Tag: Journalism

Posted on

Member of Unifor’s anti-Conservative political team is a newspaper columnist

I received a great deal of positive response to my column advocating for disclosure of journalists’ union affiliations alongside political stories. The catalyst was Unifor’s commitment to the defeat of Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives, conveniently timed with Justin Trudeau’s announcement of a $600 million bailout for the media industry.

I joined Danielle Smith’s show on Calgary’s 770 CHQR, where I used to guest host, to discuss my piece.

You can listen to the segment here:

After the interview concluded, I came across this tweet from Unifor:

The tweet shows a Unifor working group scheming for next year’s election. Featured in the photo are several of the union’s top brass, including its Atlantic Canada director Lana Payne.

Payne was in the infamous “resistance” photo, though I didn’t recognize her. In addition to her union duties, she’s also a regular columnist for the St. John’s Telegram in Newfoundland.

Unifor’s already succeeding in taking over the country’s newspaper pages.

Payne is an opinion columnist and not a reporter, which means impartiality isn’t required (nor should it be.) She also openly discloses her Unifor role in her columns, so this isn’t a question of her ethics as much as it’s one of her agenda.

Restrictions on third-party advertising impact what unions can say and do during elections, but Unifor and Payne seem to have found a loophole. She can publish whatever propaganda Unifor is pushing under the guise of columns written in her voice.

She isn’t just some columnist who happens to be unionized. She’s a key player on Unifor’s political action group, which has declared itself the “resistance” to Andrew Scheer and vowed to stop the Conservatives at all costs.

The Telegram has some questions to answer here. Even opinion columnists should be expected to not be water-bearers for a specific party. I’m a conservative and a former PC candidate, but I’ve still criticized both the federal and provincial conservative parties in print and on air so no one can argue my content is bought and paid for by anyone except whichever outlet publishes it.

The same can’t be said for the columns written by Unifo— I mean Payne.

Posted on

Journalists covering political stories must disclose union membership, for transparency

With less than a year to go until the federal election, Canada’s largest labour union has declared war on the Conservatives. That a labour group would side with the Left isn’t noteworthy, except this one is also the biggest union in the country for journalists.

There are 12,000 journalists and other media workers in Unifor, which characterized itself as the “resistance” to Andrew Scheer just one week before Justin Trudeau’s government announced a $600 million media bailout to ‘save’ Canadian journalism.

Not only are these unionized reporters part of an organization devoted to a particular political outcome; their employers are also on the receiving end of a fat cheque from the Liberals.

In a press release thanking the government for the money, Unifor also credited the “campaigning” of its media members for the funding.

“Unifor media workers have been talking to Members of Parliament and it is refreshing to see that they got the message,” said Jake Moore, Unifor’s media chair.

Unifor is admitting that the same journalists supposedly investigating and reporting on MPs have also spent the last two years begging them for money.

How could any sane person not see a conflict here?

This all comes as the federal Liberals fret about the threat of ‘fake news’ swaying next year’s election. The bigger threat is the influence lawmakers have on the press that’s supposed to hold them accountable.

This isn’t an indictment of every journalist. I worked for a mainstream media company for several years and know of many stellar reporters and producers who will continue to do solid and fair work regardless of the bailout and union politics.

However, remember that every unionized newsroom has a steward with a role in writing or broadcasting stories that shape the national conservation. Which will win out—union propaganda or journalistic ethics?

These question marks harm media consumers and the industry itself, further eroding the already precarious public trust in the media. Readers have no way of knowing who is beholden to whom. While individual biases can’t be erased, there can be more transparency.

Every unionized reporter in the country should disclose their union affiliation and any role they have within the organization within any stories connected to issues the union has a position on. For Unifor, that would be any political story whatsoever.

This is a natural extension of the disclosures that would be required for any other potential conflicts, allowing readers to understand the context from which a reporter is approaching his or her coverage.

Were it a member of a gun rights group covering a matter of firearms policy or someone in a province’s law society writing about an issue on which the society has taken a stance, readers—and editors—would justifiably demand transparency. Why should union members get a pass?

In the interests of disclosure, my wife is a newspaper reporter with membership in Unifor. I gave her a heads-up that I was mentioning her, but she wasn’t involved in this piece in any other way. (I may be sleeping on the couch tonight.)

Outlets themselves must be transparent about how much they receive in support from the federal government once Trudeau tax credit programs are operational. Though it would be far more productive for media companies to say no to reject the funding outright.

Specific journalistic guidelines vary from outlet to outlet, but one universal theme in all the policies and practices I’ve seen is the importance of being not only free from conflict, but even the appearance of conflict.

If as the old adage suggests, he who pays the piper calls the tune, anyone expecting fairness from journalists in the coming year is in for a rude awakening.

Canadians will soon see that he who pays the paper calls the tune.

Posted on

I overheard how reporters talk about Tommy Robinson

Before he walked into the Old Bailey for what was supposed to be a contempt of court hearing, Tommy Robinson said the media were the “enemy of the people.”

It was a line that got uproarious applause from the growing crowd of supporters.

I was inside at the time, with a front row seat to how some members of the press talk about Robinson when they think everyone agrees with them.

To be clear, and as I wrote Sunday, my working visit to the United Kingdom this week is out of a commitment to facts and fairness, not a support for Tommy Robinson. That open-mindedness wasn’t shared by at least two members of the media covering the case.

While I was preparing my own coverage before the judge’s arrival, two reporters were conversing behind me.

Both reporters—a man and a woman—were from the Press Association (PA), a British wire service. They aren’t columnists, but news reporters whose work fills the pages of publications across the United Kingdom.

I would normally not share details of private conservations—especially those in which I was not a part. In this case, the conversation was taking place surrounded by people, with no attempt to be discrete. The reporters just assumed everyone around them shared their worldview.

They mocked and chuckled at the “enemy of the people” comment, even asking a couple of arriving journalists from other outlets if they knew they were enemies of Britons.

Over the next few minutes, the bias became even more apparent.

The male reporter had seen commentator Ezra Levant outside and remarked to his colleague that Levant had apparently broken an unspecified law.

“He needs to be arrested,” he said in a markedly non-jovial tone. “He’s whipped up hate.”

The reporter didn’t extrapolate and his colleague didn’t respond.

Moments later, the female reporter said there was no ambiguity about Robinson’s guilt.

“He is in contempt of court,” she said. “There’s not really any doubt.”

Of course, when the presiding judge made the decision to refer the case to the attorney general, it was because he thought there actually was enough doubt and complexity to warrant a fuller hearing.

As the two reporters discussed the size of the crowd outside, they openly agreed to downplay it.

One of the reporters had been told by a member of the law enforcement team that there were at that point 1,500 people outside.

After some banter, the PA reporters agreed they would say “hundreds.” The reason was to not “give it credit,” the female said.

These quotes are direct and were transcribed either while they were being uttered or seconds later. They also didn’t come to be secondhand—I heard them myself.

A Press Association spokesperson said they are “inaccurate” and “misheard.”

“The Press Association is held to the highest standards on all aspects of its journalism by customers across the UK and the world.  Fairness and accuracy are the cornerstones of PA reporting, and our coverage of the Tommy Robinson case today is another example of these standards,” it said. “We decline to comment further on inaccurate and misleading accusations based on fragments of misheard, private conversations.”

Members of the media aren’t allowed to record court proceedings, so all I have to go on is my word. But a recording does exist. The courtroom’s official recording device had been turned on, so I will be working to get a copy of that audio.

There was a lot of hostility towards the media at the rally. One man, thinking I was a mainstream media reporter, dumped a bottle of water on me (and my laptop bag) while calling me “scum.” There’s no excuse for that conduct, regardless of intended target.

When I was filming the rally after the court appearance, one of the speakers (with whom I had shared my Press Association story) handed me the microphone and asked me to share it with the crowd.

Having never turned down a microphone in my life, I read the quotes to the attendees, who chanted about their disgust with the media. Some were downright nasty. While I understand the frustration, I don’t like painting an industry with one brush. Those who are letting their agendas get in the way of their coverage need to do better.

As a columnist, bias doesn’t faze me. Bias masquerading as journalism does.