Star’s egregious error on MPP Margarett Best
It has been 18 years since the Star made a mistake so egregious that it demanded a page 1 apology. “The Star apologizes to Margarett Best,” stated a front-page headline published Wednesday. That headline referred readers to page A2, where a prominent full apology to Liberal MPP Margarett Best made clear that the Star had published false information about her and in doing so “fell below our standards of journalism.” The apology told you Best did not vacation in Mexico while on medical leave, as a story and photo published on the front page a day earlier had said. While the Scarborough-Guildwood MPP has been on medical leave from Queen’s Park since February, all information in the story suggesting she was in Mexico earlier this month is entirely wrong. The premise of the story was based on little more than a Facebook photo that was indeed posted on Best’s page this month, as the date on it indicates. But, that photo was taken in 2008. Don’t jump to the simplistic conclusion that this is a Facebook failure, yet another case of the perils of social media and misinformation. People, not technology, make mistakes. While veteran Queen’s Park reporter Richard Brennan’s mistake began with his misunderstanding of the dating of Facebook photo tags, the reality is that both the reporter and his editors fell far short of the Star’s standards for accuracy and fairness here in failing to take proper steps to verify a story that turned out to be largely a non-story. This was, as Managing Editor Jane Davenport said, “a stunningly embarrassing” foul-up. The Star did the right thing here in publishing a rare page 1 statement of apology, the first since 1995, when editors injected false information into a page 1 caption accompanying a photo of then Ontario premier Mike Harris with a woman who advocated for the disabled. That was in pre-web days when an apology in the newspaper was as far as corrective measures need go. This digital era requires far more. To make sure the apology was widely circulated, we tweeted the apology and posted it on Facebook. The newsroom also took the unprecedented step of publishing a link to the online apology on thestar.com’s home page. As well, the story and the photo were removed from the website. While the Star’s policy says it rarely “unpublishes” and usually only for legal reasons, the fact that this story was based on a false premise called for such action. Through her lawyer, Julian Falconer, I have attempted to apologize directly to Best but she does not wish to speak to the Star. Can’t say I blame her. Following publication of the apology, I heard from many readers demanding to know how the Star could make such a big blunder. Brennan, a Facebook friend of Best, was looking into her absence from Queen’s Park when he came upon the photo of her and her daughter in Acapulco. Though he tried to contact Best through her constituency office, and sent her a message through Facebook, at no time did he give the MPP any indication he was writing a story that would report she was on vacation while on medical leave. Nor did his messages say anything about her Facebook photo. Standards of accuracy demand such verification. The Star’s standards of fairness demand that Best be given an opportunity to respond to such harmful allegations. The essence of fairness at the Star, in line with the law’s requirements of responsible journalism, is making certain that
Veteran reporter and his editors fell far short of the Star’s standards for accuracy and fairness in ‘a stunningly embarrassing’ foul-up
anyone who is the subject of allegations regarding facts — not simply opinions — that could put them in a bad light be given opportunity to respond to those specific allegations. It’s not enough for a reporter to leave a message indicating they are working on a story — they must explicitly tell the subject the allegations they are planning to report and seek the other side of the story.
“My lack of technical expertise was compounded by not being explicit enough in my phone messages or Facebook message as per the authenticity of the photo,” an apologetic Brennan said. “What is important is that I did not live up to the level of professionalism expected of me by the Star or myself.
“I apologize to Ms. Best and her family for the mistake and the lack of due diligence.”
The law and the Star’s standards also make clear that editors have responsibilities for confirming the accuracy of stories before publication. In this case, the newsroom’s national desk, which Brennan reports to, did not do its proper due diligence, either.
“We missed a layer of editing here because I didn’t flag this story as one with potential problems,” said deputy national editor Matt Carter, who never questioned Brennan about the photo or looked at it himself.
“I should have discussed these not only with Richard but with senior editors and our lawyer. Those discussions happen in our newsroom every day.
“If I had done that in this case, questions about the photo and our attempts to reach Best would almost certainly have prevented us from publishing.”
This was a big blunder and a serious blow to the Star’s credibility. Everyone involved gets that and I expect they have learned some hard lessons. All regret that proper due diligence did not occur here.
As Brennan told me, “Ms. Best and Star readers deserved better.” publiced@thestar.ca