Journalist faced with a tough choice
Anti-terror law challenge forces Star reporter to weigh role as advocate of free expression
When Canadian Journalists for Free Expression joined with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association this week in launching a court challenge against Canada’s anti-terrorism act — the recently passed Bill C-51 — the Star and its national security reporter faced a dilemma.
Michelle Shephard, a multiple National Newspaper Award-winning reporter who has covered national security and terrorism issues for the Star since 9/11, has been a member of the board of CJFE, the advocacy organization that “boldly champions” free expression issues in Canada and abroad. Given that the anti-terrorism legislation is a contentious political issue and will likely remain so through the fall federal election, that affiliation raised questions about whether the Star has some responsibility to disclose Shephard’s CJFE role to readers in its reporting on the constitutional challenge the organization launched with CCLA.
The general city news reporter who first reported on the court challenge was unaware of Shephard’s CJFE role so such information was not included in the Star’s Tuesday report of the legal challenge to what CJFE executive director Tom Henheffer called “the most dangerous legislation we’ve had in recent Canadian history.” But after considerable discussion later, the Star decided the best way forward was to disclose Shephard’s CJFE board role in any reporting of the court challenge. A note was appended to the digital version of the report. It states:
“Michelle Shephard, the Star’s national security reporter, is a member of the board of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. She recused herself from all board discussion and debate related to the CJFE decision regarding this court challenge and will not be reporting on this court challenge for the Star.”
That is full disclosure of pertinent facts, in line with the Star’s journalistic standards of transparency. But, did it go far enough? As the national security reporter covering terrorism issues, is serving on the board of an organization that is challenging this nation’s controversial anti- terrorism law a conflict of interest for Shephard and the Star?
Certainly this reporter’s commitment not to report on the court challenge and the fact that she had nothing to do with the CJFE’s decision to co-initiate this overt political action, would seem to mitigate any serious conflict of interest concerns. As well, Shephard is soon taking a year-long leave from the Star, having recently won the prestigious Atkinson Fellowship in Public Policy. So she won’t be covering the election or writing about terrorism issues for the Star.
But, that doesn’t clarify the issue totally for Shephard. During her fellowship studies, she will explore the effectiveness of public policy as it relates to national security. At this point, she doesn’t know the scope of that work, but given that the CJFE/CCLA legal challenge goes beyond free speech matters to encompass several critical issues related to terrorism and national security, she understands there is potential for the perception of a conflict for her.
After giving this much thought, Shephard made the hard decision to step away from her CJFE board role. This was also, in many ways, a heartbreaking decision, as Shephard — like most journalists — believes passionately in CJFE’s core mission of free expression advocacy.
“I’m resigning to avoid any perception of a conflict,” Shephard said Thursday. “While I had hoped recusing myself from the discussion and vote would be enough, given my fellowship focusing on the threat of the Islamic State, it is likely I will be dissecting Canada’s new terrorism laws as part of my research.
“Having said that, like most journalists I remain concerned about parts of the law that could impact our work, especially the possibility that journalists can now be prosecuted for interviewing anyone designated a terrorist, which is something I’ve done in the past, and plan to continue to do in the future,” she said.
Certainly journalists believe in free expression and, like Shephard, many of us have grave concerns about the serious threats to free expression posed by the Conservative government’s anti-terrorism law, called “draconian” in a recent Star editorial expressing support for the court challenge.
Freedom to speak freely is the bedrock of democracy and the basis for journalism’s place in a democracy. In Canada, journalists can be loud and proud about this right and should indeed fight against threats to free expression. That’s why media organizations, including the Star, go to court to fight for access to information, and why so many journalists support CJFE through memberships and its annual free expression gala. (Full disclosure: I was a paid member of CJFE and I will continue to support this important organization.)
Had the court challenge been narrowly limited to free expression issues I don’t think there would be any serious concerns here for Shephard. Indeed, Rob Cribb, a Toronto Star investigative reporter who speaks publicly about issues of source protection, has been asked to submit an “expert witness” affidavit to the court challenge detailing the considerable risks to journalistic freedom and source protection under the new anti-terror law. His editors have given him the go-ahead to do this.
As the national security reporter heading off to investigate public policy and terrorism, Shephard is in a different position. Given the wider scope of the CJFE/CCLA constitutional challenge to the antiterrorism legislation, which includes the issue of expanded powers the bill gives national security organizations and the reality that this is a political issue, I think she made the right call to step away from her CJFE board role to avoid any conflict or perception of a conflict.
Star reporters have long understood that the right to report freely on public issues brings with it some restrictions on our own public activities and the public expression of our personal opinions. That’s a core element of journalistic standards regarding conflicts.
The Star’s policy makes clear that to be seen by readers as fair and impartial, reporters should not become actively involved in public controversies they write about. As the Star’s newsroom policy and journalistic standards manual has long stated: “It is a journalistic obligation to ensure that our reputations as fair-minded fact-finders are not compromised by any open display of political or partisan views on public issues nor tainted by personal involvement or personal axe-grinding on issues the Star covers.”
Shephard made a tough call. But, on balance, her proactive strongly ethical stance was the right one.