4. What we conclude

The right to freedom of expression includes the right of proprietors of news organizations to publish what they want in the media they own, without government interference or regulation and without intimidation from any quarter. CJFE has vigorously defended this right and protested against such interference through its 21 years of existence. We are proud of having upheld the right to free expression of media owners, big and small, around the world.

Consistent with this record, CJFE believes that CanWest Global is entirely within its rights in expressing corporate opinions on issues of the day and publishing them in its newspapers. In doing so, it is exercising the same right as a high-school editor in Vancouver who criticizes the principal in print, a screenwriter in Quebec whose characters have controversial views on religion, or a radio station in Latin America that exposes the activities of a death squad. As an organization dedicated to the promotion of free expression, CJFE defends CanWest Global's right to instruct its newspaper editors to carry corporate editorials. We also note that considerable information about the chain-editorial affair is available to Canadians through non-CanWest Global media.

But we also believe CanWest Global has failed to show equal respect for the rights of its own employees. Suspensions, threats of dismissal and reprimands to journalists exercising the right to dissent constitute unacceptable and unnecessary curbs on free expression. The same is true of its attempt to ban organized byline withdrawals.

Other actions, while not constituting direct threats to free expression, raise disturbing questions about CanWest Global's desire to encourage the free exchange of information and ideas. These include the hobbling of local editorial boards, the cancellation of columns whose authors differ from the corporate position, and the failure of the company's newspapers to carry fair and thorough news coverage of events related to the chain-editorial issue. These are dangerous precedents, and if emulated by other media proprietors they could shrink the space available to Canadians for the circulation of information and the expression of ideas.

Furthermore, actions and statements by CanWest Global and its executives threaten to undermine the defence of freedom of expression by media organizations. CanWest executives have publicly dismissed free-expression concerns in terms that suggest they do not believe these should be taken seriously. CJFE regrets that CanWest Global has chosen to employ a confrontational style and a dismissive tone. This can only make it more difficult to unite all media professionals in the defence of principles that are vital to our democratic society, our craft and the success of our organizations.

Whether or not the word "censorship" is an appropriate description of CanWest Global's actions is beside the point. The fact is that rarely, if ever, have so many disciplinary measures been imposed and chain-wide warnings issued concurrently by a media proprietor in Canada on an issue of journalistic principle. Moreover, CanWest Global's actions have diminished respect for Canadian media. They have had the effect of calling into question our commitment to accuracy, fairness and the maintenance of a relationship of trust among proprietors, journalists and audiences.

We hope journalists, media executives and proprietors will find the following detailed conclusions useful in understanding the implications of the chain-editorial affair, and in future debates that may arise. The conclusions are followed by recommendations, which are intended to suggest ways in which the damage done might be repaired.

1. The threats to employees

The right of peaceful public dissent has a place not only in society at large but also in the workplace. Rarely, if ever, is the peaceful expression of opinion by an employee detrimental to the interest of the employer. CJFE opposes laws and contractual restrictions that unduly restrict the freedom of expression of employees.

Journalists have obligations as employees under the law. But they also incur obligations to the public -- on behalf of their employers -- because they depend on the public's trust in them. Their stock in trade is information, transparency and candour. They cannot be expected to present themselves to the public as exponents of these values, yet conspire in their subversion in the workplace or remain silent when they believe they are not being respected. Media proprietors must be sensitive to these aspects of the journalist's work. Otherwise, they risk circumscribing the freedom of debate within newsrooms and, ultimately, the freedom of expression of the journalists who work in them.

CJFE upholds the right of corporations and their owners to free expression, and, on this issue, claims no special rights for media workers over those of other citizens. But we believe media organizations have a special responsibility to ensure that their activities do not weaken respect for free-expression rights in general. This is because they are among the chief beneficiaries of its protection, and because they are likely to be in the forefront of efforts to defend it.

For these reasons, CJFE opposes attempts by media organizations or their owners to muzzle, intimidate or punish employees solely for exercising their rights of free expression and dissent. We also view with alarm the suggestion that media employees' freedom to speak publicly should be subjected to a test of truth, adjudicated arbitrarily by their supervisors. It brings to mind the frequent attacks on journalists by leaders of countries where media freedom is not respected on the grounds that their reports are false or distorted.

Recommendation: CanWest Global should retract all reprimands, suspensions and threats of dismissal to [Montreal] Gazette and [Regina] LeaderPost employees, and refrain from issuing further threats.

2. The ban on byline withdrawals

This measure is CanWest Global's most direct assault on freedom of expression in the chain-editorial affair. Murdoch Davis has acknowledged that it "might seem heavy-handed." From his description, it appears that the chain's declaration of this ban is not so much an assertion of a basic management right as a tactical move designed to stop employees and competitors from "embarrassing" the company.

The byline withdrawal has been accepted as a form of peaceful dissent in Canadian newsrooms for decades. The acknowledgment that a writer's byline cannot be used over his or her protest, which is simple natural justice on its face, is also a feature of many media union contracts. Under these, withdrawal is available to individual writers who are unhappy with the way their copy has been edited. Yet there are ample precedents for its use as a form of collective protest, primarily during labour negotiations.

Whether individual or collective, the decision to withhold a byline is an exercise of freedom of expression. Banning organized byline withdrawals amounts to compelling journalists to have their names published. Since freedom of expression includes the right to choose when and how to express oneself, any attempt to compel the use of bylines must be seen as a violation of it, regardless of any rights the proprietor may claim under employment law.

Recommendation: CanWest Global should rescind its ban on the withholding of bylines as a form of protest and refrain from attempting to institute similar bans in the future.

3. The dismissal of contract columnists

Contract columnists are valued by media and readers for their strong opinions and distinctive points of view. There is a long tradition in journalism of columnists dissenting in public from the views of their employers. A wise employer knows that tolerating this boosts credibility and contributes to the success of the organization. It is alarming to hear a columnist such as Doug Cuthand say that in the future, "I'll always be looking over my shoulder."

Although CanWest executives have stated repeatedly that they wish to encourage diverse or even opposing views, the events recounted above cast doubt on their willingness to do so in practice. CJFE believes all journalists, including the columnists in question, should strive for the highest possible standard of accuracy. But we note that the chain-editorial initiative has been described as a "work in progress," and it is hardly surprising that there was confusion about its precise implications in December. On the subject of errors in the copy of longstanding columnists, it has been the normal practice in journalism to correct such errors, not to spike or terminate the column. We regret that CanWest Global did not handle these incidents with more sensitivity or take more proactive steps to keep popular columnists accessible to its readers.

Recommendation: CanWest Global should invite columnists who are no longer writing because of disagreements over the chain-editorial policy - including Stephen Kimber, Stephanie Domet and Peter Worthington - to return to their regular spots, and refrain from future terminations for this reason.

4. The issue of local control

CJFE commends CanWest Global for its undertaking to commission and publish commentaries opposed to its chain editorials. Unfortunately, this does not offset the damage done to regional diversity when a newspaper chain announces its intention to impose uniformity of opinion on key topics.

No matter how many dissenting op-ed commentaries are published, it remains possible that a CanWest Global newspaper will be prevented from taking a stand judged by its editors to be appropriate for its circulation area and audience. This could easily lead a chill to spread through a newsroom beyond the offices of editorial writers. It could influence, consciously or subconsciously, the treatment of news stories about topics on which the chain was known to have strong views. The CanWest Global policy could make it impossible to conduct a co-ordinated campaign of news reporting and editorials about an issue of public concern if the corporate position were different from that held by local editors. Finally, we note that it would be a radical departure from previous Canadian journalistic practice if all 14 Southam papers were required to endorse the same party in a federal election.

To the extent that local control and diversity are diminished, the media's credibility in promoting freedom of expression is also undermined. Media owners should not be seen to be promoting freedom of expression merely to further their own interests. (CanWest Global's choice of subject for the first chain editorial - Ottawa's policy on taxing private foundations -- was particularly unfortunate.) The narrower the range of views developed and expressed on public policy, the more likely it is that media and journalists will be accused of being self-serving in the topics they choose to address, and the more likely they will face demands for government regulation.

Recommendation: CanWest Global should allow local editorial boards full freedom to differ in print from chain editorials.

5. The issue of fairness and thoroughness in coverage

There is no requirement for persons exercising the right to freedom of expression to be fair or thorough when they are doing so. Many celebrated defences of this right have involved speech or writings that are manifestly biased, unfair or incomplete. We have argued above that public dissent by media employees should not be subjected to a test of truthfulness, especially one arbitrarily applied by their supervisors. For the same reason, we believe the question of whether a newspaper's coverage is fair or thorough is not, strictly speaking, a freedom-of-expression issue.

But as we have also maintained above, other aspects of the CanWest Global case do pose dangers to freedom of expression. It has become a prominent news story and a matter of continuing public debate in Canada, and the debate is largely about the extent to which CanWest Global has curbed freedom of expression by its actions. As part of its work in promoting freedom of expression, CJFE advocates fair and thorough coverage of such issues in all media. We believe media organizations have a special responsibility to avoid giving the appearance of partiality in covering these issues. If they do not, they risk undermining their own credibility when they invoke the right to freedom of expression in defence of their own actions. Moreover, the promotion of a culture of accuracy in the media - desirable in its own right - will enhance respect for free expression.

Regrettably, CanWest Global's coverage of its own affairs, particularly in the LeaderPost/Siddiqui case, has fallen short of the mark. Regardless of the circumstances in which the story about Siddiqui's speech was assigned, the rewrite would not pass the test of fairness imposed by prevailing journalistic standards. It did not present a fair summary of Siddiqui's position and as a result, LeaderPost readers were denied information essential to an understanding of the controversy. Finally, CanWest Global's employees do not appear to have been offered the right of reply to disparaging comments about them made orally and in print by company executives.

Recommendation: CanWest Global should state internally and publicly that its reporters and editors are encouraged to cover journalistic disputes, including those involving CanWest Global, according to generally accepted professional standards, and will not face disciplinary measures or otherwise be penalized for doing so.

6. The tone of CanWest Global's response

CanWest Global's defence of its actions has been marked by a willingness to accuse its critics of inaccuracy, to take shots at its own staff and columnists, and to suggest that its media competitors are maliciously giving the story more prominence than it is worth. The company seems to see itself as besieged by an array of adversaries, from Kimber to Worthington to its own Gazette employees to the Central Canadian media establishment. David Asper's comments in particular are lamentable. It is his right to make them, of course, but it is hard to see the ethical or indeed the business justification for denigrating the motivations and capabilities of his own employees.

It is entirely possible that if the chain-editorial policy had been introduced in a climate of respect for local staff, with a clear statement of intentions, and without the subsequent invective and intimidation, no one would be writing or talking about it any more. It is distressing to see a major employer resort to public castigation of its employees. Canada does not need a newspaper industry consumed by ugly antagonism between journalists and proprietors. Such conflict reflects badly on the media, and will not help its efforts to guard against undesirable intrusions.

CJFE seeks to rally the entire journalistic community, including proprietors as well as practitioners and supporters, in defence of freedom of expression. Some day, CanWest Global may need to call on the support of others in the face of an assault on media freedom. Should that happen, CJFE will defend CanWest Global to the best of its ability. We ask its chairman and senior executives to show equal respect for the concerns expressed by respected journalists and other defenders of freedom of expression.

Recommendation: CanWest Global and its individual executives should apologize for their personal attacks on critics of the chain-editorial policy, and for questioning the professionalism and good faith of CanWest employees. They should refrain from similar attacks in the future.

7. Next Steps

The CanWest controversy has raised questions throughout the media about the need for some kind of public inquiry into media concentration. CJFE would welcome such an inquiry and discussion.

However, we lament the fact that there have already been two such inquiries since the 1970s and few of their recommendations were ever implemented. Since then, concentration has actually increased dramatically. As an organization we are also leery of any inquiry process that might be unduly politicized. The rights of free expression are too important.

While the subject of media concentration encompasses many issues of great importance to culture, information flows and public discourse in Canada, our interest is in exploring if and how media concentration affects issues of freedom of expression. We are committed to ongoing study of that issue and look forward to an opportunity to discuss it in the context of a more general inquiry.

Recommendation: CJFE calls on the Federal Government to create an independent inquiry under the leadership of an eminent Canadian and with substantial input from senior Canadian journalists to investigate the potential impact on free expression of concentration of media ownership.