Executive Producer says CBC not obligated to present “truth”

NOTE: This post is a follow-up to my earlier article about Rex Murphy’s climate denial. I wrote to the CBC’s Ombudsman and am still waiting to hear from CBC management, from whom the ombudsman requested a response. My friend also filed a complaint, and received this response from the Executive Producer of The National, Mark Harrison. It is shocking.

Here are the confidence-shattering quotes:

“…allowing the expression of the widest possible range of views is at the heart of the notion of fairness and balance in journalism.”

Fox News’ motto is “Fair and Balanced.”

“…almost any opinion may contain a grain of truth that helps to illuminate the whole truth.”

If the climate deniers get special airtime, should the Holocaust Deniers also get their say?

‘…it is not the CBC’s obligation to determine what is “truth”’

Wow. This from the Executive Producer of The National. Makes you wonder how much else in The National is not true, doesn’t it? Are other portions ‘re-truthed’ for any reason, say to appease advertisers? There are an awful lot of car ads on the CBC, and the automakers have a history of funding climate denial public relations groups.

I never thought I’d see the day when the CBC put quotation marks around “truth,” as if there is no such thing, as if all truth was subjective. I thought the purpose of journalists was to uncover the truth, not to be “fair and balanced.” I am deeply disappointed in the CBC and The National.

Rex Murphy is entitled to have any opinion he wants on climate change. He can be a wrong as a flat-earther – and is in this case. But he absolutely should not be spouting that opinion on The National as if it is fact, and the CBC should not be providing him a platform to do so. Dispute whether Mr. Obama deserved a Nobel Peace Prize if you want. (For what – not starting another war yet?) Have an opinion on whether the Toronto Maple Leafs will win the Stanley Cup this year. (Ha.) But do not make false and dangerous statements on the taxpayer dime on national news.

For full disclosure, here is the text of the email sent to my friend:

Dear Mr. ______:

Thank you for your e-mail of December 8 addressed to Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman.

You wrote to draw our attention to the December 3 edition of THE NATIONAL and Rex Murphy’s Point of View. “Instead of reporting the truth,” you wrote, “the CBC has decided to misrepresent what’s really happening…in regards to climate change.”

While I sincerely regret that you are disappointed, I must also tell you – and I do so with respect – that I disagree with your assessment. Allow me to explain.

To be clear, Mr. Murphy appears occasionally on THE NATIONAL with a commentary entitled Rex Murphy’s Point of View. As the name suggests, it is his opinion. It is not the opinion of the CBC or THE NATIONAL. But while Mr. Murphy is the only contributor to the program to have a segment entitled Point of View, he is most certainly not the only contributor who has an opportunity to express his point of view on the program.

It is CBC’s mandate, part of its obligation under the federal Broadcasting Act, to carry different points of view on controversial matters of public interest and concern like this one. CBC’s own journalistic policy points out that we would fail to live up to our mandate if, in an effort to upset no one or disturb no institution, we were to limit the comprehensiveness of our coverage.

Indeed, allowing the expression of the widest possible range of views is at the heart of the notion of fairness and balance in journalism. While we must be mindful of the weight of opinion that holds a particular view and its significance or potential significance, CBC’s policy acknowledges that almost any opinion may contain a grain of truth that helps to illuminate the whole truth.

Of course, not everyone will agree with the views expressed, as clearly you do not in this instance. Fair enough. However, it is not the CBC’s obligation to determine what is “truth” or what views are “acceptable” (a truly dangerous notion for any broadcaster), but only to present differing views fairly and accurately affording Canadians the opportunity and the information they need to make up their own minds about the nature or quality of the views expressed.

But let me emphasize that by any standards I think it is fair to say our coverage of climate change issue over the years has been thoughtful, thorough and innovative. We sailed on an ice breaker to report first hand on the disappearing Arctic ice. We reported on changing habitat, from dying lions in Kenya and a declining numbers of polar bears to changing migration patterns and disappearing fisheries. We have reported how water shortages threatened millions and rising sea water could leave millions more vulnerable. We reported on the politics, the science and ordinary Canadians worried about the future – hundreds of stories in the past two years alone. Indeed, I think you will find our coverage of the Copenhagen conference is extensive.

Thank you again for your e-mail. I hope my reply has reassured you of the continuing integrity of THE NATIONAL and CBC News.

It is also my responsibility to inform 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 the address shown below, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca

Sincerely,

Mark Harrison
Executive Producer
THE NATIONAL