Fairness is clearly defined
“What’s fair” may well be journalism’s eternal question, long the subject of academic conferences, scholarly articles and noble journalistic navel-gazing. In the literature, “fairness in journalism” is generally an abstract notion, difficult to define; it is considered “complex,” “illusive,” “paradoxical,” “subjective.” In the Star’s newsroom, what’s fair is neither abstract nor subjective. The core standard of fairness here is clear and concrete: any subject of potentially harmful factual allegations must be given opportunity to respond. As Bert Bruser, the Star’s lawyer, tells some journalist in the newsroom almost every day, getting the other side is “the essence of fairness” in line with the legal requirements of responsible journalism as they have evolved in recent decades. In last week’s column I told you about an egregious lapse of the Star’s standards of accuracy and fairness that resulted in the Star publishing false allegations about MPP Margarett Best. Proper due diligence was not done here. While the reporter had attempted to reach Best, at no time did he state explicitly that he was working on a story that would report she was vacationing in Mexico while on medical leave from Queen’s Park. Had he done so, it’s quite likely he would have learned that was flat-out wrong and the Star would not have published the story. In light of this serious lapse, the newsroom is taking steps to ensure that everyone fully understand due diligence and fairness. In coming weeks, Bruser, along with Kevin Donovan, the Star’s award-winning investigations editor, will lead mandatory training sessions for all reporters. Donovan and his “I-team” are standard-bearers for the degree of due diligence that fairness demands. Having talked extensively about this with him and Bruser, I expect many reporters have much to learn from them about the extent to which they must go in order to ensure they meet the standards of fairness laid down by the law and the Star’s policies. I-team exposés of wrongdoing most often put their subjects in a negative light. But it is standard operating procedure for Iteam reporters to make certain those subjects are given every opportunity to respond to harmful allegations before publication. These reporters routinely make contact with the subjects of their investigations early in their reporting, often sending emails that lay out the explicit details of what they are looking into and what they hope to learn. “Everyone is entitled to give their side of the story. I preach that on a daily basis,” Donovan told me this week. “Telling a
Any subject of potentially harmful factual allegations in a Star article must be given opportunity to respond
person or organization about an allegation gives them the opportunity at the start to tell you that you have it wrong, partly wrong, or mostly right.
“Calling last-minute doesn’t cut it. I often inform people or organizations on Day 1 of my investigation,” Donovan said. “People need to be told precisely what it is you are calling about.
“It is the fair and responsible thing to do.”
It is also the degree of diligence required to meet legal standards of fairness. Canada’s 2009 Supreme Court ruling on “responsible communication in the public interest” stipulates that “it is inherently unfair to publish defamatory allegations of fact without giving the target an opportunity to respond.”
That’s a clear definition of fairness, but not really new. As Bruser reminded me, this standard was expressed forcefully in law some three decades ago when the Toronto Sun lost a libel suit brought by then cabinet minister John Munro after the Sun reported wrongly that Munro had been involved in illegal stock trading.
Ontario Supreme Court Justice John Holland stated then that when “the paper has the goods on the person targeted in the story, it is basic and necessary that the person be confronted with the story so that his reaction be obtained.”
Justice Holland aptly pointed out that getting the other side could indeed cause a story to be “discarded,” preventing publication of an incorrect story. Certainly that would have happened with the Best story.
Through the years, Donovan, working closely with Bruser on many Star investigations, has come to understand the value of reaching out early to those he is investigating and being explicit about the allegations he is pursuing.
Doing so makes for “a better, more responsible, more solid story,” Donovan said.
In my books, that’s fairness in journalism. publiced@thestar.ca