If CBC ever was a place where Canadians could get trusted information and thoughtful analysis, that place is long gone

Update on complaint about CBC's journalistic standards and interview ethics

Back on November 14th, I filed a complaint with CBC about a piece one of their investigative journalists had written about school board trustee candidates running in Ontario.

I was told at that point that I should hear back from CBC about my complaint within 20 working days and that if it would take longer than that, I would be advised.

Yesterday, after 21 working days, I reached out to the CBC Ombudsman to let him know I had not heard back yet. I copied Brodie Fenlon who was supposedly responsible to have my complaint investigated and responded to within the specified timeframe. The Ombudsman saw that I had copied Brodie and told me he would reach out to him to let him know.

At 6:37 PM last night, I received the following response from Emmanuel Marchand, a Senior Producer for CBC.

I have asked the Ombudsman for CBC to investigate my complaint further, as it appears from Mr. Marchand’s response below that he either skimmed my article and its complaints which anticipated and responded to his responses below, or he is choosing to be willfully disingenuous in regards to Montpetit’s reporting and CBC’s standards and ethics toward their interview subjects.

I have to be honest. At this point, I have lost all confidence in CBC. I believe that they have neither the ability nor the desire to recognize their responsibility to accurately report events to Canadians who so desperately need accurate information and thoughtful, not political, analysis labelled as investigative reporting.

Here is the late response I received after having to re-request it. This response, its lateness, and the fact I had to re-request it after the date it was due, all communicate to me that CBC does not give a damn about its journalistic standards and its ethics towards interview subjects. And why should they? They’re too government-funded to fail.

I ask readers to judge for themselves and leave comments about CBC’s response.

Terry Newman

---

Dear Mrs. Newman, 

I'm Emmanuel Marchand, the Senior Producer of CBC's Investigative Unit.  Thank you for taking the time to outline your concerns in your email and Substack article sent to the Ombudsman sent on Nov. 11th  (re: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ontario-school-board-trustee-investigation-1.6622705).  I acknowledge that you were dissatisfied with our story, but assure you that we go to great lengths to ensure our stories are fair, balanced, and conform to the strict standards outlined in our  Journalistic Standards and Practices.

Apologies for sending this right on deadline, we had a very busy month and I wanted to ensure we took the time to answer the numerous points you raised properly. 

We have read your complaint carefully and identified a number of concerns that we’re able to respond to directly. We grouped some of your concerns together in an effort to provide you the most comprehensive response possible. 

 1/ You ask “What does “anti-trans” mean to Montpetit?” and pose several additional questions about what we considered to be “transphobic”. In determining whether a candidate fit within this category we used a standard definition for transphobia. The Oxford English dictionary, for instance, defines transphobic as: “having or showing a dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people.” Given we were operating from a standard definition, as opposed to a more technical or scholarly definition of the term, we did not feel it was necessary to explain this point further. 

We further defined and narrowed the field which candidates fell into our definition in this sentence near the top of the article:  "An investigation by CBC News found that at least 20 candidates for trustee positions in Ontario had either used discriminatory terms in interviews, aligned themselves with transphobic lobby groups or used their social media accounts to amplify transphobic content." 

 The article also included several examples of statements or affiliations that we viewed as transphobic. These examples were meant to be representative and assist readers in understanding how we made our determinations. I would also add that it is standard journalistic practice to avoid amplifying hateful material. We attempted to balance that consideration with our duty to be transparent about our process. 

2/ You express concern that we did not sufficiently detail the protections for trans students that some candidates were promising to roll back. Our article details how candidates were intending to alter privacy policies that prevented trans students from being outed against their wishes. As we noted, several advocates told us these policies help protect trans students from bullying, child abuse and homelessness. Because of space constraints, we were unable to offer an exhaustive list of the other proposed policy changes, which included opposition to gender-neutral bathrooms, cutting educational resources and ending support groups. The article frames the privacy policy as a representative example. 

3) You express concern over our use of what you say are "positive-sounding meaningless words" and label our use of certain terms as signifiers of “things of which we should all approve.”  I would like to assure you there is no such intent in these words or phrases, they are common and straightforward expressions.  

You focus on our use of the term “inclusive sex education.” We believe most readers would understand that to mean sex education that is inclusive of gender and sexual minorities. At three points in the article we use term “gender-inclusive sex education” to ensure the reader is aware of our meaning. You also say we did not provide sufficient information about the content and provenance of the sex education curriculum. The article notes that responsibility for the curriculum is dictated by provincial legislation. Detailing the precise contents of the curriculum was outside the scope of the article. Our focus was on the actions of certain candidates in particular.

You also say we use negative-sounding associations and signifiers words like “Conservative,” “Christian,” and “Republican” and characterize our use of them "as if the words themselves conjure all the moral depravity he no longer needs to describe."  I would disagree with that interpretation. These are common terms and are used by groups and candidates mentioned in the story in defining themselves. There is no secondary meaning attributable to the use of these terms. 

4) You write that we should have included the titles of books that candidates were proposing to have removed from school libraries. Our story refers to the project of a specific group, Action4Canada. By including the name of the group, the reader had sufficient information to pursue their own research into this matter. Our responsibility was providing an accurate but succinct description of the group’s position in a way that would be accessible to our readers. 

5) You express concerns about our use of statistics. First, you write that providing census data about the trans and non-binary population does not disprove a claim made by Shannon Boschy. The use of a statistic in this instance was not meant to definitively validate, or invalidate, an argument. When public figures make contentious claims, it is not uncommon for media outlets to supply additional information to assist readers in making a critical assessment of that claim. It was in this same spirit that we provided a link to national hate-crime statistics, which is the second instance you note. In this instance, one of our interview subjects made a claim, and we supplied one possible source for additional information. The substance of your concern appears that we are, in your view, saying that removing existing educational policies would somehow cause hate crimes. We don’t think most readers would come to that conclusion. As the preceding paragraphs make clear, the context is transphobic rhetoric, not education policies. At no point in the article do we suggest that questioning school policies would cause hate crimes. 

I would also like to add that our use of Statistics Canada data is accurate.  You would have liked us to reach the same "social contagion" conclusion as yourself, however, as you pointed out, that was not mentioned in the Statistics Canada report and therefore not reportable in this context. 

6/ You cite exchanges with several individuals to express the concern that we excluded information that you felt was relevant. Part of the journalistic process is making decisions about what to include, and exclude, from an article. Our priority is to include all the information necessary for a fair and impartial account of the topic at hand, which in this case revolved around school board candidates in Ontario. That means we don’t have space to include information about issues that are only tangentially related to our principal subject. Our citations were chosen with the goal of giving readers an accurate representation of the positions of the candidates. We believe we accomplished that goal.

We feel we gave voice to Shannon Boschy and Chanel Pfahl's perspectives and context to their public statements.  Montpetit interviewed both, and they openly shared their views.  Both were running for public office and there were concerns raised about them by the school board and by LGBTQ groups. We feel it was in the public interest to relay their views and those concerns.  

7/ You also express concern about an article we wrote following the school board election. You say we failed to update that article because doing so would be “damaging to [Montpetit’s] narrative … as it would suggest that thousands of Ontario parents are sympathetic to the concerns of these trustees.” You include a link to a story that cites an anonymous representative of a website whose origins are unclear. We contacted that website while researching our story. They did not respond. And as you may be aware, some candidates reported being included on the list without their consent (see here for example or here). For these reasons we were unable to consider the website an authoritative indicator of a candidate’s political affiliation. Through our own research of public statements, we identified around 50 candidates running on platforms that expressed opposition to “gender ideology” and/or “critical race theory.” Of these, we identified just over 20 candidates who, to cite our story, “either used discriminatory terms in interviews, aligned themselves with transphobic lobby groups or used their social media accounts to amplify transphobic content.” As we mentioned above, we were operating from the standard dictionary definition of transphobic. 

The article includes the following quote from the Campaign Life Coalition: “[A]nti-parental rights leftists still retain majority control of many school boards.” The Campaign Life Coalition openly supported candidates who were critical of the current sex education program.

Obviously, this is a complex topic, and bound to stir debate. We welcome that debate - and believe the public interest is served by raising awareness of issues that are of intense importance to parents, students, teachers, schools and the wider community. It is clear that you would have written this article differently than ourselves, however we feel that our treatment was fair, balanced and respects the principles outlined in our Journalistic Standards and Practices.  I  hope that we have managed to shed some light on our approach. I also note that if you remain dissatisfied, you may ask CBC's Ombudsman for a review.

Sincerely, 

Emmanuel Marchand

Senior Producer, Investigative Unit 

Emmanuel Marchand

Senior Producer / Premier Réalisateur 

CBC Investigates