Well, just to be clear, separating out journalism, there is a standards handbook that all the journalists get that lays down the standards that are expected of CBC journalists. That's the first point, and they all get trained into it. The second point is that the job essentially of the editor in chief is to ensure that what's put on the CBC by way of news reflects the standards laid our in the journalistic handbook. That's his job.
Beyond that, as Bob points out, if you think we haven't done a good job, you can go to the ombudsman and the ombudsman will look into the matter and decide whether you're right or wrong. If he says you're wrong, that's one thing. But if he says you're right, then what we'll do is we'll issue corrections and apologies.
Finally, what we also do when there are things that are matters of major public interest like elections is we set up independent panels. The independent panels are there to look to make sure we're treating all the parties fair and square.
That's the type of journalistic standard.
On the fiction side, as Bob points out, the waters are somewhat murkier. This is not a new practice to actually create composite characters, to add to characters things they did not actually do or say. For my part, as I was saying earlier, I found the Prairie Giant conversation very interesting and very troubling and very tricky to deal with, because we were dealing with essentially a fictionalization of real events.
I think what we probably need to do is we probably need, on the drama side, to codify in a similar sort of way to the way we have on the journalistic side what constitutes reasonable principles to be able to guide people. Currently right now we don't have that except in the most general sense. One of the things we are going to try to do--Sylvain and I and Jane are talking about--is precisely to figure out what is the appropriate artistic licence to give people and when does it step over the line when you're naming real people who are real historical characters.