[Curtman]

Manitoba reporter fired from her job for "biased" reporting on federal politics speaks out

$1:

On a rainy afternoon in October, Jill Winzoski, a 38 year old reporter at The Selkirk Record, walked into her boss' small office and took a deep breath. That morning, Winzoski's editor had told her over the phone that she'd received an email from a Member of Parliament with harsh words about Winzoski's "biased" reporting. James Bezan, the Conservative MP for Selkirk-Interlake, included as proof part of an email petition about a China-Canada investment treaty Winzoski had sent him the day before.

Her editor said that Brett Mitchell—one of the owners of the The Selkirk Record, and Winzoski's boss—had gotten the email as well.

Mitchell told Winzoski that she would no longer be employed at The Record. He cited her email petition to Bezan's office.

Winzoski was confused. Was she was getting fired for expressing her views as a private citizen to Bezan?

Mitchell denied that it was her signing the petition.

"To this day, I question James Bezan's ethics in forwarding that email to my employer," she said. "But Brett has told me that no politician should know how you feel."

"Perhaps it was a lack of good judgment on my part, but I wasn't aware of other newspaper policies."

In a recorded interview on November 2 between Bezan and journalist Jim Mosher, Bezan admitted to contacting her employer, complaining about the bias in her reporting.

Winzoski said she doesn't know which stories in particular were biased in Bezan's view. She knew she had reported stories that made her a little nervous before she wrote them, the ones that caused people to write letters to the editor. The stories about the Canada-Europe trade agreement. The protest outside a Consertive MP's—not Bezan's—office protesting the omnibus budget bill C-38. The stories she wrote about robocalls during the 2011 federal election. She had also written two op-eds, one of them critical of the Conservatives' dismantling of the Wheat Board.

After forty minutes, Winzoski left Mitchell's office. She drove home unemployed, after two years at a job she loved.

For two years she had driven all over town, covering local festivals, community fundraisers and the occasional municipal cover-up. Six to twelve stories a week at fifteen cents a word paid just enough to cover the basics. Winzoski relished reporting and writing stories that mattered. She loved being outside, meeting new people, and asking questions: especially the ones powerful people didn't want to answer. She loved doing her job.

Winzoski came home that day to find that she couldn't log in to her The Selkirk Record email account.

Two and a half weeks later, Winzoski was still wondering whether she was fired for doing her job.

"We discussed at length what a journalist can do, and I said I do find it that it doesn't add up that a newspaper-- say, your editorial board-- can endorse a party during an election, and somehow how is that, anything but a blatant display of bias, right there? Why can't an editorial board endorse any party at all?" she said. "I don't know-- I'm naïve."

Reporter told to "rein in any bad stories about federal politics"

While getting fired rattled her, Winzoski said she wasn't completely shocked.

Winzoski recalls Mitchell once asking her to do a glowing profile of Bezan, to smooth things over. Maxwell vetoed the idea, immediately recognizing the conflict of interest. But Winzoski's political reporting was a growing concern to the management.

One night in January or February, Maxwell had invited her out for a drink, to talk about Winzoski's stories.

"I was told to rein in any bad stories about federal politics or James Bezan, and to focus on more local issues," Winzoski said. She agreed, reluctantly.

It's a temporary thing, Maxwell told Winzoski. Winzoski asserts that Maxwell was not the one who wanted her to rein in her stories. The orders came from the paper's owners.

Then the 2011 federal election robocalls scandal story broke in May 2012. Winzoski called Bezan for comments. Bezan gave a lengthy response, but not all of it made it into the article.

After the story was published, Bezan called Winzoski while she was driving home. He told her that from now on, he didn't want to answer any more of her questions over the phone.

During this time, Maxwell warned Winzoski that Bezan pulled his advertisements from the paper, and was contacting Mitchell about Winzoski's so-called "biased" reporting.

When contacted by The Vancouver Observer, Mitchell said Winzoski was not an employee, just a freelancer. He did not comment on why she was fired, nor did he comment on his communications with Bezan.

While Mitchell dismissed her as a "freelancer", Winzoski produced over half of the original content for the paper every week.

When she was employed at the Record, the masthead featured in its editorial credits section a photo of her editor, her editor's dog, and herself.

Reporter's photo replaced by editor's dog

The picture of her editor's dog, credited as "The Newshound," was placed above hers.

"The dog been made larger to compensate for the loss of my picture since I left," Winzoski said.

"Before that, my photo was below the dog. I think it's reflective of the priority, and of how I was viewed. It's just a funny detail, but when other people pointed it out to me, I was humiliated."

Jim Mosher, Winzoski's friend and a Manitoba-based journalist, said that he was also shocked by what happened.

"Among my friends, the people who know Jill—it's appalling," Mosher told The Vancouver Observer, with Winzoski sitting next to him.

"But do people really care? These sorts of things are happening in increasing frequency. That's the government— 'Oh well, she shouldn't have done that.'"

Mosher, 57, was also fired from his job as a freelance editor and reporter at another local paper, the Interlake Enterprise. He was fired for speaking up on Winzoski's behalf in an iPolitics article, and for differences of opinion with his employers. In the latest issue of the weekly Enterprise, he wrote a satirical op-ed critical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Bezan did not respond to The Vancouver Observer's questions regarding Winzoski and her reporting.

On his website, Bezan released the following statement:

“The dismissal of a reporter from the Selkirk Record was an independent decision made by her publisher."

Despite her experience, Winzoski plans to continue her career in journalism.

Winzoski pauses when asked what she hopes Canadians can learn from her experience. Advertising money was a powerful force in shaping the news agenda in the case of The Selkirk Record, she said. That, and Bezan directly contacting her employer because her reporting did not align with his interests.

"Through all this, it makes me wonder—I know there're media outlets out there that don't use advertising to generate revenue," she said.

"I just wish that people would realize how important it is that they pay for their media, they pay for newspapers so that we're not dependent on that kind of influence."

Strange. One less member of the Liberal media I guess. I didn't think Harper was allowed to fire them.

[andyt]

That's Lieberal media. Or lame stream media. What's wrong with you?

She's just ahead of the curve. When our Chinese overlords take over, there'll be a general bloodletting anyway. Harper will be OK tho, he's learned to sit up and beg and say alf alf in Chinese.

[Curtman]

Hey, when the government is spending 120 million a year on advertising the action plan alone...

$1:

During this time, Maxwell warned Winzoski that Bezan pulled his advertisements from the paper, and was contacting Mitchell about Winzoski's so-called "biased" reporting.

I guess you get to dictate what the media reports.

[raydan]

What I want to know is when was the last time we had unbiased reporting?

[Xort]

raydan raydan:

What I want to know is when was the last time we had unbiased reporting?

When was the CBC formed? Before then at least.

[Freakinoldguy]

Like the decision or hate it the fact remains that these are privately owned media companies and they can hire and fire with cause who ever they want.

If she feels she was terminated without cause then she's got a whole legal system in place to redress her grievance which would likely serve her better than having someone write scathing articles about her dismissal.

Articles like this don't do much good and give the impression that maybe she was fired for her bias and since she can't go the legal route she's retaliating through a left wing media outlet.

[Curtman]

Seems like this is becoming a thing...

Canadian Mennonite warned of political activities

$1:

A federal government agency has warned Canadian Mennonite about publishing material that could rally its readers to oppose specific politicians and political parties. A letter to the magazine from Canada Revenue says: “It has come to our attention that recent issues . . . have contained editorials and/or articles that appear to promote opposition to a political party, or to candidates for public office.”
...
No specific editorials or articles were cited in the letter, and Dick Benner, Canadian Mennonite editor and publisher, said he phoned Fournier and asked for specific citations. Four days later, in a second conversation with Benner, Fournier cited two editorials and four articles appearing in the Young Voices section of the paper:

An editorial by Benner called readers to “Vote your Core Beliefs” (April 18, 2011). “While we won’t endorse candidates of the five political parties in the upcoming election, or tell you how to vote, we do ask you as Mennonite voters to both examine the political views and voting records of candidates regarding our deeply held core beliefs in peace-making, compassion for the poor and care for creation before placing your ballot in the ballot box.”

In another editorial, titled “A Political Lament” (May 16, 2011), Benner wrote that he was “intrigued and saddened by two political events of the past ten days in two North American countries—the take-out of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. military and the take-over by a militaristic Conservative majority government in Monday’s election in Canada.”

The Young Voices articles cited were entitled “Political Issues for a young electorate,” (Oct. 3, 2011) by Aaron Epp, “Jack Layton inspires young people to vote for change,” (Sept. 19, 2011) by Rachel Bergen, “Planes for Peace,” (Aug. 1, 2011) by Emily Loewen, and “MCC calls on feds to seriously rethink Bill C-10,” (Nov. 14, 2011) by Rachel Bergen.

The section of the Income Tax Act to which Fournier refers says, in part, that a registered charity “devotes substantially all of its resources to charitable purposes,” but that it can “devote part of its resources to political activities—up to 10 per cent,” but that these activities are “ancillary and incidental to its charitable purposes” and “do not include direct or indirect support of or opposition to any political party or candidate for public office.”

Benner said he explained to Fournier that the cited editorials and articles were not partisan in nature and were not advocating specifics, but rather were done “as statements of the Mennonite core belief” in non-violence and objection to war as a solution for political conflict—core beliefs that are deeply held by our people over our 500-year history.”
...

[andyt]

That magazine is likely classified as charitable, and thus is not allowed to engage in political advocacy. You want to do that, you gotta pay taxes, is all.

[Curtman]

andyt andyt:

That magazine is likely classified as charitable, and thus is not allowed to engage in political advocacy. You want to do that, you gotta pay taxes, is all.

Read the last part..

$1:

The section of the Income Tax Act to which Fournier refers says, in part, that a registered charity “devotes substantially all of its resources to charitable purposes,” but that it can “devote part of its resources to political activities—up to 10 per cent,” but that these activities are “ancillary and incidental to its charitable purposes” and “do not include direct or indirect support of or opposition to any political party or candidate for public office.”

Benner said he explained to Fournier that the cited editorials and articles were not partisan in nature and were not advocating specifics, but rather were done “as statements of the Mennonite core belief” in non-violence and objection to war as a solution for political conflict—core beliefs that are deeply held by our people over our 500-year history.”

Another article, from an external source...

Tories squash public dissent

$1:

VANCOUVER -- It's a story that is becoming all too familiar. Last week, the CBC reported the Canadian Mennonite, a church-based organization with a monthly magazine of the same name, received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The organization's charitable status was at risk, said the letter, due to its engagement in "partisan political activities." The message: Stop the objectionable activity or lose your status.

Apparently, under the Income Tax Act, subsections 141.9 (6.1 and 6.2), a charitable organization's political purpose or activity must not "include the direct support or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party." Further, it must not distribute materials that "promote or oppose a candidate or party explicitly or by implication."

These clauses were cited in the letter the Canadian Mennonite received from the CRA. Among its objectionable activities cited by the auditor were voicing concerns about the federal omnibus crime bill (C-10), and an article about Mennonite youth urging the federal government to spend less money on war.

Yet the political criteria of the CRA are applied with remarkable selectivity.

On the federal list of registered charities is the Fraser Institute, a self-described "think-tank" whose mission is to promote free-market economics. It produces a guide called Miningfacts.org, which promotes the economic benefits and safety of the mining industry. This puts the institute squarely behind the Harper government's controversial development and export policies on the oil sands industry via the Northern Gateway Project. The Fraser Institute also posted a recent study on the plan of the federal and B.C. governments to export liquefied natural gas to Asia, advocating removal of "the existing cumbersome and overlapping regulatory process and environmental reviews."

How is this for "direct or indirect support"?

Then there is the Friends of the Oil Sands Interpretive Centre, also a registered charity. Its mission is "to serve as the gateway to Alberta's oilsands by presenting its history, science, and technology, promoting appreciation for it, and providing learning opportunities to all visitors." According to its website, the organization was founded by donations from "individuals, companies, and the Alberta government."

Apparently, that doesn't disqualify it for offering political support either.

Or take Imperial Oil, which -- yes -- appears on the registered charity list although it invites investors, not donations.

Organizations that criticize government policy are another matter, notably on environmental issues.

The Vancouver-based Tides Canada, which opposes the Northern Gateway Project, has found itself subject to repeated audits from the CRA. Environmentalist opposition by organizations such as the Sierra Club has been condemned as "radical" by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, and labelled as domestic extremism by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

Once again, review of charitable status has been used as a threat to encourage silence.

These are hardly isolated episodes of individuals or groups being demonized or intimidated for criticizing the policies of the Harper government.

The ecumenical development organization KAIROS made headlines in 2011 when former minister Bev Oda overrode CIDA's recommendation to continue funding for the organization -- and then lied about it. After questioning in Parliament, it became clear the decision was made for reasons of political difference with the Conservative party, not organizational efficiency.

The use of the Income Tax Act by the Canadian Revenue Agency is a poorly disguised attempt to veil a political agenda as bureaucratic rule enforcement. Charitable organizations that seek to inform public debate on issues of the moment are -- under the extraordinary reading of the legislation pushed by Ottawa -- free only to offer explicit or implicit support for official policies.

"Sing in tune or shut up" is becoming our way of regulating public debate, through methods that are as unethical as they are uncharitable.

Troy Media columnist Eva Sajoo is a research associate with the Centre for the Comparative Study of Muslim Societies and Cultures at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. Her published academic writing focuses on the rights of women and minorities. She currently teaches at SFU.

-- Troy Media

[andyt]

Revoke all their tax free status would be my answer. Too much bullshit in that area anyway.

[fifeboy]

But of course, there is no hidden agenda!

[Curtman]

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/anti_choice.html

$1:

Currently, there are about 170 anti-abortion groups in Canada that have charitable tax status—about
70 groups that appear to be largely political in nature, and 100 anti-abortion "counselling" centres.

I wonder how many of them are being harassed by the CRA about their political publications.

[Zipperfish]

It's pretty easy to dodge the political advocacy rthing if you're a charity. Just don't name names, and you're in the clear. Look at the Fraser Institute--they're a charity. A charity that is designed to take from the poor and give to the rich, but still a charity. I don't think there's much doubt as to what politics they asrcibe to, but theya re very scrupuylous in being non-partisan, which just means not naming names.

That said, there is no doubt that this government is far more vindictive about anyone sepaking against it than any I can think of in the past. Newspapers (most of them) aren't charitable organziations. As private entities they can hire or fire who they want. There's squat this lady can do about, or anyone else for that matter, unless her human rights were violated.

A union could stick up for her, but we seem hellbent on getting rid of those these days.

[Saipan]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It's pretty easy to dodge the political advocacy rthing if you're a charity. Just don't name names, and you're in the clear. Look at the Fraser Institute--they're a charity. A charity that is designed to take from the poor and give to the rich,

HOW do they take from the poor? At gun point?

[Regina]

raydan raydan:

What I want to know is when was the last time we had unbiased reporting?

No kidding!!