The publication of Le Livre noir du Canada anglais by Normand Lester gave rise to a whole debate on journalists freedom of expression.
The Fedration Professionnelle des Journalistes du Qubec (FPJQ), like many citizens who wrote to me, invoked the freedoms guaranteed in the new charters to publish a book even though controversial. In spite of the Charters, CBC journalistic policy, which has just been revised, continues to state that Employees may not take a stand on public controversies if, by doing so, the Corporation’s integrity would be compromised. (JSP, p.145). Is this requirement still justified?
I will not comment on the content of Normand Lesters book, nor on the handling of his case. Normand Lesters departure from Radio-Canada, however, did not make academic the questions concerning the Corporations journalistic policy, which requires impartiality of its journalists in both the activities performed on behalf of their employer and their activities outside the Corporation. I thought it appropriate to examine the journalistic policies of public broadcasters that may have inspired CBC/Radio-Canada and those of the major American networks so as to see whether the Corporations position was an exception to the rule in the television world.
THE PUBLIC BROADCASTER
Before seeking elsewhere, I feel it is important to examine Radio-Canadas position. The basic argument on which the public broadcaster relies to justify this requirement is that its airwaves belong to the public and not to its journalists nor its managers. Thus neither the CBC undertaking nor the CBC journalist can take an editorial stand. CBC journalists must therefore make an effort to ensure that in all circumstances they stay in the background in order to report the news. Their contribution to the public debate is to focus on public opinion. Hence the requirement of impartiality.
The opposite would end up transforming public television into state television. Public television belongs to the public, uses public airwaves and public funding, and serves the public (not the government). A series of measures establish a distance between the government and the Corporation in its daily operations: a board of directors, a president appointed for a definite term and accountability to Parliament. State television does not enjoy these measures and it serves the government; its editorial policy takes precedence over its journalistic policy, if one exists.
I think there is a consensus on the need for impartiality on the part of CBC/Radio-Canada, that is, both the undertaking itself and its journalistic staff performing their duties. No one wants Radio-Canada information programming to become apropaganda tool in the hands of the federal government; this would mean speaking out in favour of its policies, and more particularly, in favour of its vision of Canadian unity.
In November 1979, in a brief submitted to the (federal) Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting, President Al Johnson pointed out that:
[Trans.] Canadians expect CBC, more than any other of the media, to present fairly and impartially the information and arguments needed to solve the issue of the countrys future. It is CBCs responsibility to identify and explore in depth, with a concern for fairness, integrity and accuracy, the issues confronting Canadians, and to make them aware in honest and fair terms of the current trends in opinion on these issues () we must use our airwaves not to influence the direction of public debates, but to increase the peoples power with respect to its destiny.
THE PUBLIC BROADCASTERS: THE BBC AND FRANCE TLVISION
The BBC, Great Britains public broadcaster, has always been a source of inspiration for Canadas public broadcaster. The BBC has just revised its journalistic policy. The Producers Guidelines includes a ten-page chapter on the question of conflicts of interest. The first paragraph sets the tone:
The BBCs audience must be able to trust the integrity of BBC programmes and services. There must be public confidence that editorial decisions are made only for robust editorial reasons. The outside activities of programme makers must not improperly influence BBC programmes or services. Audiences must not have reasonable cause to doubt the impartiality, integrity or high standards of the BBC. Individuals should seek approval in advance from Heads of Department for any proposed commitment that might conflict with programme responsibilities.
These principles apply not only to presenters and reporters, but also to long-term freelances and contract staff closely associated with the BBC.
This policy then goes into detail about a lot of activities, to indicate that while some activities may be acceptable, they must always be approved ahead of time by management, including oral presentations. The policy constantly recalls the need to refer to management, whether in doubt or not. The BBC acknowledges that in certain circumstances it is not easy to reconcile individuals (employees) interests with those of the BBC. The key word is judgement: the decisions made thus reflect the particular circumstances of each case. Hence prior discussions with management are of vital importance.
France Tlvision
The status and outside activities of journalists with France Tlvision are governed by a set of rules of professional conduct which are scattered throughout the law, implementing orders, decisions of the CSA (the equivalent of the CRTC), journalists collective agreements and legal decisions. Journalists permanently attached to France Tlvision must obtain authorization to work for another media undertaking or even to host a debate on another network. At the request of its new president, France Tlvision is currently developing a Charte de lAntenne (a charter of the airwaves), which would include a journalistic policy. This charter should appear sometime in the coming year.
Once a year, France Tlvision organizes a signing session for books published by its in-house personnel. In fact, several employees of France Tlvision have published. An example is one of the best-selling books in the past several weeks, Conversation (Plon, 2001), a collection of conversations with the wife of President Chirac, which was published by a member of France 3 management, Patrick de Carolis. Those who are familiar with French corporate culture know that if your book does not please, you will not lose your job, but you will be tacitly sidelined (called the closet). This seems to be what happened to the journalist Jacques Merlino, who published a pro-Serb book, Les vrits yougoslaves ne sont pas toutes bonnes dire (Albin Michel, 1993), for a few pages in which he painted a flattering picture of Radovan Karadic, President of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In actual fact, few books are published by the staff of France Tlvision that give rise to controversy. It would seem staff are aware of the need to preserve the credibility of the public broadcaster.
To conclude, an excerpt from the journalistic policy of the newspaper Le Monde: [Trans.] Outside collaborations: Journalists must make a written request to the editor for authorization to respond in the affirmative to freelance offers from
outside publications. They must inform management of their professional activities (conferences, seminars, books, films, etc.). Any regular, paid additional activity must be approved by the newspaper (Le style du Monde, p.9).
THE MAJOR AMERICAN NETWORKS
If there is one country that boasts about its freedom of expression, it has to be the United States. Let us see how the major American networks deal with the issue.
National Public Radio (NPR) has made available to its journalistic staff a guide titled Independence and Integrity (1995). This guide devotes a ten-page chapter to the issue of conflict of interest. It begins with a quotation from Thomas Jefferson: When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as a public property.
The guide continues by stating that conflicts of interest may be real or perceived; either way, they damage the journalists credibility and they contribute to the growing climate of distrust among the public and cynicism affecting the media. The guide
thus draws the line on a whole series of outside activities: writing speeches for candidates for elected positions, publicly endorsing candidacies, wearing pins that associate one with a cause, etc. Even the collective agreement is transparent: No employee shall do anything that will bring discredit to NPR.
If the public broadcaster takes a restrictive path, based on impartiality, are the private broadcasters more permissive? This is not what we discover in their journalistic policies, which have just been revised.
ABC News is particularly concerned that none of its employees engage in any outside work or business activities which could cast doubt on its fairness and objectivity, or which might reflect unfavourably on the individual involved.
CBS: Employees should generally avoid identifying themselves with any side of a controversial issueall outside appearances be cleared with senior management.
NBC news employees must not participate in outside activities that could interfere or even appear to interfere with their news assignments or compromise them as employees.
As we can see, it seems that fear of alienating some of the public forces private television broadcasters to follow the same path as public broadcasters.
CNN does not make its journalistic policies public; the network thus wishes to avoid providing tools to anyone tempted to take it to court.
