RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics

Commentary Re Article 2: Equality

In CKAC-AM re Newscast (CBSC Decision 93/94-0191, December 6, 1995) a newscaster referred to Olympic gold medal winner Jean-Luc Brassard as a "Québécois pure laine". The complainant felt that the use of the term “pure laine” in this context was racist as it implied “that Quebeckers were supposed to be prouder of this Olympic medal win because the skier was not a black-Quebecker, or an aboriginal-Quebecker, or a Chinese-Quebecker, but a white francophone Quebecker, a ‘true’ Quebecker.” The Panel, while expressing a preference for the use of terms which do not have “an exclusionary sense” to them, found that in this instance, the broadcaster did not “fall afoul of Clause 2 of either the CAB or RTNDA Codes of Ethics.” The term was considered well-known, indeed, a part of every-day language in Quebec, and in this instance, the words “were not used to stress or mention race, colour or ethnic background. They merely are a colloquial expression and were used as such in the news bulletin.” The Panel’s resolution of the issues of their discomfort with the phrase and the content of the Codes was put in the following terms.

It is the view of the Quebec Regional Panel that the use of the expression “Québécois pure laine” or similar expressions meant to convey the same idea, such as “Québécois de vraie souche” can, in a pluralistic society such as Quebec’s, create an unwelcome or negative, if not discriminatory, sense among those who do not fall within the ambit of the term. The Panel believes that radio and television stations ought to be particularly vigilant in avoiding the use of such expressions on the airwaves which are, after all, publicly owned.

Despite the Panel’s obvious discomfort relating to the use of the expression “Québécois pure laine”, it does not believe that, in this instance, the station has breached any of the Codes. Exclusion of individuals or groups alone is not necessarily the equivalent of abuse or attack upon those groups. While the complainant’s understanding of the policy of “most reputable news organizations [...] of not mentioning race, colour or ethnic background unless germane to the story”, as affirmed by CKAC’s News Director is correct, this was a case where the mention of background was not for the purpose of casting aspersions upon anyone, which is the customary cause of CBSC concern. This was a case in which a positive sentiment was associated with the use of a description of origin. For all of the reasons given above, the Panel considers that such usage ought to be avoided; however, the national indication does not point the finger in such a way as to fall afoul of Clause 2 of either the CAB or RTNDA Codes of Ethics.

In CKEN-AM re Newscast (CBSC Decision 95/96-0134, February 14, 1997), the broadcaster, in three newscasts, reported on a traffic accident which had resulted in the death of the complainants’ daughter. In those newscasts, the broadcaster had added a reference to the fact that the deceased had herself been involved in a traffic accident in which a man had died one and a half years previously. The report did include information to the effect that she had been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing in relation to that death. Nonetheless, the Atlantic Regional Panel, in finding that there had been a broadcast of irrelevant background information, and consequently a breach of Article 2, stated:

The Panel accepts fully the statement of the broadcaster that it had no intention to be malicious. The Panel also considers that the broadcaster was not malicious in reporting on the previous accident. The Panel also agrees with the broadcaster that it did not exaggerate the story and that “The facts of the story are not in dispute and what [it] did was to report the facts.” The issue, however, goes beyond questions of accuracy, sensationalisation, exaggeration and malice, for broadcasters also have an obligation, when they wish to include other material than the straight facts of the story they are reporting, to restrict their presentation of such material to issues of “relevant background information.”

The Panel is of the view that, in reporting on the previous accident, the broadcaster presented irrelevant (although accurate) information that had the effect of harming the feelings, if not the reputation of the family of the deceased and the deceased herself. Pointing out the earlier accident was, at the very least, insensitive and, in any event, not necessary to put the story into perspective. The Panel found that there was no supportable purpose for suggesting a link between this private citizen’s involvement in the past accident and the one that led to her death. The Panel does not consider that the ironic twist to the fate of the young woman is a sufficient justification for the reporting of the earlier accident.

Furthermore, in the Panel’s view, a broadcaster operating in a small community is under a particular responsibility to be sensitive in reporting on matters involving members of its populace. The Panel reserves its right to deal with any such situation in a larger and more impersonal community but it does consider that this information ought not to have been reported here.

In CFRA-AM re the Mark Sutcliffe and Lowell Green Shows (CBSC Decisions 96/97-0083, 0084 and 0085, May 7, 1997) the issue of relations between police and the (non-homogeneous) black community was raised.

Needless to say, the identification of the community in question as “black” could not possibly have been more relevant or germane. The issues discussed on the three programs revolved around questions of race and such a community description was of the essence of the matter. Consequently, no breach of either Code is therein disclosed.

There is, however, a need for broadcaster vigilance in the identification of racial groups. Thus, for example, broadcasters were advised to take care not to confuse the terms “black” and “Jamaican”.

It goes without saying that members of the black community come from many individual national backgrounds, which include countries with predominantly black populations and others with minority black populations. Nor should it be forgotten that Canada is itself privileged to have its own national Canadian black population. Thus, the Panel considers that the use of such national designations ought to be limited to those circumstances in which they are both relevant and likely, on the basis of known information, to be accurately applied.

In CITY-TV re CityPulse (Neighbourhood Drug Bust) (CBSC Decision 96/97-0216, February 20, 1998), a complainant alleged that CITY-TV had unfairly stigmatized her neighbourhood when it included a mention of Parkdale in a report on a drug bust. The Panel found no breach.

Parkdale was not the broadcaster’s issue; it was the drug bust. By identifying the Police Division responsible for the bust, street designations and other details, CITY-TV provided relevant peripheral Metro Toronto geographical information. Even in this connection, Parkdale was not the central issue. If anything, Parkdale residents were given credit for aiding in the multiple arrests over the course of the previous 60 days. The Panel finds no bias or even any imbalance, much less a breach of either of the Codes of Ethics in this regard.

In CITY-TV re CityPulse (Tenant Relocation) (CBSC Decision 96/97-0252, February 20, 1998), the same complainant again complained of “neighbourhoodism” stating that “it is not necessary to mention a particular community in relation to negative issues, and especially so when the issue is not germane to that neighbourhood.” The Panel disagreed.

In the Panel’s opinion, a broadcaster is entitled to make the determination of whether viewers would be likely to have an interest in having news items contextualized in a manner which is objective and has nothing to do with discrimination on any of the enumerated basis in the human rights provision of the CAB Code of Ethics, which is not the case here.

CKCO-TV re a News Item (Disappearance) (CBSC Decision 00/01-0739, June 28, 2001) involved a news report about the disappearance of a man who had been charged with possession and distribution of child pornography. The man had gone missing following the initial report about his arrest. The subsequent report about his disappearance identified him as the owner of a particular tavern and showed footage of this place of business. The complainant felt that this presentation was unfair to the family of the accused and the tavern’s employees since the accused’s business was unrelated to the charges laid against him. The broadcast was examined under the 1986 version of the RTNDA Code. The Ontario Regional Panel found no breach of the “irrelevant background information” clause of that Code (the wording of which is given above) because

[t]he identification of any place of business would help the members of the public understand who the individual was; where the entreprise was not merely a commercial establishment but one to which the public was liberally invited, there was a greater opportunity, in the context of a story about a missing person, to increase the likelihood that someone in the public who knew him by sight might be able to help locate him.

Talentvision re a News Report (Mainland China Murders) (CBSC Decision 01/02-0416+, May 3, 2002) concerned a news report that originated from the Mainland China broadcaster Chinese Central Television (CCTV). The broadcast featured a news story on Fu Yi-bin, who was accused of having killed his wife and his father. The segment directly linked the murders to Fu’s alleged ties to the spiritual group Falun Gong. The National Specialty Services Panel was called upon to determine whether Falun Gong could be considered a protected group for the purposes of the CAB and RTNDA Codes of Ethics. While the Panel determined that Article 2 of the RTNDA Code of Ethics was not applicable, it nonetheless found the broadcaster in breach of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 1 of the RTNDA Code of Ethics. With respect to the “protected group” issue, the Panel stated:

While Article 2 of the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics requires that such factors as “race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability” are to be reported “only when they are relevant,” the Panel does not consider that that provision is of assistance in this matter. According to the Falun Dafa Association’s own documents, “Falun Gong is neither a religion nor a sect. [It is] a peaceful, self-improvement spiritual practice.” Consequently, it would not be seen to be either a religion or any other identifiable group falling into the enumerated categories in Article 2 of the RTNDA Code expressly or by analogy. It is not, in any event, the view of the Panel that Article 2 is necessary to its conclusion in this regard.

[Top]