Keeping it Real…

CBC reporter Stephen Smart MUST stop covering the BC Legislature.  Or Rebecca Scott MUST stop working as Christy Clark’s deputy press secretary.

The integrity of CBC Television requires that ONE of those alternatives take place.. PRONTO!

What’s the problem?

Smart, who has covered the legislature for CBC since 2010, and Scott, appointed in 2011 as Clark’s deputy press secretary, are married …TO EACH OTHER.

There is NO WAY, in my opinion, that Smart can continue to cover the Liberal government and Clark while his wife works for it and her. Period. Simple. END OF STORY!

Or maybe not.

Certainly, the CBC’s own ombudsman, Kirk Lapointe … a veteran experienced former journalist and media manager … thinks there is a conflict here.

“There is a violation of CBC Journalist Standards and Policy,” the CBC ombudsman wrote in his review, after a private citizen complained about the apparent conflict of interest.

“Just because there is no impropriety does not mean there is no conflict,” Lapointe wrote. “Whether a real or perceived conflict of interest, no amount of managing it can do more than mitigating the impact of an impartial fulfilment of duties.”

He’s right.

Yet, incredibly, the real culprit in this situation …CBC regional management … decided to let Smart continue to cover the legislature.

“We feel the ombudsman’s ruling found no issues wuth Stephen’s reporting,” said Johnny Michel, managing director for CBC’s Pacific Region. “Without a shred of evidence that Stephen is offside in his reporting, we feel this is now just a personal matter and a corporate matter.”

Not!!!

There’s a lot more to journalism than just what actually appears in stories: what about things any reporter may know but decides NOT to report for various reasons?  What about possible public perceptions …. justified or not … of easier questioning of the premier or government ministers  or tougher questioning of opponents? What about the reporter himself becoming more the center of attention than the story being presented, as viewers, knowing of the conflict ruling, now will always  look for bias?

Problems like these do not relate solely to Stephen Smart: any reporter can face tougher scrutiny once even a POTENTIAL  for bias surfaces. And in covering politics, the sensitivity becomes even greater …to the point of viewer distraction.

The fact that this even has to be debated…. the IDEA that a political legislative reporter’s wife can work personally and directly for the premier and this could be considered acceptable … I believe speaks to the sad state of ethics at CBC Vancouver region; and the fact so many others in the business defend such ludicrous reality exposes the sad standard of journalism in BC today.

Are they so out of touch with real Canadians in Fortress CBC they think they can withstand their own ombudsman’s findings,  the public’s likely suspicions from now on and the decline in credibility among viewers for their news product?

How can Smart possibly cover the provincial election campaign without the question of his impartiality coming up?  And the closer that election comes …the more questions I suspect will be raised about his stories, his spin, his conclusions … handicapping CBC’s coverage.

This will NOT go away … as things now stand,  the situation will get worse: for Smart; for Scott; and for the CBC. (Clark’s credibility with many is already in the bin.)

Smart is a good reporter and Scott (by the way, they both worked at CKNW before) has never, as far as I can determine, ever been guilty of manipulating her hubby’s stories.

But that is not the point.

Let’s say Smart uncovers a great POSITIVE story about government plans to substantially increase funding in health care or housing or education: I submit just about every viewer would see that story as just a government plant, unworthy of deserving any journalistic credit or credibility.

And how could viewers ever be totally comfortable in the belief that Smart is telling us EVERYTHING he knows about skeletons in the government or Clark’s office? Simply not possible.

The regional CBC management response is an insult to journalistic integrity in general, Lapointe in particular, and to all CBC viewers and voters, who have the right to EXPECT there be NO CONNECTIONS OF ANY KIND between those who cover the legislature and those who have politically sensitive jobs working for the government and/or the premier.

Scott has to move from the premier’s staff to another ministry job less political and less directly related to the media.

Or Smart has to move to another beat… unrelated to covering provincial politics… so his stories, and not the reporter, once more become the focus of viewers’ attention.

Harv Oberfeld

• Share

There are few decisions by U.S. President Barack Obama that will evoke more disparate reactions in Canada than his rejection the Keystone Pipeline proposal.

Opponents of ANY tar sands oil extraction activity will celebrate along with environmental activists who oppose ANY pipelines, whether through the U.S. to Texas for refining or through the Coastal range to Canada’s Pacific for export by tanker. Keystone supporters will mourn, briefly, before looking at some other way to get around the Obama administration’s negative ruling.

And then, there’s the “To hell with the U.S., let’s teach them a lesson and ship our oil to China … that’ll show ‘em!”.

I must admit, the latter was my initial response to Obama’s announcement But I’ve been thinking….

It WOULD feel good to tell the Americans to shove off: you don’t want our oil, then it’s YOU who will suffer and we’ll just sell it to the Commies … probably at premium prices,too!

And frankly, much to the chagrin of many of those who read this blog, I have no aversion to a pipeline to the coast …. IF every reasonable precaution is taken to make it as environmentally safe as possible.

The knee-jerk naysayers may hate it, but I’ll bet they all love all those petroleum products/by-products they use every day and in more ways then they even imagine. And not only oil product consumers, but those enjoying the thousands of jobs … directly and indirectly … that come from serving and servicing the tar sands’ extraction industry, its needs, equipment, services, staffing and shipping want to get that oil out… via the coast, if necessary.

And yet, I don’t believe Canada should now rush to the “China solution”.

Let’s face it: almost everything we see unfolding politically in the US right now … and for the next 10 months… is almost TOTALLY election-related.  Obama didn’t like the way the Republicans sttached the Keystone 60-day deadline approval rider to the Bill that extended middle-class tax cuts: that’s WHY he rejected the project.

Wait until AFTER the November election and, if Obama gets his second term, I’d bet he’ll find some way of giving the go-ahead to the project with some sort of face-saving alterations.  And if Obama, loses the Keystone project will get the go-ahead from the Republicans before White House stationery is changed!

So why rush to signing some very long-term huge commitment to China?

That would no doubt anger the Americans (stop cheering the idea!),  interfere in the US election campaign .. and probably hurt Canada’s trade relations with the US in the long run, regardless of who captures the White House in November.  And we saw during the softwood lumber dspute how nasty the Americans can be, even when court ruling after court ruling came out in Canada’s favour.

And according to Stats Canada, Canadian exports in 2011 (to the end of Nov) to China totalled $19 Billion … and to the US,  more than $300 Billion.  So would it really be a good thing for Canada to antagonize its largest trading partner?  Answer that, not from the heart, but as if YOUR job depended on it.

Patience must triumph over passion.

Prime Minister Harper had already warned Canada would not become a “captive supplier” to the US, and he is right.  Canada should sell SOME of its oil to China, but we will not benefit in the long term by entering into huge long-term contracts with China for the bulk of our oil/natural gas.

This is a good time, however, for Harper to squeeze Obama for better access by Canadian companies/suppliers to public infrastructure projects south of the border …  which have become more and more protectionist under the Democrats …. in return for a Canadian go-slow policy on oil market alternatives.

That would be the smartest way to proceed.

But wouldn’t it be nice to see at least some sort of signing ceremony featuring Canada and Chinese energy corporations or our governments signing a new trade agreement for oil … and shaking hands enthusiastically in front of the two countries’ flags.

We’d probably even make the US Evening News … without a hockey stick in sight.

Harv Oberfeld

• Share