update to Truth in Journalism

After my last post, I sent a letter to Kirk LaPointe, the CBC Ombudsman.

Mr. LaPointe,

I am writing to lodge a complaint about a story that is incorrect.  I refer to the story published Friday, December 2, 2011,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/02/bc-first-nation-signs-pipeline-deal.html

This story incorrectly attributed the title of chief to a man who is not chief and did not consult the people he professed to speak for.  He incorrectly stated that the Gitxsan people support a pipeline that they do not support.

I commented on the website under the cbc story with a link to the public statement made by the Gitxsan here and chided the author of the cbc article for the misinformation.  Civilly.  It was not published and the story was not changed.

This cannot stand.  The story must be retracted and the Gitxsan people should get an apology for their embarrassment.  We have enough problems with truth in journalism in this country without the cbc resorting to such sloppy, unprofessional work.

I received an email today in response.

Thank you for your e-mail of December 4 addressed to Kirk LaPointe, CBC Ombudsman, concerning an error you found in a story posted on December 2 under the headline, “B.C. First Nation backs Northern Gateway pipeline”. Specifically, you wrote, the story “incorrectly attributed the title of chief to a man [Elmer Derrick] who is not chief”.

Thank you for drawing it to our attention. We regret the error.

We have now revised the story so it identifies Mr. Derrick as “a hereditary chief”. We have also added a prominent note under the heading, “Corrections and Clarifications”, at the bottom of the page acknowledging the error and including the correct information. To be clear, we have also attributed to Mr. Derrick that he represents the Gitxsan hereditary chiefs. You can find the revised story here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/02/bc-first-nation-signs-pipeline-deal.html.

Thank you again for your e-mail.

It is also my responsibility to tell you that if you are not satisfied with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the CBC Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC’s journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by mail at Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Esther Enkin

Executive Editor

CBC News

Box 500, Station “A”,

Toronto, Ontario

M5W 1E6

Frankly Esther, that’s not good enough!  Here’s my reply…

Esther Enkin,

Perhaps I wasn’t clear, as your revised story continues to misrepresent the facts and ignore the history of Mr. Elmer Derrick’s involvement in the Gitxsan system of Governance.

Firstly, here is a press release dated December 2, 2011, as published in the Terrace Daily Frontpage

 “The Gitxsan People are outraged with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Agreement”

Contrary To the announcement of Elmer Derrick of today’s date, the representatives of the Plaintiffs To the British Columbia Supreme Court Action No. 15150, Cited as Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society, Oppose the Agreement. The Gitxsan Plaintiffs include Hereditary Chiefs And four Gitxsan Bands with a population of over 6,000 Gitxsan people; the majority of whom are House Members in the Gitxsan Traditional system represented by Hereditary Chief, Spookw, In the court action.

The Representatives do not support Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Agreement entered into by Elmer Derrick And state “Elmer Derrick And the Gitxsan Treaty Society/Gitxsan Economic Development Corp. Does not speak for all Gitxsan. The Gitxsan People had no knowledge of the proposed Agreement Nor were they consulted”. The Plaintiffs Contend that the Gitxsan Treaty Society, Or the Gitxsan Development Corporation, Does not have the authority to enter into such Agreements Without consulting or being authorized by the Gitxsan people.

Knowledge Of the signed Agreement was only obtained through media, much like the Gitxsan Alternative Governance Model Of May 2008, The subject matter of litigation in Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society.

The Representatives say that not only were the communities not consulted, but importantly, the Environmental Review Process Is not yet complete with community hearings being scheduled for January 2012; therefore, a decision to support it is, at best, premature. Until the Environmental Assessment is complete there is no basis for saying this project is safe to build.

The Representatives say the 7 Million Dollars is a pittance in comparison to the potential environmental impacts which will be catastrophic. The GTS/GED Is willing to jeopardize the sustenance of the First Nations People for a few million dollars is reprehensible and is not supported by the Gitxsan people.

Mr. Derrick Espouses the importance of Gitxsan Law; however, breached such law by announcing and celebrating the Agreement on the day of the funeral of an elder matriarch and Hereditary Chief. This Type of conduct brings shame and is disrespectful to the grieving family and the traditional system.

The Representatives say that Mr. Derrick has embarrassed and shamed the Gitxsan People by undermining the 61 First Nations who are opposed to the project. The Representatives say “We stand in solidarity to those opposing it….”

Yet you continue to lend weight to his words in the following paragraphs, allowing readers to continue to digest (and lend weight to) his words as though he spoke for the people.  I see that you have followed up the story here, but even now by calling the Gitxsan Dissenters aren’t you still misrepresenting the story?

Enbridge deal causes dissent among Gitxsan

Hereditary chief says negotiators, executive director fired

From what I have read, the people of the Gitxsan Nation are not divided at all, so much as the element of corruption has been used by Enbridge and the Province to single out a couple of individuals and bestow them with a title and some perks, as illustrated here.  This stategy has been used for quite some time in BC.  These people and Enbridge then released their little announcement during the funeral of a prominent Elder.

Be aware that when you throw around the word dissenters, it plants a suggestion in the minds of your readers of anarchists and black bloc tactics, or terrorists.  When you use language like that, then you depart of the world of journalistic ethics and into the realm of inciting civil war.  That’s what you are party to, by ignoring some stories in favour of those that espouse the Harper Government’s position.  It amounts to inciting Hatred against indigenous people.

The fact that the accreditted media in this country all blasted that erroneous information in unison and then failed to correct it for 4 days speaks volumes about the state of freedom of the Press in this country.  That our public broadcaster is so cowed by a dictator like Harper says alot about the state of this countries health.  If you repeat a lie often enough, it doesn’t matter what the truth is, in the end.  The fact that the CBC is using these tactics is deplorable.

Your duty to the people of Canada supercedes your duty to appease the Government of Canada, that which cannot be named, now the Harper Government.  I promise you, if you honour your commitment to truth in Journalism, then the people of Canada will back you 100% when Harper brings the axe.  Throw us the to wolves and you will suffer the same fate.

In the meantime, could you maybe try a little balance in your reporting?  A little research?

Sincerely, Kim Poirier