The Proof Is In The Pudding, John

Cruickshank promises better -- now he'd better deliver

One Heather Mallick turd, 300 complaints and a media circus later, John Cruickshank has finally taken it upon himself to fix what many Canadians have been saying for years:

The CBC is unacceptably biased.

In a column regarding CBC ombudsman Vice Carlin's recent judgement on Mallick breaking an intellectual Mighty Wind, Cruickshank commented on the controversy.

Among other things, he wrote:

"Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan.

And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site."

Which is precisely what, despite the protracted rantings of Mallick's defenders to the contrary, many Canadians have been saying ever since it blighted the CBC website.

More troubling than Mallick's column, however, has been the escalating bias and exclusion of conservative views by a news outlet that, by virtue of funding itself through taxpayer dollars, is obligated to try to represent the views of all Canadians -- or at least as many Canadians as possible.

This, Cruickshank insists, is about to change:

"As a public broadcaster we have an added responsibility to provide an array of opinions and voices to complement our journalism. But we must do so carefully. And you should be able to trust us to provide you with work that's based on solid reporting and free from the passionate excesses of partisanship.

We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to insure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear. We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack. It's a fine line.

Ombudsman Carlin makes another significant observation in his response to complainants: when it does choose to print opinion, CBCNews.ca displays a very narrow range on its pages.

In this, Carlin is also correct.

This, too, is being immediately addressed. CBCNews.ca will soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions and be home to a diverse group of writers with many perspectives. In this, we will better reflect the depth and texture of this country."

It's encouraging to hear this.

However, for many Canadians, the proof will inevitably be in the pudding.

In other words, those Canadians who are concerned about the current state of the CBC will take you at your word when you prove to us that it's good, Mr Curickshank -- and not a second sooner.

Vince Carlin On Heather Mallick

Big words, Vince, but can Canadians expect change?

Vince Carlin seems to be leading something of a charmed life.

In his time as the CBC ombudsman, Carlin has had to preside over a number of controversies at the CBC. There were the collusion allegations between Krista and Pablo Rodriguez. Then, there was the matter of a piece appearing on The National suggesting that Bristol Palin was actually the mother of young Trig Palin.

Now, there's the Mighty Wind of wingnuttery emmenanting from Heather Mallick.

While Carlin still has yet to address the humiliating dressing-down of Neil MacDonald, he has chosen to address the controversy surrounding Mallick's extreme and bizarre comments.

In a review released two days ago, Carlin address the controversy, and makes some intriguing conclusions.

First off, many of the self-indulgent statements made by Mallick in the column were contrary to the CBC's code of journalistic practices in that they were insufficiently based on fact (descriptions of Republican men as "sexually inadequate" and Sarah Palin's supporters as "white trash").

Secondly, the CBC's code of journalistic practices is applicable to, but improperly tailored to, the CBC's new role as a web-based news outlet.

Thirdly, that the CBC does not live up to its mandate in terms of providing a broad range of views.

Which is frankly, little surprise to anyone. Least of all to Canadian conservative thinker Michael Coren, who once had a secheduled appearance on the CBC cancelled due to objection to his views.

Carlin's candid analysis of the Mighty Wind affair and its implications for the CBC should be welcomed, even and especially by those who object to Mallick's comments. But a bigger question remains unanswered -- just as questions remain unanswered in the wake of the Erickson/Rodriguez affair:

What, precisely, is going to change at the CBC?

Canadians have the right to now how, having suffered yet another definitive journalistic black eye, how Carlin and CBC editor John Cruickshank will restore journalistic credibility and balance to the CBC.

Clearly, fundamental changes need to be made at the CBC. Someone, after all, is making the decision to publish absolute garbage such as Mallick's loonish commentary on Sarah Palin, and making the decision not to give voice to other views.

Concerned Canadians will be able to feel a good deal more comfortable that there will be some real reform in the CBC when someone -- and not simply Mallick herself -- is called upon to answer for the CBC's flagrant sharfing on its own journalistic integrity.

And So The Story Begins To Emerge

But key questions remain unanswered

In a recent post to his CBC editor's blog, John Cruickshank has publicly offered such some snippets of the story surrounding Krista Erickson and the conduct that eventually got her reassigned to Toronto.

"When, as in the present instance, it is revealed that a reporter has been collaborating, even if only obliquely, with one party or another, an appearance of partisanship emerges that cannot be dispelled by claims that this is how political reporters interact with their sources.

In this case, our reporter provided questions to two Liberal MPs using her BlackBerry in the hope that these would be put to the former prime minister during the committee hearings."

According to Cruickshank, Erickson did in fact submit the offending question to two Liberal MPs (she also did it via Blackberry which leaves a trail of electronic correspondance that can be followed). One of them was clearly Pablo Rodriguez.

Who was the other Liberal MP? Was is Paul Szabo?

That could prove to be a serious breach of conduct for Mr Szabo, who evidently willfully allowed the Commons Committee he chaired to breach its mandate in pursuit of a non-existent news story that would just so happen to be damaging to the Conservatives.

Will a House of Commons Ethics Committee be called into his conduct? Perhaps it should be.

Also, a question for Pablo Rodriguez: why'd you lie?

Remember that Rodriguez claimed he wrote his questions himself, as he allegedly writes all his questions. Yet, John Cruickshank has clearly determined otherwise.

Rodriguez should be challenged on the public record. In fact, the extent to which he himself has benefitted from such misconduct on behalf of media personell before should be throughly investigated.

"I accept the reporter's explanation that she did not do this to advantage the Liberals or hurt the Conservatives — that she just wanted answers for her story.

She believed it was permissible to create a temporary alliance of convenience with the Liberals if it would help determine whether Brian Mulroney had lobbied a Tory minister on a recent matter."

Alliances of convenience do pose a serious threat to journalistic credibility.

Yet, if Erickson believed that was permissable, something probably gave her that impression. How prevalent are such "alliances of convenience" at the CBC?

Are they really temporary alliances, or are such "alliances of convenience" perhaps a sign that activist journalism -- wherein reporters intentionally work hand-in-hand with politicians they support in order to damage governments they oppose -- has truly taken root at the CBC?

"But in this kind of information sharing, reporters can become part of the story they are covering, which is not our role. Any time a reporter plants a question and covers the results, they are deceiving their audience about their detachment and fairness.

For our reporters, this makes cultivating sources problematic. We can't make deals that leave us beholden either to members of the government or any opposition party."

Yet it's entirely possible that the only difference between Erickson and other CBC reporters who may (or may not) have made similar arrangements is that she got caught.

Will there be a full-scale investigation into such practices at the CBC to determine who else, if anyone, has used such means to cultivate sources? If so, will anyone else found to have done so be disciplined?

A public inquiry into such practices at the CBC may still be in order. However, if John Cruickshank has yet to percieve the wisdom of calling for such an air-clearing process, it's at this point unlikely that he ever will.

Which is rather unfortunate. While Cruickshank and CBC Ombudsman Vice Carlin have answered some key questions, it seems that many more will remain unanswered -- maybe even formally unasked.

The CBC is far from clear of any doubt.

Krista Erickson: Busted!!!

CBC lives up to some of its big talk, but more is needed

One probably shouldn't be surprised to see Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez waving goodbye to CBC Krista Erickson today, as the CBC has announced it's transferring her from Ottawa from Toronto.

Conservatives, meanwhile, probably hate to see her go, but love to watch her leave.

Well, probably at the least the "love to watch her leave" part.

"Following an investigation by senior management of CBC News, we have determined that our reporter Krista Erickson did, in fact, provide questions to a Member of Parliament in the lead up to the Ethics Committee meeting in
December," CBC news editor John Cruickshank wrote in a letter to Doug Finley. "Those actions, while in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story, were inappropriate and inconsistent with CBC News policies and procedures."

"Our investigation determined there was no bias in related news coverage. However, our reporter, acting on her own, used inappropriate tactics as a result of journalistic zeal, rather than partisan interest," Cruickshank wrote.

Well, of course it did.

"Given the potential risk to the journalistic credibility of our Ottawa bureau, its reporters and CBC News generally, we have chosen on an exceptional basis to make the detailed outcome of our disciplinary process available to you, our employees and the public at large."

"I trust this addresses your concerns."

Actually, not quite.

As previously mentioned, the allegations of collusion between the CBC and any political party raises some serious questions about the CBC, and shakes public faith in the public broadcaster's ability to operate in a non-partisan matter despite the notably lopsidedly partisan character of the board of directors.

The only way to restore public faith in the CBC and answer the questions so many Canadians have come to ask is to hold an investigation in the public eye. A public inquiry is needed.

While admittedly, the break with CBC policy insisting the identities of disciplined personell would not be made public suggests the reported conclusions are indeed genuine (it's a tremendous show of good faith), Canadians also deserve certainty.

The conclusions simply do not deliver in this regard.

John Cruickshank should encourage Stephen Harper to call a public inquiry into what will likely henceforth be known as the "Krista Erickson affair" so that it can be determined how, if at all, prevalent indiscretions similar to Erickson's are amongst CBC staff, and if any CBC staff are acting in benefit of any political party, regardless of which party that may be.

CBC Lives in Glass House, Throws Stones

CBC claims about transparency are utterly laughable

In the most recent development in the allegations that an as-yet unnamed CBC reporter fed questions to Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, the CBC has finally broken its silence...

...about a Conservative party fundraising letter.

In the letter, CBC news publisher John Cruickshank castigates Conservative party campaign chairman Doug Finley for spreading cynicism throughout the political process:

"Dear Mr. Finley,

I have reviewed your pre-Christmas fundraising letter.

I write this public response to you because I believe that by its inaccuracy, innuendo, exaggeration and expressed malice towards hundreds of Canadian journalists you risk damaging not just your target, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but also public faith in our political process.

I understand that a private association like the Conservative party does not have the sort of transparent and reliable complaints process that we have at the CBC. That is regrettable.

I understand that you have already availed yourself of access to our Ombudsman, complaining that a member of the CBC News staff communicated suggested questions to Liberal MPs in advance of a public hearing. I appreciate this show of confidence in the integrity of our process. I wish you had reflected that respect for our commitment to answer any and all complaints about our work in your unfortunate letter to potential donors.

You were well aware when you sat down to write your appeal for cash that CBC News had publicly condemned the behaviour you complain of and had called a disciplinary meeting to look into it.

Your suggestion to your potential contributors that the CBC was waging a partisan campaign against your party and the government of Canada was flatly contradicted by every step we had taken before you composed your cash appeal.

We accept that you are not the only, or even the first, Canadian political party to use CBC News as a whipping boy for fundraising purposes.

The Liberal party accused us of bias on several occasions when it fit their agenda.

As a public broadcaster we take our responsibilities to all Canadian shareholders very seriously. This is more than just a glib promise. Unlike any other broadcaster in the country, the CBC has a journalistic standards and practices book. This book is given to each reporter, producer, editor and host working at the CBC. It outlines in explicit detail the code of conduct for our journalists. It covers conflict of interest; it covers issues of journalistic fairness and balance. It is clear, and it is binding. It is also a living document. We talk about it and refer to it daily when we are dealing with difficult ethical issues. It is also freely available to the general public to see, so they know exactly what standards we aim to maintain.

I would be delighted to share a copy of it with you.

CBC News is especially sensitive to how we cover partisan political debates. The CBC is non-partisan. We do not want to be seen to be a creation of any party (although, as you know, it was a Progressive Conservative government that brought our organization into being.)

While all our journalists try to live by our code of conduct, CBC News is not infallible. But we are accountable. When there are errors of judgment, or misunderstandings or improper interpretation of the journalistic standards and practices, we investigate. When we discover shortcomings, we change our standards and practices.

No other news organization in the country operates within such a demanding ethical regime. For you to sully the reputations of so many dedicated Canadian professionals is utterly unacceptable. Your denigration of our ethical standards can only contribute to the public cynicism about public life that is already far too pervasive.

Yours sincerely,
John Cruickshank,
Publisher,
CBC News"

Of course, Cruickshank's letter seems to overlook a number of problems regarding the overall situation.

First off, he insists the CBC's process for dealing with complaints is "transparent and reliable". Yet, the CBC has already promised it will not be releasing the identity of the reporter in question. Not only will the public not have the benefit of knowing to whom to attribute this clear case of misconduct, but the individuals who will have to interact with him or her will not know, either. They certainly have the right to know about the ethical standing of any potentially disreputable reporter, so that they may make an informed choice about whether or not they wish to take the risk of dealing with that reporter.

In fact, the entirely behind-closed-doors disciplinary process practically ensures that the various questions that need to be answered won't even be asked.

Questions that also deal with the notable ambiguity of key passages of the very code of conduct that Cruickshank alludes to. (An email directed to the "transparent and reliable" CBC ombudsman, Vince Carlin, regarding this last particular matter has yet gone unanswered.)

Cruickshank's big words aside, a great many Canadians are calling for some accountability from the CBC, but we have yet to see it.

It's a very frustrating position to be in to find that one cannot have their questions about the operation of a publicly-funded organization answered. We've been asking them for weeks.

Cruickshank's stonewalling in the wake of Finley's fundraising letter (the greater implications of which are discussed elsewhere) only stands to reinforce the fact that a public inquiry is the only way Canadians will get the answers about the CBC that they deserve.

Will John Cruickshank finally begin answering some questions, or will he at least advise Prime Minister Stephen Harper to start the process by which these questions can be answered publicly?

The time for an answer to this question, and to many others, is now.