists are now forced to exercise the will of a Prime Minister who's determined to restrict

access to his cabinet ministers.

PHOTO CREDIT: CP/Tom Hanson


JOURNALISMNETBY JULIAN SHER

Try searching for other search engines...

...you might be surprised at their effectiveness

Sure, Google is the most powerful andprecise search engine around. It is now sovital to most journalists it has become a

verb in most newsrooms, as in: "Google it to findout."

But there are other search tools around that,while not as comprehensive as the Googlemonolith, offer tweaks and tricks that makethem worth checking out from time to time.

A9.COM OFFERS VARIETY

A9.COM is a multi-tasking search engine runby the same people who bring you Amazon. Thestandard search gives you pretty much the sameresults as Google.

But below its search bar, A9 also has variousboxes you can check for additional searches:

Instead of just searching the web, you can clickfor a search of "Images," "Books" and"Reference" for example. So a search for"Winston Churchill" will get you the usual webpages — but also a list of books by and about thehistorical figure; pictures of him; andencyclopedia entries.

The advantage of this system is thatsometimes you don't need the thousands ofresults Google will throw at you. You might justneed the year Winston Churchill was firstelected; or highlights of some of his famousquotes. Instead of drilling through pages andpages of Google results, A9 gives you all thoseresults — from the web, books and referencesources — all on the same page.

CLUSTY GROUPS YOUR RESULTS

Many people confuse Google's speed withintelligence. Google is fast and precise, but it is notyet a thinking robot. Put in a search for "poverty"and "Canada" and Google will not return any pagesabout the poor in Newfoundland, unless the wordCanada is mentioned in that story. Because Googledoes not know Newfoundland is in Canada.

We are still a far way from the Star Trek computerthat can collate and connect various seeminglyunrelated topics.

But a company called Vivisimo is pioneeringwhat is called "clustering" — grouping searchresults into folders of various sub-topics "based ontextual and linguistic similarity." Their searchengine at Clusty.com suffers from an ugly name andan even uglier logo, but it is a delight for certainkinds of searches. As they correctly boast on theirweb site, the clustering engine lets you see deeperand farther — with less effort — into a largenumber of search results to get a quick overview ofthe main themes that relate to the query.

Similar results are grouped together for fasteraccess and you can find results that are buried inthe ranked list that would otherwise be missed.

Let's say you do a Google search on Ritalin andchildren. Google will give you thousands of results,ranked by relevance. But put in the same two wordsin Clusty and you get a similar long list — plus aregrouping of the results on the left-hand side.Clusty has thoughtfully assembled for you pagesabout parents of children using Ritalin; andschools and Ritalin; and about attention deficitdisorder.

Clusty also has a "News" search function, whichperforms the same kind of grouping. For instance,a simple search for "nuclear weapons" gets you notjust the latest news, but also a list of sub-categories,such as China, North Korea and Iraq.

The clustering results can be uneven. They workespecially well for a topic about which you knowvery little and want to explore possible connectionsor trails of a story. And sooner or later, Google andthe other search engines are going to have to offer asimilar kind of intelligence to help surfers wadethrough the mountains of results.

One decent search engine that also clusters itsresults is called Gigablast.com.

SPECIALIZED SEARCH TOOLS

There are also various specialized searchengines that do not group or display results indifferent ways but look for information indifferent corners of the web.

Infomine.com looks for scholarly resourcesfrom journals and web pages, generally giving youa higher calibre result than general searches will.

HighWire Press at http://highwire.stanford.edu/from Stanford University Libraries boasts that it isthe largest repository of free, full-text, peer-reviewed content, with 926 journals and 1,323,421free, full-text articles online.

Scirus.com targets only web sites with scientificcontent, drawing on resources from thousands ofjournals and books.

These tools also help peel away what is called"the invisible web" — the many web pages notusually found by traditional search engines. Butthat is topic for a future column.

You will find a list of other, cutting-edge searchengines at JNet's Best Search Engines Page atwww.journalismnet.com/search/best.htm.

Julian Sher is the creator and webmaster ofJournalism Net www.journalismnet.com, andprovides Internet training in newsrooms aroundthe world. He can be reached by email [email protected]. This article and manyother columns from Media magazine are availableonline with hot links on the JournalismNet Tipspage at www.journalismnet.com/tips.


So, the new Conservative government hasdecided to slap around the Parliamentarypress corps. Whatever the press gallery

wants, the press gallery doesn't get. Photo-ops?Ministerial access? Ambush opportunities? Notso fast.

This is an excellent idea on the part of theHarper brain trust, and here's why: It won't work.Sooner or later, it will have the opposite effect ofwhat was intended.

Frustration with the national press corps is tobe expected. All political parties are entitled tothat, whether in government or not. Outrightcontempt for the fourth estate is another thingentirely, especially if you're in government.

For the moment, the Harper nerve centre hasthe right idea. As a minority government, theyhave an electorate to win over. The wheels ontheir bandwagon could get wobbly overnight ifsome of the party's loose lips start mouthing off.So the tight message discipline they maintainedduring the election is still maintained. If thatmeans controlling who talks to the media andunder what conditions, so be it.

(Thought experiment: If you were StephenHarper, a control-freak, ultra-cool rationalist,would you want Stockwell Day blabbing to themedia about security issues, or anything else?)

The Conservatives want more than anything toget a focused message out to the country. Theywould prefer to do so without what sounds totheir partisan eardrums like a runningcommentary of ignorant nay-saying from thenational press corps. They have a job to do andthey don't want to be pestered while they do it.Who can fault them?

The national press corps, that's who. Like it ornot, the job of the Parliamentary press gallery is tohold the actions of government up to nationalscrutiny. It doesn't matter who's in power, thegovernment invariably sees the unhelpfulattentions of the media as undermining theaffairs of the nation. It makes them mental.

Well, too bad. Democracy ain't perfect, but agovernment that is publicly pestered is clearlysuperior to one that isn't.

If a government signals its intention not to bepestered — if it does all it can to shut downunscripted encounters with the press — it can

only backfire. Denied easy hand-outs of dailynews-burgers, the national press corps will have nochoice but to get off their duffs and start foragingfor stories. They will cultivate sources inside thenew regime. Tough to do when the new regime hasa no-talking policy, but who doesn't like achallenge? Journalists are paid to ferret things outfrom people who don't want to talk to them.

It's what the Parliamentary press corps wantsto do anyway. They're as sick of the staged photo-op, the news-burger and the ambush mentality asthe politicians they cover. It would be much more

interesting for them, and much more useful forus, if they had the time and the resources to trulypoke around the corridors of power — if for noother reason than to fill us in on what's reallygoing on there.

Case in point: The contours of Canadianpolitics today are in no small measure the resultof a Globe and Mail Access-to-Informationrequest about sponsorship contracts that set inmotion the Auditor General's findings, theGomery inquiry, and the fall of the Liberalgovernment. Photo-ops had very little to do with

POLITICS

Harper versus the Parliamentary press galleryRound one goes to the prime minister, but will he win the fight to control his message? Chris Dornan weighs inwith his prediction


TALK TO THE HAND: A House of Commons security guard blocks a news photographer from takingpictures as Prime Minister Stephen Harper convenes a secret meeting with his cabinet on ParliamentHill. The Harper government has shut down all access to media outlets from covering regular cabinet

meetings, arguing that their existence should remain a secret.

it, nor was the scandal born of a "gotcha"encounter in a Parliamentary scrum.

Prime Minister Harper may have done us all afavour by denying the media cold turkey theircraving for press conferences.

Still, in hindsight I imagine many journalistsare kicking themselves over how they covered theelection. At the time, they thought they werebeing fair and even-handed. Now they have asneaking suspicion they were played for suckers.

The duty of journalism during an election is tolet the politicians speak to the electorate. Themedia provide a public platform. It is not theirplace to hijack the contest, but they are withintheir rights to pose questions to the candidates onour behalf. At their best, they drum up interestand they moderate the discussion.

The Conservative strategy of announcing apolicy position a day served up a steady diet ofphoto-ops and news-burgers, and the media hadno choice but to dutifully report each policy as itwas released. With muzzles on all but a few keyplayers, the Conservatives presented fewopportunities for ambush. No damaging talkduring this election about immigration, abortion,same-sex marriage, privatizing the CBC, and so on.

The ambush question — or, at least, thequestion so inane it can blow up in one's face —came early in the campaign when a reporter


asked Mr. Harper whether he truly loved Canada.It was an awkward way of asking what version ofCanada Mr. Harper loved, but there really was noexcuse for it. Even people who would never dreamof voting for Mr. Harper rolled their eyes inexasperation. That put an end to any furtherimpertinence on the part of the press.

The end result was that the media never gotaround to raising a single issue the Conservativesdid not want to talk about. The Conservativesliked that just fine, and they would prefer to keepit that way.

As I say, it won't work in the long run. Politicsis a turbulent business and managing the media isa mug's game. Sooner or later, someone in thegovernment will screw up badly and the presscorps is going to find out about it. Mr. Harper isgoing to have to let one of his Ministers take theheat. Otherwise, he wears every error hisgovernment makes, and that in itself is an error.Hell, it's an uber-error. It's the type of error thatinvites people to question the judgment of theman at the top.

Try as one might to keep them penned in, theferrets will have their day.

Christopher Dornan teaches in the School ofJournalism and Communications at CarletonUniversity.

I imagine manyjournalists are

kicking themselves over how they covered

the election. At the time, they thought

they were being fair and even-handed.Now they have a

sneaking suspicion they were played

for suckers.

OPSEU Ad repeated

The public focus on the contretemps at theCanadian Medical Association Journalbrings into the light questions of editorial

independence, but also highlights problemsfacing all reporters who depend on accurateinformation from such publications.

In February, the editor and deputy editor of theJournal were fired, allegedly for questioning theCMA's censoring of an article about pharmacistsasking women inappropriate questions abouttheir sex lives before filling prescriptions for theso-called morning-after pill. (Please see AmirAttaran's story on page 15).

That is the story the public sees. The mediasees beyond that to a reputable source becomingless reliable, should the censorship allegation beproven.

Ideally, we do business on a first-hand basis:Eyewitnesses, victims, and business executives,for example. When it comes to science ormedicine, indeed any field where only theprofessionals know all the facts, we depend onprofessional journals to distribute accurate andtimely information. We could probably interviewthe doctors or scientists involved, but let's face thefacts of our own business: we may not always bethe most precise of researchers when deadlinesand demands eat into the day.

We get a lot of our information from sources webelieve to be informed and rarely double-checkthe facts. Obviously, in interviews, we don't takeeverything a person says as gospel; most of us willget a second opinion. Yet when it comes tomedical stories, our single sources are frequentlythe various journals published for the profession.They are peer-reviewed, we argue, therefore theinformation must be correct. And the regularpublication of such journals ensures thatinformation is kept up to date

This is why editorial independence is crucial inthe leading professional journals; the accuracy ofour stories, which we filter to the public, is atstake.

But there is a bigger question to be asked: howtrustworthy are the very publications we quote forfacts? If the leading medical journal in Canada is

controlled by an unknown political agenda, whatabout all the others?

The sad story is that both reporters and copyeditors are far too lax in their scrutiny of suchsources. We need to look beneath the surface and

realize that what we read is not necessarily thewhole truth at the time.

I know both sides intimately: 40 years ofjournalism and marriage to a doctor who readsthe medical journals we quote in the mass media.

To put the situation in simple words: Thepublic gets lied to and we either don't care or aretoo lazy to concern ourselves about it.

My story involves only one aspect of medicalcare and the publicity around it, not because Icouldn't address other issues, but because myknowledge is intimate. And if I can spot the lies inthe publications and broadcasts, why aren'teditors doing the same?

My husband is an obstetrician/gynecologistwho — until his retirement last year —performed abortions at Calgary's only privateclinic, of which he is also an owner. I am thusmore than aware of the lies perpetrated on thepublic. I have no reason to believe that whathappens when the subject is abortion doesn't alsooccur when journalists write or broadcast storiesabout breast cancer or heart disease. I use theheated debate of abortion because the subject isthe most blatant example of journalists twistingthe truth for their own or their publication'spolitical slant.

I believe such tactics are shameful. Worse,when statistics or opinions gleaned fromprofessional publications are used to bolster theone-sided opinion, the public has little reason tobelieve they are being lied to.

Let me give you some blatant examples. OnFebruary 26, the Calgary Herald published aneditorial focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court'sdecision to review a 2003 ban on late-termterminations, commonly — and emotionally —referred to as "partial-birth" abortions. "It isabsurd," stated the editorial, "that alone among itspeers Canadians cannot create a moderate, well-conceived law regulating when and under whatcircumstances a pregnancy can be terminated."That editorial had been preceded by a 2005editorial headlined "Fetal homicide is also acrime."

The paper called for a debate in Canada on alaw restricting abortions, rather than"unenforceable medical conventions." In fact,were a Canadian doctor to perform a terminationafter 20 weeks or after 22 at the absolute outside,the consequences would not be "unenforceable."The College of Physicians and Surgeons in eachprovince has the power publicly to rebuke, to levycosts of an investigation and worst of all, to revokea doctor's license. No doctor that I know of,including my husband, would or has performed atermination after 20 weeks, four weeks before thegenerally agreed "viability" of a fetus.

In the National Post, columnist Jonathan Kaywas blunter in his anti-choice stance, using South

If the leading

medical journal

in Canada is

controlled by

an unknown

political agenda,

what about

all the others?


HEALTHBY CATHERINE FORD

Medical journals and the journalists who use themThe debate over abortion represents the most blatantexample of some editorial writers and columnists twistingthe truth for their own political slant

Dakota's new blanket law prohibiting abortions.He wrote that because Canada lacks an abortionlaw, "it is equally legal to kill a fetus at 10, 23, 37 or40 weeks." Legal it may be; done it is not. Thereare but two exceptions — terminations becauseof fetal (usually lethal) abnormalities or a directthreat to the mother's life (It is curious, said oneletter to the editor, that the self-same citizens arecontent to allow medical authorities, professionalsand experts to rule on every aspect of health carebut abortion.)

Editorial writers and columnists have a rightto an opinion, regardless of how distasteful it maybe. What they have no right to do is to twist anddistort the facts.

Reporters have a further duty: To back up the"facts" they use, and here is where up-to-datemedical journals are vital and how important asource they are. Competent reporters question.The lazy ones accept whatever is fed them. This ishow such nonsense as abortion leading to anincreased risk of breast cancer promulgates. Forexample, a simple Google search will bring up thefear stories: how there is a "dramaticrelationship" between abortion and risingincidences of breast cancer. This is supported byreferencing a 1993 article published by anobscure company, of which my husband hasnever heard. Other "complications" following anabortion — a decrease in fertility, risks of tubalpregnancy, prolonged bleeding, miscarriages —are supported by equally dubious references. TheAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology isused as the source for many quoted "difficulties,"as is the Canadian Journal of Public Health andthe New England Journal of Medicine — allwithout doubt reputable sources, if one doesn'tpay any attention to when the research was doneand reported. In all three cases, the latest researchquoted from those sources was done prior to1983.

Using just one of the great fears of mostwomen — breast cancer — the debate aboutpossible post-abortion complications was not putto rest until 2003. That year, the U.S. NationalCancer Institute, after gathering 100 scientificexperts in reproductive health to review the data,released a report stating: "Induced abortion isnot associated with an increase in breast cancerrisk."

Unfortunately, anti-choice activists willcontinue to use old and out-of-date opinions tobolster their political agenda.

The only recourse is for the rest of us to use thelatest scientific evidence available, and we canonly do that if we trust that the medical journalsused to report research have not been tamperedwith.

Catherine Ford is a retired newspaper columnistand the author of Against The Grain: AnIrreverent View Of Alberta. Ford is also a memberof Media's editorial board.


We need to look

beneath the surface

and realize that

what we read is

not necessarily

the whole truth

at the time.

SUBCRIBENOW!

For moreinformation

about how tosubscribe to

Media magazine,please call

1-613-526-8061,or email the

CanadianAssociation of

Journalists'office at:

[email protected]

You can probably count on two hands thenumber of journalists in this country whoregularly use the federal government's

Access to Information Act to gather material fortheir articles or broadcasts.

That's unfortunate because if used properly,this tool can play a key role in the information-gathering process.

Perseverance and patience are attributesneeded by reporters who decide to take the leapinto the world of Access to Information, betterknown among those who use it as ATI.

But besides those traits, journalists may need afew tips on how to make the process as smooth aspossible. Here are some examples:

FOCUS YOUR REQUESTS ON ONE OR TWO DEPARTMENTS

There are some excellent Canadian researchers,including Ken Rubin in Ottawa, who use ATI toextricate information from a large number offederal departments and agencies. For Rubin, thisis a full-time job. But for the average journalist,there simply aren't enough hours in the day totake on this type of monumental task. That's whyit makes more sense, at least when you begin touse the ATI process, to concentrate on one or twofederal departments — those you have an interestin or those which are relevant to your beat orstory.

In addition, by focusing on a small number ofdepartments you can learn the terminology andstructure of those organizations. This makes iteasier to direct your requests to specific branchesthat may have the information you seek, while atthe same time gives you the background thathelps you understand the information you mayeventually obtain under ATI.

WORDING YOUR REQUEST

If you already have a pretty good idea of whatsort of information you are looking for and inwhich government office that information mightreside, provide as many details as possible in yourATI request. In addition, try to provide a specificperiod of time for which you wish the departmentto search.


Of course, sometimes such details are notavailable or known. And, in some circumstances,it might make more sense to file a wider-rangingrequest for information. Be warned, however, thatif your request is too broad, a department willrespond with an expensive fee to search for thefiles in question.

If this happens, consider filing multiple ATIrequests on the same subject but with differentdate ranges. For example, I have had a department

try to charge me $500 to search their files on aspecific subject over a one-year period. This feewas based on 50 hours search time at $10 perhour.

Instead of paying the $500, I filed 10 newrequests on the same topic but each with differentdates covering the one-year period. Under the ATIAct, each of my requests, which cost $5, is allowedfive hours of search time. That way, I ended up

paying $50 to search the same period for whichthe department wanted $500.

LEARN THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

It's now trendy for federal bureaucrats to talkabout openness and transparency in government.In reality, most bureaucrats will throw as manyroadblocks as they can in your way to prevent youfrom receiving information. Knowing what youare and are not entitled to under the ATI Act isimportant.

A recent case in which I was involved withPublic Works and Government Services Canadaillustrates this point. I was informed by a PublicWorks ATI analyst that the department haddeemed one of my requests as "abandoned" sinceI did not respond quickly enough to a letter theyhad sent me regarding my ATI.

During our phone conversation, I politely askedthe analyst to cite which specific part of the Actallowed the department to cancel my request(knowing full well there was nothing in the Actthat sanctioned this procedure). I was put on holdfor 10 minutes while she talked to her supervisor.When she returned, the analyst admitted therewasn't anything in the Act that allowed for thisand that my records would be produced asrequested.

Her next tactic was also expected. Although therecords were now available, I was told it wouldcost me $70 in photocopying fees if I wanted toreceive the files. My response: I'll come in to agovernment office and look at them for free (thisis allowed under the Act and most departmentsdo not charge photocopying fees for up to 100pages).

Journalists living outside Ottawa should alsoremember it is their right under the Act to haveATI records shipped to the nearest governmentoffice so they can be reviewed by them in person.Again, this prevents the department from tryingto hit you up for excessive photocopying fees.

Based on conversations with journalists andmembers of the public who use the Act, theresponse I received from the Public Works ATIanalyst is typical of the "customer service" onecan generally expect in this process. The more

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONBY DAVID PUGLIESE

A handy guide to using Canada’s Access to Information lawUsing the act can be frustrating,but there are ways to get what you want

I remember

interviewing a

former ATI analyst

who told me that

at the departments

he had worked in,

the main goal was to

discourage ATI users

to the point where

they didn't file any

more requests.

knowledge you have, the better you can bypasssuch roadblocks.

COMPLAIN

As someone who files an ATI request, you havethe right to complain about how that request ishandled. Among other things, complaints can befiled about excessive search fees, a lengthy delay inproducing the records requested, as well as thetype of information that is censored from thedocuments.

You can file a complaint up to one year afteryour request is received.

Watch this date closely. I have actually had ATIanalysts at departments string me along, claimingthat work is proceeding on my request. Believingthem, I have held off filing a complaint. By the

time I caught on that no work had actually beendone on the file, a year had passed and I was outof luck. I tried filing a complaint to theInformation Commissioner but it was rejectedbecause I had sent it in after the one-year mark. Ifell for this trick a couple of times. Now I closelymonitor the dates on all my requests and file acomplaint almost immediately if a departmenthas missed the deadline for releasing records.

What should you expect after your complaintletter is sent to the Information Commissioner?Not much. The investigation process is severelybacklogged and even the most straightforwardcomplaint seems to take up to a year to resolve.Some investigators also have a tendency to acceptany exemption a department claims in censoring

information, no matter how absurd.So why bother complaining to the Information

Commissioner? First, it's a matter of principle. Iremember interviewing a former ATI analyst whotold me that at the departments he had worked in,the main goal was to discourage ATI users to thepoint where they didn't file any more requests.There are many ways departments can make yourlife difficult; excessive search fees and applying alarge number of exemptions under the ATI Act arejust two of those methods.

Even officials at the InformationCommissioner's office privately acknowledge thatfaced with such hurdles most people don'tcomplain; they simply throw in the towel andabandon their requests.

It takes time to write up a complaint letter butin my view it is worth it. Filing a complaint,particularly if you win, sends a message to thedepartment that you won't be intimidated. Andeach time a complaint is upheld in an applicant'sfavor, the Information Commissioner records itfor the department's performance report card.Some departments actually care if they receiveless than a passing grade.

INCLUDE DETAILS ABOUT THE ATI PROCESS IN YOUR STORIES

Even if the government refuses to release therecords you are requesting, there still may be astory to tell.

Last November, the Ottawa Citizen's JamesGordon wrote an article detailing the response tohis ATI request for documents outlining howmuch the government's "no-fly" list will costtaxpayers. Transport Canada refused to release asingle word of text on the subject. It wouldn't evenspecify how many pages of records existed.

Gordon turned that Transport Canada rejectionletter around and produced an article about theunprecedented secrecy surrounding the no-flylist. (For more on Transport Canada, please seeDarcy Wintonyk's story on page 12).

More recently, the Globe and Mail's Jeff Sallotand Campbell Clark wrote an article on theexcessive censorship of documents in their ATIrequest for records concerning the sudden"resignation" of former Liberal cabinet ministerDavid Dingwall from his post as head of the RoyalCanadian Mint.

The censorship of the records highlighted theapparent about-face of the new Conservativegovernment in dealing with ATIs. While inopposition, Stephen Harper's MPs were furiousabout the secrecy surrounding the Dingwallresignation. Now, in power, the Conservativesenforced the status quo of ATI censorship.

David Pugliese is an award-winning journalistand author who writes about military affairs andthe Armed Forces for The Ottawa Citizen.


Sources_AD

It's now trendy for

federal bureaucrats

to talk about openness

and transparency

in government...

Knowing what you

are and are not

entitled to under

the ATI Act

is important.


ACCESS TO INFORMATIONBY DARCY WINTONYK

The Trouble with TransportThe Harper government wants to reform the Access toInformation Act. Talk of reform came too late for oneformer journalism student who battled misinformationand intimidation at Transport Canada

Iam exhausted, and rightly so. I have just spenta year fighting to obtain records from thefederal government. What was once conceived

as a simple audit for my masters thesis at theUniversity of British Columbia's School ofJournalism ballooned into eight months of hand-wringing and frustration in the upper echelons ofthe access-to-information department ofTransport Canada.

My initial curiosity was to analyze how theterrorists' attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 had affectedjournalists using the Access to Information Act toobtain records from Transport Canada. I wantedaccess to media requests to which officials hadapplied security-related exemptions.

I suspected from the beginning that I wouldhave problems with Transport Canada. After all,this was the department the federal InformationCommissioner found "experiences problems inattaining even a level of substantial compliance."For more than five consecutive years, thedepartment's average grade was a 'D' under thefederal report card system.

My suspicions were confirmed.I initially asked for over 1,000 media requests

from 1997-2005. Citing "time restraints,"Transport Canada, was unable to comply. Theclock was ticking towards the time when I had tocomplete my paper. At this point, 31 days hadpassed.

Transport claimed that it did not have thisinformation at its disposal. But this simply wasn'ttrue, at least as far as access expert MichelDrapeau was concerned. "Transport has ATIPSuite, software that can do everything on the Net,including looking at extensions, exemptions andfees," he explains. "By doing so, they can generatea report, but they don't advertise that."

Not surprisingly, when I brought this to theattention of Transport Canada's accesscoordinator, Ginette Pilon, she was happy tocomply. Unfortunately, I was forced to file asecond request. The clock continued to tick. It hadnow been 35 days, and my request hadn't evenentered the queue. This is when the real troublebegan.

My second request was subjected to hand-wringing and a top-heavy approval process onceofficials began responding to it. I already knew

that media requests were flagged for specialtreatment once they entered the department.Mine was no exception. My request was held inthe upper echelons of Transport Canada —another victim of the notorious "amber-lighting"process.

My case worker, Brooke Nezralla explained:"Once (media) requests are completed, it can takedays for them to be processed. It will take at leastanother three days for it to be signed off by asuperior." Indeed. My own request was completedon Feb. 17, but was not signed until the 24th —sixworking days later.

Why would it take so long to get a signature?Nezralla says it might have something to do withhis junior status in the department. "If a file isassigned to a junior person, it's going to take a lot

longer because it's going to have to be seen bysomeone who is higher-ranking," he continues."A lot of time this is why the system is so slow."

I discovered that time delays are a part of life atTransport, and with access-to-informationdepartments in general. While an independentstudy recommended a staff of 16 in the Transportdepartment, the actual staffing currently is at1999-2000 levels, during which time the unit alsoreceived an "F" rating on its report card. "Acrossthe board, there is a lack of actually trained peoplebecause the departments are short-staffed,"access coordinator, Ginette Pilon, explains. InFebruary 2006, there were only 10 people workingfull-time in the department — six employeesshort of the recommended manpower needed toadequately fulfill request obligations. At thattime, the department was handling 120 requests,and when I finally completed my paper in April2006, there were no plans to hire more people.

I was also subjected to bullying andintimidation. When repeated phone calls to my

case worker went unanswered for 10 days, Ireceived a call from the deputy minister, RobertDupuis, who warned "if he wanted to, he couldwait up to 90 days to process my request."

The records arrived on March 24. Finally, theclock stopped ticking. It was now 75 days since myinitial request arrived at the doors of TransportCanada.

In the end, it was worth it. I found that in 2002,Transport Canada invoked security exemptions inalmost one-third of its total media requests. Thistranslated to more than 30 per cent of allinformation requested by media outletssuppressed on the basis of national security.Transport Canada invoked exemptions excessivelypost 9-11, resulting in the censorship of Canadianmedia at a time when constructive journalismwas needed the most.

Looking back, I can see the information-gathering process was just as important as theresults. It's obvious to see how problems crippleaccess departments such as Transport Canadaand, as a result, the journalists who use them.There is a shortage of staff, many of whom seemto be unfamiliar with how to use their owndatabases. Transport Canada is plagued by poorcommunication, both internal and external.

My own request took four days before it wasgiven authorization. I also faced intimidation andbullying by the department working on myrequests. This, coupled with chronic tardiness inthe retrieval of records, turned my dream projectinto a nightmare.

On my journey, I discovered that journalistscan not unequivocally rely on the government torelease information to which they have the legalright. Getting information in a timely manner isvital to the success of a story and many accessdepartments are failing miserably. Access delayedis, after all, access denied.

Editor's note: Darcy's thesis will be posted onMedia magazine's web site.

Darcy Wintonyk is a freelance journalist livingin Vancouver, and a recent graduate of the UBCMasters of Journalism program. She can becontacted at [email protected]

After all, this was thedepartment the federal

Information Commissionerfound "experiences problems

in attaining even a level ofsubstantial compliance."

AGlobe and Mail reporter since 1998, DanielLeblanc could have become a federal civilservant like his father. But when he

finished his masters degree in political science, heconsulted a guidance counselor, who suggestedjournalism. So he enrolled at Carleton University,where he met The Globe's Edward Greenspon — aturning point. Almost 10 years later, Leblanc andhis colleague, Campbell Clark, won the 2004Michener Award for meritorious public service injournalism for their relentless investigation of thefederal sponsorship scandal. Nice career path. Butdon't say it too loudly. You'll make him blush.

He won't brag about it, but Leblanc was the firstjournalist to uncover the sponsorship scandal. OnDec. 31, 1999, he published an article revealingthat the federal government, wanting to mark the175th anniversary of the RCMP, had paid$324,000 to rent a Mountie-shaped balloon thatwasn't worth even a third of that.

Now considered one of Canada's best politicalreporters, Leblanc never actually planned onbecoming a journalist. Following his personalinterests, he first got a baccalaureate and amasters degree in political science from theUniversity of Ottawa. In the last year of hismaster's degree, he met with a guidancecounselor. Based on his test results, she suggestedhe became a journalist, or a geographer. Leblancopted for journalism.

But he had actually had his first taste ofjournalism in high school. He even drewcaricatures of his teachers. "Nothing to writehome about," he recalls with a smile.And towardsthe end of his master's degree, a friend haddragged him to La Rotonde, the French-languagenewspaper at the University of Ottawa. The editorat the time was Patrick Lagacé, now a host of Télé-Québec's Les francs-tireurs and a Journal deMontréal columnist. He remembers Leblancexposing a scandal involving a communicationsprofessor: "The kind of scoop a student papernever gets, for lack of experience, of conviction, ofballs. It took Daniel to make it happen."

So in 1995, at the age of 24, Leblanc enrolled ina second master's program, this time injournalism at Carleton University. That's where he

wrote in English for the first time, and withoutany great difficulty. Yet he was raised in Gatineau,Québec, by two French-speaking Manitobanparents. "I learned English through reading,watching television or listening to the radio.Nothing special." Maybe he inherited his ease ofexpression in both languages from his mother,Henriette Levasseur, a writer and a certified

translator in both French and English, a skillthat's rather unusual, explains Leblanc who isalways quick to turn the spotlight onto others.

At Carleton he got a position as an assistantresearcher to then journalist-in-residence andThe Globe's Ottawa bureau chief EdwardGreenspon, who, in collaboration with AnthonyWilson-Smith, was writing a book entitled DoubleVision: The Inside Story of the Liberals in Power.Atlast Leblanc got a practical glimpse of what trueprofessional journalism was really about. "Thatevent was a turning point in my career."

For his part, Greenspon remembers findingLeblanc "intelligent and inquisitive. He waspossessed of a quiet confidence and an impressivebearing for a young man. He wasn't afraid to offerup unsolicited advice or critique the chapters heread. His comments were always insightful, hisapproach methodical."

At Carleton, another experience helpedconvince Leblanc he had made the right choice:Centretown News. "In school we produced a realpaper. Something concrete." There again, heinvestigated and conducted interviews. Butopinion columns? Not his cup of tea. Leblanc,however, didn't finish his masters of journalism.Enough of the ivory tower, he longed for realaction. In 1997, Canadian Geographic magazine inOttawa hired him as a fact-checker, a jobrequiring hours of meticulous and rigorousresearch. He loved it. But at the beginning of 1998he found something even better: An internship atthe Ottawa Citizen. "I had applied to all the Frenchnewspapers, including La Presse, but with nosuccess." After the recession of the early 1990s,English newspapers recovered faster. In 1996,Conrad Black bought the Ottawa Citizen andpumped money into it, some of which wenttowards the establishment of journalisminternships. "In 1998 I got one of theseinternships by the skin of my teeth."

The internship was supposed to last a year, butafter a few months, Leblanc got a phone call fromGreenspon, still the Globe's Ottawa bureau chief.He was looking for a young Parliament Hillreporter. Was Leblanc interested? You bet!Greenspon recalls: "He was still so young, but wasso obviously imbued with the main qualitycommon to all great journalists: An insatiableneed to know."

Leblanc was once again Greenspon's gratefulprotégé. Even today, "at the risk of looking like asuck-up," Leblanc maintains that Greenspon ishis favourite journalist. "When Ed was in Ottawa,he was the preeminent reporter. He hadconnections everywhere. Oftentimes he wouldgive me the stories I would write on. He was anexcellent model."

"From the start, Daniel had to deal with a lot ofpressure," says colleague Tu Thanh Ha. "The Globewas faced with new competition from theNational Post. But unlike many other investigativejournalists, Leblanc has an even temperament,much like La Presse's André Noël. He's very calm,


PROFILE

A journalist who prefers to stay in the shadows

As the reporter credited with lifting the veil off thesponsorship scandal, the Globe and Mail's Daniel Leblanchas a lot to brag about. But as Isabelle Laporte found out,LeBlanc prefers to stay humble — and out of the spotlight

Continued on Page 27

Attention: Newsroom managers and journalists

CAJ-CIDA AFRICA FELLOWSHIP – CALL FOR ENTRIES – August 30, 2006

Announcing the launch of the fifth annual CAJ-CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) Africa Fellowship with a closing date of August 30, 2006.

The fellowship seeks to encourage more in-depth and informed reporting on international development issues. Recipients will be offered a unique "first-person" experience through visits to development projects and interaction with the people of developing countries within Africa.

Recipients will be chosen by a panel of judges selected by the CAJ based on research proposals and their interests. The five journalists will come from each of the following regions: (1) British Columbia and Yukon; (2) Prairies and the North (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the NorthWest Territories and Nunavut); (3) Ontario; (4) Quebec and the National Capital Region and (5) Atlantic.

The period for travel will not exceed 15 days and must be completed by February 1st, 2007.

Fellowship winners will have the following costs covered: Airfares, accommodation, meals/incidentals, local transportation, medical and vaccinations, visas and registration, airfare and hotel for the CAJ’s national conference up to a specified budgeted amount.

Winning proposals are selected based on the strength of the application, which should include an explanation of the applicant's interest in Africa and the professional development opportunities they hope to gain. A letter of intent from an employer is required guaranteeing the publishing/ broadcasting of reportages, or a letter of guarantee or intent from a mainstream broadcaster, newspaper, magazine or news agency to broadcast, publish, or syndicate the resulting articles, features or reportage is provided.

In addition to a letter of intent, applicants must also submit: - a résumé - samples of their recent work (maximum five stories) - a proposal that shows evidence of some preliminary research and clearly outlines what stories applicants hope to do during their time in Africa. Note: Incomplete applications will not be considered.

All fellowship submissions must be received at the CAJ’s national office by August 30, 2006.

Tip sheets to assist applicants put together a proposal are also available on the website.

Please note that neither the CAJ, nor CIDA will have any editorial control over what is published/broadcast.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Dickins: [email protected] or (613) 526-8061

I

On Feb. 20, the Canadian MedicalAssociation, which is the trade associationof doctors in this country, took the abrupt

move of sacking the two senior-most editors ofthe Canadian Medical Association Journal. Noexplanation for the dismissals was given, neitherto the editors, nor to the public. CMA PresidentRuth Collins-Nakai refused to be interviewedabout her reasons.

Everyone now knows the CMA, acting througha wholly-owned publishing business, fired theeditors in hostilities over editorial independence.

According to a forensic investigation publishedin the prestigious New England Journal ofMedicine, it was two articles that did it: one aboutCanadian women's access to the "morning afterpill," and the other about new Health MinisterTony Clement's differences with his Liberalpredecessors. The editors disagreed vehementlywhen the CMA rewrote the articles to impose itspolitical stamp, but in a lapse of judgment, theeditors let the CMA get away with it — a misstep,surely, that emboldened the CMA to dismiss thesquawking and pesky editors.

The senior editors' sackings precipitated theresignation of almost every other editorial assetthe CMAJ possessed. The acting editors lastedabout one week before they quit, infuriated thatthe CMA whittled their 10-point plan for thejournal's future governance down to a 9-pointplan (the tenth point, that "editorialindependence…be absolutely protected andrespected by…management," caused therupture). Then as public attention built, the CMAthreateningly reminded the remaining junioreditors not to speak to journalists, citingconfidentiality agreements in their job contracts— so two-thirds of the junior editors quit. Onlywhen all was lost did 15 of 19 members of theCMAJ editorial board also quit, citing the CMA's"fail[ure] to provide any satisfactory and plausibleexplanation for the firings," and their own "loss oftrust in the CMA leadership," by which was meantCMA President Collins-Nakai and CEO Bill Tholl— the masterminds of the interference.

The CMA's response to this blood-letting? Inresolute Canadian fashion, it established a process

— actually a panel chaired by a retired judge, tostudy the journal's governance.

As I write this, two months later, the panel hasyet to report its findings, not that anyone is inmuch suspense about the results of this face-saving exercise. Absolutely all the world's greathealth journals — the British Medical Journal, theJournal of the American Medical Association, TheLancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, andPLoS Medicine — have either waged their ownbattles to acquire editorial independence, or wereestablished recently enough that anyone wishing

to question their independence would be thoughta flat-earther. The boundaries are such thatrecently, The Lancet's editors printed a broadsideon their own publisher, the Reed Elsevier group,for hosting a lucrative exhibition for internationalarms traders in London. The extent of ReedElsevier's response was to write a letter to theeditors, which they duly printed, defending thecompany's right to sell killing machines whileowning a medical journal.

Seen in this light, it is a foregone conclusionthat if the CMAJ survives its troubles, it shallemerge much more independent, as are its peers.But as I wrote in the Globe and Mail at the story'sheight, if the CMAJ does not survive, because theCMA continues to wrong-foot it while it tries toregain strength, then a national treasure will have

been lost — and the exclusive reason will havebeen the CMA leadership's baffling lack ofsensitivity and pride.

II

Iam definitely not a journalist, though I dabble,publishing an occasional op-ed in the Globeand Mail or New York Times. As a professor, I

have an efficient relationship with theprofessional journalists who cover my interests inlaw, public health, and global development. Thenearest I get to professional journalism is that Iam an unpaid editorial consultant for The Lancet,and as the only Canadian, I pitch their London-based editors leads when interesting thingshappen here.

In that context, naturally I am unhappy aboutthe fate of the CMAJ, but more to the point, I'munhappy that the destruction of its editorialfoundations got so little coverage from Canadianjournalists. Indeed, the only organizationassiduously to follow the story's many turns wasthe Canadian Press, specifically Helen Branswelland Sheryl Ubelacker. (CBC Radio was the first tobreak the story when the editors got fired.) Theirstories were re-published by the Globe and Mail,Macleans, CTV and others. All organizations thathad the wherewithal to do their own reporting,but for whatever reason either did so infrequently,or never.

Sleepers happen. But what does it say about theway that medical publishing is perceived byjournalists, and what dangers does it augur forCanada, that this story was a sleeper?

III

Aclear problem is that journalists nevergrasped the insidiousness of the CMA'sinterference, which extended to rewriting

stories wholesale to stamp them with the CMA'spolitical spin. Succinctly put, the CMAJ's newsceased to serve the public interest, but insteadbecame a vehicle for the CMA's interest.

For example, in the article reporting TonyClement's appointment as Minister of Health, a


FEATUREBY AMIR ATTARAN

Censorship and the Canadian Medical Association Journal

A responsible story about Stephen Harper's cabinetappointments fell into an Orwellian "memory hole"


If the CMAJ does not survive… then a national treasure will have been lost

— and the exclusivereason will have been the CMA leadership's

baffling lack ofsensitivity and pride.


necessary element was that Stephen Harper haddownsized cabinet. Paul Martin's cabinet hadcontained two ministers responsible for health:one in the traditional role, and a new Minister ofState for Public Health, responsible for epidemicssuch as SARS. As the CMAJ first reported thestory (which I excerpt for length):

…In abolishing the Ministry of State(Public Health), established in December2003 to oversee the creation of a PublicHealth Agency of Canada and other publichealth programming, Harper sought asmaller, "more focused and effective"cabinet. Harper's decision to axe the position"goes against what I think a lot of theprovinces have learned," says Dr. CarolynBennett, the out-going [public health]minister.

The New England Journal of Medicine reportsthat CMA executive Bill Tholl objected to thisarticle — and according to witnesses, "loudly."Following his intervention, it was silently deletedfrom the CMAJ website, and replaced with ashorter article, rewritten like so:

"Harper's decision to abolish the Ministryof State (Public Health) position, establishedin December 2003 to oversee the creation of aPublic Health Agency of Canada and otherpublic health programming, "goes againstwhat I think a lot of the provinces havelearned," says Dr. Carolyn Bennett, the out-going minister… But Collins-Nakai says"thefact that the Public Health Agency remains inplace gives us comfort in Canada's ability tohave a strong public health system." Havingthe agency reporting directly to the minister ofhealth is also more "workable ... at least inraising issues," she added.

The italicized quote from CMA President RuthCollins-Nakai, calling the abolition of theMinister of State for Public Health more"workable" appears only in the rewritten article;nothing like it exists in the original article. Thuswhat formerly was a neutral report on the Harpergovernment's controversial decision to terminatethe cabinet position responsible for protectingCanadians from such epidemics as avianinfluenza — an epidemic which could killmillions globally — was put down the Orwellian"memory hole" and rewritten to invest that actionwith the endorsement of the CMA's top official.

This is not an isolated incident. As statedearlier, the CMA engaged in another politicizedrewriting as regards women's right to "morningafter" contraception. Looking ahead, formermembers of the CMAJ's editorial board fear the

journal’s independence will be endangered in thenecessary national debate on private health care.It may be germane that the president-elect of theCMA, Brian Day, is an ardent supporter ofprivatization (see www.brianday.ca).

An angle that sadly no journalist picked up isthat in treating the CMAJ roughly, the CMAendangered a national jewel. Canada is fortunateto have a world-famous national health journal,and until the troubles, the CMAJ had the fifthhighest "impact factor" for such journals in theworld. No Australian, Chinese, French, German,Italian, or Japanese journal touches that ranking.The accomplishment matters, particularlybecause in almost every other respect, Canadaseriously undervalues research.

According to the OECD, after adjusting for thesize of economies, Canada spends only 55 per centof what Finland does on R&D. It is a sign ofmisplaced priorities, not to say nationalbackwardness, that a story about researchinvestments in the oil patch is assured newscoverage, but the undermining of Canada's world-class journal for scientific and medical research isnot. For journalism to lead, it has to take the longview, for example, that Canada's economic interestsare better assured in future generations by researchand applications of technology, rather thanextracting limited petroleum out of the ground.

Canada needs at least the CMAJ, and probablya new top-drawer health journal, too. Competitionbreeds honesty. I find it unimaginable thatCanadians can have an informed national debateon something as important as health careprivatization, if there is only one top-tier nationalhealth publication of questionable independencebecause journalists are slow to expose meddlingby the CMA. Society lives or dies by the hardtruths that it tells, which is why I admirejournalists. A more proactive defence for thescience and medical publishing establishment inthis country befits that role.

Editor's note: The following links arereferenced in the article.

• NEJM Kassirer

• www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060307/cmaj_journal_060307/20060307?hub=Health

• www.cmaj.ca/pdfs/governance.pdf

• www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/8/1063-a

• www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060315/cmaj_editor_060316?s_name=&no_ads=OECD in figures 2005

Amir Attaran is Canada Research Chair andassociate professor of law, population health andglobal development at the University of Ottawa,and an editorial consultant of The Lancet.

PHOTO CREDIT: Alysouk Lynhiavu

CENSORSHIP'S COLLATERAL DAMAGE:John Hoey and Marie Todkill stood up for

editorial independence. Their bosses respondedby firing them. The two former CMAJ editors are

pictured above receiving the NPC World PressFreedom Award from the Secretary-General of

the Canadian Commission for UNESCO.

Continued from Pg. 15Censorship and the CMAJ...

Absolutely all the world's great health

journals — the BritishMedical Journal, the

Journal of the AmericanMedical Association,The Lancet, The NewEngland Journal ofMedicine, and PLoS

Medicine — have eitherwaged their own battles

to acquire editorialindependence, or were

established recentlyenough that anyonewishing to question their independence would be thought

a flat-earther.

As the debate raged over publication of theProphet Muhammad cartoons, about 100students gathered at the fortress-like

administration building at Saint Mary'sUniversity in Halifax on a mild Februaryafternoon to denounce one of their professors.

"Peter March is a fool," they chanted, "we don'twant you in our school." March, who teachesphilosophy, posted the cartoons on his office doornot long after their re-publication in Europeannewspapers sparked outrage and violence in theMuslim world.

When university officials ordered March toremove the images, he went public and casthimself as a defender of academic freedom andfreedom of expression. March describes himselfas a "public philosopher" and does not shy awayfrom publicity or controversy. He even caused astir by boldly wading into the crowd protestinghis actions.

As the protest's leader used a megaphone tofreely denounce March, academic freedom andfree speech were being exercised in the seminarroom of an adjacent building.

A consultant on cultural policy noted howtough it is for Canadian filmmakers to get theirmovies into commercial theatres. EmpireTheatres has a lock on cinemas in AtlanticCanada, he noted, and prefers to screen lucrativeHollywood blockbusters.

The powerful Sobey's supermarket familyowns Empire Theatres, and this criticism of itsfailure to promote cultural nationalism was madein the Sobey Building, home of the Sobey Schoolof Business.

The freedom to criticize a company within thevery walls the company built — this is theessence of freedom of expression, whether in anacademic setting, at a public protest or in a newsstory.

Freedom of expression is the right — afundamental right of all Canadians, protectedunder the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — tospeak openly and freely. But it is not a licence todo harm.

That's why there are legal limits on freedom ofexpression. Publication bans and the law ofcontempt restrict what journalists can reportabout a crime while a case is before the courts.

Why? To ensure the person accused of the crime— someone our justice system presumes to beinnocent until proven guilty — is tried in thecourtroom, not in the media.

A media outlet that publishes or broadcastsunfounded allegations that sully the reputation ofa person or a company can be sued for libel.Inciting hatred against an identifiable group is ahate crime. It is illegal to publish or distributechild pornography.

We should debate where the lines should bedrawn, and this debate has been under way inCanada's courts since the Charter came into forcemore than two decades ago. But no one wouldseriously argue there should be no limits onfreedom of expression.

Imagine the impact on the media's credibility,for instance, if there were no libel laws. Whocould believe anything printed in the newspaperif the newspaper was free to print anything itwanted, regardless of whether the statement orallegation was true?

The law deals with abuses of the right tofreedom of expression. But common sense andrestraint also come into play. The Canadianmedia, with few exceptions, showed restraint anddid not re-publish the Muhammad cartoonimages.

As the Globe and Mail's editor-in-chief,Edward Greenspon, argued in his weekly columnat the height of the controversy, re-printing thecartoons while people were dying in violentprotests against their dissemination "would beboth gratuitous and unnecessarily provocative."

This decision was "not a matter of self-censorship," he added. "It is a question ofediting." Editors make judgment calls every day.Should a politician who uses profanity be quotedverbatim? Is the photo of the accident victim toographic? Is there enough evidence to support theallegation of corruption being leveled at apolitician?

Journalists self-edit with an eye to ethicalconsiderations and good taste. The test is thenewsworthiness of the material and whether it isessential to telling the story.

Not exercising the right to free expression, asGreenspon noted, does not mean that right hasbeen surrendered for all time: "We will take the

risk of giving offence when we deem itappropriate," he assured Globe readers.

The Globe, like almost all other Canadian newsorganizations, described the cartoons in detailand covered the ensuing debate and protests. Itwas not necessary to re-publish the cartoons —which anyone can call up on Google in a matter ofseconds, in any event — in order to tell the story.

The only publication of any stature to publishthe cartoons was the Calgary-based WesternStandard magazine. Its editor, Ezra Levant, saidhe ran the "relatively innocuous" cartoons —innocuous to him, at least — because "you can'tproperly report that story without showing thecartoons."

In other words, it was a judgment call, and apoor one at that.

The Canadian Association of Journalistsissued a news release supporting the right of theWestern Standard and other Canadian mediaoutlets to re-publish the cartoons. "Re-publication of the cartoons, when done afterthoughtful consideration as to their purpose, canoffer context to the news coverage of the impactof their original appearance."

There were few takers, if any. As CAJ presidentPaul Schneiderheit acknowledged in the release,the right to publish is "tempered by law andcommon sense."

As it should be. Reporters and editors mustapply news judgment and common sense toevery story they do — otherwise, we're littlemore than conduits for government spin doctors,corporate flacks, hate-mongers and everyconspiracy theorist who picks up the phone andcalls the newsroom.

With freedom comes responsibility. The rightto free expression should never be mistaken for alicence to publish.

Dean Jobb, an assistant professor of journalismat the University of King's College, is author ofMedia Law for Canadian Journalists, published byEmond Montgomery Publications (www.emp.ca/books/093-4.html), and a collaborating author ofDigging Deeper — A Canadian Reporter'sResearch Guide, published by Oxford UniversityPress.


FINE PRINTBY DEAN JOBB

The right to publishWe can debate where to draw the line,

but no one would seriously argue there should be no limits on freedom of expression


It was my first feeble attempt at getting colourand detail from a telephone interview.

My editor told me to "call Moscow" and findCanadians celebrating Canada's 6-5 win over theSoviets in the historic 1972 Summit series(remember: Paul Henderson scored the winninggoal at 19:26 of the third period to win theseries).

So, with the help of our incredibleswitchboard operator at The London Free Press,we tracked down a Londoner in Moscow.

"Is anyone celebrating?" I asked. And myLondoner said he could hear a few motoristshonking their horns in the street below.

"Go over to the window and tell me what yousee?"

He returned to report that the celebrationconsisted of a couple of cars with their occupantswaving tiny Canadian flags out the windows.

"Can you open the window so I can hear thehonking?" I'm not sure why, but I wanted to hearfor myself. "Honk, honk."

That was it. Nothing really exciting, but atouch of visual colour to contribute to my story.

It was a first lesson, however, in learning tofocus more on colour and detail when I wasforced to resort to a telephone interview. And Isay "forced to resort to" because there is nosubstitute for a face-to-face encounter where youhave the opportunity to use all of your senses toprovide crucial detail.

In person, you get to see personality and bodylanguage, and get to engage in the naturalspontaneity of a back-and-forth interview. Youalso get to experience the setting where a personworks, plays or lives.

On the telephone, this is the challenge: Do nothang up until you can see the story so that youcan show it to readers. Like piecing together ajigsaw puzzle, all the pieces must fit into yourmental image before you hang up. This isnarrative interviewing by telephone.

Here's an example from a story by CharlieGillis, formerly of the National Post, now ofMaclean's magazine:

Marc Fafard is huddled in his tent on aplateau of ice, safe from the Arctic wind andrelentless sun,but painfully aware of what it

will take to get to the other side ofGreenland.

His fingertips are blue from cold, and thetip of his tongue has been burned by theomnipresent sunlight. His lips are soswollen, he says, "they feel likewatermelons."

With 10 days left in his cross-country skitrek across the giant, frozen island, he andhis partner, Scott Smith, have just nine days'worth of food on their sleds.

"It's like a desert out here. Except it's a

desert of snow, not of sand," he rasps over asatellite phone he has dragged behind himon a sled since they started the trip …

Gillis talked until Fafard's phone died about30 minutes into the conversation. His questionswere clear and simple: How are you doing? How'syour physical condition? Have you had anyproblems — any frostbite? Where are you rightnow? What are you eating?

Don't be afraid to ask for the simplest ofdetails. If the description of a room is important,ask where someone is sitting, what she is sittingon, what colour it is, where it is in relation to

other people in the room or other fixtures in theroom. No detail is too small as long as you havedetermined that, in this case, the scene isimportant to your story.

Murray Campbell, of The Globe and Mail,went after the same kind of detail when heinterviewed Julia Butterfly Hill, the woman wholived for two years in a 1,000-year-old giantredwood tree in California to prevent it frombecoming lumber.

He opened with this:

It is beginning to hail, and Julia ButterflyHill is shivering even though she is wearingseven layers of clothing. "It's extremelywindy and it's extremely cold," she said,drawing out the syllables of "extremely" tounderline her point that she has seenbetter days.

Ms. Hill was speaking on a cellularphone about halfway up a 60-metreredwood tree in northern California. Shewas huddled beneath rustling tarps on aplatform about the size of a double bed.Around her were her very few possessions:a single-burner propane stove and a bucketshe uses as a toilet, some books and thecardboard on which she writes letters andpoems.

His first question was "what's the weatherlike?" and that essential became Campbell'slead. He also asked what her living space lookedlike — the kind of question designed to elicitthe detail needed to give the reader — and thewriter — a sense of being there.

Campbell's description, achieved throughHill, shows readers the scene on that day — acold, cold rainy day with the tarp flapping in thewind as she sits halfway up a tree on a platformthe size of a double bed.

And Gillis shows us, through Fafard, that he ishunkered down in his tent away from the bitingArctic wind and the sun that has left hisfingertips blue, the tip of his tongue burned andhis lips so swollen they feel like watermelons.

In both stories, the writers have gone beyondthe routine. They could have simply writtensomething like this:

WRITER’S TOOLBOXBY DON GIBB

Using the telephone to conduct a narrative interviewIt's not as good as face-to-face encounters, but there areways to artfully collect information over the telephone

On the telephone,

this is the challenge:

Do not hang up

until you can see

the story so that

you can show it

to readers.

Marc Fafard, who continues his gruellingtrip across Greenland, has 10 days left in hisski trek.

Or

Julia Butterfly Hill prepares to celebrate hersecond year of living in a 1,000-year-oldredwood tree in northern California.

I recall coming across a comment by anAmerican reporter who worked for a blind editor."Make me see," he would tell the reporter. Thatshould be every reporter's goal when he or shemakes that telephone call where place and personare crucial to the story.

Unlike e-mail, the telephone is at least a liveconversation where you can still detect changes inthe tone of voice, get a feel for personality, askfollow-up questions with ease and get the subjectto elaborate.You are still in control of the interview.

E-mail is another step removed, but that's asubject best explored in another column. Suffice itto say here that newsrooms need to developguidelines on e-mail interviewing to ensure thatreporters aren't duped and readers aren't left withthe impression that a real conversation took placebetween the reporter and the interview subject.(Please see Ellin Bessner's story on page 20).

In the end, reporters should maintain a healthyskepticism in any interview, but more so in those

where they must rely on the subject to be their eyesand ears.

The telephone interview doesn't replace face-to-face interviewing, just as e-mail interviews do notreplace face-to-face or the telephone.

Here are some suggestions for making the mostof your telephone interviews:

• Because you are not on the scene, you mustturn the interviewee into your eyes and ears.You need to elicit the type of specific detail thatyou could have seen (or heard, smelled, tastedor touched) had you been there.

• Don't be afraid to ask relevant micro-questions. If you are trying to recreate a pictureof a room, don't hesitate to ask where thingsare, the colour of the chesterfield, the picturesin the room … anything that will help youpaint a clear picture or create a clear image foryour readers or listeners.

• Direct the interview. Slow the interviewee downso that he or she concentrates on one scene at atime. Don't allow the person to leave one sceneor detail until you have fully understood orvisualized it.You'll know you have enough whenyou have a mental picture to recreate a specificscene for readers or listeners.

• Keep questions simple and specific. Anexample from the Julia Butterfly Hill story:What's the weather like? What's your livingspace look like? What are you doing now?

• Collect lots of detail. You should have more inyour notebook than you can use. The reasonyou need all of the detail, however, is so thatyou can write with confidence — write as ifyou were there.

• Go after even more detail. One writer notes:"Details make a story real. Describe. Bespecific. Dump vagueness. Show, do not tell. Donot summarize scenes, recreate them. In MarkTwain's words, 'Don't say the old lady screamed— bring her on and let her scream.'"

• Be careful not to guide the interviewee toomuch. Do not put words in the interviewee'smouth. Guide the interview enough so that theinterviewee knows what you are looking for.

• Look for good quotations as you search for thedetails. Often, this comes from follow-upquestions when an interviewee has answeredin a general way.

• Before you make the call, take a few moments tothink about your story and to write down yourmost important questions in advance.You don'thave to stick to your list, but it provides you witha starting point.

• Consider narrative interviewing by telephone achallenge to see what you cannot see. Don'thesitate to ask for clarification so that you havethe right mental picture.

• Maintain your skepticism. You are not there, sobe sure you are comfortable with the person'sinformation. Don't hesitate to ask the samequestion several different ways if you sense youare being misled or simply want to ensure aperson is providing an accurate description.

Don't talk yourself out of going on location ifthat is essential to the story. The phone interview isonly a substitute.

Don Gibb teaches newspaper reporting atRyerson University's School of Journalism inToronto. If you have suggestions for future columns,you can reach him at [email protected].


Unlike e-mail,

the telephone is at

least a live conversation

where you can still

detect changes in the

tone of voice, get a

feel for personality,

ask follow-up questions

with ease and get the

subject to elaborate.

You are still in control

of the interview.


TIPSHEETBY ELLIN BESSNER

Fighting for attentionFor many journalism students in schools across the country, not being taken seriously by sources is a familiar problem

Maricel Dicion sits in a classroom atCentennial College in Toronto, with hercell phone in hand, and dials the Toronto

Police department's corporate communicationsnumber. She's working on a story for the school'sonline newspaper, the Toronto Observer(www.Tobserver.com) but she's getting nowhere.

The 19-year-old asks to speak to the officerresponsible for the force's initiative to hire SouthAsian women constables.

"I've been trying since yesterday," she tells theperson at the other end of the line. "They put methrough, but I left messages for three people."

With her deadline fast approaching, Dicion, asecond-year student in the diploma program ofthe college's Journalism and Book and MagazinePublishing department, appears frustrated, butalso resigned to getting the runaround.

"If you're talking to big organizations like theToronto Police Service, they don't really want to

talk to you," she said. "You can tell they don't wantto divulge too much information, (not like) if youwere CITY-TV or CTV."

For many journalism students in schoolsacross the country, not being taken seriously bysources is a familiar problem. In fact, when I wentto j-school, in the late '70s at Carleton Universityin Ottawa, we had similar complaints. Having mycalls returned became easy once I got a job at a"real" newsroom, first with the CBC, and since1997, with CTV News.

So how do fledgling j-school studentsovercome the obstacle of being "just students" andget their assignments done on time?

First, let's look at the main problem areas:

TECHNOLOGY

In my Beat Reporting class, where students getfour months to conceive, research, write and

publish a specialty magazine piece of their own,they would come back two or three days before anassignment was due, panicking because theirsources didn't get back to them. "I e-mailed thembut they haven't responded," they would say.When I would ask "Well, did you call them?" moreoften then not, the answer would be "no."

Part of it is the disconnect between thisgeneration of students — who grew up with theInternet, e-mail, and yes, also with the telephone— and the older generations they try to interview.The generation born before 1985 may still besuspicious of e-mail, or indifferent to cold calls.While today's j-school students are on MSNchatting every night, sources in their 40s and 50sand 60s may respond better to the personal touch:Face-to-face contact with a reporter.

Some students, such as Courtney Paoletti, alsofrom Centennial College, are often amazed at theresults when they actually go to a location to track

PLEASE TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY: For Ellin Bessner ( kneeling in the middle ) it's important for her students to take concrete steps to ensure that interviewees and potential sources cooperate.

PHOTO CREDIT: Judy Batay

down an interviewee in person. When the twoladies who ran a Toronto food bank refused toreturn her repeated calls and phone messages,Paoletti visited the church.

"The priest talked to me," said Paoletti. He gaveher enough information in an interview that shewas able to write a story about the closing of thefood bank.

In another case, elusive Toronto city councillorMark Grimes told Alexandra Sienkiewicz, astudent at the University of Toronto atScarborough, that he wouldn't be in town theweek she wanted to interview him. But when sheparticipated in a class field trip to city hall towatch the monthly council meeting, guess whowas in his seat in the council chambers?Sienkiewicz passed a note to his assistant. Grimesgot up, and agreed to give her a few minutes.

Relying on e-mail may be second nature fortoday's journalism school students, but it preventsthem from developing relationships with sourcesbased on trust, as sources will often respondbetter if they know your face.

When Jeanette Rabito, also from the Universityof Toronto, was assigned to cover a crime story,she had a hard time getting much informationfrom the nearby police detachment over thetelephone. But after she went to the police stationfor her interview, not only did she find the officerin charge chatty and friendly in person, but said tocall any time. The interview went well past thescheduled time limit.

TELEPHONE ANGST

A major part of not being taken seriously asjournalism students involves the initial telephonecontact with sources.

Common complaints are: Being unpreparedwhen the other person answers the phone;identifying yourself as a student reporter; havinga feeble or "Valley Girl" telephone voice; knowingwho to call in the first place; not wanting to pesterthe interviewee with a million messages; gettingthe story done by deadline; and missing theinterviewee's call back.

TIPS

Here are some tips to improve yourinterviewing success:

1. Write a script before you place the call.Some interviewing experts, such as author PaulMcLaughlin, suggest using a script so you canread your notes in case you get flustered.Experts also suggest conducting the interviewin a quiet place with no distractions, such asthe TV or other students.

2. Identify yourself. Some students say they usethe cachet of the campus newspaper or otheroutlets when they identify themselves, even ifthe assignment is only for class.

That's what helped Murtz Jaffer, a formerstudent and creator of the Inside Pulse website.When Jaffer was at journalism school inToronto last fall, he and four classmatespublished a 60-page glossy magazine as part oftheir course work. Among other topics, themagazine covered celebrities, wrestling,comics, video games, sports and movies.Thanks to the high profile of his website, andJaffer's talent and confidence, he not onlysucceeded in interviewing Donald Trump, healso got access to the Toronto mansion whichhosts the contestants for Canadian Idol andinterviewed the writers and actors of the hit TVseries "Lost." He did it as a reporter for InsidePulse, not just as a student writing anassignment for class. By the way, Jaffer and hisgroup got an A+ on their final project, and thewebsite is still on the Net.

While I understand the reasoning behindfudging reality to get a story, I still don't agreewith it, unless circumstances warrant it forundercover investigative stories, and only withan editor's permission.

3. Practice speaking. There are plenty of voiceexercises students can perform to lower theirpitch, increase resonance, and reduce nasality.Books such as Ann Utterback's Broadcast VoiceHandbook and Christina Kaya's Vocal Powerhave lots of these drills to practice.

4. Know who to call. It's another important partof being taken seriously by sources — andgetting through to the right people. Forinstance, to research and then clinch aninterview with a city councillor, it's best tocheck out the councillor's website forinformation such as the identity of theexecutive assistant.

According to Francine Antonio, from the City ofToronto's corporate communications branch,journalists must go through her office to lineup interviews. However, some students who e-mail a particular councillor directly may getlucky. But for the most part, it's thecommunications officials who handle thegatekeeping and the scheduling.

5. Know when to call. When Judy Batay-Csorba,who's completing an internship at RogersTelevision, was trying to line up the placement,she tried the CBC and Discovery's Daily Planet,as well as Canada AM. She worried that shecalled too often. But some employers, accordingto retired Seneca College journalism professorRon Lowe, won't return calls from anyprospective interns unless the student has leftfive messages. One such director is David Mills-Hughes of CTV Toronto. He looks forpersistence.

6. Watch the deadlines. Waiting until the story isdue before tracking down a source is probablynot the smartest way to meet a deadline,especially for journalism students. It's onething if you are a journalist working for a big-name newspaper — they usually get calledback right away — but student reporters needa different strategy.

Get started as soon as the assignment ishanded out. Put in the calls and send e-mailsright away and make it clear you have adeadline. Some students divulge their realdeadline, but if that date is too far away, theurgency is lost, according to student HeatherSonser. She always tells her sources herdeadline is two or three days away.

And if your sources don't call or e-mail back ina day or so, call and e-mail again. Then it's timeto get serious. As Maricel Dicion did for herSouth Asian policewoman-recruiting story, shecalled other people in the police department,then called the corporate communicationsofficials and asked for their help again. Also beprepared to look for another angle, or othersources elsewhere.

7. Waiting for the call back. What do you doonce you have followed Steps 1 to 5? LiviaLockwood, a former administrative assistantwho has returned to Centennial to take ajournalism diploma, brought her phone withher everywhere the day she was expecting a callback from the person she was trying tointerview — except when she went to thebathroom. Guess when the interviewee calledher back?

Her classmate, Erin Goodman, recalls being inthe tub when an interviewee called back.Luckily she had taken the cordless into thebathroom with her. Luckily it wasn't a videophone!

I firmly believe that doing interviews the"hard" way teaches students not onlypersistence, but also how to handle rejection,how to be creative, and how to "schmooze." Andaccording to long-time journalism professor TedBarris, also a Toronto author and broadcaster,these are all necessary traits for a journalist inthe real world.

Ellin Bessner is a veteran broadcaster andtelevision writer at CTV News. She teaches full-time in Toronto at Centennial College's School ofJournalism. She has spent seven years as a businessanchor for CTV Newsnet and Report on BusinessTelevision. Bessner has also reported for CBCRadio and print publications in Canada, Europeand Africa.



COMPUTER-ASSISTED REPORTINGBY FRED VALLANCE-JONES

The Harper government should keepits promise to reform the federalaccess-to-information lawThe Canadian news media need to stop thinking aboutreform as an “inside baseball” issue

It's time for Canada to get moving on fixing ourfreedom-of-information laws.

The debate over reform of the country'santiquated access rules has gone on for longenough.

Outside the bureaucracy, at least, there is prettyuniversal agreement about what's wrong.

Requests take too long to process (please seeDarcy Wintonyk's article on page 12). Wheninformation is released, too many exemptions can

be applied, and officials will do anything they canto stretch them further. Public interest overridesof the exemptions are too narrow and are seldomapplied. Fees are prohibitive. And too manyorganizations — for example, Crowncorporations and commercialized entities such asNavCanada — are shielded from access laws.

It's a long familiar list.

For those doing computer-assisted reporting,the federal and provincial acts are indispensable,and the loopholes for government to hide behindare huge.

But it seems the hurdles to actually doinganything about it are huge, too. The problem hasbeen studied to death, by bureaucrats, legislativecommittees and even The Canadian NewspaperAssociation. Yet nothing ever seems to happen.

The new Conservative government haspromised improvements as part of its much-

vaunted ethics package, but instead of acting,they're proposing even more study.

No less than democracy is at stake here.In a simpler time, it was possible to know just

about everything one needed to be a full-involvedcitizen by reading the paper, talking to neighboursor visiting the library.

But today, as we all know, it is a much moresophisticated world.

So much of the accumulated knowledge ofgovernment is stored in huge electronicdatabases. Whether it be records of aviationincidents, car accidents or workplace injuries, thereal answers are stored in computer systems.

We need good software to work with the dataand reveal its secrets, but even more we needbetter access laws to get the information off thegovernment hard drives.

Lately, a renewed chill seems to have settledacross the federal government.

The grapevine is filled with reports of requestsleft unanswered for months, gargantuan feesestimates, and phone calls not returned.

My own experience suggests an increasingwillingness in some departments to simply ignorethe law, and stonewall requests.

The fabulous work last year by the newspaperassociation underlined how woeful the situationhas become.

Tough laws are needed to combat this trend. Bythat, I mean real and significant fines for thosewho break the law — both the departments asinstitutions, and the top managers who encouragethis behaviour.

The deadlines to respond must becomedeadlines, and not just the date to send out atime-extension letter.

And the practice of flagging ("amber lighting")requests from the media and oppositionpoliticians for special, time-consumingtreatment, needs to be stopped. The right ofaccess should be the same for all citizens.

But the bureaucrats will keep behaving the waythey do so long as they believe the public doesn'tcare.

The Canadian news media need to stopthinking of access and FOI as an "inside baseball"issue. They need to aggressively publicizeinstances of government stonewalling, by writingabout them (please see David Pugliese's article onpage 10). I think the public does care, and wouldbe outraged by the number of times unelectedofficials work to block the public right toinformation about government. So long as wetreat this as some boring sideline, the enemies ofopenness will continue to win the day.

And that will mean less freedom for all of us.It's time for action, not more words.

Fred Vallance-Jones is a reporter at The HamiltonSpectator, teaches journalism at Ryerson University,and is Webmaster of carincanada.ca. Contact him atFredVallance-jones @carincanada.ca. Vallance-Jones is also a collaborating author of DiggingDeeper — A Canadian Reporter's Research Guide,published by Oxford University Press.

The new Conservativegovernment has

promised improvements as part of its much-

vaunted ethics package,but instead of acting,

they're proposing even more study.

No less than democracy is at stake here.

UNCOMFORTABLE? PERHAPS: Prime MinisterStephen Harper purses his lips as he briefly

responds to a question concerning hisgovernment's changes to media access.

This interaction with reporters took place in March following a "secret" meeting with his cabinet on Parliament Hill. Harper also

has some explaining to do when it comes to following up on his commitments to reform

the Access to Information Act.



BOOKS BRIEFLYBY GILLIAN STEWARD

From gender equity to learning howto do better investigative stories

New books teach us about women journalists and the nuts and bolts of researching complex stories

There is very little research conducted onCanadian journalism and news mediacompared to the reams of it carried out in

the U.S. Most Canadianjournalism profssimply don't havethe time orresources to doresearch — they aretoo busy teaching.That's why GertrudeRobinson's book —Gender, Journalismand Equity: Canadian,U.S and EuropeanPerspectives (HamptonPress, price: $25, 241pages) is such a welcome addition to the scantinformation we do have about the state ofjournalists and journalism in Canada.

A professor emeritus in McGill University'sfaculty of art history and communication studies,Robinson provides a wealth of data regarding theadvances that women have made, and not made,in Canadian news media organizations over thepast 30 years. Overall, Robinson found thatwomen television journalists have advancedfarther and faster than their counterparts in theprint media.

This is because print media has stagnated sincethe 1970s, whereas the private television industryblossomed, writes Robinson. More young womenwere hired into broadcasting than into print andas a result, they pushed the glass ceiling furtherup the newsroom hierarchy.

"…the glass ceiling has moved up andmanifested itself only at the top (the executiveproducer level). Yet even here, females constituteda surprising one-fifth (18%) of the toppersonnel," Robinson writes. "Most striking,however, is the very high proportion of females inthe producer and director categories in whichthey held almost half (41%) of the positions."

Robinson found that the best employmentopportunities for female staff were in largetelevision stations located in metropolitan centresof more than 500,000 viewers. She also providesdata that show women at the CBC advancedsignificantly between 1993 and 2001.

Besides having more clout than their sisters inthe daily print media, women televisionjournalists earn more. What's also surprisingabout Robinson's findings is that when privatetelevision in Canada was expanding it paid moreequitable starting salaries than its counterparts inthe U.S.

Another surprising finding? While womenjournalists in Canada still have a way to go if theyare to achieve complete parity with men, they aredoing better than journalists in both the U.S andEurope. This is partly due to the EmploymentEquity Act of 1986 and the requirement by theCRTC for broadcasters to report on theemployment and salary levels of women andminorities when they apply for licence renewal.

Apparently, legislation is important when it comesto creating a level playing field.

I was also intrigued by Robinson's data on thedifferent attitudes of journalists in Canada, theU.S, and Europe (both men and women) towardstheir work. Most U.S journalists assigned primaryimportance to "investigating government claims"while Canadian journalists cited "analysis ofcomplex problems." British journalists sawthemselves mainly as neutral reporters whileGerman journalists saw themselves as critics ofabuses.

But here again, gender made a difference. Twothirds of Canadian women journalists surveyedcited "getting information to the public quickly"as a higher priority than analyzing complexproblems. Could that be because women aremore predominant in television? This book isfull of statistics and data about everythingfrom salaries to news beats to feelings aboutdiscrimination. Some of the data is as recentas 2001, but most of it doesn't reach beyond1995. Nevertheless, anyone interested in thestate of Canadian journalism will find a lotto pore over.

Another important contribution toCanadian journalism is Digging Deeper —A Canadian Reporter's Research Guide(Oxford University Press, price: $ 49.95, 280pages). Four well-known investigative reporters— Robert Cribb, Dean Jobb, David McKie andFred Vallance-Jones — collaborated to producethis book. The result is an exhaustive guide to

investigative reporting with a Canadian angle thatwill no doubt become a must-have for newsroomreporters and editors, journalism profs, as well asfreelancers and ordinary citizens determined toget to the bottom of things.

As the authors see it, investigative stories"reveal injustice and misery, expose wrongdoing,force accountability, uncover wasteful spending,and point out the failures of public officials orpublic systems. Ideally, the stories move people inauthority to fix the problems." They also seeinvestigative journalism as a valuablecounterweight to the many forces that seek tocontrol information or spin the truth.

Investigative reporting is a difficult, expensiveand time-consuming task. A reporter can be sooverwhelmed with information or so completelystonewalled that a project can easily get boggeddown. If mismanaged, investigative pieces canpromise a lot more than they deliver. Or they canland journalists and their employers in court. Butthis book provides a step-by-step guide, as well asdozens of examples of how tenacious reporterspieced together successful investigative storiesthat actually did result in beneficial change.

It begins at the beginning with the story idea:What makes for a strong investigative story andhow to come up with one? Then the authorspainstakingly describe how to gather informationfrom a variety of sources. This is perhaps themost valuable part of the book because it includes

so many Canadian websites and other onlinesources that offereverything from legalarchives to corporateregistrations. DiggingDeeper also offers detailedexamples of computer-assisted reporting (CAR)complete with graphicexamples of data adapted to aspreadsheet. And there'sclear, encouraging advice onhow to organize and write the

information gathered in a way that grabs readers



ETHICSBY STEPHEN J. A. WARD

Muhammad’s controversial depictionNot publishing the cartoons creates the danger of a slippery slope that leads from the cartoon case to the next that offends deeply held beliefs

In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill railed against thetyranny of majorities to silence contentiousvoices. Mill praised free speech in part because

our fundamental beliefs crystallize into inertlumps of "dead dogma" when they are notchallenged. A liberal society needs a large domainof free speech like the body needs a large supply ofoxygen.

The violence that followed the publication of thecartoons of Muhammad in the Danish daily,Jyllands-Posten, was shocking. It promptedjournalists to consider what a free and responsiblepress means in pluralistic democracies. Thedispute showed that the popular phrase "a free andresponsible press" may have become one of Mill'sdogmas, providing cover for troubling tensions justbelow the surface.

THE ARGUMENTS

Arguments for and against publishing andrepublishing the images came in two strengths —a "weak" and a "strong" version. The "weak"argument said publishers had a constitutional rightto publish the images, if they so wished. The strongversion was that editors "ought" to publish theimages to stand up for free expression and toinform the public.

The argument for not publishing the images alsohad a weak and a strong version. The weak versiontook a middle way — publishers had a legal rightto publish but they could use their discretionbecause it was not "necessary" to publish theimages to properly cover the story. Publication ofthe images would be "merely provocative." Whyunnecessarily offend Muslims, especially at a timeof tension? Some editors added that publishing theimages would have violated their standards againstpublishing offensive or graphic images. Thestronger version argued that to publish the imageswas simply an abuse of press freedom, causingharm and little good. Publishers had an ethicalduty not to publish the images.

Among the journalists who argued strongly forpublication was Erza Levant, publisher of TheWestern Standard in Calgary, who told CBC Radiothat his paper has the constitutional right to re-publish the cartoons because, "it's the central factin the largest news story of the month and we are anews magazine. I guess our readers want to knowthe news." In the Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente

said on March 18 that democratic values of freespeech and equality had to be defended againstwhat she called the "multicultural myth" — theidea that "difference" makes Canada a better place.However, Ian Jack in London, editor of the literarymagazine Granta, called the re-publication of thecartoons an unacceptable abuse of free expression.A middle way was represented by majornewspapers such as the Globe and Mail and theWashington Post. "It was a choice similar to notrunning images of dead bodies and offensivelanguage," said Leonard Downie, Jr., executiveeditor of the Washington Post. "We described them(cartoons)." Ed Greenspon, editor-in-chief of theGlobe and Mail, wrote that the Jyllands-Posten hadthe right to publish the cartoons and Muslims hadthe right to protest, peacefully. But re-publishingwould be both a "gratuitous and unnecessaryprovocation, especially given what we knew abouthow offended Muslims . . . felt about the cartoons."The Globe's policy is to publish offensive materialonly when "absolutely necessary to theunderstanding of the story."

"OFFENDING" RESPONSIBLY?

My own view favours publication, but it fallssomewhere between these arguments. Legally Idefend the right of editors to publish thesecartoons, for whatever reasons. A liberaldemocratic society needs a relatively wide areareserved for controversial and, yes, offensive speechso long as it is not hate speech. Toleration ofoffensive speech is a difficult but fundamentalfeature of an open society.

I also believe that it is ethically permissible topublish and re-publish the cartoons if published ina contextualized manner. I think you can "offend,"responsibly. I do not say that editors have a "duty"to publish the images. Too much depends oncontext to make such a sweeping claim. But I dothink that in certain contexts, there are seriousreasons to support responsibly publishing theimages.

A publication would be "merely provocative" ifit simply published the cartoons under a headlinethat read: "Take that, you Muslims!" or otherwiseshowed contempt. But one could publishresponsibly in an informed and non-contemptuous manner. How? By explaining thereasons why some Muslims oppose the depiction

and the history of that belief; by examining thesocial and political causes of the protests; byavoiding simplified images of Islam; by speakingwith moderate Muslims; by exploring howdemocracies might deal fairly with such issues.

What reasons would support thoughtful re-publishing? No doubt the images would still offend.But journalists would have discharged their duty toprovide a diverse forum on a major issue withoutallowing fear of offending or intimidation to limitthe discussion. But is it "necessary" to see theimages? It is difficult to respond to this objectionbecause what is "necessary" to a story is quitesubjective. To play devil's advocate, I suggest thatpeople need to see these cartoons in the press forthemselves, rather than have them described, or byhaving to turn to Google. Today, I still talk withnon-Muslim people who oppose the publicationsor talk about them with conviction, although theyhave not seen the cartoons. When they do see thecartoons, they have a greater understanding aboutthe reasonableness of various positions.

Another reason to responsibly publish theimages is that a publication might feel thatmembers of the mainstream media should standbehind the principle of free expression, againstclear threats of intimidation. Flemming Rose,culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten, said hepublished the cartoons not to mock Muslims butto test the limits of free expression. He said thatrecent incidents of self-censorship in Europe havecaused "widening fears and feelings ofintimidation in dealing with issues related toIslam." Now isn't this a crucial social issue? Is thisbeing "merely provocative"? Therefore, it is notenough to say that something is offensive. Theusual rule is that publications avoid offensivematerial if it serves no greater purpose than toshock or titillate. But that is just the issue in thecartoon debate. One can't assume that publishingthe cartoons serves only to provoke. Furthermore,not publishing the cartoons creates the danger of aslippery slope that leads from the cartoon case tothe next story that offends deeply held beliefs. I donot see how the middle-way editors can publishother culturally controversial images or stories inthe future, if the only test is whether the story isoffensive to devout persons.



BLOGGINGBY DAVID AKIN

Let’s take the hype about blogs down a peg

The Internet is the tool making the real difference for journalists

It's not the Blog. It's the Net.

I love blogs and I love blogging but, truth betold, blogging is not having the effect onmainstream media that the form's enthusiastsoften claim it is.

Too often, in the excitement about the blogformat, we often forget that it's really the Internetthat has changed everything for our craft. It is thischeap, easy-to-use global network of networkedcomputers that has empowered citizen journalistsand given millions the chance to describe theirworld.

Before we had blog publishing systems, we hadrelatively easy-to-use Web page creation tools andlistservs and chat rooms and other softwareapplications that all ran on the Internet.

The blog form, of course, is a tremendousimprovement on many of those applications.

But sometimes blog enthusiasts — many ofwhom have a dim view of traditional media —seem to think there was no other challenge totraditional media before the blog format becameso popular.

As for the working journalist, e-mail, the Webbrowser, and always-on, wireless high-speedInternet connections have done much more torevolutionize newsgathering than blogs.

That said, the blog is an increasingly importanttool for newsgathering and, for those journalistswho choose to blog, it can be an excellent way tomaintain a connection with the community orecosystem of those you report on. It was that lastbit — keeping a connection with a community —that surprised me shortly after I started bloggingin 2001.

Blogging made my reporting interactive.I write; I publish.And that used to be the end of

it. Now, I write, I publish and a community ofpeople who have special knowledge or who aredeeply interested in a particular topic amplify,correct, modify, or extend the reportage. For abeat reporter, this is fabulous, because I now havemore knowledge about my beat and I'mconstantly finding new people who can bring meunique perspectives and new stories.

U.S. technology journalist Jon Udell willsometimes publish a first draft of his article on

his blog before submitting it to his editors. Thatmight seem a bit odd but he says that bypublishing on his blog ahead of time, he can breakout of what he calls the "editorial ivory tower,"which he uses to describe that phenomenon whenyour editor or assignment desk gets hold of onekind of story or one angle or one approach to astory and won't let go of it.

Pre-publishing the story often gives Udell freshideas and fresh approaches and even completelynew story ideas. Udell finds, as I have, that whenthe community of individuals in your beat'secosystem get wind that you're working onsomething, they tend to get involved.

Udell finds that, in some cases, he can helpbuild some 'buzz' about a story.

After publication, his blog serves as one placewhere readers can discuss the story, provide morefeedback and enhance the story.

Udell also uses his blog to publish extendedinterviews that formed part of the story andbasically empty his notebook.

Public relations and communicationsprofessionals are also making an increasing use ofblogs. Microsoft, for example, has hundreds of itsemployees blogging away — with the company'sblessing. If you're a reporter whose beat includes

that company, you'll miss a lot of stories if you'renot reading a healthy sampling of those blogs.

Dublin-based PR professional Tom Murphyencourages corporations to incorporate blogs intotheir communication strategy.

"Blogging is an opportunity for publicrelations, not a threat. Blogging provides a uniquemeans of providing your audience with thehuman face of your organization. Your customerscan read the actual thoughts and opinions of yourstaff. On the flip side, consumers increasinglywant to see the human side of your organization,beyond the corporate speak."

Reporters, too, want to see the human face oforganizations they report on and blogs are anefficient way to do that.

Blogs authored by mainstream mediaorganizations and mainstream journalists arealso terrific trust-building tools. Trust, of course,is the most important thing for any journalismorganization to sustain because if readers, viewersand listeners trust, they'll keep coming back.

One of the reasons readers, viewers andlisteners come to trust a news organization isbecause they're given the tools to challenge thework we produce and to challenge our storyagendas.

If you commit yourself as a journalist toaccuracy and to fairness in your coverage, then byimplication, you commit yourself to challengesthat you're being accurate and fair.

That can sound scary, I suppose, to somejournalists and perhaps that fear is at the root ofsome of the anxiety the blogosphere has broughtto the mainstream media.

But it shouldn't be scary. Readers, viewers andlisteners have always had some means tochallenge what they read and hear, whether it'sbeen as a letter to the editor, an academic paper orsomething like CITY-TV's Speaker's Corner.

What's different about the challenge to ourwork from blogs? The velocity.

David Akin, whose blog you can find athttp://davidakin.blogware.com/blog, is Parliamentarycorrespondent with CTV National News. He hasbeen a reporter on the staffs of seven newspapers inCanada, including The Globe and Mail and theNational Post.

If you commit yourselfas a journalist to

accuracy and to fairnessin your coverage, then

by implication, youcommit yourself to

challenges that you'rebeing accurate and fair.


THE LAST WORDBY JULIAN SHER

Struck Dead by the Google GodThe story of my untimely passing was spinning out ofcontrol — and across the country

Ihave always admired Mark Twain's writingand wit. I just never thought I'd get a chanceto emulate his famous quip: "Rumours of my

death have been greatly exaggerated."It all started late last year.While on assignment

in Washington, DC, late one afternoon, I wasinterrupted by an urgent cell phone call from myeditor at Random House in Toronto. "Boy, am Iglad to hear your voice," she said. "I've beengetting phone calls from journalists saying you'redead — of a heart attack."

Huh?"Call the Canadian Association of Journalists,"

she told me. "I assured them I was pretty sure youwere alive, but they want to hear it from youdirectly."

A quick call to the Ottawa office of the CAJ puttheir minds at rest: They were about to issue amemorial statement. "And what, pray tell, madeyou think I was dead?" I asked. Had I not paid mydues recently? Was it my recent investigative tripto Pakistan? My many marathons finally taking adire toll?

Nope. It appeared that they heard it from theFederation Professionelle des Journalistes duQuebec, (FPJQ) the main journalists'organization in my home province.

I ran my name through Google News in Frenchand sure enough, the top headline — taken fromthe Cyberpresse website of Montreal's La Pressenewspaper — boldly announced:

"Journalism Loses a Web Pioneer."The lead sentence went on to state that none

other than yours truly, the creator of a popularmedia website called JournalismNet, died of aheart attack at age 55.

Well, they got the age and the state of myhealth wrong, but at least they called me apioneer.

It's not every day you get to read your ownobituary on the web.

William Marsden, a friend and colleague withwhom I have co-authored a couple of true-crimebooks, called La Presse to tell them the only crimehere was against the truth: I was very much alive,he insisted.

"And how exactly do you know?" was theskeptical response.

It made me think of a widely-read article byThomas Friedman — "Is Google God?" I realizedI had been struck dead by the God of cyberspace.

This wasn't some crackpot gossip site. This wasGoogle — the most popular web search tool.

Someone once said if you don't exist onGoogle, do you really exist? Taking it one stepfurther, what if Google announces you don't existanymore? Do you then cease to exist — at least tothe hundreds, if not thousands, who read thenews through Google every day?

By this time, the story of my untimely passingwas spinning out of control — and across thecountry.

One tech blogger in Quebec posted the news ofmy death and added, somewhat over the top Ithought, that "journalists around the world owehim a lot … There will be many of us cryingtoday."

I picked up a phone message from a distraughtfriend at the Toronto Star. I read a panicked e-mail on my Palm from a friend at the VancouverProvince.

My wife, back in Montreal, got an e-mail froma colleague at Canadian Press: "What is this storyabout Julian? What happened?" (Thank goodnessI had earlier contacted my wife — and myparents and children — to let them know that, ala Twain, they should not believe the exaggeratedstories of my passing.)

I was finding all of this mildly amusing, but myfamily and friends were not.

Time to do some digging.I've investigated many mysteries, scandals and

controversial deaths in my career; I just neverthought I'd be tracking down the story of my owndemise.

I eventually reached a La Presse reporter whosaid she had written the short obituary, based onan announcement that the FPJQ made on itselectronic mailing list, which goes out to morethan 1,000 journalists in the province. Sheexplained that she called them back to verify thestory and they said it was true.

Right.I mean, if you can't believe journalists, who

can you believe? Ever hear of Jayson Blair? Ever hear of CTV announcing Lucien

Bouchard's demise? Ever hear of checking with at least two sources

— especially if one of them happens to be thevery much alive person you are calling dead?

In the end, it appears someone at the FPJQheard of the tragic and sudden passing of arespected CBC radio producer in Toronto whoselast name sounds like mine but is spelleddifferently. From that confusion, a web of rumourreported as fact took on — so to speak — a lifeof its own.

After at least seven hours of survival on theweb, the story was eventually retracted, thoughits ghosts still haunt the cached netherworld ofthe Internet.

I spent a few more hours dealing with franticphone calls and long e-mails to calm friendsacross the country, then I felt I needed a briskwalk in the bracing cold Washington evening. AsI perilously jay-walked across an almost pitch-black street, I had a spooky, Twilight Zonemoment: What if a man reads of his own deathand then gets struck by a car?

I nervously shook off the thought.But I couldn't shake the feeling that somehow I

had cheated Death. Or, at least, death by Google.And now every day would be sort of a

bonus.

Julian Sher is a journalist and book authorwho lives — still — in Montreal.

Someone once said if

you don't exist on

Google, do you really

exist? Taking it one

step further, what if

Google announces you

don't exist anymore?


very steady and doesn't stress easily. No doubt ithelped him."

So Leblanc wrote his first articles for the Globe,including the one about the balloon. But in 2000,he made a bold move for a young Hill reporter. Hedecided to accompany his wife, Marie Grégoire,on a year-long academic trip to Paris, France, atthe start of her Ph.D in medieval history. Thecouple left with their two sons and Leblancworked part-time from his new base, comingback just long enough to cover the fall federalelections. "In Paris, life was good. We would takelong walks with the stroller. Our youngest wasonly two years old."

When they returned to Ottawa in 2001,Leblanc had already teamed up with anotherGlobe journalist, Campbell Clark.As early as 2000they exposed how Lithographie Dicksonsuddenly got a deluge of contracts from ad firmsafter hiring the son of Alfonso Gagliano, thenfederal Minister of Public Works.

But the real breakthrough came on March 11,2002 when the pair revealed that neither Ottawanor Groupaction could find a $550,000 report. OnMarch 15, Groupaction dug up the famous report.La Presse's Joël-Denis Bellavance was the first torealize it was almost a carbon copy of a previousreport. On March 21, Don Boudria, the newMinister of Public Works, announced theexistence of a third, similar report. The image ofthe Groupaction photocopier was born. TheAuditor General got involved.We all know the rest.

Everybody who knows Leblanc agrees thatsuccess hasn't gone to his head. Patrick Lagacéproclaims it loud and clear. "Daniel's articleshelped bring down a government. That's no smallpotato. Others would develop an enormous ego orwould play the star. Not Daniel. He's stayed thesame: shy, humble and a great listener. Daniel isone heck of a good guy, despite his success. I hopeyou'll write it."

Bellavance describes Leblanc as a "meticulousperson, an idealist who believes journalists playan essential role in society. He has an inquiringmind, a phenomenal memory and a perfectcommand of his stories. And he's not one to bragin public." Any dirt to share? "Okay, he's not thatgood at ping-pong. He's better at ball hockey."That's all for the best, as Leblanc was in factthinking of rejoining the league after taking abreak for the arrival of his third child, a little girlwho is now two years old.

"He's a good father," Bellavance remarks. Clarkagrees: "Daniel's clearly a family guy, and onereason I think of him as being so disciplined isthat he works so hard at balancing work so thathe can get home to see his kids. In our office, thattakes hard work and planning."

A good father, a humble and competentreporter who is well-respected by his peers —

the man seems beyond reproach.Yet he did makethis wicked comment about Jean Brault's hearingbefore the Gomery Commission: "The Pope wasdying and, professionally speaking, we didn'twant him to die at the same time the publicationban was lifted. It would have been too muchcompetition."

Bellavance and Clark stress Leblanc'sunderstated and mischievous sense of humour.When asked what it feels like to be the solejournalist mentioned in the first Gomery report,whose index includes no less than 101 names,Leblanc replied with an amused look: "Well, I'min good company."

Despite years of writing in English, in aninterview, Leblanc's French is unmarred byanglicisms, a curse that befalls many afrancophone who has worked for extendedperiods in English. Incidentally, is there anychance his byline will appear in a French-language newspaper someday? "I don't have anyspecific plans or particular media in mind, but Iwouldn't be surprised to find myself working inFrench some day." Interesting! But next on theagenda is writing a book on the sponsorshipscandal. He won't give any more details. He'sbragged enough already.

Editor's note: This is a translated version of aprofile Isabelle wrote in trente, Quebec'smagazine for journalists.

and keeps them reading. This really is a how-tobook for Canadian investigative reporters.

Reading it reminded me of how time-consuming and expensive investigative reportingcan be. Only large media organizations have theresources to sponsor it, if they are so inclined.Here's hoping more of them will become asenthusiastic about it as the authors of DiggingDeeper.

End Note: If you ever wondered where thejournalistic code of objectivity originated andwhy it became such a bone of contention for manyjournalists, check out Stephen Ward's book TheInvention of Journalism Ethics: The Path toObjectivity and Beyond (McGill-Queen'sUniversity Press, price: $65, 360 pages). Ward is aformer Canadian Press reporter who now teachesat UBC's Graduate School of Journalism. If you'relooking for something on the topic that is a littleless academic, check out Just the Facts: HowObjectivity Came to Define American Journalism(NYU Press, price: $20, 200 pages) by DavidMindich, a former CNN assignment editor. Andfinally, for the latest look at the emergence ofinvestigative journalism in the U.S., you shouldread James L. Aucoin's The Evolution of AmericanInvestigative Journalism (publisher, price:$3750(U.S.), 256 pages).

Gillian Steward is Media's books editor.

Continued from Pg. 13A journalist who prefers to stay in the shadows

FREEDOM TO OFFEND

Finally, I am concerned that this wholetorturous debate indicates that some people aretoo ready to think that the potential of causing"offence" is a knock-down reason not to publishsomething. We are in danger of losing a balancebetween freedom and responsibility. There areresponsibilities to speak out, as well as to remainsilent. A love of building bridges between culturesdoes not entail the silencing of those who may notwant to build a bridge, or do not want to speak inmeasured tones. Of course we should educatecitizens to tolerate and respect each other. But weshould also teach that in a plural society, expect tobe offended. The right to offend trumps the rightnot to be offended. In light of the cartoon case,journalists need to ask not only, "What are thelimits of a free press?" but also "What are thelimits of social responsibility?"

Stephen J.A. Ward is a columnist for Mediamagazine. He also teaches at the University ofBritish Columbia's School of Journalism.

Continued from Pg. 23From gender equity...

Continued from Pg. 24Muhammad’s controversial depiction

A good father, a humble and competent reporter who is well-respected by

his peers — the man seems beyond reproach.

Yet he did make this wicked comment about

Jean Brault's hearingbefore the Gomery

Commission: "The pope was dying and,

professionally speaking,we didn't want him to

die at the same time thepublication ban was

lifted. It would have been too much competition."

CNW has been delivering direct-from-source, full-text news for over 46

years. We've had some recent additions to our network of services we'd like

to tell you about:

• CNW now distributes all Business Wire and PR Newswire content in Canada,

meaning all news via the world's two largest newswire networks will be

available to you through your CNW feed

• CNW has recently added Podcasting to our suite of digital tools. You can

now download CD-quality MP3 files of webcasts and other audio files at

your convenience.

• CNW's photo archive is available to accredited media at no cost. Simply sign

up and you will have access to thousands of print quality images.

You can find more information on these and other CNW services such as the CNW

Media Daybook, Portfolio-email and Hot Topics buttons at www.newswire.ca or

contact Sylvia Kavanagh at [email protected], 1-866-805-9530

WE’RE THE

HORSE’S MOUTH.

STAY AWAY! · 2016. 12. 29. · THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS SPRING 2006 • VOLUME 12,...

Documents

Transcript of STAY AWAY! · 2016. 12. 29. · THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS SPRING 2006 • VOLUME 12,...