By arthur Weinreb
Friday, June 3, 2005On Monday, the Canadian Red Cross Society pleaded guilty in Hamilton Ontario to one count under the Food and Drugs act arising from the tainted blood scandal that occurred in the 1980s. The Red Cross faced several serious criminal charges for distributing blood that was contaminated with HIV and Hepatitis C and for failing to warn the public of the dangers.
In a plea bargain that was arranged with the Crown, the other more serious charges were all withdrawn. The Red Cross agreed to pay the maximum fine of $5,000 for the offence that they pleaded to, to issue an apology which they have already done, and to pay a further sum of $1.5 million. Under the terms of the agreement, $750,000 will go into scholarships for students that were affected by the tainted blood and the remaining $750,000 will be spent on a program to attempt to reduce medical errors. The Red Cross undertook that none of these monies will come from donor’s contributions for humanitarian aid. Justice James Kent, who took the plea, put the formal sentencing over to June 30 in order to give the victims opportunities to make submissions to the court.
The facts of Monday’s proceedings are such that they can be easily manipulated by the media that reported it. This manipulation can be done by the relative placement and prominence of the $5,000 fine and the $1.5 million, both of which are payable by the Canadian Red Cross Society. Whatever way you look at it, the Red Cross will have to pay $1,505,000 because of their actions, not a trifling amount.
But those media outlets who obviously think that the Red Cross got off too lightly were able to make this point by separating the two payments and leading with the small $5,000 fine. The National Post accomplished this by use of the misleading headline that read, "Red Cross admits guilt for 5K fine". While this is technically true, it implies to the reader who glances at the headline and does not read the entire piece that all the Society had to pay for its distribution of tainted blood is $5,000. On its website, the CBC did an article on aIDS activist Janet Conners whose husband Randy, a hemophiliac, died of aIDS in 1994. The first paragraph of the posting mentioned that the Red Cross pleaded guilty and was fined $5,000. Only in paragraph 5 did the article mention that the Canadian Red Cross Society was also required to make the $1.5 donation.
These are just two examples of how the media can, without resorting to omissions or misstatements, attempt to inject their opinion into a news story. To be perfectly fair, reports should have mentioned both sums of money together so that the reader, listener or viewer would know exactly what the financial cost was of the Red Cross for their role in the tainted blood scandal.