September 22, 2026 – for immediate release

The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) has considered and dismissed a complaint about attribution in a news article published by The Canadian Press.

The news article was published on February 10, 2026, under the headline, “Canadian ICC judge says Trump’s sanctions won’t stop her from doing her job.” The news article reported on the personal challenges Kimberly Prost, a Canadian-born International Criminal Court judge, navigates after being sanctioned by the Trump administration.

Alex Cosh, the news editor at The Maple, an online news outlet, filed a complaint with the NNC. His complaint argued that The Canadian Press did not properly credit The Maple’s exclusive reporting about a document originally obtained through Access to Information.

The news organization responded to the complaint by stating they had received the documents about two weeks prior to the time when the complainant had filed their report. The news organization provided the NNC with a timeline of when the documents were requested and stated, upon receiving the documents, they decided not to proceed with a full story on the subject at that time.

The complainant was unsatisfied with the news organization’s response. They stated whether or not the documents were obtained independently, they were first made public by the complainant and should be credited as such. The complainant referenced other examples where The Maple had been previously credited by other media outlets for breaking stories.

Both parties cited The Canadian Press Stylebook’s guidelines for crediting ‘scoops’. The Stylebook states: “reporters must never pass off the work of others as their own. Material drawn from an outside source is attributed, though short passages from previous CP stories by other writers can be used as background. When matching a significant scoop by another outlet, we should mention the outlet that had it first.”

The complainant argued the Stylebook does not say that a story must be sourced from another outlet in order for credit to be due. By obtaining the documents independently and publishing a story that mentioned their contents, CP matched a ‘scoop’ from The Maple.

The news organization interpreted the provisions in the Stylebook differently. In their submission, they stated this section on ‘scoops’ should not apply because they were in possession of the information before the complainant’s story was published. They argued this wasn’t so much of a ‘scoop’ but, rather, information they had discovered and decided to report at a later date.

In reviewing the materials and comments submitted by both parties, Council considered widely-accepted industry standards and best practices on attribution.

Based on the publication of the information, both news organizations determined that the contents of the access to information request were relevant for readers and newsworthy. Both news stories attributed an access to information request as the source of the information, which is standard journalistic practice.

At the same time, however, determining ‘newsworthiness’ of a particular event or series of facts is a fundamental part of editorial decision-making and the prerogative of those making such decisions. It is, often, a judgement call by an individual or team of journalists.

A ‘scoop’ is a journalistic term used when a news organization unearths and publishes a story before other outlets. In general terms, a ‘scoop’ is often a piece of high-impact information that, in a digital-world, carries a short lifespan of exclusivity.

There is an inherent level of subjectivity, and variability, in what qualifies as a ‘scoop’ from news organization to news organization based on their news values, which include considerations about impact, timeliness, and relevance of the information.

Council understands that attributing the work of other journalists and news organizations has been a subject of debate for many years. Creating public service and investigative journalism is an expensive process. Ethical journalism should always strive to credit their sources openly and transparently.

In reviewing the materials submitted, Council noted The Maple article was published on December 12, 2025, while the Canadian Press article was published nearly two months later, on February 10, 2026.

Council considered whether it was appropriate for a news organization to cite another’s work when the information had already been in the public domain for about 60 days.

In order to answer this question, Council considered the concept of “matching” a story and also compared the focus of both stories.

The idea of ‘matching’ a story is a practice that has existed in journalism for generations. Kovach and Rosenstiel describe in The Elements of Journalism, the tradition of ‘matching stories’ “was a way for news organizations to avoid having to credit their rivals, which in this earlier era was considered an embarrassing admission of being scooped. Yet the tradition of matching had a more important and salutary effect. Stories that couldn’t be independently confirmed would not be repeated.”

In reviewing the published articles, Council noted that the information was clearly attributed to a freedom of information request and independently verified by The Canadian Press.

Council also determined that each article had a unique focus. The CP story focused on the impact sanctions have had on the day-to-day life of ICC judge Kimberly Prost. The Maple story, by contrast, focused primarily on the social media comments from Bob Rae and the reaction caused.

Council agreed that both articles referenced how Bob Rae, Canada’s now former ambassador to the United Nations, had his “wings clipped” by Canadian diplomatic staff after issuing a social media post defending ICC judges.

At the same time, Council noted that the information was handled differently in both articles. In the Maple article, the information served as the primary subject. In the Canadian Press story, the information served as context to the experiences of the sanction judge.

Council was of the view that this was not a case where one news organization appropriated information from another without proper credit. Council determined that The Canadian Press was simply reciting a fact that had been in the public domain for several weeks – and which it had already possessed and independently verified.

Council understands that the complainant would have appreciated being referenced as the first news organization to publish the information. Council agreed that the principle of showing one’s work builds trust and credibility.

That said, while citing another news organization for significant, original reporting is often a professional courtesy, Council agreed that not referencing the other news organization in this case did not amount to a breach of journalistic standards, in particular, given the fact that the news organization had independently acquired and verified the information and the lapse of time since the original publication of the material.

For these reasons, Council dismissed the complaint.