The complainant, Andrew Sprague, said that CBC News wrongly identified the status of an emotional support dog that was banned from an Edmonton base.
By Esther Enkin, for the CBC
The complainant, Andrew Sprague, said that CBC News wrongly identified the status of an emotional support dog that was banned from an Edmonton base. I agreed the writer could have done a better job of sorting out the loose use of terms and it affected the clarity and meaning of the story.
In January, CBCNews.ca published a story about an Edmonton soldier and a move to ban his dog from locations on his military base. The story was entitled “Edmonton soldier’s battle over service dog wins support from top general.” You objected to the fact that the CBC writer referred to the dog, Diego, as a “service dog.” You said that CBC Edmonton reported that this was a “certified service dog” and it was not. You said that based on the available evidence, Diego was likely an “emotional support dog” which does not have the same training and the same status when it comes to “unfettered public access.”
You said it would have been easy for a reporter to find out that owners of certified service dogs are provided with documentation, which Sgt. Yetman should have been obliged to provide to substantiate his claim. You said:
While this particular news story did not expressly state that Diego is a certified service dog (except for “Yetman said his dog is certified in the United States and has all the necessary training required by ADI“), and only falsely stated that Diego is a service dog, the implication by stating that Diego is a service dog who resides in the province of Alberta is that Diego is a certified service dog because only certified service dogs are legally recognized in that province as service dogs.
You thought that by implication, CBC Edmonton was saying that “Sgt. Yetman’s public access rights with his dog are protected under Alberta law” because the story referred to the dog as a service dog.