CBC Interview Alluding to Russian Involvement in Trucker Protests Breached Journalistic Standards: Ombudsman

A man leaves the CBC building in Toronto, in a file photo. Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press

The CBC’s ombudsman has found that the national broadcaster breached its journalistic standards and practices (JSP) during an interview on its Power & Politics program in January.

Ombudsman Jack Nagler said questions in the interview that alluded to Russian involvement in the trucker protests were out of context, and the ideas and language surrounding the questions were “too bold.” He said there should have been evidence backing the claim and advised CBC programmers to be “aware of the impact of [their] work.”

CBC released correspondence regarding a complaint made to the ombudsman by James Sali on Oct. 6.

During the Power and Politics interview on Jan. 28, just before the Freedom Convoy protests began in Ottawa, the host asked Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino: “We’ve heard references to potential outside actors. Who could these outside actors be? Where might they be from?”

Mendicino responded, “I would certainly direct those questions to law enforcement who are best positioned to answer and to make decisions … police services and other partners within the public safety community are putting all eyes on the situation, putting additional resources into the area to make sure that there can be peaceful protest, as well as providing direction and guidance to residents so that everybody can stay safe.”

The interviewer followed with the question, “I do ask that because, you know, given Canada’s support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia, I don’t know if it’s far-fetched to ask—but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, but perhaps even instigating it from the outset?”

Mendicino again deferred to “partners in the public safety community” and reiterated that authorities were watching the protest closely.

‘Escaping the Realm of Journalism’

In his complaint, Sali said the CBC reporter was “escaping the realm of journalism” with this line of questioning.

“At face value this appears that it is an effort by the CBC to misrepresent the protest, the people representing or attending the process, or otherwise try and manipulate the natural public discourse around this issue,” he wrote

“This is astonishing behaviour, since this protest is in relation to existing public policy. It is not in the scope of the CBC’s mandate on journalism to try and steer the outcomes of that discussion on policy to something which would be acceptable and aligned with the CBC’s own political views.”

CBC issued a clarification five days after the original interview was aired, stating, “The question should have referenced experts’ concerns that during the current tension over Ukraine, Moscow could use its cyber and disinformation capabilities to ‘sow confusion’ among Ukraine’s allies during a crisis.”

Chris Carter, the managing editor of CBC’s Parliamentary Bureau, responded to Sali’s complaint, but it only made Sali more concerned about CBC’s reasoning. Carter admitted the question was framed wrongly, and cited some sources that Sali found to be illegitimate.

“It was a loaded question specifically aimed at Russia, when most foreign donations aren’t from that country,” Sali wrote, adding that the article Carter quoted about donations to the protest does not say anything about them coming from Russia.

“Any citation to outside donations has to be put into context when asking questions about security, otherwise it makes listeners/watchers/readers think that the foreign donations are mostly from hostile nations,” he wrote.

“Although on the surface Chris makes good arguments, the fact remains that there were little donations from Russia if any, no evidence that any donations were tied to the Russian government, and no evidence of initial Russian instigation.”

Ideas and Language ‘Too Bold’

“Your complaint raised interesting questions about CBC’s conduct,” Nagler wrote in his response to Sali’s complaint.

“It also raised interesting questions about the way information gets shaped in a broader media environment which can be highly partisan.”

Nagler said it was legitimate to ask the minister of public safety about foreign actors supporting the protest or whether Russia might use the protest to advance its cause, but the questions were phrased wrongly. He said the interviewer’s use of the term “far-fetched” was credible, but “the language and ideas put forward in these questions were too bold, considering there was no concrete evidence attached to them.”

“The fundamental flaw, in my view, was the use of a speculative question when it was not called for,” he said.

“These questions, as phrased, did not meet the standard to ‘clearly explain the facts’ or ‘contribute to the understanding of issues of public interest,’” Nagler wrote, quoting CBC’s JSP and concluding that there was a breach.

Nagler then cited a section in the JSP that called on staff to be “aware of the impact of [their] work,” advising programmers to pay more attention to this area.

“So producers should prepare their programs with that in mind. Make sure to provide sufficient context, attribution, or evidence for whatever CBC reports - and when required, for the questions that its journalists ask.”