Canadian Heritage Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Tony Burman]

I think that's a great challenge for all media organizations, and I think our desire to kind of expand the Rolodex, so to speak, to ensure that there's a true diversity of views, is something we're obsessed with. We actually monitor, in a very minute, statistical way--for example, through election campaigns--that reflection of diversity, not only diversity in terms of ethnic background but diversity in points of view. We kind of stopwatch it, so to speak. I'm not talking only about the Conservatives versus the NDP. I mean, that's a given. We're talking about a far greater diversity.

I think there's a far greater consciousness in this country, and certainly--I think we can speak on behalf of the public broadcaster--we have to provide a range and a breadth of coverage that reflects in our air, radio, television, or online services the diversity of this country. We're really focused on it.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

My other point has to do with firewalls. I understand that you have a firewall. I also understand that there are firewalls for private broadcasters as well. The argument from those who say that private broadcasters are too sensitive to commercial interests is not so much centred on the head of Procter & Gamble calling the news chief and saying he didn't like your story; it becomes more of a subconscious notion that we're not going to get a call on this, but we know that the head of the corporation won't be happy if we do too many stories that are anti-business or whatever, because we get our money from them. So even though there's a firewall, there's a subconscious kind of notion that we have to be careful.

Wouldn't that exist at the CBC as well, but in a different way, especially in a context in which funding isn't stable? There would be a firewall, but reporters and news directors would be aware that if we take too many runs at the government, since our funding is renewed every two or three years or whatever, we'd better be careful. Wouldn't it be the same system working, obviously not in reaction, necessarily, to advertisers but to government sensibilities?

[Tony Burman]

I think we are very conscious of trying to avoid that. I think the potential is there, and it's obvious that it's there. But I think there is such a range of voices in any kind of CBC news or current affairs operation that I think in a sense we're protected from that, as long as we're conscious of not doing anything that inadvertently, through osmosis, plays to those kinds of things. I think our track record is pretty good on that.

I think the fact that there are tensions with governments is a given. I've had 30 years' experience at CBC, and I can go back to many governments when it's been the same. So for the CBC to start kind of tailoring its approach to the government in some sort of odd way that has some sort of impact on financing would be, first, ludicrous--

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I understand that. I have one more small point, sir.

We're sort of saying that the private journalists, the journalists for the private broadcasters, are not immune from that kind of pressure from private advertisers. Do you know what I'm saying? I'm just trying to draw the parallel.

[Tony Burman]

Mr. Chair, can I just, for 30 seconds, respond to the gentleman's reference to this photo?

I was just checking my notes. I think if you're referring to a photo that was on cbc.ca that was tied to the Kyoto Accord, what happened--your description did not connect with my recollection of it--was that a photo was retouched. It wasn't retouched for use on air. It was retouched because people do that in the graphic world to see what kind of impact.... It was misfiled. First, it should not have happened, and, second, it shouldn't have been filed. It was inadvertently pulled out and used.

There was a very subtle difference. In fact, it looked very similar. We did check it. It was immediately pulled when we were aware of it. It was an inadvertent error. We're very conscious of whether there is any suggestion that that's done. It was one of these things that was done in a way that did virtually no damage and that, to our knowledge, had no kind of negative motive to it. It was a process error that we have ensured will not happen again. It was filed in a way that someone had access to it, and it appeared on our website very briefly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your efforts to clarify this, and I think it speaks to the point. I guess the point for Canadians who are watching and listening to us today is the fact that it was a doctored photo, and the photo not only was a misrepresentation of actually what happened, but it was a misrepresentation because it was such an outdated picture that in the duration of time from when the photo was taken to the time it was published on the website, the smoke stacks were torn down. So it was a complete misrepresentation.

I think it speaks to the sensitivity that you have to engage in at CBC, yet it wasn't intended, you assure us, to mislead Canadians. But in fact it did mislead people because it was there to support an opinion that was being brought forward with the article it was published with.

I think that's the concern that many Canadians have, that you're a broadcaster, but you have a public trust to maintain, because, of course, Canadians expect to trust their national broadcaster. Obviously, there was major sensitivity around this, and unfortunately for CBC, this isn't the first and maybe won't be the last. But I think it's important that there be a strong statement after these types of things are done, as to the fact that it won't happen again.

So I'm wondering if you can clarify as to what type of statement was made and what assurances you can provide us with to ensure that this kind of biased type of reporting doesn't continue in perpetuity.

[Tony Burman]

In terms of this case, I tried to describe it in the sense that there was an investigation as to what happened, there was an apology issued, and we were able to determine that there was no untoward motive.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Any time a photo is there to substantiate a claim, I think there is a correlation that therefore it is in fact a bias that's.... I can understand that it wasn't intentional.

[Tony Burman]

Well, it wasn't intended to go on air. I think that's the big issue.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

But the CBC website would have the same provisions as any on-air content, is that right?

[Tony Burman]

Definitely, and I think there was a determination that this kind of thing will not happen again. In preparation for this meeting, I did review. There were, I'd say, six or seven instances in the past two or three years of where, mainly through inadvertence, through the kinds of pressures that a 24/7 news operation provides--and I'm not using this as an excuse--things happen. I am aware that there isn't a pattern. We're not dealing with things that—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Let's talk about things that maybe aren't so inadvertent.

I'm wondering if you could explain to me the process through which stories are covered in Canada. Obviously, in any given day you have hundreds of stories that you could run on The National or CBC radio, and obviously there's a decision-making process as to what will be brought forward as a news story.

I find it interesting, actually—I'll just use it as an example, and you can go into your explanation as to how news stories are chosen for the day—that recently there was a sanctity-of-life rally on the Hill. In fact, I had the opportunity to walk by it, and I understand the numbers were about 7,000 people, so there were thousands and thousands of people here on the Hill. I understand there was even a press conference--one of my colleagues across the table was there--and I understand that CBC not only did not cover the rally, but they didn't cover the news conference of the different parliamentarians who were bringing this issue forward.

I'm wondering how the decision is made not to carry a feature involving 7,000 people on Parliament Hill, as opposed to, you know, we see sometimes 20 protesters somewhere and all of a sudden that's the news story that leads out. I'm wondering how you make the decision to ignore 7,000 people on Parliament Hill one day, and then the next day, if there are 20 protesters, the determination is made to make that the lead-out story.

[Tony Burman]

Your second reference is hypothetical. I think the decision by the CBC in choosing stories is the same as any other news organization, where we evaluate the news value of a particular story against the news value of other stories that are available. I don't have the particular details of that one story, in terms of how we handled it or didn't.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm just curious, hypothetically, as to how you would ignore 7,000 people rallying on Parliament Hill. I'm just wondering what kind of contemplation might be gone through in terms of determining--

[Tony Burman]

With respect, I don't think I accept your characterization.There is no one who woke up that morning and said, “Let's wilfully ignore a rally of 7,000 people”. I could quite happily go back.... You know, I'll go back after this meeting and retrace that, but there is no day when there aren't a multitude of groups--interest groups, groups of people--that feel their particular event deserves coverage on our airwaves more than something else. That's part of the territory.

In fairness, I think probably a more accurate way of assessing it is whether a lot of these issues, including the one you're referring to, have received incredible attention on the CBC in a multitude of ways. I don't know what the staffing or the resource issue was that day with that story. We're limited in Ottawa; we can't cover the number of stories we want to in Ottawa. These are the kinds of choices that are made, and we stand by them, but I'll go into that in detail if you want.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

No, I just was curious. I thought it might be a pertinent example. I was just trying to discover how determinations are made, but I see you're not sure as to how that is, so I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We now turn to Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

This is a very interesting discussion for me. As an independent broadcaster and journalist, I've always had a very odd relationship with the CBC. I ran afoul of this little blue book many times, and I'm glad to actually see it in print, because I always wondered why some of the stuff I was delivering was.... I was getting my wrists slapped.

In fact, just for the record and because I think it is instructive, I was not doing news for CBC because I was known as someone fairly opinionated, but I did a lot of cultural coverage in the north, and I had done a 10-part series on pioneers of the north. It's about as innocuous as you could get, but I was involved in a very controversial battle in the north, and one day I was quoted on air. That morning I got a call from a very good friend of mine, a respected CBC journalist, who said, “You know you're done here.” I said, “Yeah, I could see that.” They pulled my 10-part series that morning and said, “This will not air on any CBC station because you are seen as politically active, even though you're not one of our journalists.”

I'm asking my question because I've dealt with this code of standards. It seems to me that there is a real set of standards right across regional stations across the country; there is the insistence that CBC has a voice and that it maintains that standard. How do you ensure, not just at central command in Toronto and Montreal, but in Yellowknife and in Sudbury and in St. John's, that the standard is applied and that your producers have a good sense of what a CBC voice is and what isn't?

[Tony Burman]

We do it by the leadership that exists in those locations. I think one of the enduring strengths of the CBC and Radio-Canada is the quality of the news and program leaders, not only in the large centres like Toronto or Montreal, but across the country.

I think there's a greater desire on the part of both CBC and Radio-Canada to strengthen their regional presence and to expand into communities where there perhaps isn't a CBC presence right now. What ensures that the standards in those locations are up to what we would all like to think are the national standards is really the quality of not only the staff but the leaders.

This is a very significant document within our organization. I think a lot of people really take it incredibly seriously, and ideally that would limit the number of problems we run into.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I know and have worked with many people in private media over the years, and when you're in a northern region, an isolated region, getting your local story into national coverage is definitely fairly difficult, unless a hurricane hits the local trailer park and you just happen to be the camera person there. Otherwise there seems to be a disconnect.

How do you feel about the relationship between taking regional and local stories and putting them into a national context?

[Tony Burman]

That's a complaint I've heard at CBC for many years. It's something that we take seriously. I think if you really did a forensic investigation of The National in the past two, three, or four years, one would conclude, and I know the figures bear this out, that isn't nearly the case anymore. There is an openness on the part of all of our national and network programs for far more regional voices and regional coverage. I think a lot of that has enriched our programming. My guess would be that the number of complaints in that regard are probably fewer than they used to be.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I want to jump from regional to international because of the situation we're now facing with growing instability in various parts of the world, key news centres of the world. We've got the situation of Alan Johnston still kidnapped in Gaza. More and more journalists are now becoming targets for attack in regions and in wars where, in previous years, journalists were always able to continue carrying on. We have hardly any journalists able to work out of Iraq anymore. You mentioned that we're there in Darfur, but now Gaza is becoming a no-go zone. Many of these places are.

What is the decision process that is made around putting a journalist in the field in a situation that is unstable in today's climate?

[Tony Burman]

This has probably become the most important kind of issue confronting us as we cover the world. It relates to our coverage, as you point out, of Gaza. It relates to our coverage of northern Lebanon, all sorts of areas. I think we're blessed with a lot of experienced people. I've worked in four war zones, and my colleagues have a similar kind of track record.

I think the question of the security and safety of our journalists is job one for most of us. I think what we do is balance the need for us as a news organization to cover the story for Canadians versus the fact that we've got to ensure that we do this in a safe way. I think a lot of it involves resources. As you would know, in Iraq, for example, the cost of security for our journalists now exceeds the cost of our journalists, and this is something that an organization like the CBC or Radio-Canada can't easily cope with.

[Alain Saulnier]

These are decisions which we make together. In the case of Irak, Tony and I discussed the matter and decided to no longer send in any journalists there because we could not guarantee their safety. Last fall, out of three reporters sent to Afghanistan, two were women: Alexandra Szacka and Céline Galipeau. The third was Frédéric Nicoloff. We maintained a constant link with them, specifically to make sure that they were not taking risks that were uncalled for. I can assure you that as information manager, it is sometimes difficult for me to tell journalists to go out in the field, because I'm conscious of the responsibility involved.