September 11, 2024 – for immediate release

The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) has dismissed with reservation a complaint about accuracy and attribution in a May 13, 2024, opinion column published by the National Post. 

The opinion column, “Don’t believe those insisting concerns over safer supply are a ‘moral panic,’” argues that a recent medical journal article “accusing journalists of spreading disinformation and causing widespread panic” had “missed the mark.”

One of the authors of the journal article, Gillian Kolla, filed a complaint with the NNC stating that the opinion column unfairly characterized her work and views, and that it contained inaccurate information about substance use and harm reduction efforts.

The complainant raised a number of concerns with the column. In particular, she alleged that the column waged a personal attack and attempted to discredit her work, in part by describing her as a “harm reduction activist” instead of a public health researcher, thereby undermining her expertise on the subject.

The complainant argued that the column inaccurately characterized her view about prior opinion pieces by the writer. Specifically, the complainant disagreed with the column’s statement that what had “bothered” her “most” was not the occurrence of violence in the community but the images of vulnerable individuals, which had been published in a prior opinion piece.

The complainant took issue with other statements in the piece, including the statement that the neighbourhood’s concerns were “ignored,” and that the column’s reference to a “steep increase in crime” was not properly attributed. She also alleged that the statement, “[the complainant’s] insistence that the evidence does not support the possibility that diverted hydromorphone from safer supply programs is potentially contributing to youth developing opioid use disorder,” was inaccurate.

In its response, the news organization stated, “Our view is that there is plenty of legitimate commentary both on [the journal article] and the issue in general.” The news organization invited the complainant to submit an opinion article expressing her view on the issues, noting that it has published an opinion piece from her in the past. It emphasized that it believed the opinion column stood as is.

The news organization responded to each of the complainant’s concerns, noting that posts on the complainant’s social media account as well as her work with advocacy organizations support the column’s characterization of the complainant as an activist.

In response to the complainant’s concern about the column stating what “bothered” her “most,” the news organization explained that while other issues may have bothered the complainant, it was fair to say that the photos bothered her “the most” because the issue the complainant chose to express concern about on social media were the photos in the opinion writer’s prior column. The news organization citied the complainant’s social media posts to support this view.

The news organization said that the view that the community’s concerns were ignored was in reference to the subject of a prior column, and was “at the heart of the provincial reviews.” It also noted that the reference to the “steep increase in crime” is supported by data provided by law enforcement and expanded on in a prior column. The news organization noted that the statement characterizing the complainant’s views as ‘insisting’ that there is no link between diverted substances from safer supply programs and youth opioid use disorder includes a hyperlink to an interview with the complainant published by another news organization.

In response to the complainant’s point about lack of attribution about crime levels in the area, the news organization updated the article to include a link to a prior column that explained the source and relevance of the information used.

The complainant was unsatisfied with the news organization’s response, and declined the offer to submit an opinion piece for consideration.

In reviewing the matter, the NNC drew on journalistic standards surrounding opinion writing. The NNC consistently supports the wide latitude afforded to opinion writers to express unpopular opinions and use strong language when presenting their views.

In this case, the NNC recognizes that the column is responding to criticism—both from the complainant and others—about the opinion writer’s past published opinions, and other reporting, on the subject at hand. In particular, the column levels criticism at a recent academic journal article by the complainant and her co-authors that raises concerns about the news media contributing to a ‘moral panic’ around safer supply programs.

The NNC has long held that opinion columns offer a valuable forum for the exchange of perspectives on important social issues and government policies. Providing opportunity for response is not necessarily warranted for opinion columns that express political views or critiques on social issues. That said, opinion writing should not be used to present unsubstantiated claims or potentially harmful allegations about individuals.

The NNC understands that the complainant would like to see her professional expertise acknowledged. At the same time, it found no grounds to indicate that “harm reduction activist” is inaccurate or, generally, is considered a derogatory term. Further, the fact that the column focuses on an academic article by the complainant indicates to readers that the authors of the article are academic researchers.

For these reasons, it is Council’s view that there is sufficient information in the column to indicate to readers that the complainant is an academic researcher and found no grounds to uphold a complaint about accuracy on this count.

Next, the NNC reviewed the following statement: “What bothered Kolla most about my reporting was not that a woman had been killed in cold blood by the drug dealers the site drew to the area, or that South Riverdale had completely ignored my neighbourhood’s safety concerns, which included traumatic assaults of women and children, not to mention a steep increase in crime and discarded syringes in school yards. No, what really bothered Kolla were the photos that ran with my story.”

Council agreed with the complainant that it was not possible for the opinion writer to know with certainty what ‘bothered’ the complainant ‘most’ in this case. At the same time, it agreed with the news organization that social media posts, cited by the news organization, support the statement that the published photos were a pressing concern for the complainant. Importantly, Council observed that the first sentence of the paragraph in question signals to readers that the column is referring to the complainant’s social media comments in a community Facebook group.

That said, articles, including opinion columns, should take care to avoid mischaracterizing someone’s thoughts or feelings, as those matters are not readily provable. Council recognized in this case that the opinion writer may be characterizing the complainant’s concerns based on the sentiments expressed in her social media posts. Council was of the view, however, that the article could have used other language to avoid characterizing, or mischaracterizing, her thoughts as a statement of fact.

For this reason, Council dismissed this portion of the complaint with the reservation that the column could have worded the statement differently so as to avoid attributing a potentially inaccurate claim to an individual.

The NNC recognizes that the complainant disputes the characterization of the reaction, or lack thereof, to safety concerns expressed by the opinion writer as well as the opinion writer’s reference to an increase in crime in the area. These two points are expanded on in a prior column, which provides more background on the opinion writer’s view that his concerns were “ignored,” or insufficiently addressed to his satisfaction, as well as information surrounding the source of the data that appears to show an increase in crime. For these reasons, Council supported the update to the column to include a hyperlink so that readers may understand the column’s argument in context.

The NNC recognizes that the complainant takes issue with the column’s view that her “insistence that the evidence does not support the possibility that diverted hydromorphone from safer supply programs is potentially contributing to youth developing opioid use disorder.”

Both parties agree that the complainant “insists” that this risk is not supported by evidence. What is at issue, therefore, is the accuracy and attribution of the claim, and further, that the complainant’s view contributes to such a risk. The complainant cites data from Health Canada to support her view that the column’s statement is inaccurate.

In reviewing the column, the NNC observed that the preceding and following paragraphs expand on the opinion writer’s view and refer to other, recent news developments as well as comments from law enforcement and a psychiatrist’s interpretation of a provincial government report on drug overdoses.

The NNC recognizes that individuals may find other sources to support, or counter, views subject to debate. That in itself does not necessarily indicate an inaccuracy.

In this case, Council is of the view that the statement in question expresses the opinion writer’s view on an issue subject to public debate, and draws on the explanation and information presented to readers throughout the column.

That said, taken together with the other comments directed at the complainant, Council observed that the column singles out the complainant for her views and engages in a particularly personal level of criticism.

The NNC has previously found that presenting alternative perspectives or counter opinions may provide a remedy in some cases. In other cases, however, offering the opportunity to provide a published opinion in response to negative criticism may place an unfair burden on individuals.

Further, some Canadian newsroom guidelines caution opinion writers against engaging in personal or internal debates with individuals in the opinion section. While it is not the role of the NNC to assess the strength or quality of an argument, the NNC has previously stated that best practice is to avoid ad hominem attacks that are immaterial to the main thrust of an article.

The NNC would emphasize that it is in the public interest to support opinion writers’ ability to make arguments and level strong criticism about individuals’ ideas or statements on political, social, and cultural matters. At the same time, those arguments must take care to avoid making unfair, unprovable claims about those individuals’ thoughts or feelings.

For these reasons, Council dismissed the complaint albeit with a strong reservation. Council emphasized that care should be taken to ensure appropriate balance between supporting opinion writers’ ability to draw conclusions and use strong language in presenting their arguments with the responsibility to avoid undue harm.