Let me do the journalist and then I'll throw the hot potato to Richard, if you don't mind, because you've hit the nail right on the head.
The Prairie Giant story is one of the most complicated stories I've ever seen. And there's probably right, I would say--in fact there is right--on all sides, and it's very frustrating. My own personal feeling is we've learned a lot about how to do this in the future, which I'm more than willing to talk to you about and I think Richard will talk to you about as well in terms of standards and whether we let our standards down, etc.
With respect to journalism, our problem and our job is to get the facts out. Facts are not always objective, or the facts that are objective for one person are not objective for another person. As you say, you get e-mails. Given I'm from a minority group, I get a lot of e-mails, as you may well expect. But I take comfort in the fact that we have the most sophisticated ombudsman system in the world, and it's a model that's being adopted by other public broadcasters. That ombudsman is not an apologist. They--both the English and the French--look at complaints very seriously and have from time to time taken real issue with the journalist making the report. Very often they support the report. We do now have a conflict of balance between a program--it may not be within the same program but it must be within a legitimate period of time--but these are principles the ombudsman has developed in consultation with the public and will continue to develop.
I'm very proud of that fact that we have this system that allows the public to come forward and say they disagree with our presentation and with our citing of the facts. On that I think we are in reasonably good shape. Sure, we get a fair number of complaints, and we should, for many reasons.
In the case of drama, it's even more complicated. In drama, sometimes you take artistic licence; sometimes you create a composite character. The questions are very fundamental, though. Should you create a composite character and give him a real name? If you're going to start playing around and root into that nature and have composite characters, maybe there should be a principle that you cannot use a real name, that this is a fictitious story, and not do what we did with Mr. Gardiner.
I think Richard should also add to this.