by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
January 19, 2004
Most leaders are given a honeymoon period by the media when they first assume office and are immune to the regular criticisms that go hand in hand with leadership. There are however, exceptions to this rule, as Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty found out. McGuinty began his term in office by breaking promises faster than he could make them and the media simply couldn’t let that go.Not so with Paul Martin. Even though Martin has been the de facto leader of Canada for some time now, from at least the time when former PM Jean Chrétien announced that he was finally, finally, finally leaving. Martin gets a free ride even when he makes statements that make absolutely no sense. The press is still gaga over Paul.
In a year-end interview, the fairly religious Martin was asked how he squared same sex marriage with his Roman Catholic beliefs. The PM said that the Charter of Rights has to take precedence. Fair enough but in the next breath, Martin indicated that his government would hold consultations with Canadians on the issue of same sex marriage. Martin’s comments went unquestioned by the love struck media.
The Prime Minister’s comments made absolutely no sense. The only explanation for the courts to trump his religious beliefs (ie. what he thinks is right) is if he feels that the refusal of allowing gays and lesbians to marry is a violation of their human rights. and if this is the case, then why consult with Canadians? Fundamental human rights are something that are protected in society and should not be open for discussion. What’s next — holding consultations about whether women should be allowed to run for elected office?
Martin’s been around long enough — time to end the honeymoon, guys!
How not to report a story
On Saturday January 9, police in Toronto responded to a disturbance call that ended up with the police confronting a 63-year-old man in a narrow alleyway. The man shot and wounded a police officer in the shoulder and then was himself shot and killed by another Toronto cop. The Toronto Police, and the Special Investigations Unit that investigates the use of lethal force by police both refused to release the victim’s name "at the request of the family".
There was no legal requirement not to publish the name of the deceased; nor was this a situation of a publishing something that could possibly jeopardize an investigation or prosecution. By the following Monday, both the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star had published the man’s name together with the fact that his daughter was a constable on the Toronto force. The Globe and Mail reported the deceased’s identity but added the caveat that they obtained the name from a television station — CFTO.
The National Post was the only Toronto based daily to follow the police line and not identify the man. The paper went so far as to give the reason for the non-identification — the police requested it. Perhaps it was just laziness to report the story without attempting to ascertain the victim’s name. The circumstances surrounding the shootings were such that it appeared (and later turned out to be true) that the man lived in the area where the confrontation took place and a few simple questions of the neighbours would have revealed his identity. a more worrisome reason for the non-publication of the deceased’s name was that the paper was blindly following the wishes of the police not to publish the name of the father of one of their own.
One can understand the reluctance of the deceased man’s family not to want it known that their loved one was killed after shooting a police officer. But his family is no different to other families where a family member dies in similar circumstances or is embarrassingly arrested.
Laziness or doing the bidding of the police — either way it was not good journalism.