We use this editor’s blog to explain our journalism and what’s happening at CBC News. You can find more blogs here. The “Standards Notebook” takes over this space on occasion to explain in greater detail some of the decisions we make around language and the application of our journalistic standards, and to answer common questions about CBC News journalism.
There is no shortage of conspiracy theories about the obscure forces that supposedly control the CBC. I occasionally get asked whether the Prime Minister’s Office contacts us directly to establish the news agenda for the day. At other times, we get accused of suppressing news stories to protect political or business interests. This month, a newspaper column made up the existence of a “covert committee” that purportedly surveils and censors our coverage of the Middle East.
Needless to say, there is no such committee; we don’t shield leaders of any party or industry from fair coverage; and we don’t negotiate or even discuss news coverage with the government. In fact, our system is fairly simple and designed to protect the independence of our journalism. Daily editorial decisions, including which stories to cover, are made by executive producers and their teams across our network. Their hiring and employment is regulated by robust collective agreements signed through unions. On the management level, their work is protected by the editor in chief, with a team of deputies and advisers, whose job is to ensure CBC journalism adheres to very specific journalistic standards.
Every news organization has its own definition of journalism, and they’re not necessarily better or worse than each other — just different. Some have a mission to promote progressive values or to defend conservative ideas. Others are open platforms for producers to share their individual points of view. As a public news outlet, CBC can only define its journalism through a set of rigorous principles that ensures the audience (i.e., all of Canada) knows what to expect: reporting based on accuracy, fairness, balance, impartiality and integrity.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we expect reporters to turn off their political conscience and have no personal values or opinions. The difference is that they can’t use CBC journalism, or their public image as CBC journalists, to advance an agenda or personal interest. They trade personal advocacy for journalistic curiosity in the public interest.
We also don’t pretend our stories are told by robots. Humans are the ones selecting subjects and reporting stories, and we’re deeply committed to growing the diversity of our newsrooms to ensure even more people in the audience recognize their interests and sensitivities in our journalism. But that’s precisely where standards and practices come into play. If we can’t fix human imperfection, we can at least guarantee a consistent and recognizable process — from reporting to production — across all our content. This includes rigorous fact-checking, debunking falsehoods and describing the context in which they appeared, and adopting clear, factual language.
We don’t always get it right. Audience members occasionally juxtapose news reports about various subjects and note a difference in tone — making it sound like CBC cares more deeply and emotionally about one topic or the other. That is not the case, but we do listen and understand unintended impressions, and we continuously course-correct with editorial conversations and guidance. This can include more coverage or, when there’s a specific error, a clear and transparent correction. Fully owning up to mistakes is the hallmark of all reputable news organizations.
That’s the point of editorial independence: the only body that holds us accountable is the public. We consider all the feedback we receive; we respond to complaints; we explain our journalism; and, most importantly, we correct mistakes as soon as we’re made aware of them. When that’s not enough, the CBC Ombudsman can be asked by any audience member to examine their concern and issue an independent review.
Source Agencies
