Should Websites Be Held Legally Responsible?

An interesting defamation case is making its way through the courts in British Columbia.
It involves a respected professor of climate science at the University of Victoria, Andrew Weaver.

Professor Weaver is claiming that his reputation was damaged by the Toronto newspaper, The National Post.

Weaver alleges that a series of stories in the Post, including a column which accused him of joining the “left coast Suzuki-PR-industrial complex” on global warming, were designed to destroy his reputation internationally.

In his claim, he is asking the B.C. court to order the Post to remove the offending articles from its website. More significantly, Weaver wants the court to make the Post identify any and all electronic databases where they are accessible, and to assist Weaver in their removal from any other website.

This includes all reader comments on the Post's website which originated from anonymous contributors which could also be seen as defamatory, according to Weaver. The unidentified commentators are also being sued by Weaver - they're named individually as "Doe, Roe, Poe, and Yoe." Might these four individuals also be sued by Weaver if the Post were forced to identify them?

As in the UK, Canada allows fair comment, provided the comments are based on fact and not malicious. Weaver's statement of claim implies that the casual approach to scientific information displayed in the Post's editorials could become a line of evidence indicating that the paper displayed a malicious disregard for accuracy.

If successful, the Weaver lawsuit would force media organizations in Canada to moderate all comments for defamation and libel. It would have a chilling effect on the concept of free speech as proclaimed under the Canadian Charter of Rights. In this instance, the Post would have had to moderate all comments, and demand that individuals identify themselves, as least to the editor, if not to the reading public.

Journalism, politics and increasingly science are all becoming battlegrounds on this issue. I admire Weaver's willingness to defend his reputation, and to hold a media organization to account.  I also worry that the ability of citizens to express themselves freely (even harshly) in a democracy would be seriously and irrevocably damaged.

The End of the Line: Radio News at the CBC

It's been brewing for months.

Finally, a group of very frustrated radio reporters surveyed their peers about the reorganization and relaunch of CBC News. The results of the survey can be found in a 60 + page document presented recently to middle management.

Some conclusions:

• 90.5% say radio culture at CBC is worse than before.
• 95% say CBC Radio is on the wrong course.
• 80% disagree with the increased use of TV sound, entertainment "kickers" and heavy promotion inside radio news programs.
• 85% say they are not valued by management.

According to a source at that meeting, management claimed to be surprised by the discontent. But management also confirmed that there is no going back. CBC Radio News and CBC Television News are now just one, integrated CBC News.

That fusion of the Radio and Television News services has been proceeding for years, and not always smoothly. A number of long time radio staffers have quit in disgust. A few talented ones have gone to NPR.

Management persisted and a few months ago, the last radio news program units were moved into a large space on the 4th floor of the Broadcast Centre in Toronto, alongside their television colleagues. Similar physical moves have happened across the country. The lack of a collective identity is palpable around the building. While some may appreciate the opportunity to do tv and online, there is a sense of loss among many in radio.

In theory, it was supposed to work like this: co-ordination of stories, resources, and agendas would be centralized and given to a unit known as the Hub. The Hub would take a large, multi-platform editorial function involving hundreds of people and create a logical flow of information inside CBC and prioritize decisions for the benefit of all news and information programs - everything from local radio news headlines, to the flagship night newscast to the website.

But planning and execution are two very different beasts. Morale is at an all time low and this was confirmed in the survey given to management.

There may be a certain inevitability to this change. Most multi-platform media organizations are doing much the same things. At CBC, radio people have often had a certain cozy nostalgia - even insularity about their medium. While some of that is valuable and appreciated by the listeners, it can also be perceived by management as tribal and reactionary. Yet there is a strong feeling inside CBC Radio that the changes are being foisted on the whole system in a attempt to bolster the failings of the TV side. There is a lot of truth to that.

Compare this to the same difficult process of integration at the Canadian Press, the national wire service and co-operative used by newspapers and commercial broadcasters. CP is not the CBC and there are many cultural and logistical differences, not the least of which is the relatively smaller size of CP.

But according the Scott White, CP's Editor-in-Chief, many of the same issues at the CBC were tackled successfully at CP. At the Canadian Press, there was constant consultation with the staff. Early in the process, the union - the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild, Canadian Media Guild* was part of the discussion. At CBC, that same union seemed more concerned with limiting the effects of recent layoffs than with the internal reorganization. According to some CBC-ers, they feel the union dropped the ball on this one.

At the Canadian Press, print, audio, video and social media are now part of the daily routine. In a recent visit to the offices of Canadian Press, there is clear evidence of how a news organization can successfully integrate different platforms with different cultures for the benefit of the public.

There are some valuable lessons there for CBC management, if they care to look.
____________________________
* Apologies to CMG.

The End of History, Quebec Separatism and Public Broadcasting?

Three somewhat disparate ideas, but with a unifying theme:

Canada now seems to be living the neo-conservatives' ideal of the "end of history."

This original notion was first proposed when Francis Fukuyama, author of "The End of History and The Last Man," argued that if all human history is a struggle between ideologies, it came to an end with the fall of Communism in 1989. Fukuyama teaches at John Hopkins and predicted that henceforth, the only alternative would be the global triumph of political and economic liberalism:

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.

Why should Canada be the embodiment of a post-political environment? The end of the separatist movement in Quebec seems to be the key.

In the most recent Literary Review of Canada, there is a review of Daniel Poliquin's recent biography of  René Lévesque. Lévesque was one of those complex historical and universal figures that appear in Canada none too often.

Journalist, polemicist, broadcaster, politician, nationalist and Quebec premier - Lévesque's life and career would have defined and dominated Canadian life but for one counterweight - Pierre Trudeau. The two men were the personification of two polarities that haunted Canadian politics for a generation. With the passing of both, the country is calmer...and a lot more boring.

As journalists in Montreal in the 70s and 80s, we were lucky enough to watch this gigantic story unfold and we were privileged to be able to report it.  Trudeau and Lévesque battled over their differing versions of history and politics. It reminded me of watching the "Wizard of Oz" for the first time when Dorothy leaves her tornado-tossed monochromatic house and opens the door into a technicolor world. Once the national question was settled in Quebec, Canadians have returned to a world of more subdued hues.

The reviewer of the Lévesque biography is Toronto writer, Jack Mitchell. He evokes that state of quiet smugness when he states: "Today, each man's (Lévesque's and Trudeau's) legacy lies in ruins: both Québec and Canada abhor self-definition, and we enjoy congratulating ourselves on our dispassion."

Public broadcasting in Canada now accurately reflects that lack of purpose. In the Globe and Mail on April 17, the CBC's General Manager of Programming, Kirstine Stewart is quoted as saying that high ratings are the true indicator of success. A list of eighteen hit shows has only one information program - "The Fifth Estate" - which significantly and ominously is shown to trail at the bottom. “I think we’re doing pretty good (sic),” says Stewart.

Yet in the Stewartian happy world-view, there is some dissension according to the Globe:

Ken Finkleman, an award winning actor and producer: “Forget about dark and edgy; the CBC seems to only want warm and friendly.”

Actor and writer Adriana Maggs: “A few years ago, I pitched them a comedy, but I was told they didn’t want humour that comes from a place of discomfort. I think comedy does come from discomfort. I think that’s why people laugh,” says Maggs. “After that, I didn’t see the CBC as a place for me. I like truth and honesty. I’m not interested in replicating commercial, American-inspired production.”

Public broadcasting in Canada did not used to be that way. But the CBC seems to be uninterested in bringing up uncomfortable issues. Or if it does, it is usually couched in ways guaranteed to keep the discussion removed, remote and out of prime time.

If each country gets the public broadcaster it deserves, Canadians are being harshly punished.

Yet there appears to be growing internal opposition to the direction of the CBC. It is coming from the ranks of the radio reporting staff. More on that in a future post...

For now, Canadians must continue to be served their nightly portion of a light-and-lively, hockey-obsessed, CBC infused view of Canada and of the end of history.

Biting the Media Hand

In the April 5, 2010 edition of the New Yorker, Michael Schulman speaks with the British-American actor, Alfred Molina.

Molina is appearing on Broadway in the play "Red" about the abstract painter Mark Rothko. In 1958, Rothko was paid $35,000 (quite a lot of money then and now) to paint a series of murals for the Four Seasons restaurant in the Seagram Building, stating, "I hope to paint something that will ruin the appetite of every son of a bitch who ever eats in that room."

Rothko never completed the commission. Dining with his wife in the restaurant, he was heard to remark, "Anyone who will eat that kind of food for those kinds of prices will never look at a painting of mine!" He canceled the deal. It's not known whether he finished dessert.

That about-face on the relationship of art and money is the subject of the play. Molina is quoted as saying, "In the 70s in England, theatre groups would have that kind of discussion all the time. I worked for years in theatre groups funded by government money and we were all doing radical, left wing plays about bringing down the government...People hardly talk about that now because most art...is reliant on private sponsorship..."

The article concludes by quoting Molina saying, "We need Rothkos in the world to remind us just how far we can improve ourselves.

Journalism in general and public broadcasting in particular used to pride itself on biting the hands that fed them. Part of it was to show that it was not the best journalism money could buy. Sometimes, the rebelliousness went too far, and there was an adolescent feeling of "I'll show them" in the newsrooms.

As government funding has dried up and public belief in public broadcasting has shifted, the mood in middle and upper management is about not rattling any cages, especially cages with money.

Imagine Mark Rothko as your newsroom editor. His attitude could be an excellent corrective in these nervous times.

Religion and Journalism

Well, it is Easter...

Seems to me that covering religion is one of the most fraught beats in any news organization. That may be why is so often gets off-loaded to ex-nuns, secularists of all stripes and ghettoized (as it were) in the weekend pages or line up.

If it's done properly as journalism, there has to be skepticism. If there's skepticism, there's the risk of being offensive to somebody. That's why editors avoid covering it, or if they do allow for it, it often has no real insights or bite. One exception is Sam Freedman a friend and a Columbia prof who writes clearly about all religions for the New York Times.

Peggy Noonan has written recently in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that non-Catholic journalists are running away from the sex abuse story: "An irony: Non-Catholic members of the media were, in my observation, the least likely to want to go after the story, because they didn't want to look like they were Catholic-bashing."

Yet, the Vatican continues to refer obliquely (or not so obliquely) to a "New York media conspiracy" - aka the New York Times (which is owned by the Sulzberger family).

Newsroom politics add to this complexity. When it comes to religion and journalism, journalists will try to avoid being cast as "second class citizens," having to prove their primary allegiance is to their employer and not to their religious affiliation.

The same thing happened during the Second Intifada in many newsrooms in the US, when a number of Jewish journalists felt that the coverage was poor - even biased, yet they frequently felt constrained from speaking out in editorial meetings because of this dilemma.