CBC Ombudsman weighs in on decision to exclude May from leaders' debate

ShareThisCBC Ombudsman Kirk LaPointe has added his voice to the Elizabeth May uproar. Although LaPointe has decided not to conduct a review into the Canadian broadcast consortium's decision to exclude the Green Party from the televised leaders' debate, despite what he called "hundreds of complaints", he does have a few choice words for the consortium (which includes the big five: CBC, Radio-Canada,CTV, Global and TVA).

"There is increased relevance mathematically, politically and journalistically to include in pivotal events any party voters have supported significantly and nationally," LaPointe writes in a blog entry posted to the Office of the Ombudsman website. "It is difficult to discern how the public interest is best served by exclusion ... There might be no better time for the media to demonstrate their commitment to democracy than in an election."

While LaPointe agreed with the consortium that the Green Party can't claim official recognition because it doesn't have a sitting MP in the House of Commons, he doesn't believe the political reasoning should be a journalistic excuse.

"That logic nestles journalistic practice in behind political custom, perhaps a shelter in a storm but hardly the best long-term mooring for the craft," he writes. "These debates are journalistic creations and ought to be governed only by their best practices."

The (lack of) a Green Party MP has become a sticking point in the discussion. Although May was similarly banned from the debate in 2008, the decision was later reversed. At the time, the Green Party had one MP in the House; now it does not.

And while LaPointe may not agree, this is one of the reasons the consortium won't reverse its decision this time around, chairman Troy Reeb told The Globe and Mail's Steve Ladurantaye.

"That [the 2008 reversal] has complicated the PR issue. But the difference, of course, was last time she had a sitting MP," says Reeb. He continues:

"It is an editorial decision. The process for coming to a decision on format and participation is no different from what happens around the newsroom table of a newspaper. There’s always a vigorous discussion, oftentimes a really good argument. There was a really vigorous discussion this time as well, but on the Green Party question we very quickly came to unanimity."

And in case anybody was still holding out hope, Reeb goes on to close (slam, really) the proverbial door: "Our decision is final and the decision is unanimous. It will not be reconsidered."

Comments

What if the political parties organized a debate, and after a "really good argument," only invited media that reached, say, a certain percentage of Canadian homes? You'd never hear an end to the editorial howls. Yet this consortium, members of a profession that demands government openness and transparency, conspires to create an artificial means test for who may join a political debate that would help the citizenry engage with their democratic options. It stinks to high heaven.

Comment Policy

J-Source invites comments on any content items or on any other topics relevant to journalism. Those posting comments are expected to adhere to standards of accuracy and fairness that would be recognized by those who practise, teach or study journalism.

  • Comments are restricted to registered users. You must register with your full first and last name in order to be eligible to comment.
  • Please communicate as effectively and intelligently as you would in a professional or academic forum, focusing on the issues at hand rather than the characters or characteristics of those involved.
  • This forum is intended for discussion of the craft of journalism, not of the issues of the day that journalists cover; please do not post story tips or press releases.
  • We moderate the forum for adherence to these standards of discourse, and reserve the right to decline any comment or restrict any user from commenting without giving reasons. Every effort is made to approve valid comments within 24 hours of submission.
source