CP24 is a 24-hour news channel. On screen, there are multiple sections. There is a large box on the upper-left of the screen showing newscasts, reports and public affairs programming. Under that is a news ticker box featuring the day’s headlines in words, which repeat in a loop. On the right side of the screen are smaller boxes displaying the weather forecast and Toronto traffic information. Along the bottom of the screen are two stock market tickers.
On March 31, 2021, beginning at 6:00 pm, CP24 broadcast CTV News at 6 originating from CTV Toronto. The very first report in that newscast was about the COVID-19 pandemic. It was entitled “Ford Hints at New Restrictions” and reported that “ramped up restrictions are believed to be a possibility just ahead of the long weekend.” The report went on to point out that COVID case counts were increasing so “the Ford government is now preparing to act. The Premier has already warned the province to hold off on plans for the upcoming long weekend and to anticipate a lockdown.” It included a clip from Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s press conference where he said, “Stay tuned. Uh, you’ll, you’ll hear an announcement tomorrow. But I, uh, I’m very, very concerned to see the cases go up.” The report provided details about the possible changes to COVID restrictions, including a shutdown of the economy similar to December 2020, and on-the-street interviews canvassing people’s thoughts about a new lockdown. The reporter stated that health officials were recommending an extended lockdown so that more vaccines could be administered.
At 6:08 pm, while the newscast was reporting on COVID case counts in various regions, the following headline appeared in the news ticker section:
Premier Ford says an announcement coming tomorrow about plan to loosen restrictions in Grey zones.
At 6:09 pm this headline appeared in the ticker:
Premier Ford tells residents to “stay tuned” for an announcement tomorrow on tougher restrictions.
Between 6:00 pm and 7:00 pm, the first headline was broadcast again at 6:23 pm, 6:38 pm and 6:52 pm. The second was rebroadcast at 6:24 pm, 6:39 pm and 6:53 pm.
At 6:46 pm, CP24 repeated the clip of the Ontario Premier’s press conference and anchor Michelle Dubé stated:
Updating our top stories. The Province is considering increased COVID-19 restrictions as the premier urges people not to gather over the holiday long weekend.
The CBSC received a complaint on March 31 from a viewer who was concerned about the inaccuracy of the headline informing viewers that restrictions were going to be loosened. He noted that it was clearly “false and inaccurate” because Premier Doug Ford had in fact told Ontarians to anticipate tougher restrictions. The complainant observed that the inaccurate headline had been repeated several times and that the broadcaster “should ensure that all items on CP24’s news ticker are reviewed for accuracy prior to showing on air, and the news ticker items should be routinely reviewed once they are shown on air to prevent inaccurate information from being repeated multiple times”.
CP24 responded to the complainant on May 12. The station acknowledged that the headline was not accurate, but pointed out that its live coverage of the premier’s news conference and the broadcast story was written correctly. CP24 wrote that it had spoken with the writer involved and with other senior writers to stress the importance of accuracy.
The complainant was not satisfied and filed his Ruling Request on May 12. He felt that CP24 did not acknowledge the seriousness of its inaccurate news ticker, especially on the matter of the COVID-19 pandemic “where news changes quickly and misinformation has become increasingly prevalent.” He further wrote that “People have turned to news outlets for accurate and reliable information during COVID-19 to get the latest on cases, restrictions, vaccinations, and other important information from government leaders.” He stated that the error had gone undetected for many hours despite CP24’s claims that its writers review the ticker several times a day to ensure accuracy.
CP24 provided an additional letter to the CBSC on June 16 in which it asserted that the inaccurate headline was “only a very small portion of the COVID-19 developments and coverage by CP24 that day” and that other reports were “clearly accurate and provided more additional relevant information.” (The full text of all correspondence can be found in the Appendix.)
The English-Language Panel examined the complaint under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s (RTDNA) Code of Journalistic Ethics:
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 5 – News
1) It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias. Broadcasters shall satisfy themselves that the arrangements made for obtaining news ensure this result. [...]
RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics, Article 1.0 – Accuracy
We are committed to journalism in the public interest that is accurate and reliable. Journalists will strive to verify facts and put them in context.
1.2 Accuracy also requires us to update and correct news and information throughout the life cycle of a news story as we become aware of relevant and reliable information.
1.3 Errors and inaccuracy that affect the understanding of a news story will be unambiguously and promptly corrected.
The Panel Adjudicators read all of the correspondence and viewed a recording of the broadcast. The Panel concludes that CP24 breached Clause 5(1) of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 1.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics for repeatedly airing an inaccurate headline in its news ticker.
The question posed to the Panel is presented below:
Did CP24 violate Clause 5(1) of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 1.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics for broadcasting inaccurate information?>
As outlined below, the CBSC has stated in various decisions that material and obvious inaccuracies will breach the aforementioned code provisions. Moreover, if errors are promptly corrected or accurate information is otherwise provided within the context of the same newscast, the CBSC could possibly not find a violation of the codes.
In TVA re J.E. (Enterprises Pendragon) (CBSC Decision 97/98-0390, August 14, 1998), the Panel dealt with a segment of a public affairs program called J.E. The report included a mathematical error. The Panel concluded that the broadcaster had failed to present the news with accuracy and fairness. Although the Panel found that the report was structured so as to be fair and balanced, it found that a “gross miscalculation on the reporter’s part created an inherent unfairness in the report:
The reporter attempted to calculate “a conservative estimate” of the amount of money Pendragon could have collected from local small businesses in its failed attempt to publish a visitor’s guide. He stated (and the numbers were put up on the screen) that, if 180 clients each paid the minimum of $200, Pendragon should have collected $360,000. While the Council understands that the addition of the extra zero (making the relatively small sum of $36,000 the rather huge sum of $360,000) may have been inadvertent, it was a reckless error on a centrally material issue in the report. Moreover, the error was compounded by the reporter who relied on the exaggerated number as the basis for this questioning of Pendragon’s president.
The CBSC also found a breach in CIII (Global Ontario) re Global News reports (“Bluffs Danger”) (CBSC Decision 05/06-0500, May 18, 2006) which dealt with two news reports about safety issues on the Scarborough Bluffs. Provoked by the rescue of three teenagers from a crumbling cliffside, the two news reports focussed on the state of the Bluffs near a particular condominium housing development. The reports pointed out that a crumbling parking lot in the development had not been repaired and that other dangerous areas near the development were easily accessible to young people and pets. A woman who lived in the housing development and was a member of the condominium board filed a complaint about numerous aspects of the reports, including the fact that the property owners had been inaccurately indentified. The Panel agreed this constituted inaccurate material and therefore violated the code provision regarding accuracy:
Where, for example, the broadcaster asserted that the “property [is] owned by Newton Trelawney Management”, it appears that the report was in error. As the complainant explained, the property “is collectively owned by the unit owners of a condominium corporation, governed by a volunteer board of directors who serve the community in their spare time, without renumeration of any kind.” The Panel assumes that this factual assertion could easily have been verified before broadcast. If it could not have been, making the statement was at risk of being inaccurate […].
In another CBSC decision, entitled CKWX-AM re news reports about SkyTrain (CBSC Decision 06/07-1127, August 19, 2008), the Panel dealt with a complaint from the company, TransLink, that runs the SkyTrain public transportation system in Vancouver. The company complained that the all-news radio station had broadcast misleading and inaccurate reports about statements made by SkyTrain’s CEO about safety on the transportation system. On two occasions, the station identified Doug Kelsey as the “head of Translink” when in fact he was CEO of the SkyTrain, not TransLink. The Panel found a violation of Clause 5 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 1 of the RTDNA Code of (journalistic) Ethics for the inaccurate identification of Kelsey’s position at SkyTrain.
Once again the CBSC looked at the issued of accuracy in CFMJ-AM re an AM640 News report about an elevator accident (CBSC Decision 08/09-2014, April 1, 2010). The station had reported on a breaking news situation about an elevator accident that had occurred that morning in a Toronto office building. An elevator maintenance worker had died while on the job. A couple of the reports stated that “the technician may have been a scab” and “could have been a scab worker” because members of the union for the building maintenance workers had been locked out of the building in a labour dispute. A listener complained that this was inaccurate; the deceased man was an employee of a company working on contract at the building and not part of the unionized group. The complainant also suggested it was “callous” and insensitive to the man’s family to call him a scab (although the elevator worker was not mentioned by name in the reports). The station explained that this was a breaking news story with updates occurring quickly, that its reliable sources had informed it that maintenance workers at the building were locked out and that, for this reason, the reports used the words “may” and “could have”. The majority of the CBSC Panel concluded that these were not sufficient justifications for the erroneous use of the term “scab” and found the station in breach for inaccuracy:
There are two aspects to the description: first, the nature of the term itself; and, second, the necessity or even relevance of the term in the telling of the story. […]
As to the term itself, the Oxford English Dictionary makes it clear that the term is pejorative when used in a labour context. […] This does not, of course, mean that the term “scab” cannot be used to describe a strike-breaker; however, its very negative connotations mean that any broadcaster must be particularly careful before casting such aspersions.
In the matter at hand, the majority considers that such care was not taken. The individual, regrettably deceased, was identified as a scab although the evidence of that appears, on the basis of the broadcaster’s own letter, to have been tenuous. […]
The majority puts no stock in the broadcaster’s use of the word “may” in their incorrect conclusion that the deceased “may have been a scab”. Such a sentence would likely have been determined by many, if not most, listeners to have been as close as imaginable to an indentification of the deceased as a scab. In other words, the majority is not at all convinced that the insertion of the apparent hedging word “may” brought the broadcaster far enough away from the edge of a crumbling terminological cliff to be safe. [...] And what the majority finds particularly reprehensible in that usage is that the identification of the deceased in that way was utterly irrelevant to the news item. […]
In CTV News Channel re news reports (“Clashes Erupts in West Bank”) (CBSC Decision 12/13-1134, August 7, 2013) the Panel reviewed the broadcast of erroneous information. In two separate reports, the 24-hour news specialty service reported that mourners marched in a funeral procession for a Palestinian prisoner who had died in an Israeli jail while taking part in a hunger strike. A group calling itself Honest Reporting Canada complained that the prisoner had not in fact been participating in a hunger strike; rather, autopsy reports showed that the cause of death was inconclusive. CTV acknowledged that it had relied on an American television network as the source of this information, but had not aired any further reports on the topic and had ensured that an accurate account was posted on its website. The Panel found CTV News Channel in breach of Clause 5 of the CAB of Ethics and Article 1 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics for airing inaccurate information and stated that the station should also have broadcast a correction on air.
In examining reports about a female teacher who had been accused of inappropriate sexual comments made towards a 16-year-old male student, the Panel found that the broadcaster had breached Article 1 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics and Clause 5 of the CAB Code of Ethics for its initial inaccurate statement regarding the teacher’s resignation. The were two reports aired with the first informing viewers that the charges had been dropped because there was not enough evidence to go to trial. The reporter stated that a judge had ordered the teacher to quit. In the second broadcast, the station revised its story slightly to state that the teacher’s lawyer had informed CTV that the teacher had voluntarily resigned from the Ontario College of Teachers. CTV aired a correction the following day explaining its error of the previous day and clarified that the teacher had voluntarily resigned and that decision was an important factor in the judge’s decision to drop the charges. With the correction made by CTV the Panel found that the broadcaster had met the requirements of the Corrections provision of the RTDNA Code of Ethics (CKCO-DT (CTV Kitchener) re a report on CTV News at Six (“Inappropriate Conversation”), CBSC Decision 14/15-1508, April 7, 2016)
In another decision that found a breach related to accuracy, the Panel examined a report about a pilot who had pleaded guilty of attempting to fly an aircraft with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. The report was about his sentence and stated that he had been banned from operating any aircraft for two years. A viewer pointed out that the ban was actually one year, not two. The broadcaster acknowledged its error and aired a correction 17 days later on both its supper and late night hour newscasts. The Panel found a breach “Given the focus of the story on the sentence, it is indisputable that the terms of the sentence are material facts.” However, the Panel concluded that the broadcaster had met its responsibilities to air a correction under Article 1.3 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics by airing the correction (CITV-DT (Global Edmonton) re Global News at 5 report (Sunwing pilot), CBSC Decision 16/17-1868, December 20, 2017).
In CFRA-AM re the Mark Sutcliffe and Lowell Green Shows (CBSC Decision 96/97-0083+, May 7, 1997), the Panel did not find a breach in relation to an inaccurate reference to an individual’s nationality because it was corrected in the same program:
Of the principal issues raised by the complaint, the first relates to the identification of Mr. Nicholls as “Jamaican”. […] It appears to have been an honest error and one which, in any event, was corrected by Mr. Sutcliffe himself as quickly as the information became available to him.
In another CBSC decision that did not make a finding of breach in relation to the accuracy of a news report, the Panel reviewed a story aired at 12:00 pm stating that drug dealers had been in arrested in “Parkdale”. The story was covered in more depth in the 6:00 pm newscast, where the reporter referred instead to the “West End of Toronto” and named the specific streets involved. A viewer complained that the station had inaccurately identified the neighbourhood as Parkdale. The Panel believed there was no breach since the correct information was provided in the later newscast (CITY-TV re CityPulse (Neighbourhood Drug Bust), CBSC Decision 96/97-0216, February 20, 1998):
The CBSC has previously accepted that a report may even, in circumstances, not “meet the standards of telling the story fairly, comprehensively and accurately” while not amounting to a breach of the Codes. […]
The Ontario Regional Council considers, in this case, that the generalized statement that the drug bust had occurred in Parkdale, as opposed to the West End of Toronto, was made inadvertently and that the inaccuracy is not so significant as to constitute a breach of the above-cited provisions of the Codes. Moreover, the Council notes that the broadcaster corrected its report in order to present the facts accurately in the very next newscast. While the Council recognizes that this mis-identification was the crucial issue to the complainant, it is of the view that the steps taken by the broadcaster to virtually instantly put the matter right were sufficient to avoid a conclusion of broadcaster Code breach.
Finally, in LCN re Le Québec matin (mistreated horse) (CBSC Decision 20.1920-1072, April 29, 2020) a segment in a public affairs program was about a couple who had been charged with animal cruelty after dragging their horse attached to the back of a truck. The text at the bottom of the screen read [translation] “A horse mistreated in Texas”. Verbally, the presenter stated [translation] “A mistreated horse in Colorado”. The incident had in fact occurred in Colorado. Although the complainant’s concern was the depiction of animal cruelty, the Panel also considered the accuracy of the report given the discrepancy between the oral and the visual information about the location of the incident. The Panel was of the view that:
the contradiction between the banner at the bottom of the screen that indicated the horse incident had occurred in Texas and the presenter’s account that placed it in Colorado is not significant enough to constitute a breach of the code provisions. Indeed, the fact that a horse was mistreated in Colorado rather than Texas is incidential to the topic of the news item, which centred on animal cruelty. In any event, the incident occurred in the United States and the presenter identified the correct American state verbally.
In the context of the complaint under review, the Panel has considered whether the incorrect information included sporadically in the banner was material and whether this inaccurate information was sufficiently mitigated by the fact that a different headline and the content of the newscast provided the correct information. In this regard, the Panel notes CP24’s explanation that both the broadcast of the live news conference and the manner in which the story was written were correct and that “the writer turned the messaging around in error when writing the on-screen graphic headline. We have spoken and met with the writer involved and with the senior writers who go though the headlines several times a day to stress the importance of accuracy. […] Again we apologize and thank you for bringing this inadvertent mistake to our attention.”
The Panel understands that newsroom writers have to service multiple media platforms simultaneously including broadcast news, social media sites and websites and that therefore ensuring that the news information provided is accurate at all times can be challenging. However, the Panel has taken particular note of the type of service offered by CP24. This discretionary service provides what is known as an “at a glance” news service. Accordingly, the Panel considers that viewers will often pay less attention to the video portion of the newscast because in many circumstances the broadcast is seen in spaces where the audio is turned off, such as bars, doctors offices and airport lounges.
Moreover, the Panel is mindful that it should consider the accessibility of this content for all viewers including viewers that may be hearing impaired. In such a context, the viewer would not be able to discern what is accurate between two separate headlines that provide completely opposing information. Even with the video on and where the viewer is at home, this type of service is often consumed while doing other activities. In these circumstances, the crawl can readily become the primary source of information rather than a secondary or even a tertiary source of information. Accordingly, the accuracy of the banner information becomes all the more significant and is therefore at least as important as the video component if not even more important given the manner in which this service is often consumed.
Although the Panel accepts that this is not an instance of deliberate misrepresentation, there is no doubt that the issue of whether COVID-19 restrictions were going to increase or be relaxed was crucial to the news report. The inaccurate banner was seen multiple times during the hour reviewed as was the banner which contained the accurate information. The two banners were diametrically opposed to one another. Therefore the Panel believes that the incorrect banner was a mistake, but it was a mistake regarding very material information. This was not nuanced interpretation of a news item which happens to deal with what is and has been for more than 18 months the top news story worldwide – the COVID-19 pandemic.
Moreover, the Panel is not persuaded that the correct video and sporadic correct banners mitigated the inaccurate information provided at multiple times in the incorrect banner. Although the Panel cannot verify the fact as stated by the complainant that the incorrect information in the banner was included in the loop throughout the day, it can verify that the inaccurate headline was included throughout at least one hour and the Panel notes that the broadcaster has not disputed the accuracy of the complainant’s contention.
The Panel wonders, if as stated by the broadcaster, senior writers do review the content of these banners several times a day, why was the error not caught sooner and rectified? Given the importance of the banner and given the type of news service that is provided by CP24, special attention to the crawl should be given at all times to ensure accuracy of the news in real time.
For all the reasons stated above, the Panel concludes that CP24 breached Clause 5(1) of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 1.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics for repeatedly airing an inaccurate headline in its news ticker.
In all CBSC decisions, the Panels assess the broadcaster’s response to the complainant. The broadcaster need not agree with the complainant’s position, but it must respond in a courteous, thoughtful and thorough manner. In this case, CP24 acknowledged its error and stated that it had spoken with the relevant writers to ensure that headlines would be checked for accuracy. Although this did not satisfy the complainant, the broadcaster fulfilled its obligations of responsiveness and, subject to the announcement of this decision, nothing further is required on this occasion.
CP24 is required to: 1) announce the decision, in the following terms in audio and video format, once during prime time within three days following the release of this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in which the inaccurate news headline was broadcast, but not on the same day as the first mandated announcement; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcasts of the announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the statement to the complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with a copy of that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the two announcements which must be made by CP24.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that CP24 breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics and the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s Code of Journalistic Ethics on March 31, 2021. CP24 repeatedly broadcast inaccurate information in its news ticker. This breached the code articles relating to accuracy and correction of errors.
This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
The CBSC received the following complaint via webform on March 31, 2021
Name of Television or Radio Station: CP24
Program Name: CTV News Toronto
Date of Program: 31/03/2021
Time of Program: 6:30PM
Breach of subclause 5(1) of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics, namely the requirement for news to be accurate, as follows: "It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy ..."
At 6:23:07 PM on March 31, 2021, the news ticker item on CP24 said: "Premier Ford says an announcement coming tomorrow about plan to loosen restrictions in Grey zones."
This was repeated several times earlier during the day.
This is false and inaccurate. Here is an example of coverage from other outlets regarding what Premier Ford said on March 31, 2021 regarding the announcement coming the next day:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-ontario-march-31-2021-icu-admissions-new-high-1.5970884 and https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1880005187508
In reality, at a news conference on March 31, 2021, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said he was "extremely concerned" about both rising ICU admissions and daily case counts. Asked by a reporter about the possibility of any further restrictions coming into effect to help curb current trends, Ford said "stay tuned" and added that an announcement was coming the next day.
CP24, CTV and Bell Media should ensure that all items on CP24's news ticker are reviewed for accuracy prior to showing on air, and the news ticker items should be routinely reviewed once they are shown on air to prevent inaccurate information from being repeated multiple times in clear breach of subclause 5(1) of the Code of Ethics.
CP24 responded to the complainant on May 12:
Thank you for writing with your concern about one of CP24’s headlines on March 31, 2021. We apologize, you are absolutely correct, this headline was not accurate, turning around the message from Premier Ford during his news conference that day.
The question and answer were as follows:
“The province today is marking the highest number of COVID patients in critical care at one time since the pandemic began last year. How do you explain to Ontarians why the province is continuing to loosen restrictions at this time?”
“Stay tuned, you’ll hear an announcement tomorrow but I’m very, very concerned to see the cases go up, I’ve [sic] very concerned to see the ICU capacity and we all have to be vigilant and throughout the holidays over the next few days, I’m just asking people don’t gather in large groups, don’t have big gatherings and follow the protocols of the Chief Medical Officer and we’ll be able to get through this….”
CP24 broadcast that news conference live and our broadcast story was written correctly stating that the Premier was very concerned about the case numbers and the ICU capacity and an announcement would be coming to reflect those concerns. However the writer turned the messaging around in error when writing the on-screen graphic headline. We have spoken and met with the writer involved and with the senior writers who go through the headlines several times a day to stress the importance of accuracy.
Again we apologize and thank you for bringing this inadvertent mistake to our attention.
We welcome feedback from our viewers and take viewer concerns seriously.
CP24 is a member in good standing with the CBSC and we work hard to comply with the codes and guidelines administered by the Council.
The complainant filed his Ruling Request on May 12 with the following comment:
I am not satisfied with the response provided by the broadcaster in this case.
DISSATISFACTION WITH CP24’S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
In its letter, CP24 acknowledges that the news ticker blurb that was the subject of my complaint was inaccurate. CP24 states that its writers review the news ticker blurbs several times a day to ensure accuracy.
In its response to my complaint, CP24 does not seem to acknowledge the seriousness of its inaccurate news ticker blurb, especially in the era of COVID-19, where news changes quickly and misinformation has become increasingly prevalent. CP24 and other broadcasters have a public interest obligation to ensure that the news that they report is accurate in real time. People have turned to news outlets for accurate and reliable information during COVID-19 to get the latest on cases, restrictions, vaccinations, and other important information from government leaders. CP24 must be held to a higher standard; otherwise, legitimate news broadcasters such as CP24 may lose credibility in the public's eye and simply be dismissed as "fake news".
COMPLAINT, BREACH OF CODES, AND PROPOSED REMEDY
On March 31, 2021, Ontario Premier Doug Ford held a news conference at around 10:00 AM (https://news.ontario.ca/en/advisory/60944/premier-ford-to-make-an-announcement). More than 8 hours later, at 6:23:07 PM, CP24's news ticker blurb still inaccurately read as follows: "Premier Ford says an announcement coming tomorrow about plan to loosen restrictions in Grey zones."
CP24 has a duty to ensure the accuracy of the news that it reports, including its news ticker blurbs. An error that went undetected for more than eight hours, despite CP24's claims that writers review the news ticker blurbs several times a day to ensure accuracy, amounts to – at a minimum – a breach of subclause 5(1) of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics (2002) and section 1.0 of the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s Code of Journalistic Ethics (2016).
CP24 should be required to make a public announcement to this effect, which it can only be ordered to do so by a panel of the CBSC. Accordingly, I am submitting this ruling request.
Once it has determined that a file requires Panel Adjudication, the CBSC gives the broadcaster one last opportunity to provide comments. CP24 did so in this case on June 16:
In regards to the upcoming CBSC Adjudicating Panel meeting of June 30, 2021, regarding CP24 and CBSC ref 20.2021-1392, we wish to reiterate that while the headline was inaccurate, and we take all errors seriously, it was only a very small portion of the Covid-19 developments and coverage by CP24 that day. The Premier’s press conference and CP24 broadcast reports that accompanied the conference and followed throughout the day were clearly accurate and provided more additional relevant information. “The CBSC has explained that reports must contain clearly inaccurate statements and those inaccuracies must be material to the content in order to violate the aforementioned codes.”