Author: Brent Jolly

The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) is an industry self-regulatory organization that receives and evaluates complaints about possible breaches of journalistic standards from members of the public against member news organizations. Another critical element of our organization’s mandate is to promote a news literate public that is aware of journalism’s critical role in a democratic society.

In this latest dispatch from our complaints desk, you’ll find several summaries of recent reader complaints that the NNC has received and which have been addressed through corrective action by the news organization or through reader education about journalism standards and practices.

Quotes in headlines don’t tell the whole story

The NNC dismissed a complaint about the headline of a story that reported on criticism of a protest led by a local activist. The activist was concerned that the headline’s use of quotes from community members, and its formatting of certain words in red typeface, unfairly characterized the activism as “misleading” and a “publicity stunt.” 

In reviewing the matter, the NNC noted that headlines are expected to reflect the focus of an article in an accurate and concise manner. At the same time, news organizations are tasked with providing headlines that draw readers into the story. By their nature, a headline is not intended to capture the nuances contained in an article. 

While the NNC agreed that it was an unusual choice to draw attention to individual words in a headline, the colouring of keywords appeared to be a consistent style used by the publication. As the NNC noted in its response to the complainant, design choices are generally the prerogative of the news organization.

That said, the NNC found that the headline was supported by the content of the article, which included comments from a number of sources with different perspectives, including the complainant’s comment referring to his own actions as a “publicity stunt.” 

Importantly, the words in the headline were appropriately presented in quotation marks as a way to indicate to readers that they were direct quotes from individuals whose comments appear in the story. For these reasons, the NNC found no evidence to support a breach of journalistic standards. (Case ID: 2023-40)

Details matter when reporting on surveys

An individual filed a complaint with the NNC because they were concerned that an article, which reported on a union’s member survey results, did not contain sufficient context, such as survey population and sample size.

The NNC agreed that survey reporting should be accurate and include appropriate context. Best practice includes providing readers with key information, such as sample size, total number of respondents, and, when relevant, margins of error, for readers to understand the significance and applicability of survey results.

For these reasons, the NNC heard from the news organization on the matter. In response to the concerns raised by the complainant, the news organization updated the article to include the total number of survey respondents and alerted readers to the change with an editor’s note.

It was the view of the NNC that the update to the story and editor’s note provided appropriate context for readers to understand the relevance and limitations of the survey results. For these reasons, the NNC considered the matter resolved due to corrective action. (Case ID: 2023-52)

Past public comments are fair game’ for those seeking public office 

An individual filed a complaint with the NNC because they were concerned about how a profile piece portrayed a recent Toronto mayoral candidate.. The complainant felt the article showed negative bias against the former newspaper columnist turned political candidate by quoting a researcher that criticized the candidate’s past commentary on Islam. 

The NNC noted that it is common practice to report on political candidates’ professional history and past public comments, which extends to published columns. In this case, the subject of the profile had written opinion columns that showcased his perspective, which are a matter of public record and would be of interest to readers. The profile included the published comments as direct quotes or paraphrased statements, as is standard journalistic practice.

It is likewise standard journalistic practice to seek out comments from those with expertise in a particular field or subject matter. The news organization sought out comments from a researcher who was familiar with the candidate’s previously-shared opinions. All views were clearly attributed to the source, as is standard journalistic practice. Nowhere in the profile are such statements reflected as the opinion of the writer. 

While the NNC understands that the complainant objected to the perspective of the researcher quoted in the piece, the NNC found no evidence indicating that statements had been taken out of context or that they contained an inaccuracy, and dismissed the complaint. (Case ID: 2023-58)

Earlier this summer, the National NewsMedia Council (NNC) received multiple complaints related to coverage of attempts to defund libraries over allegedly sexualized content published in children’s books in rural Manitoba. In all cases, complainants were concerned about language use and what they considered a lack of context in the reporting.

In one complaint, for example, an individual objected to the story’s coverage by the Winnipeg Sun. This April 13, 2023 article reported on a presentation made to city councilors in Winkler, MB., by the complainant, as well as other community activists, that requested funding for the library be ceased until certain books were removed.

In her submission to the NNC, the complainant took issue with the description of their request as a “book ban.” The complainant said the use of this terminology was inaccurate, underscoring  that her campaign was about “creating library policies that align with the Criminal Code of Canada.” She argued that the published article should have made direct reference to the relevant sections of the criminal code but failed to do so.

The complainant also objected to specific words used in the piece, including the characterization of the event in question as a “protest,” and that community members were “demanding” the removal of certain books and “harassing” library staff. She argued that individuals were lined up in anticipation of a public meeting and that all presentations were carried out peacefully and in accordance with library policy.

Finally, the complainant stated that her presentation was not simply the view of a single resident but that it reflected the perspective of a number of community members, as indicated by the petition she cited.

In response to her concerns, the news organization updated the story to include her perspective that certain books violated specific sections of the criminal code. The update also included information about the petition presented.

In reviewing the concerns as well as the news organization’s response and actions taken to address them, the NNC considered the journalistic standard of accuracy and employed a simple reading of the terms referenced by the complainant.

With regards to the points raised about language use, the NNC noted that word choice is generally the prerogative of journalists when reporting stories. In this case, it was the view of the NNC that requests to remove certain titles from the library were reasonably characterized as a ban. Similarly, describing the organized and repeated requests for the restriction of access to titles or the removal of titles from a library may reasonably be described as a “demand.”

Further the NNC found no grounds to indicate that describing the event as a protest was inaccurate. Generally speaking, a protest may include individual or collective action expressing objection to an issue or policy. Given the volume and shared interests of the individuals in attendance, as well as other widely available reports indicating the presence of signage and other markers of protests, organized or otherwise, it was the view of the NNC that it was reasonable to describe the situation in this way.

In assessing the reference to the allegations of harassment, the NNC noted that the statement was clearly attributed to the director of library services, and that relevant context is provided in the following paragraph and attributed appropriately. An ordinary reading of the article offered a report on the events that unfolded at a public meeting and the issues raised by a number of community members about library policy.

That said, the NNC would point out that simply because the story reports that some members of library staff have encountered harassing behaviour, the article does not suggest that everyone who shares the complainants’ views has engaged in such behaviour. At the same time, reporting on this behaviour in the wider context of the debate about library policies and access to library material is a matter of public interest.

The NNC found no evidence that the language used in this case indicated a breach of the journalistic standard of accuracy. Further, it was the view of the NNC that the update to include the references to the criminal code and the signed petition is a matter of courtesy and demonstrated good faith on the part of the news organization to take steps to find a resolution to the concerns raised.

Journalists are tasked with choosing the appropriate language to provide readers with an accurate and fair understanding of the matter. While the NNC understands that individuals passionate about a particular cause would prefer to see specific words used to describe their actions, journalists and editors have the prerogative to choose the appropriate words for a story.

For the reasons outlined above, the NNC found no grounds to support a complaint about a breach of journalistic standards and did not take further action on the matter.

The National NewsMedia Council regularly receives complaints alleging bias in the news. Bias in journalism is a widely-debated topic in both academic and popular literature. It is also one of the most cited concerns in reader complaints submitted to the NNC, and it may come from all sides of the political spectrum, particularly in the lead up to elections.

Among the many complaints the NNC receives, the use of the term ‘bias’ often reflects a desire to see a specific angle or story published in the news. While the NNC understands that readers may wish to see more coverage on a particular subject or specific sources used, questions surrounding which stories to publish are the discretion of the news organization.

Case in point: The NNC recently received a complaint from an individual affiliated with the Alberta NDP, who expressed concern about a lack of print coverage by the Calgary Herald of a healthcare policy proposal released by their party during the recent pre-writ period.

The complainant, who worked as a communications staffer, argued that this reflected a partisan bias on the part of the Calgary Herald and cited a number of other outlets that covered the story. The complainant also referred to information from a media monitoring agency that the NDP contracts with to support the argument that stories published by the newspaper mention the UCP significantly more often than the NDP. (Case ID: 2023-17).

The complainant requested an opportunity to write an op-ed as a way to address his concern about what he considered a lack of coverage and to present readers with information about the party’s policy proposal.

As noted, the NNC often hears from individuals and organizations who would like to see a specific story covered in the news, covered more, or covered in a specific way.

It is worth noting that the NNC accepts complaints about allegations of breaches of specific journalistic standards in published articles. It does not deal with overarching trends in reporting, and does not have a mandate over which stories a news organization chooses to publish.

In reviewing the matter, the NNC did not find that there were any grounds to support a specific breach of journalistic standards.

Part of the NNC’s mandate is to provide education on journalistic practices and facilitate communication between the public and news media. For these reasons, the NNC heard from the news organization on this matter. The editor had responded to the complainant’s concerns by noting that a story about this announcement ran on both the Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun websites. The news organization also pointed to a story that ran in print the following day which references the announcement, and stated that an op-ed from either party was not warranted at this time.

The NNC agrees that responsible reporting is fair and accurate. Like any news story, stories about policy and politics must be accurate and adhere to other widely accepted standards.

We understand that supporters, members, and staff of a particular party have an interest in seeing their perspectives accurately reflected in their community newspapers. In fact, it is the role of a newspaper to reflect a number of perspectives within a community, and to facilitate discussion on important issues, including public policy.

That said, responsible reporting on policy and politics does not equate to equal or specific coverage. While parties may wish to have their positions and policies covered, they cannot demand specific stories be covered.

The NNC would note that when deciding which stories to publish, news organizations must balance newsworthiness and reporting stories on issues in the community with a number of constraints, including the resources required to gather relevant information, limited print real estate, and other editorial considerations. The NNC does not have a mandate to influence those editorial decisions, as that would be contrary to the values of free expression and freedom of the press. 

Of course, we recognize that the complainant would like to see his view and party’s policy included in print coverage. However, it is up to the news organization to decide which content best serves its readers. In this case, the NNC supported the news organization’s view that the story in question had been reported on multiple online platforms, and that remedy in the form of an op-ed was not warranted.

For the reasons outlined above, the NNC found no grounds to support a complaint about a breach of journalistic standards and did not take action on the matter. 

A cornerstone of a free and responsible press is journalists’ ability to report information that is significant, interesting, or new. Reporters and editors are tasked with deciding which details are needed for readers to understand the broader context of a given story.

In exercising this editorial discretion, journalists follow standards of accuracy and fairness, and take care to avoid undue harm. While quality journalism seeks to provide readers with a full account of events, occasionally it is also possible that certain details only become available after a story is reported, and articles may be updated to indicate any changes to readers.

The cases below are some recent examples of complaints brought to the attention of the NNC by readers  concerned with editorial decisions surrounding which information to include (or not) in local news reporting.

A free press means the freedom to report on public events and those involved

An individual phoned the NNC expressing concern that a local newspaper incorrectly spelled his daughter’s name and reported on his family members without their consent in an October 2022 article. The article reported on a public signing of an agreement to include more Indigenous teachings in schools. The article also referenced a story that had been published the previous year which highlighted the need for more education on Indigenous culture and teachings.

The individual took issue with the reference to the original story, which was widely reported on and centred around his daughter who was shamed at school for wearing a culturally significant garment. In that case, the article used inaccurate and insensitive language when describing her heritage. Further, although it did hear from a family member who was understood to be speaking for the family, the news organization did not directly consult the parents prior to publishing the piece. In response, the news organization apologized and removed the article in question.

The individual was also upset that the October 2022 article included a photo of his wife, who was a participant in the public event. He stated that as a result of the missteps in the prior article, the news organization had agreed not to cover him or his family in future stories. This, he said, was because any coverage of his family by the local newspaper results in them being the target of anti-Indigenous hate. He did not elaborate on specifics. 

The news organization responded to the individual by promptly fixing the spelling error in the daughter’s name. Although it noted that the event was public, and was in part prompted by his daughter’s widely reported experience, the news organization subsequently decided to remove all mention and images of his family members.

The NNC agrees that issues involving racism should be treated with appropriate journalistic care and rigour. Accuracy in facts and language is particularly important so as not to perpetuate harm.

As the concerns were made over the phone, and not submitted in writing, the matter did not rise to the level of a formal complaint. That said, the NNC informed the news organization of the matter so that they had an opportunity to address the issue at the local level, as is standard procedure.

In this case, the NNC recognized the news organization’s efforts to treat the issue of potential harm with sensitivity, particularly in cases where hate is an issue. At the same time, the ability of journalists to report on significant public events and their participants is a key aspect of press freedom. For this reason, the NNC does not endorse general agreements to refrain from covering specific individuals or their families. Instead, it would emphasize the need to report on such stories in accordance with best journalistic practices, which includes attention to language use. (Case ID: 2022-73)

Updating stories on criminal charges with relevant information is a best practice

An individual filed a complaint stating concern that a 2007 article reported on shoplifting charges against him. The article included a number of brief reports on separate charges laid against different individuals based on information from law enforcement. The article noted that the then 19-year-old was charged with theft under ($5000) following an allegation of shoplifting and was to appear in court. 

The complainant said his charges were dropped but that the article continues to affect his livelihood. The NNC referred the complainant to the news organization, as is standard practice when newsrooms have not been given an opportunity to respond to the matter directly. The news organization responded by removing his name from the article and indicated that the charges did not result in a conviction. In this case, the NNC considered the matter resolved due to corrective action. (Case ID: 2022-83)

Reporting on farm animals breaching barriers does not breach privacy

An individual filed a complaint stating concern that a local news site breached privacy by reporting on the escape of two goats from her farm. 

The individual worried that it reflected negatively on them and their farm and that they received negative social media comments as a result of the coverage. The article reported that a number of residents attempted to corral and return the animals to their pasture. 

Although standard practice would generally support the identification of the local farm, in this case, the NNC observed that the article did not include the name of the farm or the farmers out of courtesy, as noted in the piece. The NNC also observed that the story included comments from community members stating their love for the farm. The NNC found no evidence of a breach of journalistic standards, such as breach of privacy, or any evidence of harmful statements that would have merited a response. On the contrary, it was the view of the NNC that the article reflected positively on the farm and its inhabitants, both human and animal alike. (Case ID: 2022-67)

While most complaints relate to specific statements contained in a story, sometimes the NNC will hear from individuals concerned about other elements of a piece, including the photographs used. As with any journalistic content, there are standards and best practices surrounding the publication of images. Below are some of the complaints that the NNC assessed that dealt with concerns about photos.

News organizations take care when sharing images of tragic accidents

An individual filed a complaint stating concern about sensitive images used in a news story. The article reported on a fatal collision and showed photographs of the damaged vehicle, including a close-up of a car engine leaking oil on the road which, the complainant argued, looked like blood. In response to reader concerns, the news organization published an editorial outlining its reasons for reporting on accidents but also noting changes to how it will cover such stories in the future, including how the main image for a story will focus on the action of first responders.

On review of the article in question, the NNC observed that the images did not show any blood or any aspect of the victim. At the same time, the NNC supports the news organization’s steps to present such stories with more sensitivity and to communicate those changes to readers. For these reasons, the NNC considered the matter resolved due to corrective action. (Case ID: 2022-41)

Removal of ‘unflattering’ photos are not part of the NNC’s mandate

An individual approached the NNC with concern that an article published more than two years ago contained unflattering images of her. The article in question reported her missing. A subsequent article reported that she had been located.

Journalism plays an important role in communicating relevant information to the wider community, which may have an impact on individuals’ safety. At the same time, the NNC supports the best practice of updating articles with information about the outcome of cases, including missing persons cases.

As a matter of process, the NNC generally deals with articles published no more than a month before the complaint was filed, and only accepts complaints after the individual has tried to resolve the matter with the news organization directly, which was not done in this case. Importantly, the NNC does not deal with matters of taste or assess appropriateness of images based on whether the individual photographed feels they are favourable, as that is a matter of personal preference and not a matter of journalistic standards.

While the NNC declined to take further action on the complaint based on the reasons mentioned, it recognizes that coverage of missing persons is not without its challenges for newsrooms. For this reason, the NNC supports newsroom discussions on how to cover such stories accurately and equitably, as well as steps taken to limit undue harm to individuals and to ensure that decisions surrounding such stories do not disproportionately affect marginalized groups. (Case ID: 2022-45)

Real information about property and estate photographs: Sourcing and publishing photos in real estate coverage

A real estate agent contacted the NNC stating concern that images of their client’s house were featured as part of a property feature and felt that it was an invasion of their privacy.

The NNC pointed out that, generally speaking, much of the information about housing sales is accessible publicly, and that real estate agents often play an important role in providing additional information as part of their marketing plans. The NNC also noted that journalists may review submissions from agents, conduct interviews, and undertake research from sources of publicly-available information.

The news organization informed the complainant that real estate articles are a matter of public interest, crafted with publicly available information, including photos publicly available on real estate websites. The news organization noted that they are considered fair use, as long as credit is given to the source, which was done in this particular case.

Upon review, the NNC noted that the examples of properties listed in the story were organized and identified by neighbourhood— not by specific street addresses. With regards to the complainant’s concerns about the use of photographs, the NNC noted that appropriate credit was given to the source. For these reasons, the NNC found no grounds to support a breach of journalistic standards in this case. (Case ID: 2022-61)

The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) is an industry self-regulatory organization that receives and evaluates complaints about possible breaches of journalistic standards from members of the public against member news organizations. Another critical element of our organization’s mandate is to promote a news literate public that is aware of journalism’s critical role in a democratic society.     

In this latest dispatch from our complaints desk, you’ll find several summaries of recent reader complaints that the NNC has received and which have been addressed through corrective action by the news organization or through reader education about journalism standards and practices. 

Correcting out-of-date data in pandemic reporting

A reader expressed concern that an explainer article about COVID reinfection in New Brunswick inaccurately stated that reinfection was rare. 

The article cited provincial data on reinfection rates along with Canada’s 2021 communicable disease report to indicate that COVID reinfection was rare but still possible. However, the complainant pointed to more recent data from other provinces to support the fact that reinfection was more common than once thought. 

The news organization responded to the reader’s concerns about accuracy by updating the article to state that since the 2021 report, new variants and waning immunity against the virus have made reinfection more common. It also included an editor’s note to readers explaining the reason for the change. 

In this case, the NNC found that the news organization took appropriate steps to correct an error based on out-of-date data, and considered the matter resolved due to corrective action. (Case file: 2022-38)

Alerting readers to serious accuracy issues is critical 

An individual was concerned about how a news organization handled a correction in a story about their deceased family member.

The story stated that the complaint’s family member was charged with sexual harassment and assault. The complainant rightly pointed out, however, that the Crown had decided not to lay charges in the case. The day following the publication of the article, the news organization issued a correction on social media, and to its newsletter subscribers, noting the error. It also removed the story, “given the fundamental nature of the error.”

The NNC does not generally advocate for unpublishing content. However, in rare cases where changes to a piece are not sufficient to remedy serious journalistic errors, removing the article and alerting readers to the error may be an appropriate course of action.

In this case, the NNC found that the news organization’s steps to inform its audience of the error and remove the story constituted appropriate action to resolve the serious accuracy issue. For this reason, the NNC considered the matter resolved due to corrective action. (Case file: 2022-34)

(Not) just joking – deciphering reader columns that combine a range of content

A reader complained to the NNC with their concern that a regular column in a community newspaper was potentially spreading misinformation. 

The long-standing column in the local newspaper includes comments from readers on a range of subjects, in a range of styles, such as opinion and humour. In particular, the complainant was concerned with a comment noting “breaking news” that tech mogul Elon Musk had put in an offer to buy a local park in the community and “fix it up.”

On reading the column, the NNC noted that the statements were clearly satirical-style commentary not intended to be taken literally. For this reason, the NNC found no grounds to support a breach of the journalistic standard of accuracy. 

While the NNC emphasizes the importance of clearly labeling content for readers, it noted the long-accepted journalistic practice giving columnists and opinion writers wide latitude to express unpopular views, use strong language, and employ a variety of rhetorical tools, such as satire, as a means to persuade, entertain, or enlighten readers. (Case file: 2022-36) 

Online coverage of criminal charges and outcomes 

The NNC received a complaint from a reader, who had been subject to criminal charges, expressing concern that the news organization did not provide a follow-up story indicating those charges were later dismissed. 

Staff searched the publication’s archives and explained to the complainant the news organization had, in fact, written a follow-up story which stated the original charges had deen dropped. The complainant stated this story was not as prominently placed as the original article, indicating that charges had been laid, when they searched their name in Google. 

In this case, the NNC determined that the news organization followed accepted practices for covering criminal proceedings. That said, the NNC recommended to the news organization that future complaints about similar concerns could be mitigated by simply linking the original story to the follow-up, or updating the original reporting with the outcome of the charges. (Case file: 2022-29)

All four complaints summarized in this latest ‘Update from the Complaints Desk’ relate to journalistic sourcing. 

NNC staff regularly hear from engaged readers who critique stories that appear in member publications for a variety of reasons, sometimes because the stories do not hear from certain sources or other times because they do not include specific research findings or examine particular angles. 

Council has long supported the view that journalists have the prerogative to select the story’s sources and scope. Standard journalistic practice calls for news organizations to report information with accuracy and precision, to demonstrate fairness, and to corroborate claims or allegations. While readers may find other sources to support their views, this, in itself, does not always constitute a breach of journalistic standards. 

Hearing the half of it: Accuracy in an audio story 

One individual expressed concern about an alleged inaccuracy in an episode of a podcast that covered the story of police arrests at a protest. The complainant cited information provided by the RCMP to government officials to support their claim. 

The NNC reviewed the episode in question and noted the story was corroborated by observations from witnesses at the scene, including those who were arrested. The host also presented the statements from law enforcement and asked the guests to respond. This aligns with standard journalistic practice. 

The NNC noted that the complainant did not first demonstrate a reasonable attempt to resolve their concerns with the news organization directly. That said, the NNC found no grounds to support a claim of inaccuracy. (2022-11)

What constitutes sufficient context in breaking news? 

An individual was concerned that a ‘breaking news’ article did not include sufficient context about the reason for a judge’s decision to grant bail to “Freedom Convoy” protest organizer Tamara Lich. 

The article included information about the reason that a bail review was launched but did not delve into the details of the legal reasons behind the judge’s decision to grant bail. Generally speaking, breaking news updates offer immediate information to readers on a story of importance. In this way, they are different from longer form pieces, such as features or analysis pieces. . 

In its review, the NNC found that the article in question presented a brief report about a new development in a matter of public interest at the time. The NNC found no evidence to support a breach of journalistic standards. (2022-23)

‘That’s not funny’: Concerns about story selection in the entertainment section 

One individual wrote to the NNC arguing that an article about the Ukrainian president’s background as a former comedian, which was published in the entertainment section of a newspaper, was inappropriate in light of the devastating effects of the war in Ukraine. 

In reviewing the article in question, the NNC noted that the article offered a closer look at the unique background and skillset of an international public figure and the impact such skills may have on his political ability and leadership style. 

The NNC found no evidence to support a breach of journalistic standards in this case, and emphasized that journalists may choose the focus of a story for a wide range of journalistic purposes, including offering elements of human interest or providing nuanced perspectives on a specific topic. (2022-26)

Staying within the story’s scope when drawing on specific scientific findings 

An individual expressed concern that an article in a series about domestic violence did not adequately represent men as victims. The complainant wished to see the findings of a particular research study included in the article. The study showed men were equally likely as women to experience a form of abusive behaviour called coercive control, but less likely to report it. 

The NNC agreed that stigma can play a major role in the decision to report an incident, and that may impact available data on a number of sensitive subjects. However, the failure to include a specific scientific finding does not indicate a breach of journalistic standards. News stories are not necessarily intended to offer or compare the results of an entire body of scientific evidence on a vast area of study or complex issue, such as domestic violence. 

In this case, the article heard from individuals who had personal experience with the issue, and cited data and information from professionals in the field, to communicate to readers the severity of the problem. 

The NNC found that the information cited by the complainant did not directly contradict the statements in the article and found no grounds to support a breach of journalistic standards. (2022-27)

Below are several complaints that the National NewsMedia Council received and addressed through reader education about journalism standards and best practices over the past few weeks.

Readers express strong opinions on opinion polls

Two individuals complained about what they felt was inappropriate reporting about a public opinion poll that gauged Canadians’ attitudes about people who are not vaccinated. The poll showed the majority of respondents were in favour of mandatory vaccination, and that more than a quarter of respondents favoured a jail sentence for people who chose not to be vaccinated.

The complainants expressed concern that simply reporting on the poll was irresponsible and unfairly demonized a segment of the population. The NNC agrees that reporting on public opinion polls should be done responsibly and in proper context. In this case, the article presented important information to readers about the organization that conducted the poll, how the poll was conducted, the total number of respondents, and the margin of error. The NNC observed that the complainants’ concerns centred on the results of the poll, rather than the reporting of it, and found no evidence to support a complaint about a breach of journalistic standards. (Case ID: 2022-07)

Some comments on comment moderation

The NNC received two separate complaints from individuals concerned about comment moderation. In the first case, one individual was concerned that his comment was unfairly removed from a community news site. A second individual expressed concern to the NNC that a news organization did not take appropriate steps to remove what he felt was an offensive comment about the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

It is the view of the NNC that comments and letters to the editor are designed to promote reader engagement and enhance discussion in the community. At the same time, the NNC recognizes that news organizations have an interest in ensuring that conversations remain appropriate and on topic. That said, it pointed out that in addition to engaging in their own comment moderation, many news organizations’ platforms allow readers to flag comments that may violate community standards, and as such, that it may take some time for comments to appear or to be removed. The NNC view is that news organizations have the prerogative to allow or to prohibit commenting on articles, and to moderate comments for appropriateness and relevance as they see fit, which may include removing comments that include inappropriate language or promote misinformation. (Case IDs: 2022-12, 2022-13)

Dogged reporting is critical when publishing allegations against others

A dog owner, who’s dog was involved in an attack, argued that a local news story that reported on the event was inaccurate and did not include her side of the story. The complainant was not named in the article, and told the NNC that she wished to remain anonymous.

Standard journalistic practice requires that journalists corroborate information, including allegations against others. In this case, the story relied on multiple sources to retell the proceeding of events, in accordance with standard practice. The NNC also noted that transparency is critical to the credibility of reporting on events in the public interest. Standard journalistic practice indicates that sources should seldom be granted anonymity, and only for exceedingly compelling reasons, such as protecting victims of serious crimes. Given the practice of limiting the use of anonymous sources, the NNC agreed with the news organization’s position that granting anonymity to include additional on-the-record comments would be outside its normal practices, and did not find grounds to support a complaint about a breach of journalistic standards. (Case ID: 2022-17)

Below are several complaints that the National NewsMedia Council received and addressed through education over the past few weeks.

Satirical column falls flat for reader – distinguishing opinion from news

An individual complained that an opinion column about attitudes toward COVID vaccination was insensitive and promoted hateful views. The NNC noted that the role of opinion writing is varied, and may include seeking to persuade, entertain, or enlighten readers. 

An ordinary reading of the article in question indicated that it was satirical in nature. In this case, irony and exaggeration were used as a means to provide important reflection on a topical issue, and it was clear that statements were not intended to be taken literally. The NNC found no grounds for a complaint about a breach of journalistic standards. (Case ID: 2022-04)

Reporting on serious criminal charges

An individual complained that articles published by several news organizations reported on sexual assault charges against him despite the fact that he has not been convicted. The NNC explained that the articles all report charges but do not indicate that he has been found guilty of the allegations against him. 

Generally speaking, reporting on such cases is in the public interest and an important part of the open court system in Canada that includes accountable police and judiciary. The NNC noted that it is standard practice for news organizations to report on serious criminal charges and to follow up on the outcomes of those charges when they become available. (Case ID: 2022-06)

Political insight and points of view on local politics – varied roles of opinion writing

An individual complained that an opinion column showed bias in favour of a particular  politician. The NNC explained that opinion columns have various roles, which may include seeking to persuade or simply to inform readers from a particular perspective. 

A review of the column indicated that it reflected on the topic of political branding in the run-up to the next municipal election. While readers are free to disagree with its view, this does not indicate a breach of journalistic standards. (Case ID: 2022-10)

In addition to the regular volume of complaints the National NewsMedia Council receives from the public about the editorial standards of the journalism produced by our member titles, we also hear from individuals who are concerned about what they see as insufficient coverage of a particular subject, or those who would like to see a specific story appear in the news. 

Over the last week, as a convoy of trucks and other demonstrators descended on Ottawa to protest COVID-related restrictions, the NNC received and responded to a deluge of more than 350 complaints from concerned Canadians. Many, for example, emphasized their concern about a lack of coverage of the “Freedom Convoy” and its message of rolling back vaccine mandates. Others also expressed their displeasure that their perspectives were not adequately reflected in “mainstream” news coverage.

By and large, the vast majority of complaints zeroed in on broadcast outlets, such as CBC, CTV, and Global News. In our responses, we emphasized three important points. 

First, we explained that complaints about materials aired on television and radio news are handled by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. We would clarify, for the purposes of this communication, however, there is no complaints-handling body empowered with the mandate to handle public complaints against the websites of what are considered traditional broadcasting outlets. 

Second, the NNC clarified its mandate to the complainants. While we welcome feedback on what the public sees as ‘emerging issues’, our organization’s focus is to assess specific complaints about breaches of journalistic standards—such as inaccuracy and lack of opportunity to respond to harmful statements—in individual, published news and opinion articles. 

That said, as a matter of clarification, we explained to complainants that there has been, and continues to be, significant coverage of the issue in both news and opinion pieces.

Third, we emphasized that the NNC does not dictate to news organizations what stories should be covered. In keeping with fundamental rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, the NNC supports the view that decisions about what news to cover rightly rests with individual news media organizations. 

Several complainants responded to our notes expressing their outrage over news organizations’ coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically, and their distrust of the news media in general. Some appreciated our responses, others were less than polite. One individual even sent us a NSFW song.

While complaints, both real and unfounded continue to stream in, this experience provided an opportunity to underscore the important role news literacy plays in Canadian democracy.

Generally speaking, news organizations in Canada adhere to widely-accepted journalistic standards when reporting and opining on the news. We recognize that the pandemic has been challenging for journalists on a number of levels, and news organizations have risen to the challenge of dealing with fast-developing information, complex data, and sometimes conflicting perspectives. 

What is a challenge, of course, is that building trust with readers, in both analogue and digital public spheres, is a difficult and long-term exercise. We do this through several actions, including always respectfully acknowledging the displeasure of complaints, even when the rhetoric kicks into high gear. and attempting to better understand reader concerns against the backdrop of widely-accepted journalistic standards. 

As a self-regulatory industry association, the National NewsMedia Council frequently hears from Canadians who express concerns about how our member news organizations report, or opine, on news and current affairs that have a public impact. 

Some of the most popular refrains from complaints include keywords such as: “bias”, “omission”, “inaccuracy”, etc. As a matter of process, before the NNC gets involved, we encourage complainants to attempt to find a resolution to the concern with the news organization at the ‘local level’. 

But what happens in the event that the names and contact details of editors responsible for addressing these concerns aren’t easily available, either in print or online? This was the subject of a complaint we recently received against an Ontario-based community newspaper last month. 

An individual approached the NNC about their concerns with a police blotter news story that included their name and the details of their arrest. The complainant said the arrest was caused by a “misunderstanding” that had since been resolved. They had attempted to contact the news organization on several occasions to ask for the story to be updated but their requests had gone unanswered. 

The story’s impact was compounded by the fact that it was indexed by search engines, which meant their name and the charges could be easily retrieved through a simple keyword search. The complainant said this had a negative impact on their professional life and possible employment opportunities. 

In an effort to de-escalate the concerns of the complainant, the NNC staff contacted the publication and discovered that the contact details for the editor were out-of-date. Staff did receive the updated contact information for the publication’s current managing editor and contacted them in an effort to find a resolution to the complaint. 

NNC staff connected the complainant with the managing editor. The complainant provided the editor with the proper documentation, which indicated the charges against them had been dropped. The publication also verified this fact with the Ontario Provincial Police. The news organization updated the story and removed the complainant’s name from the publication. 

In this regard, the NNC finds that corrective action was taken to address this complaint. At the same time, however, the process of arriving at this resolution represents a cautionary tale for news organizations. 

This case illustrates how important a news organization’s ‘contact us’ page should not be treated as an online afterthought. Not only is it an important gateway for customer service, it is ground zero for building a long-lasting, trusting, and productive relationship with its readers. 

Over the past two months, the has NNC received more than 50 complaints, and dozens more phone calls, from people who expressed their concerns about a front-page layout of an August 26^th edition of the Toronto Star. Readers were incensed over the front-page presentation of a story featuring strongly-worded tweets about people who chose not to get the COVID vaccine. The front-page tweets were, in many readers’ words, “divisive and hateful.”

That day’s edition of the Toronto Star featured an article about public attitudes towards unvaccinated people, citing a poll that suggested many vaccinated Canadians had “no sympathy for those who choose not to get the COVID-19 vaccine and then fall ill.” The article pointed to strongly worded tweets from people who felt similarly, and the tweets were prominently displayed on the front page of the paper.

One tweet included on the front page read, “I have no empathy left for the willfully unvaccinated. Let them die.”

While the Toronto Star’s public editor published a column about the issues with the front-page display in the following days, the significant outcry from readers underscores the need for clarity and consideration when presenting complex issues, particularly when they are given the weight and focus of a front-page display.

In this case, the NNC heard from many complainants who were concerned that the comments expressed harmful views, sowed further division, and were not clearly identified as tweets from individuals.

Take, for example, some of the criticism we heard from complainants:

“This is a prime example of the divide the media has caused…This newspaper is fanning the flames of hatred and division.”

“To see such words of hate plastered across a front page is not only outrageous and unacceptable but also utterly irresponsible in these volatile times”

“We are already so fractured as a society that this headline does nothing but fuel the divide.”

“Everyone has a right to their opinion but a newspaper has an even greater responsibility to the community to ‘draw a line’. That front page article is down right scary and absolutely promotes hate, discrimination, misinformation and fear towards fellow human beings.”

One individual pointed out, “There are others who by means of exemption are unable to be vaccinated either due to religious beliefs or medical conditions,” and “Being that it is the front page, many people will see these hateful remarks and have no context unless they read the article.”

Even among those who recognized the comments as tweets, many felt it was difficult to discern this fact and that the comments were given undue weight. As one complainant put it, “The newspaper quotes someone from Twitter…and promotes it on their front page in a way that suggests they agree with it. The fact it comes from another person is in very small characters, and the text is placed without quotation marks.”

In addition to the general outrage over the front-page display of the story, some complainants took the opportunity to express their views on vaccination. A number of complainants simply wanted an apology from the news organization about how the newspaper chose to highlight these tweets.

Most complainants immediately contacted the NNC with their concerns. Some told us they even reached out to their local police with concerns about hateful language and were referred to the NNC.

The NNC reviewed each of the complaints and listened to their phone calls. As is our process, we encouraged them to try to resolve the matter, first, with the news organization directly and allow reasonable opportunity for the news organization to address their concerns.

On August 28, the public editor of the Toronto Star published his findings in a column in response to reader concerns. The Star had received thousands of messages from concerned readers who found the front-page display “confusing, hurtful and inflammatory.”

As noted in the column, “Many readers thought the statements were the Star’s view, like a front-page editorial; others thought it was the headline to the story.” The public editor noted that there were no quotation marks around the tweeted comments, that the tweets lacked context, and the source of the comments was not clearly identified.

The column included comments from the editor of the Toronto Star, who acknowledged the “power” and “responsibility” of a front page. She apologized for the fact that the particular front-page display did not meet their usual standards.

As noted in the column, the public editor found that “greater care should have been taken” in this case, and that “The Star wound up stoking the very divisions it sought to write about.”

Throughout the pandemic, the NNC has received a number of complaints and phone calls from people concerned with polarization and ‘divisiveness’ in reporting on COVID, and especially, COVID vaccines. In many of these cases, people want to see another side of the story reflected, even if the evidence does not support it.

Whether covering vaccine hesitancy or people’s response to vaccine hesitancy, reporting on unfounded, offensive, or even extreme views can be newsworthy and serve important journalistic purposes, so long as those views are treated with appropriate care. That means providing appropriate attribution and context, including verifiable evidence and information about sourcing.

In this particular case, the NNC recognizes that the complaints were primarily directed at the front-page layout of the story, and not the story itself, which in fact aimed to provide context and shed light on the attitudes expressed in the strongly-worded tweets.

In reviewing complainants’ concerns and the news organizations’ response to the matter, the NNC agreed with the news organization that the comments should have been more clearly labelled. It also agreed that in this case, the display of the tweets on the front page fell short of journalistic standards around context and attribution.

At the same time, the NNC found that the public editor’s findings and thorough report on the matter both acknowledged and addressed reader concerns about the lack of context, inadequate labelling, and divisive nature of the comments.

While apologies typically fall outside the mandate of the NNC, we would note that the chief editor’s comments and apology for the front page’s shortcomings, as quoted in the column, go a long way to addressing reader concerns, particularly of those who wished to see recognition of the wide-reaching impact of the newspaper’s front page.

In light of the published findings by the Toronto Star public editor, the NNC considered this matter resolved due to corrective action.

How many perspectives should be included in a brief news piece? When are letters considered an appropriate remedy to showing another side of an issue? These are questions that reporters and editors face every day as they exercise their editorial judgment to determine the angle of the story, the people interviewed, and the evidence used to provide an accurate account of events for readers.

The National NewsMedia Council recently reviewed a reader’s concerns about accuracy and lack of opportunity to present another perspective in a story about local pesticide use.

The article, published in an Ontario-based community paper, reported on residents’ reactions to a recent application of fungicide, via helicopter, to a cornfield in the area. The article featured comments from local residents expressing concern with the noise disturbance and proximity of the helicopter to their houses.

An individual in the agricultural industry expressed concern with the lack of perspective from farmers and other members of the agricultural community. In particular, the individual argued that the article suggested that the fungicide was “sprayed liberally on the native ecosystem around the field boundaries,” rather than used correctly by trained professionals.

In reviewing the article, the NNC observed that the comments were clearly the perspective of some residents and were attributed accordingly. The NNC found no evidence to support the claim that the article implied that the product was used incorrectly or outside the intended area.

The brief article offered a summary of the concerns raised by residents about the application of the fungicide near their houses. All statements were attributed accordingly to the individuals quoted in the story.

That said, we understand that the individual’s primary concern in this case was not being able to provide a different perspective and relevant information in response to the concerns raised by residents quoted in the article.

A subsequent edition of the local newspaper dedicated a section of its pages to reader reactions to the brief article.

In one article, the publisher alerted readers to the different—and often strong—perspectives on the published piece and other issues at hand. The edition included a published response from the complainant as well as several letters to the editor and other comments in response to the story.

In this case, the NNC considered the news organization’s decision to publish responses to the article to be consistent with best practices in addressing reader concerns, and found the issue resolved. The significant attention devoted to reader responses provided opportunity to show a range of opinions in the community, from farmers and those outside the agricultural industry.

Letters to the editor offer opportunities to clarify or provide different perspectives on information and opinions presented in articles. In this way, they can often serve as a remedy to concerns raised by readers, and showcase the breadth of opinions held by members of a community.

How news organizations report on vaccines has been the subject of numerous complaints submitted to the National NewsMedia Council over the years, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the volume of those concerns has increased over the last year.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, some individuals have expressed concern that any reporting on vaccine side effects could lead to vaccine hesitancy and, therefore, all critical coverage should be avoided. Others have alleged that the information reported is ‘biased’ and therefore should not be trusted.

Although the majority of such complaints did not indicate grounds to support a breach of journalistic standards, they do underscore the importance of providing accurate, relevant information to readers in a timely manner.

The NNC recently reviewed a complaint from one reader about the accuracy of the information presented about a COVID-19 outbreak in a community on the west coast. While the NNC found no grounds to support a complaint about a breach of journalistic standards, it did consider the matter to be of interest to the wider public.

The article in question reported on a recent COVID-19 outbreak in a retirement facility. The story relied on a memo circulated by the company to its staff.

The complainant expressed concern that the article inaccurately attributed the outbreak to unvaccinated individuals. They stated that subsequent contact tracing efforts were not able to verify the source of the outbreak, and argued that the article contained personal, identifying information about the unvaccinated individuals.

The NNC found no evidence to support the complainant’s claim that the article contained inaccurate or personal, identifying information about the unvaccinated individuals.

Standard journalistic practice allows journalists to select the sources they deem credible. Information may become available after a story is published, and readers may find alternative sources to support their views. However, this fact alone does not indicate a breach of the journalistic standard of accuracy.

The NNC accepted the news organization’s response that the letter provided relevant information on an event in the public interest at the time of reporting. It also accepted that an attempt was made by the news organization to reach out to the retirement facility for further comment. As noted in the article, that request was unsuccessful.

For these reasons, the NNC found no grounds to support a complaint about a breach of journalistic standards. It also underscored the fact that as a self-regulatory body that promotes responsible journalism and free expression, it strongly defends journalists’ ability to report on these important issues in the public interest.

Over the past several months, the NNC has been hearing a great deal about pandemic-related reader comments and letters to the editor.

“Yet another (letter) praising (a writer’s) comments has appeared in this week’s (paper). Large numbers of protestors have started to protest measures based on this type of misinformation that they believe affects them,” is one lament we heard.

“It concerns me that misinformation, and disinformation for that matter, would even get published.”

Some readers have told us they are worried about how the alleged misinformation published as letters to the editor will hurt public health and encourage risky social behaviour(s). They report being afraid to challenge those facts or opinions because of the fear of social media backlash.

We also heard about the other side of the coin – readers upset about being unable to submit comments on COVID-19 coverage.

One reader who contacted us said he and others were unable to post comments containing self-described ‘alternate information’ about COVID-19. Another complainant wanted to post “facts and data that media and governments are not providing to the public.”

Letters to the editor are a long-standing feature allowing readers to express opinions and to respond to published articles. Online comments provide a similar forum for discussion. Best practice is to publish letters that represent the diversity of views and voices in the community.

But what if letters to the editor espouse misinformation?

We’ve heard of letters to the editor containing anti-mask and anti-vaccine rhetoric. In smaller communities, or ones with (thankfully) few cases of COVID, and where the impact is perhaps less obvious, do those opinions carry outsized influence? How does a newsroom assess whether it is giving voice to diverse views or is spreading misinformation? At what point is there no “other side” in matters of public health?

These are questions worthy of attention as the pandemic underlines a new challenge in the news media’s effort to quell misinformation while promoting freedom of expression.

For its part, the NNC cannot settle controversies around COVID-related science and policy. It supports the prerogative of news organizations to produce journalism it deems to be in the public’s interest. Our mandate is to consider complaints about breaches of journalistic standards in news reporting and opinion articles, including ones related to COVID-19.

The NNC has received several complaints this year about headlines. In two recent examples, both complainants were concerned that the headline of the story contained misleading or insufficient information. The NNC found no breach in either case, but instead identified relevant points for the purpose of reader education.

In one case, an individual was concerned that the headline of a Globe and Mail article incorrectly attributed the statement that ‘Mi’gmaq students [were] no longer welcome’ in the province to the New Brunswick premier, or worse, to all New Brunswick residents. The individual felt that it was incorrect because no one had uttered the exact phrase.

In this case, the Globe amended the headline shortly after publication to include a more detailed statement of fact, in particular, that Mi’gmaq students in Quebec could not ‘cross border for school.’ The NNC views that corrective action as appropriate.

The NNC pointed out that it is common practice for news headlines to refer to governments or well-known groups in this short-hand manner. Readers generally understand the reference to be to the authorities, not each resident. It is also common practice to paraphrase the statements and perspectives of officials in headlines with the verb “says,” as was the case in this example.

In another example, an operator of a local business was concerned that the headline of a Collingwood Today article was misleading because it did not name the pub where a staff member had tested positive for COVID. The complainant stated he had received numerous calls from curious patrons, and said the lack of specific detail in the headline left some readers to assume it referred to his establishment.

In reviewing the complaint and article in question, the NNC noted that the first line of the article referenced the specific establishment.

The NNC sympathizes with the challenges that businesses are facing during these times. We also recognize that journalism has the job of providing the community with important information, and that at times that mandate must be balanced against privacy concerns and perceived negative impact. The NNC found that balance was achieved in this case.

Standard journalistic practice requires that headlines are accurate and reflect the focus of the article. However, headlines are also limited in that their function is to grab readers’ attention in a concise and sometimes clever way.

In these cases, most of the concerns about the headlines were answered by information contained in the article that followed. While it is unfortunate that some readers may choose to read only the headline and miss out on important information in the article, that itself does not indicate a breach of standards.

The NNC recently reviewed a complaint from a reader who was displeased that Sudbury.com had removed a message posted to the comment section at the foot of June 23, 2020, article under the headline, “Graduate students say request to LU to waive tuition fees met with ‘basically silence’”.

The complainant expressed concern that the news organization acted unethically by removing the comment, and stated that the act amounted to “unlawful censorship” and violation of Charter rights to free expression.

In its review of the complaint, the NNC noted that policies for comment moderation were clearly laid out in the publication’s community guidelines. These guidelines provide news organizations with wide latitude to review and approve comments that adhere to the stated parameters, while enhancing the discussion of the topic at hand. It is worth noting that a news publication is not obliged to print any or all comments submitted.

The news organization’s community guidelines explain that those who wish to post comments on their site are requested to stay on topic. The NNC supports the view that it is the prerogative of news organizations to moderate comments it considers to be relevant and appropriate.

As the NNC is a self-regulatory organization, and not a court of law, it declined to interpret the complainant’s concerns about a breach of Charter rights. From a journalistic point of view, however, the NNC concurs with the observation that comment moderation does not constitute censorship.

For the reasons above, the NNC decided it would not take further action on the complaint, as there were no clear violations of journalistic standards.

The National NewsMedia Council received a complaint about a racially insensitive syndicated cartoon that appeared in the Calgary Herald.

Concern was expressed that the cartoon, “Close to Home,” published on February 21, 2020, was racist against Indigenous people in its depiction of a character. The cartoon showed the Lone Ranger and Tonto at a bar, with the words “‘Kemosabe! Tonto hear last call coming! Maybe eight or ten minutes away…’”

A number of news media subsequently reported on objections to the inappropriate nature of the cartoon, hearing from First Nations groups and individuals on social media who stated that the cartoon presented negative stereotypes of Indigenous people as alcoholics. Reports also cited the inflammatory nature of the cartoon in the political backdrop of current events, which centres on the widely-reported protests and blockades taking place throughout the country in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en First Nation’s opposition to a pipeline project in B.C.

The news media organization responded by tweet on February 25, 2020, and by publishing an editor’s note in the February 26 edition of the Calgary Herald. Both responses apologized for the offensive nature of the cartoon and stated that the paper will cease publishing the syndicated comic strip.

The NNC is of the view that news media organizations are responsible for the third-party content they publish. It is worth noting that the syndication service and creator of the comic strip also issued an apology for the cartoon.

Ethical journalism takes care to ensure that language and images do not expose groups to discrimination. The NNC recognizes the particular importance of using appropriate language and images in times when such groups may be the subject of heightened political discourse.

In this case, the NNC recognizes that the news media organization offered an apology to readers. It further sent a strong message of preventing a similar error in future and distancing itself from the prejudiced representation by cancelling the cartoon in question. For these reasons, the NNC considers this matter resolved due to corrective action.

The National NewsMedia Council recently received a strongly-worded reader complaint about an opinion column published in the Vernon Morning Star that commented on expectations related to women in public, in particular, the assumption that an unaccompanied woman must be a sex worker.

In the November 22, 2019 column, “Nothing wrong with being mistaken for a sex trade worker,” the writer humourously described her experience of being mistaken as a sex worker by virtue of where she was—alone—and how she was dressed.

In their submission, the complainant objected to the premise and tone of the column, and stated concern that it sent the wrong message to readers about sex work.

The NNC defends the long-accepted journalistic practice giving columnists and opinion writers wide latitude to express unpopular views. It also upholds the prerogative of the opinion writer to question both change and the status quo, and to use strong language.

At the same time, the NNC recognizes that opinion pieces impact readers differently and to varying degrees. While opinion pieces may encourage debate or inspire empathy among readers, in other cases, readers may even find the opinions offensive.

Generally, the NNC will not consider a complaint about opinion writing except in the case of an error of fact. In reviewing the article and complaint, the NNC found no evidence of factual error.

Instead, the NNC found that the opinion piece in question offers commentary on the social norms surrounding women in public and the stigma associated with sex work. The article neither condemns nor promotes sex work, though it does include a proviso about the safety of individuals in the industry.

Although the complainant found the opinion writer’s point of view objectionable, there was no evidence of factual error, nor was there evidence that the opinion writer had crossed the line in any way.

While distinct from news reporting, opinion pieces play an important role in journalism to provoke thought and provide perspective on important issues. They also serve to showcase diverse, sometimes provocative, perspectives.

For these reasons, the NNC found no evidence of a breach of journalistic standards, and no grounds for a complaint. It did, however, find that the complaint underscored the important role that opinion writing plays in examining uncomfortable issues in the context of a free and democratic society.

A complaint to the National NewsMedia Council during the recent federal election campaign questioned a news organization’s right to endorse a political candidate.

The complainant insisted that Postmedia’s endorsement of Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer demonstrated bias, and was an unethical attempt to influence the electorate.

The complainant noted that the newspaper’s editorial listed concerns with Liberal party policy and leadership, and explained its reasons for supporting Scheer and the Conservative Party.  However, the complainant argued that editorial endorsement amounts to the media’s attempt to manipulate facts and electoral outcomes.

The NNC rejected that view, and supported the widely-accepted journalistic standard of allowing editorials and opinion pieces that express unpopular or partisan views.

The NewsMedia Council responded to the complainant by stating that news organizations have the prerogative to take an editorial stand, and that many have been clear in their support for one party or another.

In fact, many newspapers in Canada were established for the purpose of influencing the electorate, whether on the Confederation question in the 1800s, or since then to promote a more conservative or more liberal point of view.

A news organization’s prerogative to publish clearly identified editorial and opinion articles that express differing points of view facilitates important public dialogue in a democratic society. This widely-accepted standard is balanced by the equally widely-accepted standard that news articles will be objective, regardless of the organization’s editorial stand.

There is no compulsion on the reading public to act on a newspaper’s editorial view or opinion piece. The public may be convinced by an opinion article or not, but in either case examining the issues from a stated perspective is the job of opinion journalism and analysis.

In this case, the news media organization followed best practices by providing a clear and appropriate label for the editorial article and by placing it in the opinion section. The NewsMedia Council found no breach of journalistic standards, and no grounds for a complaint.

Following the federal election, the National NewsMedia Council received a complaint about a reprinted opinion article that referred to Western separation as a “dumb” idea.

The complainant stated that the article failed to provide reasons that Western Canada is unhappy, and objected to their being described as “dumb” for wanting to separate from a federal relationship that he argued isn’t working.

The NewsMedia Council responded to the complaint by stating as a general principle that opinion articles are allowed to express unpopular or partisan views. It noted that providing strongly stated, even sometimes unpopular opinions, can facilitate public dialogue on important issues.

In this case, the NNC pointed out that the columnist did not direct qualifiers, such as ‘dumb’, to the residents of Alberta. A thorough reading of the article revealed that the columnist’s comments were directed to the limitations of Alberta separating from Canada, and outlined his reasons to deem separation as one of the ‘dumbest’ notions.

For this reason, the NewsMedia Council found no breach of journalistic practice or ethics and no grounds for a complaint.