Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 8 - Evidence, September 30, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 30, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:30 a.m. to resume its examination of the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we are continuing our study of the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications.
[English]
Our witnesses for today are Esther Enkin, CBC Ombudsman, and Pierre Tourangeau, Radio-Canada Ombudsman. Ms. Enkin was appointed to the position of Ombudsman for English Services on November 28, 2012.
[Translation]
Mr. Tourangeau was appointed to the position of Ombudsman for French Services on November 14, 2011. Since 1977, he has occupied various positions as a press journalist; he spent several of those years pursuing the same interests by following Quebec and Canadian politics, as a journalist.
[English]
Honourable senators, I would like to remind you that our mandate is to examine the changing environment of the CBC. The ombudsmen are here to speak to our order of reference and not to speak about individual cases.
[Translation]
Ms. Enkin or Mr. Tourangeau, you have the floor.
[English]
Esther Enkin, Ombudsman, Office of the CBC Ombudsman: We thank the committee for the opportunity to comment on the role and operations of the CBC/Radio-Canada ombudsmen in this context of the challenges faced by the CBC in the changing broadcast environment. As we work closely together, to avoid duplication, this will be a joint presentation.
We would like to share how we work and how we fulfill our role as the public's representative and champion. Edward Wasserman, the Dean of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, has said that ombudsmen ''represent a powerful recognition by news organizations that they owe it to the public to hold themselves accountable, that routinely answering for their actions isn't just optional, but is integral to the practice of journalism.'' We would add to this that it is also a reminder to news staff that they must uphold standards. Wasserman may say it isn't optional, but apparently it is because there are not very many of us in Canada. There are five to be exact, and two of us work for CBC/Radio-Canada. It is ironic because, in the current highly competitive, fast-paced world of multimedia, the role of the ombudsman is even more critical to ensure a credible and accountable news media.
[Translation]
Pierre Tourangeau: Ombudsman, Office of the Radio-Canada Ombudsman: The members of the committee should have in hand the ombudsmen's mandate, which we sent to you. The mandate was amended by the board of directors, that is to say modernized and aligned with the Journalistic Standards and Practices which were themselves modified in 2010.
In short, ombudsmen are asked to ensure that all information content produced or broadcast on any Radio-Canada platform respects these Journalistic Standards and Practices. I remind you that Radio-Canada has committed, in the context of those Journalistic Standards and Practices, to inform, reveal information, contribute to the understanding of issues of public interest, and encourage Canadians to participate in our free and democratic society.
The corporation also formally requires accuracy, integrity, fairness, impartiality and balance in its journalistic activities. Those are the five values that form the basis of Radio-Canada's journalistic practices. The ombudsmen's mandate also states that they are to be totally independent of management and programming staff at Radio-Canada, and that they report directly to the corporation's CEO, and through him to its board of directors.
[English]
Ms. Enkin: Our jurisdiction includes all news and current affairs content, no matter what platform it is published on or which program it might appear on. As technology has evolved, so has the practice of journalism. No news organization is just one thing anymore, and with the advent of online and social media, the lines continue to blur.
What we do and how we do it evolves along with journalistic practice. As Professor Stephen Ward, an academic and ethicist who has taught journalism ethics in Canada and the United States, has observed, ''the challenge is to define what responsible journalism practice looks like in today's online global media world.''
Here is how we try to live up to that challenge. As the mandate says, we operate as an appeals authority for complainants. The first step, when we open our in-boxes in the morning, is to separate the large volume of correspondence that doesn't actually fall under our mandate. Those emails are directed to the appropriate part of the corporation.
The rest are all shared with news management. In the majority of cases, they are obliged to reply, and they are asked to do so within 20 working days. Last year, I received almost 3,000 communications, inquiries and expressions of concern. Of those, about 1,600 or 1,700 pertained to the mandate.
If complainants are not satisfied with the news management reply, they can ask us to conduct a review. I did 67 last year. In 11 cases, I found some violation of policy or some other shortcoming. That number does not reflect multiple reviews on the same topic.
On the Radio-Canada side, Mr. Tourangeau received 1,266 communications, 912 within mandate. He conducted 36 reviews and found some violation of policy in 10 cases.
We carefully track our mail on the lookout for trends. In our reviews and in our annual reports, we highlight any issues that might arise and make recommendations. For example, two years ago, Mr. Tourangeau had some concerns about how Radio-Canada was acknowledging corrections, and he focused on that. Last year, I was concerned about poor polling reporting and practices and featured that in my report. In almost all cases, CBC and Radio-Canada news management have complied with recommendations.
From time to time, during elections, for instance, we use independent panels to track and assess a body of coverage. We can convene panels at our discretion for other ongoing issues.
We report through the president to the board of directors. Our dealings with the president are largely around administrative matters. Any matters pertaining to journalism are handled through our reviews and annual reports.
CBC has had an ombudsman since 1991. It has always been an evolving institution, reflecting changes in the broader news environment and changes in the mandate for the office. It actually started off as the Office of Journalistic Standards and Practices, where policy was written. When it was officially changed to the title of ombudsman, the news department took over the responsibility of developing policy and practice.
The existence of the Office of the Ombudsman became a condition of licence following the last CRTC hearings. The licence also lays out conditions for hiring and for the termination of a contract — basically, that's gross misconduct.
Three years ago, the mandate of this office was reviewed and subsequently revamped. A group of academics and journalists, both from inside and outside CBC/Radio-Canada, examined the role of the ombudsmen and made some recommendations about the mandate. The committee recommended staying with the existing model, with some modifications to better define jurisdiction and to align it with the recently revised — at that time — version of the Journalistic Standards and Practices.
It endorsed the classic style of ombudsmanship at CBC/Radio- Canada. That means, as we said earlier, that we operate as an appeals process and respond to complaints. The committee concluded that CBC's model compared well to other broadcasters and filled this organization's need.
There are other models, of course. At the BBC, for instance, there's a fairly complex system. There's a standards editor who works with news staff before publication. CBC, on the English side anyway, does have a similar role as well. Most complaints are answered and resolved through a large audience complaints department, which processes a staggering 200,000-plus volume of correspondence each year, and of course that includes matters well beyond news and current affairs. It is anything that is broadcast on the BBC. If a complainant is not satisfied at this level, she can appeal to the Editorial Complaints division, and finally there is an editorial standards committee of the BBC Trust.
In France, public television, with its many channels, is overseen by five ombudsmen, known as médiateurs, who are appointed by the president and independent of management. Newspapers have public editors with varying degrees of independence.
[Translation]
Mr. Tourangeau: There are currently 140 ombudsmen throughout the world; that is not very many, and I mean press ombudsmen. There are about thirty in North America, thirty also in Latin America, and about fifty in Europe. In the democratic countries — this will not come as news to you I am sure — freedom of expression is protected by constitutional guarantees. For that reason, there are rarely specific laws enacted for the purpose of guiding the media. As a result, they must self-regulate; it is in that context that the ombudsman is useful and intervenes. His very presence in a given media forces it to be accountable. In a way the ombudsman institutionalizes the self-regulation system. The press ombudsman is all the more relevant today in that the media environment — as we can see every day — is experiencing deep and constant change. Today, the public is no longer satisfied with receiving information; it wants to criticize it, comment it, react to it; and also, increasingly, it wants to create information.
Webs and blogs are proliferating; it is increasingly difficult to decide, determine or define what a journalist is, and who is a journalist. The boundaries are also increasingly blurred between entertainment and information, opinion, analysis and factual reporting. The written press, and broadcasters, who used to work in the past in two completely distinct worlds, now find themselves face-to-face on Internet and mobile platforms.
It is thus increasingly evident, in our opinion, that the credibility of the press must depend on the one hand on the quality of content, but also on the quality of the dialogue they can create with their audience. To maintain that quality, they must first of all have sound principles, ethical rules and practices that are clear and complete, and credible mechanisms allowing them to ensure that those standards are respected. They must also allow citizens to criticize and comment their content by developing an open, transparent and public complaints process. The ombudsman intervenes on those two aspects; he or she receives the complaint, verifies the content, and checks to see whether the content respected journalistic practices; he then asks for corrective measures or recommends changes to the journalistic practices of the medium if necessary.
The ombudsman also plays an interface role, if you will, an educational role between the public and the media, by explaining the role of the press and of journalists to the public, and by reminding journalists of the ethical benchmarks and practices; their interpretation can sometimes be quite complex.
[English]
Ms. Enkin: It is a challenging time to be in the news and broadcast business. As we have explained, the lines are blurring, mainstream media is struggling to find a business model that works, and ownership of news outlets is more and more concentrated.
For practitioners, it is equally challenging. It is a culture of instant communication, a raucous environment where everyone can say what they want in real-time. There is no avoiding public scrutiny, and that same public is now a partner in the creation of content. Some of those same pressures have an impact on the work of ombudsmen as well.
Stephen J. Ward has written that journalism ethics is an evolving cross-cultural discourse, not a settled doctrine, not a set of absolute principles. It has to evolve to address this fast-paced world and global media environment. We ombudsmen play a role in that through the decisions we make and the dialogue we have with the public and within newsrooms.
Neither of us believes our setup is a perfect arrangement. We do feel that it is better than most alternatives, though, and believe it will continue to evolve. We have the freedom to say what we wish and write without fear of interference or consequences.
Do people disagree with our judgments? Certainly. We have heard from journalists, producers and complainants who are unhappy with the disposition of their cases. We do get the last word, and that is industry practice. Occasionally, when complainants represent organizations or have their own blogs, they criticize or rebut our decisions and publish our reviews when we uphold their complaints.
We value the debate around our decisions. One of the ways we are thinking of evolving our office is to provide a space on our own site for that kind of dialogue.
[Translation]
Mr. Tourangeau: Over the past 10 years, there have been many examples throughout the world of bad practices that have discredited the press in general, as well as journalists. The CBC, the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, Fox News, the Murdock Empire in its entirety, and even the great and virtuous BBC, have all been mired in gigantic scandals. All of this feeds into the real crisis of confidence citizens experience with regard to their traditional media. This is not only true in North America but everywhere in the western world; the confidence audiences feel in the media is at its lowest point in decades.
A recent survey in the United States, carried out in fact by Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, showed that 31 per cent of Americans, the best educated Americans, and also, in brackets, the most wealthy, that is to say those who seek out media and announcers, had deserted information media because they were no longer being provided with the quality they expected. However, the media that had an ombudsman and maintained that position, such as the New York Times in the United States, the Guardian in Great Britain, the Globe and Mail here in Canada, managed to preserve their credibility and their trademark.
CBC/Radio-Canada has always been recognized for the quality of its news. As a public corporation, it has also always felt that it had to be accountable to Canadians. Its management had the courage over 20 years ago to create ombudsmen positions and has kept them since, despite a difficult economic context. Those who listened to the CRTC hearings on the renewal of CBC/Radio-Canada licences in the fall of 2012 will have understood clearly that the regulatory organization thought the corporation's accountability regarding news was of the utmost importance, and that this was also true of the role played by its ombudsmen.
The CRTC also chose, in renewing the CBC/Radio-Canada licences, to embed the mandate of those two ombudsmen into those licences. The media that have ombudsmen have rarely had to complain about them, the public media even less so. In that regard, the National Public Radio (NPR) case in the United States is rather enlightening, and often quoted as an example. While other important American media were mired in scandals involving plagiarism or false news, NPR was able to maintain its reputation, which was built on fair and balanced reporting.
Through a blog, and by participating in public meetings or radio programs, its ombudsman established a constant dialogue with the public, and NPR was perceived by the public as being open to criticism. The ombudsman also pointed out certain shortcomings to the management of NPR regarding its journalistic standards or editorial practices. These concerned the absence of coherent policies and clear standards regarding the acknowledgement and correction of mistakes. That is the type of shortcoming that in some respects can also be seen at CBC/Radio-Canada. When we read the thousands of complaints we receive every year, Esther and I see that the public firmly believes that the media always seek to hide their errors. They feel that CBC/Radio-Canada is no exception to the rule. That is why the dialogue with the public Esther was talking about is so important. Moreover, its hallmarks must be absolute transparency and sincerity.
[English]
Ms. Enkin: We believe that the Office of the Ombudsman plays a critical role in facilitating an ongoing dialogue between the public and the news and current affairs department. We reinforce the need to live up to the values and commitments enshrined in CBC's journalistic code. We help members of the public understand the practice of journalism and the role it plays in ensuring a free and democratic society. We are practitioners of an increasingly rare profession. As we said at the outset, there are only three other ombudsmen or public editors in this country. None of them work for broadcasters, other than Pierre and I. We are the catalysts for an accountable and transparent practice of journalism. Credibility is the most important attribute for any news organization. It will be one of CBC/Radio- Canada's most valuable assets in taking on the challenge of the contemporary broadcast environment.
The Chair: I recognize Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Thank you to both of you for being here this morning.
I have a few questions directly from your presentation. I find it intriguing that with respect to CBC you agreed that 1,670 concerns pertained to the mandate, and of those you only reviewed 67. Now, for Radio Canada, the percentage, at least, of the ones inside the mandate was a little higher, three quarters, 36 reviews. If these fall within your mandate, why wouldn't you review more than that? You have admitted they fall within the mandate, and you just shrug off 1,200-and-some.
Ms. Enkin: No, actually, I don't. How the process works is that the letters come to us and they go to news management for response. Those letters are actually very thorough. It is then up to the complainant to ask for a review. If they don't ask for a review, I don't do one.
In this case, the actual inference is that 1,200-and-something people were satisfied with the response they got from news management. Every time I'm asked for a review, except in very, very rare circumstances, I do them, as Pierre does. That is the laid out mandate on our website. That's the process. It goes to news management for response. When news management responds to the complainant, the complainant either accepts that and that's the end of it, the file is closed, or it goes to review. If a review is asked for, then I do it.
Historically, the numbers are about the same. In 2013-14, there were 67 reviews; in 2012-13, there were 70. They were mostly done by my predecessor because I didn't start until January. In 2011-12, there were 91, because when Kirk took over the job, there was quite a large backlog from the previous ombudsman.
The number of reviews is reasonably consistent.
Senator Plett: That certainly wasn't in the presentation, but I appreciate that.
Ms. Enkin: Glad to clarify.
Mr. Tourangeau: That's why the mandate states that we act as an appeal authority. We have to give the opportunity to news management to answer first to the complaints.
Senator Plett: Mr. Tourangeau, you stated here, and you read this part of the presentation, that there's no doubt the public believes the media try to cover up their mistakes; CBC and Radio-Canada are no exception. We as politicians would agree with the public on that aspect in most cases.
My question is this: If you find for the complainant, what steps do you take to correct that? We see over and again where, I believe — and I'm probably biased — we see a journalist has written something and it's a big news story. It's on page 1 or page 2 of the Globe or whatever the case may be. I don't want to single out the Globe here, but we see a big story. If we find that the journalist has made an error, a week or so later, on page 67, in the bottom left-hand corner, we see a small retraction. Is that the proper way to do it? What do you do if you find for the complainant that the journalist has made a glaring error in what they have reported? How do you deal with that situation?
[Translation]
Mr. Tourangeau: When we feel that a journalist indeed made a mistake in a report, we ask that the correction be made where the error was broadcast. For instance, if this happened during the Téléjournal or on The National, the correction must be made on that same program.
We also insist that the error be made permanent. That is why we always ask that the error also be put online on the Mises au point site, the corrections and clarifications box on Radio-Canada or CBC, so that there will be a permanent record that this error was made, and that the ombudsman acknowledged it and asked for a correction.
These days, reports are increasingly being repeated in the written press, and it is possible to consult them on websites; in light of that, we also make sure the correction is broadcast following the written report on the Internet.
[English]
Senator Plett: So you would ask for both. Certainly, as to the first part of what you said, if a mistake is made on ''The National'' or on ''Power and Politics'' and the correction is made on ''Power and Politics,'' people have an opportunity to see it. If it's made on ''The National'' and then they put the correction on the website, I would venture to say that the vast majority of the people who will watch ''The National'' — I will watch ''The National'' almost every day. I watch ''Power and Politics'' when I have an opportunity, but I rarely would go on CBC's website to check for corrections they have made. Would it be done in as big of a splash as it was when they said somebody did something wrong?
Mr. Tourangeau: It should be.
Ms. Enkin: I actually have the correction policy here. It says that the form and timing of a correction will agree with the director, in consultation with the law department, where applicable.
The idea is that the correction is made on the media where it happened, but as Mr. Tourangeau says, it also should be permanent record.
Something like ''World Report'' has six editions because it goes across the country. They try to do it approximately at the same time, on the same edition where it appeared. That would be true of ''The National,'' too.
Would it go in exactly the same place in the lineup? Not necessarily. I would observe around broadcast and Internet that there is probably a generation of people younger than you and I who would go online first. Certainly in Googling it they would then have a complete record. You and I are geared to TV, but there's a whole generation that consumes media differently.
Senator Plett: We have talked a fair bit, and you did in your presentation, about the independence of the ombudsmen. Yet — and this may be normal in all industries, and you can clarify that — you report to the president. So the president is your boss. He's part of CBC, yet you claim to be independent. Further, you have a panel of what are called ''independent advisors,'' and they report, I'm assuming, to you.
Again, I find the independence here not to be what I would call independent if you're reporting to part of the body. You have appointed the independent panel of advisors. How are you independent if you are appointing?
[Translation]
Mr. Tourangeau: As ombudsmen for CBC/Radio-Canada, it is somewhat normal that we report to the board of directors of the corporation.
But when we say that we report to the president. . . I have not spoken to Hubert Lacroix for more than a year. We report to him on administrative issues and matters of discipline, because the only reason why a Radio-Canada ombudsman could lose his job would be serious negligence. Otherwise the president has no supervisory power over how we practice our trade as ombudsmen. Moreover, it is through the annual report that we set out our conclusions to the board of directors. Since the CRTC included the positions and mandates of the ombudsman in CBC's licence conditions, we now report twice a year to the board of directors on all topics of interest we deemed important enough to communicate to it in the course of the year.
So in my opinion, we are quite independent and I do not see how we could function differently in order to be more independent, unless we reported directly to the Canadian parliament.
[English]
Senator Plett: How about the panel of independent advisors?
[Translation]
M. Tourangeau: We only do so when there are electoral campaigns going on. We create three committees — one for the Web, one for radio and one for television — of five citizens each. We try to select them ourselves, obviously choosing people who represent a diversity of opinions or viewpoints, young people, some older ones, professionals, tradespeople, people from different regions, not only from the metropolitan region, and so on. We ask these people to monitor the elections on the medium we chose for them, and they prepare a report. That is how that works. I do not know how we could operate with greater impartiality. We have to have some trust in the ombudsman. We do not look for people with specific opinions; we look for people who have different opinions. People all have opinions, but we try to achieve diversity on these committees. We also ensure that these are not people who are actively involved in politics. That is normal; we really want citizens who come from all kinds of communities and different regions.
[English]
Senator Unger: Thank you both for your presentations. My question is along the lines of Senator Plett's questioning.
You had both been with the CBC as employees for many years. I'm having trouble understanding how you can be ombudsmen now and be unbiased. I would think that, over that period of time, your thinking would be along certain lines. I am wondering if bias ever comes into this and how you deal with it.
Ms. Enkin: The guiding principle as an employee, when you are working in the journalistic lines of CBC/Radio- Canada, and what binds the ombudsmen is the Journalistic Standards and Practices. We don't make it up. It isn't arbitrary. That is the code that's followed.
It is interesting, in researching this and in thinking about taking the job, I found a report done in 1997 by David Bazay on this very subject. He surveyed academics and practitioners, and I've also done some academic reading. Both models are followed almost universally. I know it seems counterintuitive. Hiring an insider is considered preferable. You know which rocks to look under. You understand the thinking of the organization, and an ombudsman has to come into the job really knowing how the culture and the thinking of the organization works. There's not a lot of room for ramp-up.
Certainly, you can have an outsider. Ben Bagdikian, at the time, was at the Washington Post. The Washington Post is the one large organization that has alternated between insiders and outsiders. He was the one who actually said that it is better to have an outsider, except of course, he said, if you had a really qualified candidate on the inside who was going to retire after this job. That would be ideal.
Well, Pierre and I are both retiring after this job. The expectation is that you retire after this job. That's one way of saying, why would you curry favour?
The other thing is, and I don't want to self-aggrandize, but judges come from lawyers.
So the office and the position give you distance. I spend almost no time in the newsroom anymore.
On the other hand, one of the things Mr. Bazay argued is true, I think. I remember being a younger journalist when he was ombudsman; I really respected what he had to say. He knew the organization and the policy. When he observed that something wasn't right, which he frequently did, even if it wasn't a violation of policy, you certainly paid attention. While the ombudsman is there as a champion of the public, there's an important pedagogic role, and it's important that you know the system, that you understand what it is. As I say, the policy and the practice, to an extent, are what the guiding principle is. That is what it is. I think it works quite effectively.
Also, you have to consider the hiring process, and I think the CRTC and the CBC even agreed to strengthen that. The hiring process invites candidates from inside and out. The hiring board is made up of external people. If they've ever worked for CBC, it's got to be more than three years. There's a fairly rigorous process in finding the correct candidate. I think those are fairly strong reasons why it can work.
Senator Unger: To me, it's still insiders dealing with questions from people. Yes, you would know the workings and the culture, but there's a whole other group of Canadians who have many issues with the CBC. So if you've always been from one side, how do you really understand the concerns of the rest of Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Tourangeau: Your question is interesting, because it suggests that because we are from CBC, we agree with everything that was done at the CBC regarding news and information. Ms. Enkin and I used to have management positions within the CBC. I managed newsrooms for radio, television and the Web at Radio-Canada for six years. I can tell you that as manager I did not of course always agree with everything my journalists did. I had to take steps against certain journalists. I had to ensure that some got better training. I had to call them to order. There are some I have more in common with than others. Just because you are an ombudsman and come from the CBC does not mean that you have the same type of relationship with everyone, and that you agree with everything that is done.
In order to set aside your own opinions over 20 or 30 years as a journalist, you have to try to be as impartial as possible. I do not see why as ombudsman that impartiality would disappear from one day to the next, after experience as a manager that meant that you received different opinions on a certain number of issues, on the way information was managed, the choice of items in the news, even on how to report the news.
As Ms. Enkin was saying, judges are former lawyers, and on a daily basis, those who go before them to plead their cases are often colleagues, former colleagues, people who may have come from the same firm. That is how it goes in all professional bodies, whether we are talking about accountants or notaries; all professional corporations operate in a similar way.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: I note that within government there are ombudsmen or ombudspeople. I remember I established one in the Department of National Defence that reported to the Minister of National Defence, but there was never any question of their impartiality or the ethical code that they operated under.
I just want to clarify that there are no ombudsmen in the private sector broadcasters, for example, CTV or Global. There are none. They don't have any formal appeal system as you do at the CBC.
Ms. Enkin: Well, I guess they belong to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. They would have to go through that.
Senator Eggleton: Do you belong to that, too?
Ms. Enkin: No. I know it came up at the CRTC hearing, and there's some reason why mutually it's considered not a fit. By the way, that's a way longer process than the ombudsman process at the CBC. It takes much longer, generally speaking.
Senator Eggleton: You've said that public confidence in the media is at its lowest point in decades in Western countries in general. There's a crisis of confidence in traditional media. At the same time, part of your mandate and part of your concern is the quality of content, the quality of dialogue, et cetera. But in this faster paced world in terms of news, isn't it becoming a much greater challenge to accomplish that? Isn't there a tendency because of the rush to get on air to cut corners, more so today than perhaps in the past?
Ms. Enkin: It certainly is a preoccupation. You can think of the Boston Marathon coverage. Generally, it really comes to pertain when it's fast-breaking, very dramatic news. It becomes this internal loop.
There's pressure, and it's pressure that has to be resisted because ultimately the only thing you have is your credibility. I think the news organizations that resist the temptation to just jump into the fray are the ones in the end that people will turn to in moments that really matter. That's just the reality.
But, yes, the environment has completely changed. There is a school of thought — I'm not talking about anyone in particular — of just get it out there. You can always tweet the correction. We know how quickly and how ubiquitously something can spread, and somehow that catch-up is never quite as impactful as that first dramatic incorrect thing. It's a reality of the news business that everyone's grappling with. How important is it to be first and how important is it to be right? It's always been my mantra that it's more important to be right.
Senator Eggleton: Is there something you can do in terms of preventive measures in this regard, or are you just totally in the reactionary business on an appeal of a complaint?
Mr. Tourangeau: Believe me, it's quite an effective tool.
[Translation]
When I review a case, or when Esther does, and we determine that an error was committed, we can be very strict, I tell you; some of the rulings or decisions we make can really hurt the journalists or the people who produced the news report.
This of course makes waves. It makes waves in the media since it is rebroadcast. It makes waves in the newsroom and with information management. There are always post-mortems, and steps are taken to avoid seeing the mistakes be made again.
As an example, consider the coverage by RDI, Radio-Canada's continuous news channel, of the shooting that took place this summer in Moncton. It missed one angle completely. I was forced to look at everything that was done, and I concluded that the network had failed in its mission to serve the public interest at that moment. There were a lot of internal consequences. Once again, we asked ourselves questions on the way we function and on decision-making. Again, I think that the best way to ensure that change happens is to examine the processes that were used to map coverage, or errors in coverage or in a news report, with great attention. That is still the best way to bring about change.
[English]
Ms. Enkin: That's after the fact, but if you're talking about preventing it from happening in the first place, it's no longer in Mr. Tourangeau's or my hands. That's something that has to come from news management and from set policy. One organization can have a policy that says X and another organization Y. So, again, it's how you want to differentiate yourself in the marketplace. The truth of it is that even if your policy is X, in the heat of the moment Y happens. I'm not making light of it, but I think that the leadership of any news organization has to set the right tone.
Senator Eggleton: I think also what you're saying is that if you take corrective action on one, that becomes a lesson for the future.
Ms. Enkin: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: One final question, if I can: The terms of reference of our study are to examine and report on the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications. In that context, what is different now from what used to be with your predecessors, and what do you see being different in the future in the roles you play?
[Translation]
Mr. Tourangeau: As I was saying earlier, it is very difficult now, given the advent of Internet, to define who is a journalist, and the characteristics that make someone a real journalist. When anyone can access the public and create an audience simply by creating an Internet blog, it is very difficult. And it causes a domino effect; almost all of the press media and, increasingly, the radio and television broadcasters, have a presence on the Internet, as well as their reporters, and even those at Radio-Canada who do not, in quotes, have the right to express personal opinions are there; they have blogs too. The blogs have to respect the Journalistic Standards and Practices of Radio-Canada, and they have to present analyses that do not express personal opinions. There is a sort of imitation factor that causes the danger to arise, although it did not exist before.
There is also the sometimes increasingly tenuous difference between entertainment and information. If you look at programs such as ''Tout le monde en parle'' on the Radio-Canada French network — it is a talk show watched by 1.5 million viewers every week — it is entertainment, but they invite politicians and they also discuss current events. It is very difficult for someone who has not been trained as a journalist but is an entertainer to respect Journalistic Standards and Practices. We often receive complaints in that regard, and sometimes we indeed have to remind people that when they discuss current events, they must respect the same standards as the journalists do.
These aspects are quietly disappearing; this is due to the Internet but also to the competition among the various networks. It is also due to the emergence and increasing presence of what is known as opinion journalism. In newspapers such as La Presse or the Journal de Montréal, or on the competing network, TVA, on the French side, an increasing number of people are there to express personal opinions in editorial pieces. There is a variety, which means that various currents are present in these newspapers, but at the same time, these are opinions. They are not facts, and the difference is sometimes very difficult for the public to grasp when it watches Radio-Canada; people think that they are hearing facts reported when they are in fact hearing personal opinions; this also creates a lot of confusion in the public's mind.
Senator Housakos: Thank you for being with us this morning. Since you took on your position, have you felt that you have the resources and necessary independence from management to allow you to meet all current needs?
Mr. Tourangeau: Generally speaking, yes. It is increasingly difficult from the resources standpoint, because of the Radio-Canada context, which you are aware of; the ombudsman's office has also had to deal with budget cuts.
Since I took on the position, the cuts that were automatically applied to all sectors, including the ombudsman's office, have meant that there was less money in that budget to pay the two salaries in my office, that is to say mine and my assistant's. We have had to make changes, and the budget was adjusted in consequence.
For instance, when we need particular resources for elections, among other things, and we create citizens' committees, we pay those citizens — not a lot, but we do give them a fee for their efforts. We then ask for a supplementary budget, which is granted to us by the board of directors automatically.
Regarding independence, as I was saying earlier, I personally feel sufficiently independent, and I cannot think of any incidents where an attempt was made to convince me not to rule on a particular issue. Of course, people are not always happy with the decisions we make, but that is normal.
The current mandate does require the ombudsman to respect the CBC code of ethics and the corporation's Journalistic Standards and Practices, whereby the title holder is prohibited from expressing their personal opinion. This means I work within my mandate. I exercise the jurisdiction of a court of appeal when complaints are submitted to me, but if I am asked for my point of view on a specific mainstream press issue, theoretically, I am not allowed to express it. I carefully provide my opinion anyway when the discussion is focussed on the popular press in a general sense, as is the case today, but there are still some restrictions involved. I cannot have a blog where I criticize the way Radio-Canada is covering certain topics outside the complaint process. I cannot size up a situation and express my opinion it. That cannot be done under the current mandate.
Senator Housakos: I took the time to go through your website. Congratulations. I was very impressed by the website's attention to detail and its transparency.
Let us set aside your current mandate for a moment. You are two journalists who have been working at CBC/ Radio-Canada for a long time, and you are very familiar with those corporations. Many witnesses have told us that CBC/Radio-Canada is investing a lot of resources and energy in news. There is a lot of focus placed on news and not enough energy to fulfill the corporation's true mandate, which consists in creating Canadian content and programming. Do you agree with that?
You come from a news background and you support that environment, I suppose, but you have also seen that CBC/ Radio-Canada has been focusing more on news for years. Many people are arguing that a number of private companies provide that service to the public, and they are wondering whether we need another such institution. Of course, the situation is a bit different in French Canada, as there is less competition. Other options are available in English Canada.
What do you think about the argument that it is important for CBC/Radio-Canada to focus more on its mandate, instead of increasing its involvement in news programming?
Mr. Tourangeau: I will answer carefully because, as I was just saying, I am not allowed to express my personal opinions on matters that are beyond my mandate. I would still say that news and information are at the core of CBC's mandate. I can personally attest to the budget cuts of the past few years. Up until three years ago, I was managing the news room, where I had to implement some considerable cuts.
Certain foreign correspondent positions were eliminated. We no longer have anyone in Africa or in Latin America, and we have only one person in the Middle East. We previously had two reporters in Washington; we now have only one. The same goes for Paris.
As it is clearly established in the Journalistic Standards and Practices, I think that providing a Canadian point of view or perspective on worldwide events is part of CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate and mission. So this is one of the consequences of our corporation's current context.
As for the rest, I am not exactly sure what you are alluding to when you say that news programming is not really part of the mandate.
Senator Housakos: Many Canadians are saying that CBC should create more programming such as feature films and place less focus on news.
Mr. Tourangeau: I will let Ms. Enkin answer because I think the situation is a bit different on the Radio-Canada side. There is a good deal of original general programming in French produced by Radio-Canada. Numerous original programs with a strong Canadian focus are created at Radio-Canada by private producers, but in collaboration with the corporation. I do not know whether the situation is different at CBC.
[English]
Ms. Enkin: I would first echo what Mr. Tourangeau said at the outset. This is well outside our mandate, so I have to be careful what I say. It's always been my understanding when the CBC mandate talks about reflecting Canadians to each other, telling their stories is a valid part of that, and that constitutes news and current affairs.
The radio schedule is very rich and varied. I do believe that part of the mandate of CBC is to have news. What the right balance is is not within my mandate to comment on.
Senator Housakos: Would you agree it may be more effective for both of you if the government created an envelope, a budget independent of the global budget they send to CBC/Radio-Canada where you would have an annual budget that would be submitted to the government, the government would give you your resources, and that way you would have even further independence from the board and the administration? Would that be more effective?
Mr. Tourangeau: Where would that budget come from?
Senator Housakos: Heritage Canada. I'm saying that instead of having you be accountable directly to the board and the president, you would file an annual report of your work to the government and they would carve out a budget independent of CBC/Radio-Canada's budget.
Ms. Enkin: It's an intriguing idea. It could also be construed as violating the arm's-length relationship between CBC/Radio-Canada and the government. In the end, we're paid by the Government of Canada because it comes from the —
Senator Housakos: It wouldn't violate anything. Instead of sending your money through them, they'd be sending the money directly. They're doing it now, so I don't know what they would be violating. It would give you complete independence.
Ms. Enkin: But if our report went directly to the Parliament of Canada, I don't know.
Mr. Tourangeau: Why not?
Senator Housakos: What I'm saying is it would make you impervious to future cutbacks. If I was the President of CBC and had a choice to cut between my directors, my producers and the ombudsmen, I suspect my reflex would be to cut a little bit of —
Ms. Enkin: But it's a condition of licence now. CRTC has made it a condition of licence, so it's not really ''cuttable.''
Mr. Tourangeau: I cannot be fired. That's the only job in Radio Canada where —
Ms. Enkin: Yes, can't be fired.
The Chair: That's why Senator Housakos doesn't have that mandate.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I want to welcome our two witnesses to the committee this morning.
I would like to echo Senator Eggleton's questions. You said that there are only five ombudsmen in the country, two of whom are at CBC/Radio-Canada. You told Senator Eggleton that there were no ombudsmen in the private sector. So where are the other three?
[English]
Ms. Enkin: No private broadcasters. The other three, there was one recently appointed by the Irving papers in Atlantic Canada. There's a public editor at The Globe and Mail and a public editor at the Toronto Star.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: You also said that a journalist could be blamed in response to a complaint submitted to you.
For a journalist, what is the consequence of being blamed? What does that guarantee going forward?
Mr. Tourangeau: There is no guarantee. The news management team has a duty to ensure that the situation is remedied.
Of course, when the Journalistic Standards and Practices are violated and false information is provided, we request that a correction be made. So a correction must be made.
However, a correction cannot be made in certain situations. For instance, you may recall the RDI report on Moncton. In such a situation, a post mortem must be done, and the blame is so public that those responsible must answer for their actions and be held accountable. They have to explain themselves.
I would also say that, to a certain extent, each complaint we look into and review is subject to a case study. We were saying earlier that we have a role to play in educating the public on how news and media work. We also have to explain to journalists why they were or were not at fault when a complaint against them is lodged. Making those complaints public on our website is an educational endeavour to help people understand how things work.
Of course, ongoing errors may occur. For instance, since taking office, I have made 30 corrections in the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of those 30 corrections, 15 had to do with errors, issues related to impartiality and accuracy, poor understanding of the subject matter, and so on. Should this keep happening, I could always blame those responsible, once again. The situation becomes somewhat ridiculous when the same error is repeated 10 times. In such cases, Radio-Canada must absolutely be held accountable.
I can also use my annual report to provide an update on that specific issue and ask why we are always having problems with that type of coverage. I can propose possible solutions or point out that the information provided failed to fulfill its purpose.
So a certain moral authority is involved, but that authority is fairly powerful. Of course, no one in the journalistic fraternity likes to be told they did a bad job. When those individuals do not do what they are supposed to, they expose themselves to public scrutiny and are held accountable by Canadians.
Senator Verner: Like Ms. Enkin, you said that we are living in a world where verifiable facts and the speed at which news stories are broken converge. In that context, you also say that people must differentiate between the facts reported by journalists and those reported by opinion journalists.
Did I understand correctly that opinion journalism has become a way to deflect blame?
Mr. Tourangeau: Yes.
Senator Verner: So this means a complaint cannot be made against a journalist providing an opinion, but a complaint can be made against a journalist reporting on the facts?
Mr. Tourangeau: CBC/Radio-Canada's case is somewhat particular, as that is the only organization to which Canadians can submit a complaint. Complaints can always be submitted to private media, but they sit on the editor's shelf.
I have an example for you. I have received many complaints from the Centre of Israel and Jewish Affairs, a very well-organized lobby group that is closely following all coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have made many corrections in response to those complaints, and I finally met the organization's director.
I told him that Radio-Canada is pretty much the only medium in Quebec that is covering this Middle Eastern conflict and broadcasting relevant international news reports. We are also the only ones with an international correspondent on the ground. I told him his organization was constantly attacking us and asked whether this approach may not essentially be a bit counterproductive. The organization was in fact often right. He told me that, when he had to complain about an article published in La Presse or on TVA, he would write a letter. If the editor was in a good mood that day, he may publish the letter in the editorials. Otherwise, it would just go out the door. However, Radio- Canada is a public service that is held accountable, and we have a clear and specific complaint process, which we actually promote. So people write to us and complain, and the ombudsman may eventually make a correction. So it is normal that they would use the process.
I would also say that, under the Journalistic Standards and Practices, what you talked about earlier cannot happen, as our journalists are not allowed to issue their opinion. That is why I was saying that Radio-Canada bloggers have to walk on egg shells and be careful not to cross the line.
I do feel that opinion journalism gives people who are clearly identified as opinion columnists much greater freedom to express themselves, set the facts aside and provide their personal opinion on the interpretation of those facts. That is normal, as this is what the term opinion journalism implies.
Senator Verner: I have one last quick question. We know perfectly well that young people are not consuming news in the same way, although older age groups are now also using social networks. That being said, I wanted to know whether this is exemplified in a specific way in the complaints you process. Is there an age-based discrepancy when it comes to the number of complaints you receive?
Mr. Tourangeau: That is an interesting question because young people consume little information, and they usually use the web when they do consume it. Of course, as young people have also aged since the advent of the Internet and social media, we are starting to see Canadian radio information consumers mainly using the web. So we are increasingly receiving complaints from people who are unhappy with what they saw in a web article, and that was not the case in the beginning.
The web is somewhat particular. Many opinions and comments are posted there. People instantly react to something they do not like, and not always in the most polite way. So young people who consume that information are used to this type of reaction and are not very offended when a journalist crosses the line. That is starting to change, and we are receiving more and more complaints about this. I think that trend will continue, as it is no longer true that only young people are obtaining information on the web.
The other phenomenon is the use of social media. I made a correction — and I think Esther had to make one too — when a journalist had an argument with one of their Facebook friends, who did not appreciate that and submitted a complaint to the ombudsman. The related correction I made was very useful, as it helped many journalists understand that a social medium is still a medium. Regardless of whether you are posting on Facebook, your personal page or whatever, you are expressing your opinion publically, and you do not have the right to do that as a Radio-Canada employee.
So that area is experiencing a major shift because of the technological changes and of the opportunity to be heard provided by those media.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Enkin, could you comment on the anglo side of that issue?
Ms. Enkin: It's quite similar. I would say that the people who phone me tend to come from a much older demographic. I think maybe I get half a dozen snail mail complaints a year, just to show you how it evolves over time.
I would say, like Mr. Tourangeau, the complaints are more about content on the Web than say ''The National'' or ''The Current'' or an actual program because that's how people are consuming information a lot more, although I couldn't give you a percentage.
People do tweet a complaint and use @CBCOmbudsman as well, which I find frustrating because I'm not going to respond to a complaint in 140 characters other than to say ''please write me,'' because then we can have a dialogue.
I find, like Mr. Tourangeau, the tone of the dialogue is sometimes unfortunate. I actually have a response in which I say, ''You raise some interesting points. I would really like to engage in this dialogue, but I'm committed to civil dialogue. So could you please rephrase it?'' I feel a bit schoolmarmish, but I do think that you have to maintain certain standards. I get everything from, ''Oh, I'm really sorry, writing an email in the heat of the moment'' to things I can't repeat in public. So there you go.
Along the same lines as Mr. Tourangeau, talking about the use of social media, the most interesting case — I consulted with an international group of ombudsmen on this one because it was an interesting ethical question. In this case, I would submit, having reviewed it, a person was tweeting about a reporter. It was a complainant that had crossed the line around civil dialogue, so the reporter blocked her. The person wrote me and said, ''It is my right to access news via that Twitter account. You are cutting me off as a Canadian who has a right to CBC/Radio-Canada.'' I thought, ''That's really interesting.''
How thick a skin should a reporter have? Is there a limit beyond complaints of personal safety? If CBC/Radio- Canada says ''view the news when you want, how you want it,'' then where's that line?
The truth is that the reporter had a personal Twitter handle and the station had a news feed that went out on Twitter, so the individual could access it that way. But who would have been asked that question five years ago? When I said earlier there are evolving ethics and practice, there's a great example of that.
[Translation]
Senator Demers: Good morning, Ms. Enkin and Mr. Tourangeau.
[English]
I would like both of you to answer the following question, if possible.
In my past life, I did some work for CBC and Radio Canada, and I was fortunate enough to work with some of the best journalists, but there were some that — fortunately, it's the minority. The phrase ''off the record'' — des sources anonyme — this has always killed me.
[Translation]
As a senator, I still occasionally make television appearances. The name given to us is not journalist, but rather ''joueurnaliste''. I have noticed that those journalists can never be touched, however slightly. Whether we are talking about sports, politics or business, journalists can cite anonymous sources —
[English]
— off the record, and they're never punished. At times, when we go to the sources, we realize it was not quite reported the way it was said.
Where is our protection in that? I'm not talking about for senators and politicians, but in my past work. ''Off the record'' is something that kills me — not in my job, but I don't understand it.
[Translation]
Mr. Tourangeau: As you say, your protection is the ombudsman. You submit a complaint about an anonymous source reporting falsehoods. However, a distinction should still be made, senator, between a source being anonymous and the information provided by that source being true or false.
Anonymous sources are used a lot. That is less the case in politics now, but there was a time when anonymous sources where used a lot, in print media even more so than on television.
They are mostly used in investigative reports. For obvious reasons, those people's personal situation could suffer, or they could face physical threats if their identity was revealed.
I have received complaints claiming that anonymous sources were used excessively, that their statements were unfounded, and so on. That type of complaint means that I have to redo much of the investigative work. I have to sit down with the journalist and ask what their sources were. They may refuse to say. Generally, they agree to share that information if I promise not to name those individuals. I check the recordings and the conversations. I also consider the individual's character and determine whether their statements are true. The use of anonymous sources can be justified.
However, earlier, I was talking about the increasingly blurred line between information and entertainment. That has always been somewhat the case in sports. When you follow sporting events, sports teams — be it the Montreal Canadiens, the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Senators — things get really crazy, as everyone becomes an expert, everyone hears things, and journalists and sports commentators have no qualms about citing rumours. I have never received any complaints about this, but it would be interesting to see how I would handle them. That would be a whole other ball game.
[English]
Ms. Enkin: I don't have a lot to add to what Mr. Tourangeau said. There's a difference between accuracy and ''off the record.'' I guess it amounts to the same thing. Off the record and anonymous sources, in the end, amount to the same thing. But sometimes it is the politician or the politician's assistant who will say, ''I will only talk to you off the record.'' It goes both ways.
How CBC would deal with it is CBC policy and practice. I can't quote it verbatim, but the policy book does have policy around the use of anonymous sources, which requires upward referral. It is not the reporter that makes the decision. There are criteria set out.
The other thing it says about dealing with sources is that you have to be very clear with the source at the outset. What are the conditions of speaking together? What are you really offering? As Mr. Tourangeau pointed out for investigative journalism, if you were offering someone anonymity, are you offering them anonymity so that somebody passing them in the street won't know, or their mother won't know? Occasionally, not to be overdramatic, there are times that it is important that their identity is protected for a larger public good.
The use of anonymous sources or unnamed sources or off-the-record material in political reporting is something that universally is an issue. I know in the New York Times Margaret Sullivan is frequently writing about it, that it is overused. In her context, she's written that it's overused from both sides.
I agree with you. Journalistic policy also says that you need to identify who is speaking and give the pertinent information so that people listening can make a judgment about how to hear that information.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you folks for being here.
I want to go back to the principles of independence and perceived independence. I want to pick up on something you both mentioned about judges being derived from lawyers. I like that analogy to one extent because I'm one of those people who thinks most judges should be drawn from experienced litigators who have 25 or 30 years in a courtroom and have an appreciation for the impact of their rulings. Of course, they don't have to be experienced litigators; they can be university. As long as they have the right eggs, they can be right out of law school if the government wants to appoint them.
Of course, they're not all drawn from the same law firm. Most judges are scattered around the country. I don't question your experience or your integrity, but in terms of independence, we see medical societies who meet and judge doctors for malpractice and will suspend them. It's the same thing with lawyers; they can be suspended or disbarred.
What sort of conduct would trigger a recommendation for dismissal of a journalist? Has either one of you ever recommended that a journalist be dismissed? Has a CBC ombudsman ever recommended that a journalist be dismissed for their conduct?
Mr. Tourangeau: I don't feel it is our job.
[Translation]
I do not think that recommending a journalist's dismissal is really part of our mandate. It is all about how we draft our decision and the terms we use to describe the journalist's actions and violations. If the situation is serious enough to warrant a dismissal, the news management team would have to take the necessary measures. We do not have the same authority as a syndic du barreau, for instance. We are watchdogs; we are not police officers or prosecutors. We can determine the severity of an error, its seriousness and intensity. However, the news management team decides what kind of a penalty to impose. That comes under management rights. The CBC/Radio-Canada staff is also unionized. There is still some leeway in what we can say. We can say what we want, write what we want, blame as much as we want, but we have no sanctioning authority over the journalists.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: I'm not suggesting that you have the power to fire, but surely you have the flexibility to recommend. If somebody's conduct is repeatedly inappropriate, you could recommend something to their superiors. I mean, it is done in law societies; it is done in medical societies. Why couldn't it be done at the journalistic level?
[Translation]
Mr. Tourangeau: There is no limit to the strength of the words we can use. Could we recommend that someone be fired?
[English]
Ms. Enkin: It is interesting because it is a unionized environment. There are processes for dismissal that would have to be followed. In that environment, I'm not sure that it would be appropriate in a public review to call for it.
I have been around a long time, through many ombudsmen; I can't recall any ombudsman ever calling for a firing. I can remember a very devastating review which led to, after due process through the CBC collective agreements, someone being suspended.
Senator Plett: I would like to make an observation further to what Senator Housakos asked and that you replied to, and that was in regard to having more Canadian content. I understand that's not your job. Your job is to deal with other things.
I would like to put it on the record, and I'm reading here:
. . . the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;. . . .
(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression, . . .
Then it has five other points, and nowhere in one of those does it mention doing anything internationally. You referred to us having only one person in Washington and one person in Paris. The fact of the matter is, from what I read as CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, they're not mandated to have any there. Now, that's an observation more than anything else. I know you are not in charge of that part of the organization.
I do want to touch on impartiality, accuracy and integrity. This is maybe directed more at Ms. Enkin, but both of you can reply. On your website — and I think it is great — it says:
The evaluation measures performance in respecting the fundamental principles of CBC journalism:
balance, impartiality, accuracy, integrity and fairness for information content . . . .
I do not want to suggest that I think CBC is any worse than any other organization, but I do not believe that we have any media outlet that follows any of those guidelines.
You mentioned the Moncton shooting. If you want to be impartial, you cannot have an opinion because you are not impartial.
Mr. Tourangeau: Of course.
Senator Plett: We constantly find — and it's not just political, although we deal more in politics — that we have so many people tried on television. They are accused of a crime, and before they ever have their first day in court, the media has completely tried, convicted and hung the individual. Again, CBC is no worse than the others.
I want you to tell me how you square that box when you say you are supposed to be impartial, and you then have a media person, whether it is on television or in print, forming an opinion on the guilt or innocence of individuals.
I have one more question after that, chair.
Ms. Enkin: It would be great if I could have a specific example of what you are thinking of.
First of all, impartiality, also in CBC policy, says that there is room, based on expertise, to synthesize and come to a conclusion based on the facts. Not everything is equal. Not conveying what is going on but giving information so that everything has equal weight or value is one of the things that the BBC has recently been criticized for. There isn't an equivalence of everything. In observing a situation, you actually say what you think is going on.
I don't know what you are referring to when you say that someone was convicted on air. It would be great if you could be specific, but I'm not sure what it is you have in mind.
Senator Plett: I don't want you to speak to specifics, but let me throw one out. The Senate has been under attack for the last year and everybody has opinions on the Senate in general. I will use that one.
Ms. Enkin: If I have complaints about coverage of the Senate, I will deal with them, but I can't recall that I have actually had very many. I don't think I have done a review about coverage of the Senate, other than one that had to do with —
Senator Plett: My question to you was not what you are doing about it. My question to you is: How do you square the box when you talk that impartiality?
Ms. Enkin: I guess I fundamentally don't agree with you that everything on air is opinion. I guess that's our fundamental disagreement.
Mr. Tourangeau: I have a lot of examples of reviews I've done blaming the journalists for not being impartial, especially, for instance, in the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Senator Plett: That is a good example.
Mr. Tourangeau: There were complaints. I found that the complaints were true, and so the journalists were blamed.
Senator Plett: Good for you.
Mr. Tourangeau: Usually, when someone complains that a journalist expressed a personal opinion and asks for a review, we look at it on its face. Analysis is not opinion if it's based on the facts.
We can discuss for hours.
Senator Plett: It is always based on the facts. Since you used Gaza, let me use an illustration. Clearly, I would be maybe of that ilk that would be saying that Israel certainly has a right to exist and they certainly have a right to defend themselves. Let's use that.
When we hear reports from the media about Israel shooting rockets into Palestine and see all the turmoil and the innocent people that are killed, we do not see the fact that the Palestinians have used many of these innocent civilians as shields. That would be an example.
Now, it is fact that the bomb went in there and that civilians were killed.
Ms. Enkin: Because we got a lot of mail about this, I actually sat and watched two weeks of ''The National'' and listened to ''The Current,'' ''As it Happens'' and ''World Report.'' While you say that they didn't say that the rockets were launched from heavily populated areas, in fact, it is there. I have a theory about why people don't hear that.
Senator Plett: Selective hearing.
Ms. Enkin: No, no, not selective hearing; it is more complicated than that. It is television, right? The imagery of those buildings collapsing — I mean the damage has been greater, right? The Iron Dome has been very effective. The imagery, which is what daily news feeds off of, is the imagery of buildings collapsing. That rests in your brain. No matter what the words are, that's what you take in.
That's just a theory. Did they say it every single time? No. But was it there fairly consistently? Yes.
I know the other thing people say is, ''Why didn't you show the rockets being launched?'' Well, if you had any idea how extraordinarily dangerous it was for those journalists, there's a great interview with —
Senator Plett: I have a lot of respect for them.
Ms. Enkin: — the photographer of the New York Times who said, ''You think if I didn't see it, I would — there was that one Indian crew that managed to. You got lots of pictures of rockets going into Israel once they were launched. But one of the things that a lot of foreign correspondents said was, ''We couldn't find Hamas, period.'' Obviously it is a guerrilla army, not a regular army.
I understand what you are saying, and, again, we take every single one of those complaints really seriously. I have only done two weeks. Then, the war went on longer, so I haven't done more of that kind of really concerted listening. However, I can tell you it was there, and I understand why you think it wasn't.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
It would seem to me that when a judge does a review, he has both sides in front of him or her, and they can present their case. When you do a review, do you contact the side personally and talk to them?
Ms. Enkin: Not every time, no.
Senator Plett: If not, why not?
Ms. Enkin: Generally speaking because their complaint is very clear, and I don't feel I need more information. I will almost always speak to the journalist because they are accountable, so I have to ask a series of questions. Did you do this? Who are your sources? How did you know that? Let me see the notes, et cetera. It depends.
It is interesting that when it comes to things like especially science and technology, where I may not have a good grasp, then it is trying to choose someone who isn't associated with so many controversial scientific matters, for instance, proponents as opposed to the pure science. I will consult experts. That's generally how it goes.
Senator Plett: Sixty-seven and 36 reviews. I would suggest that you should take the time to talk to both sides.
Thank you.
The Chair: Before giving the final question to Senator Housakos, next week we will be hearing from Marie-Linda Lord from the University of Moncton, and we will be hearing from the Canadian Media Guild.
Do you have another question, Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: I want to squeeze in two quick ones, if I can, Mr. Chair, with your benevolence, of course.
My first question: Ms. Enkin, why was the CRTC compelled to forcefully encourage the CBC to strengthen your mandate and roles?
Ms. Enkin: I guess you'd have to ask the CRTC. According to the transcript that I have here, it was explored together and CBC suggested some of what should be incorporated, but I don't know the answer. I've never had a sense that CBC has been anything but very supportive of the role and the Office of the Ombudsman.
Mr. Tourangeau: The suggestion was made by CBC itself.
Ms. Enkin: Yes.
Senator Housakos: Are there any other examples where ombudsmen serve other public broadcasters in the world? What kind of methodology does the BBC use or other European public broadcasters? Are there any similarities with what we're doing here with CBC/Radio-Canada?
Ms. Enkin: It is a fairly common model. The BBC has a different model, as I outlined. They have a standards editor — as does CBC, actually — that works ahead of time. They have a complaints bureau, as I say, that gets 200,000-plus pieces of correspondence per year, but that's not just news; that's everything the BBC does. Then there's an editorial committee at a higher level, and finally there's an appeal to BBC Trust. It's a much more complex system.
ABC Australia also has a standards editor and a complaints bureau. NPR works similarly to CBC, and many newspapers do as well.
Senator Housakos: What happens in cases where you get a complaint on both sides, Radio-Canada and CBC? How do you manage that?
Ms. Enkin: It wouldn't be the same material because anything that's on Radio-Canada would go to Mr. Tourangeau and anything on CBC would go to me.
Senator Housakos: But you have stories that are covered on both fronts.
Ms. Enkin: Yes, but each one is a case in and of itself. We certainly discuss issues around the big topics, like this summer the Middle East. We work very closely together. It's a lonely job — there are not too many people you can talk to — so we certainly support each other and talk about some of the issues or if we see similar patterns. That's how we work.
Mr. Tourangeau: There are a few different models than ours. For instance —
[Translation]
Our Israeli colleague is appointed by a regulatory office very similar to the CRTC called the Second Television Authority. That office oversees all private electronic media — so a number of television and radio networks. Its role extends to all those networks.
In South America — and Esther is actually very familiar with this model — in Argentina, for instance, the public defender is appointed by their Parliament. This person monitors all of the country's media outlets. So this is sort of an ombudsman for all print, electronic and radio media. The individual also has an educational role to play.
Ms. Enkin: Only electronic.
Mr. Tourangeau: Argentina is a new democracy, so the country has to learn how media work. Various models are used. We were talking about independence earlier. For some people, this is definitely a way to ensure greater independence.
[English]
Ms. Enkin: On the other hand, in Argentina, by their own admission, public TV is not independent the way we would understand it. It's not like North Korea, but it's not arm's length.
Senator MacDonald: I've often noticed going to the CBC website — I don't often go there, but I sometimes do — that on a controversial story you'll see ''comments closed.'' Why are comments closed from the public on the CBC website? I can understand you would monitor for inappropriate language or suggestions or things of that nature, but why would comments be shut down from the public? Who would order that?
Ms. Enkin: Again, comments are outside our mandate because it's not considered part of journalism, but I'm familiar with it, so I'll try to answer your question. I may not be 100 per cent up to date. I would refer you to the editor's blog where Ms. McGuire has written extensively on this.
This is something media everywhere are wrestling with, the value of comments, the resource it takes to manage them properly and how that's best done. I think in the last couple of years, they're more selective. The criteria are not ones that I can bring to mind right away. I think it is sort of how often the story is there and how controversial it is, but I don't think it's true that controversial stories are always closed. There are a set of criteria — again, I'd have to refer you to the website — about which are open and which are closed. Sometimes it's a practical reason, such as we can't afford to have them all open because the moderation costs are so enormous; it's so enormously popular that it collapses under its own weight.
The other thing is a legal case, so people could inadvertently break a publication ban. Anything to do with children, things like that, tend to not be open because of the nature of the story. I think bitter experience has taught them that even around something that would seem innocuous, where somebody prominent has died, you would think there wouldn't be, but there are always trolls. There is a set of criteria.
Eventually they're closed. They're not open indefinitely. It may have been open for a period of time and then after — I don't know what it is now — three days, five days or seven days, it will be closed. That is just a way of managing the sheer weight of it.
Senator MacDonald: I can understand why it wouldn't be part of your mandate, but I think it might be helpful when they close comments to tell us why they are doing so.
Ms. Enkin: That's something worth passing on. I know it's a work in progress. They're always trying to make it more responsive and open.
The Chair: Senator MacDonald, we will have Ms. McGuire as a witness in a few weeks, so you may have the occasion to ask her. Senator Housakos may want to add some comments.
Mr. Tourangeau and Ms. Enkin, thank you very much for your presentation. We hope it went well for you.
We will be continuing next week with two witnesses, and then we will be travelling to the Maritimes and Quebec and after that to Toronto and Montreal on the ongoing saga of the CBC/Radio-Canada.
(The committee adjourned.)