Freedom from Blame | The Press

If you can’t beat them, don’t join them; pursue them.


This could be the motto of the bosses of Quebecor, who attend the courts with an enthusiasm that borders on frenzy. It reminds me of my summers at La Ronde. Always want to take another ride.

The latest example of this feverish judicial passion is the affair of the Press Council, against which The Journal of MontrealQMI and TVA had launched a massive attack.

On Friday, the Superior Court rejected all the arguments of these media.

What was the subject of the dispute?

The senior leaders of Montreal Journal have never really liked this “tribunal of honor” of journalism. The Council, founded in 1973, receives complaints from the public and renders decisions where it determines whether the journalist has committed a breach of ethics.

Member media – because no one is obliged to join – undertake to partially fund the Council and publish its decisions. There are no other consequences than having a reprimand or a “severe reprimand” publicly displayed against a journalist.

This council was a way of responding to those who demanded a professional order, with disciplinary council and enforceable decisions sometimes ranging from provisional radiation to expulsion from the profession. There are therefore some who judge this court of honor far too weak.

Its latest annual report mentions just under 200 complaints handled per year. Of those that are admissible, about half are retained (the journalist or the media is blamed), the other half is rejected.

Since its foundation, critics have not been lacking in the profession. The lamentations of journalists about the Council are as old as it and are not the fact that the bosses of the Montreal Journal. In all member media, that is to say almost all news media including The Presswe have heard the same criticisms over the years: lack of rigor and consistency in decisions, appearance of arbitrariness, etc.

But from the start, the JdeM added that its journalists were treated more severely. He has long refused to serve on the Council.

Nevertheless, in 2002, with TVA, he joined the Board. Until in 2008 and 2010, the two media finally slammed the door, stopped contributing and refused to respond to complaints.

Except that the Council felt it had a duty to continue to deal with complaints from the public. Remember that Quebecor occupies almost half of Quebec’s media space.

For the Quebecor media, this was unacceptable: as long as we are no longer part of the Council, it should no longer have the right to hear these complaints. False, replied the Council: we have heard complaints even against André Arthur. I say “even” because the late host never claimed to be a journalist.

After threatening to sue everything that moved or did not move at the Council, the two Quebecor media took action in 2018. Bang: request for injunction, damages ($100,000) for breach of reputation and, why not, punitive damages for intentional violation of the company’s fundamental rights.

You should know that the Council does not roll on gold. Its latest annual report shows revenues of $578,000. The Council is financed by the government of Quebec (46%), press companies (43%), the federation of journalists (2.5%), investments (8%) and “special projects” (0.5 %). It is not a court of law and does not enjoy immunity.

In itself, an aggressive pursuit is an existential threat.

You should also know that the Council has reformed and updated seriously. It’s certainly not perfect, but it’s the minimum we can present as a self-regulation mechanism.

Judge Bernard Jolin finally decided on Friday that dealing with these complaints is not an attack on freedom of association: these media have every right not to participate.

By dealing with these complaints according to ethical principles, the Council does not engage in “defamation”. He gives an opinion. Sometimes severe. But based on principles of journalistic ethics. A perfectly legitimate exercise.

Insofar as it is done in good faith, these ethical reprimands are the expression of an opinion of the Council – an expression no less legitimate and as fundamentally protected as that of journalists or columnists.

This is in no way censorship against the opinions of the columnists, the style of the newspaper or its ideological choices.

Let’s observe the sweet irony here: Quebecor media claim to protect their fundamental freedom of expression… by limiting the Press Council’s freedom to blame.

Who wants to shut up who?

Freedom of speech is full of orange cones. But it’s not a one-way boulevard.


source site-61

Latest