April 15, 2025 – for immediate release
The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) has considered and dismissed a complaint about accuracy, language use, and the opportunity to respond to a November 28, 2024, opinion article, published by the National Post.
The opinion piece argued that a human rights complaint against a B.C. doctor risked “[normalizing] lawfare against physicians who hurt our feelings by speaking the truth.” The opinion piece centred on the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s decision to proceed with a complaint filed by Sara Lindberg alleging the doctor discriminated against her based on her weight during her pregnancy.
Sara Lindberg filed a complaint with the NNC raising concerns with the accuracy, language, and focus of the opinion piece. In her submission, the complainant argued that numerous statements in the piece contained inaccurate, distorted, or incomplete facts.
Among the many statements flagged in the complaint submission, the complainant raised concern with the reference to her body mass index (BMI) and the statement that suggested “any discussion around evidence-based care” was “glaringly absent” from her case. In fact, the complainant argued, the focus of her human rights complaint centred around an infant’s right to a safe delivery guided by “evidence-based care.”
The complainant also raised several concerns with the paragraph of the column that read: “Lindberg got lucky with a healthy baby. Let’s hope her child does not require future therapy for the trauma of discovering that her mother fought so hard to prioritize ‘fat activism’ over her own safe entry into the world. Because that is what this case ultimately comes down to: a fat activist performing a malicious and attention-grabbing stunt.” The complainant pointed out that her human rights complaint was lodged after she gave birth.
The complaint submission included objections to the piece’s use of language, noting that the term “birth centre” was inaccurate, as the place in question was a hospital. Similarly, the complainant noted she was not in fact “suing” the doctor but, rather, filing a human rights complaint for which she was not seeking damages.
Finally, the complainant raised concern with the way the writer approached her for comment, noting that the writer did not specify that the piece would be an opinion.
In responding to each of the concerns raised, the news organization noted that many of the complainant’s allegations reflected a difference of opinion or misunderstanding of what was said in the opinion piece. The news organization noted that the statements about how the complainant “got lucky with a healthy baby” and other statements identified by the complainant reflected these differences of opinion.
In response to the complainant’s concern that the piece suggests that the human rights complaint was filed while the complainant was pregnant, the news organization updated the piece to include the date of when the human rights complaint was filed to clarify the timing of events for readers.
Regarding the complainant’s concerns about how the opinion writer approached her, the news organization stated that the writer clearly identified herself as a writer for the National Post when approaching the complainant for comment.
The news organization emphasized it did not consider the opinion piece to have breached journalistic standards. Nevertheless, it invited the complainant to submit a 700-word response for publication to present another perspective on the matter. The news organization also offered to turn off comments to address the complainant’s concerns about potential reaction to any piece she might submit for publication.
In reviewing the matter, the NNC considered the wide latitude opinion writers have to present unpopular views and use strong language so long as statements are grounded in fact. Council considered the concerns of this complaint to revolve around: the accuracy of statements, language use, and the opportunity to respond to harmful allegations.
In reviewing the individual statements flagged by the complainant, Council was of the view that a significant number of statements represented the opinion writer’s views on the issue at hand, rather than statements of fact. That said, Council agreed that several statements merited further review on the matter of accuracy.
In examining the opinion piece’s reference to the complainant’s BMI, the NNC observed that the calculation is disputed by parties, as noted in the tribunal’s decision to deny the dismissal. Council is of the view that it is not the role of the NNC to decide on issues subject to dispute in an ongoing case being considered in another forum. That said, there is no dispute that the doctor stated her BMI as “46” in the tribunal’s decision, which was linked in the article. For this reason, Council agreed with the news organization in this case that the opinion appears to rely on the information in the tribunal’s decision that notes the doctor calculated her BMI to be a specific figure, even if that was a miscalculation at the time.
Council assessed the complainant’s allegation that the following statement is inaccurate: “Glaringly absent from Lindberg’s entire case is any discussion of an infant’s right to a safe delivery guided by evidence-based care.”
Council recognizes that the complainant contends that the statement is inaccurate on the grounds that her case centres around a concern for the safety of her child. In particular, the complainant argued that delivering her baby in a location farther from her local hospital would pose a greater risk for her and her child. She pointed to paragraph 35 in the tribunal’s decision, which states, “Not only was this inconvenient, [the complainant] says, but she was also concerned about the potential implications of any delay, given she was told her pregnancy was high-risk.”
Council observed that the tribunal decision included her request that the doctor provide her with “absolute risks” associated with delivering her child, which may be understood as asking for evidence-based care. That said, it is Council’s view that the statement is the opinion of the writer based on one party’s perspective in the human rights complaint, namely, the doctor in this case. It is not unreasonable for an opinion writer to support the view of one party over another in a dispute. That, in itself, is not a breach of standards.
In reviewing the concern about the timeline, Council noted that the piece included an editor’s note stating, “Editor’s note: This column has been updated to clarify that the human rights complaint was filed in 2021.” Council agreed that the editor’s note about the timing of the complaint does not explicitly state when the child was born, and therefore does not clearly indicate to readers the timeline of events.
On this point, Council considered the following paragraph with respect to the accuracy of the timeline and other accuracy concerns: “Lindberg got lucky with a healthy baby. Let’s hope her child does not require future therapy for the trauma of discovering that her mother fought so hard to prioritize ‘fat activism’ over her own safe entry into the world. Because that is what this case ultimately comes down to: a fat activist performing a malicious and attention-grabbing stunt.”
Council observed that the previous paragraph states, “The hospital where Lindberg wanted to give birth is classified as ‘low risk and without the benefit of specialized staff and equipment,’” and cites information about the health risks of obesity during pregnancy. In this way, the opinion writer appears to criticize the complainant’s wish to give birth at her preferred hospital instead of simply following the doctor’s advice. For this reason, Council accepted the news organization’s view that the complainant had objected to the doctor’s recommendation at the time, and agreed that the argument does not hinge on the timing of when the human rights complaint was filed.
Council considered the phrase “a fat activist performing a malicious and attention-grabbing stunt.” The NNC has previously warned against characterizing someone’s thoughts or motivations as a clear statement of fact rather than an opinion. While Council agrees with the complainant that the statement may be read as commenting on her state of mind, it also agreed with the news organization that this is an expression of the writer’s opinion of the complainant’s actions in this case.
Finally, with respect to the statement that the doctor should look into ‘having the case tossed out,’ Council agreed with the complainant that the decision in question appears to settle this issue. That said, Council was of the view that this comment is the opinion of the writer who, as an opinion writer, may use strong language and rhetoric to express an unpopular stance on issues in the public sphere. For the reasons outlined above, Council dismissed the portion of the complaint about accuracy.
On the use of the terms “birthing centre” versus “hospital,” as well as “sue” versus lodging a complaint to be decided by a tribunal, Council considered an opinion writer’s latitude surrounding word choice. In this case, the use of the term “birthing centre” appears to broadly refer to a delivery ward or place where an individual may give birth. Importantly, it does not appear to alter the overall thrust of the opinion presented.
On the use of the term “sue,” the opinion writer appears, again, to be speaking generally. While Council recognized that the complainant is not “suing” the doctor in the tribunal, nor is she seeking damages, the use of the term appears to fall within the writer’s prerogative to strongly state opinions and decide word choice. While the facts may be more precisely stated using alternative terms, in this case, Council found that such terms do not rise to a level of inaccuracy.
Lastly, Council considered the issues of requests for comment—namely, the way that the writer identified herself—and the opportunity to submit a response for publication to fall within the general category of opportunity to respond to harmful allegations.
Generally speaking, journalists are expected to clearly identify themselves, their organization, and the nature of the article they intend to write. In this case, Council accepted the news organization’s response that the writer identified herself and the outlet for which she was writing. The NNC, however, would support a clearer explanation to potential sources and subjects of opinion pieces in the future to ensure all parties are clearly informed about the expectations of attribution and how their comments will be used in context.
With regards to providing a published response to the opinion piece, the NNC has previously stated that letters and published opinion pieces may be considered as a potential remedy to address public concerns, depending on the nature of the issues. At the same time, Council has also pointed out that offering the opportunity to provide a published opinion in response to negative criticism may place an unfair burden on individuals. In this case, Council recognized that the individual has filed a human rights complaint, which may be considered a matter of public interest. Further, Council also recognized that the news organization offered to turn off
commenting on the response piece, should the complainant provide one. For the reasons outlined above, Council dismissed this portion of the complaint.
Council agrees with the complainant that readers may view the opinion piece as lacking nuance, and that the piece does not reflect the complainant’s arguments nor does it provide a thorough description of the complainant’s position as presented in the human rights complaint. That said, opinion writers are not generally required to report all sides of an argument in presenting their views. For the reasons outlined above, Council did not find grounds to support a breach of journalistic standards and dismissed the complaint.