August 29, 2025 – for immediate release

The National NewsMedia Council found that corrective action was taken to address a complaint about the accuracy of an April 9, 2025, news article published by the Manitoulin Expositor.

Bill Concannon filed a complaint stating concern that the original version of an article incorrectly reported that he had been scheduled for sentencing when, in fact, the allegations made against him had not yet been tested in court.

He also raised concern with the statement, “The case underscores the evolving relationship between digital platforms and public discourse, as well as legal boundaries around persistent communication in civic contexts.”

The complainant noted that given the sensitivity of the issues involved in the court proceedings, more care should have been taken to ensure the story’s accuracy prior to publication.

Prior to the NNC complaint submission, the news organization responded to the complainant’s concern by updating the online version of the article and ran a correction in the April 23 print edition, which noted and apologized for the error. The online version of the article includes an editor’s note explaining the original error and alerted readers to the update.

The article now states, “An earlier version of this story described Mr. Concannon as scheduled for ‘sentencing,’ when in fact he has not been found guilty by the court, and as such there is to be no sentencing. The author of the article extends their apologies for the unintentional misrepresentation of facts. The matter is returning to court on April 15th 2025.”

Standard journalistic practice calls on journalists and editors to take steps to ensure facts are accurately reported. That said, the NNC recognizes that errors of fact may happen from time to time. In these rare instances, news organizations are expected to correct the error in a clear and consistent manner.

In this case, the NNC agrees with the complainant that court cases are often sensitive and complex matters that should be handled with appropriate care. That said, it is standard practice for newsrooms to report on court proceedings as matters of public interest, and to report the outcome of cases when they become available. Canada has an open court system, and this is an important part of promoting public transparency and judicial accountability.

The NNC agrees that the news organization erred in its original description of the facts. That said, the NNC supports the steps taken by the news organization to remedy the error by correcting the information and explaining the nature of the correction to readers. While it is unfortunate that the news organization erred in its original reporting of the facts, the correction and editor’s note explaining the error and changes to readers aligns with standard industry best practices when correcting mistakes.

Regarding the complainant’s second concern about the statement referring to the “evolving relationship between digital platforms and public discourse,” the NNC found no indication that the statement is derogatory in nature or contains a factual inaccuracy based on the submission provided. Rather, an ordinary reading of the statement offers a description of the wider issues and context related to online communication for a general audience. Generally speaking, it is not unusual for journalists to provide context or characterize the issues for readers.

For the reasons outlined above, the NNC considered the matter resolved due to corrective action.