Richard Brennan caught sourcing his own stories?
I wrote a post voicing my concerns that a senior reporter in Ottawa, Richard Brennan for the Toronto Star, has undermined his own ability to gather and report on news in what would be seen as an unbiased manner because of an interview he himself gave to a hard-left online magazine, in which he harshly criticized the government of Stephen Harper using language typically found in the most partisan left-wing forums and chat rooms.
Apparently this was not the first time Richard Brennan moved from being a reporter to being the news story. And when it happened the last time, his editors decided he had fatally crippled his ability to work on that file ever again.
When I read this, I really wondered if this entered into Jayson Blair territory. Maybe Richard Brennan didn't make up the news, exactly, but the difference between what he is alleged to have done and what the infamous New York Times reporter who made up stories did is a difference I'm finding hard to articulate.
As I posted earlier, Richard Brennan, a Toronto Star reporter attached to the Ottawa Bureau, gave an interview to a hard-left online magazine called the Harper Index. In this interview, Brennan accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of acting like a Republican and of bullying. Of course, Richard Brennan is entitled to his opinion, but I wondered if, as a reporter, he has a special responsibility to keep those opinions hidden as much as possible. Presumably if he can keep his opinions to himself, he can also keep them off the page when he writes up a story.
But when a reporter gives an interview, and in that interview lets rip with harsh partisan-coloured criticism, how would he be trusted in the future to give that fair and balanced report?
But as it turns out, this isn't the first time Richard Brennan undermined his own ability to report on a story through questionable decisions.
Back in 2001, Christina Blizzard wrote a piece for the Toronto Sun. It had to do with the Ipperwash events, in which a First Nations man, Dudley George, protesting at the provincial park, was shot dead by police. The tragic event turned into a political nightmare as allegations were made that meddling from Ontario Premier Mike Harris' office led to the death:
It all started in December, 1998, when the Windsor Star and other papers in the Southam news chain ran a story from its then Queen's Park reporter, Richard Brennan, (now with the Toronto Star): "PCs won't deny moving papers."
"The Harris government has refused to respond to allegations that documents dealing with the fatal police shooting of a native man at Ipperwash provincial park were removed from Queen's Park," the first paragraph of this story read.
It went on to quote legal documents that it said showed the government "refusing to admit or deny allegations that documents 'were deposited in a privately owned house outside of Toronto belonging to or controlled by an acquaintance or relative of the defendant (Premier Mike) Harris or one of his present or former staff or assistants.'"
This hurt the Harris government dealing with the issue. Now suspicions were levelled at Mike Harris that he had staffers remove incriminating material to take to their homes in order to be hidden or destroyed.
So how did Richard Brennan get this scoop? He heard it from...Richard Brennan!
So what were the documents, and who was the source of the allegations against the premier and his staff? Legal and court documents obtained by the Sun show the original source for the allegations contained in this "news" story was the reporter who wrote it - Rick Brennan. Here's how it worked: Some time in the fall of 1998, probably in October, Brennan met with Murray Klippenstein, lawyer for the George family, who had launched a civil wrongful death suit against Harris and other provincial politicians on behalf of the family.
Brennan told Klippenstein a story he had apparently heard about staff members in the premier's office removing boxes of material related to the Ipperwash case, taking them to the home of the relative of one of the premier's assistants, and destroying them. Soon after, on Nov. 12, Klippenstein issued a "Request to Admit," a common legal document that basically sets out the allegations of one party and asks the defendant to admit they are true. In this instance, the Request to Admit asked the government to admit staff had removed documents after the George shooting and deposited them in a private home of an acquaintance of Harris where they were subsequently "shredded, or destroyed in some other way ..."
Now the government responded vigourously to the allegation, demanding to know where the information came from. Klippenstein refused to divulge the source, which was Richard Brennan. In the mean time, Richard Brennan used the "Request to Admit" filed by Klippenstein as the factual basis for the published story.
Amusingly, Brennan actually called Klippenstein to get his reaction to the story.
The government didn't back down, and they won their point. First Justice Gloria Epstein, and then later Divisional Court Justice John O'Driscoll, supported the government's position that you can't just make wild allegations like the one Klippenstein made without some sort of basis in fact:
The matter was next taken to the divisional court where it was heard by Justice John O'Driscoll. He upheld Epstein's ruling that Klippenstein had to reveal the identity of his anonymous source, using even stronger language.
O'Driscoll wrote: "What has happened here is akin to, in my view, tossing a grenade over a wall and then saying it's not relevant to find out whether it's a loaded grenade or simply a dud. In my view, if the relevancy of these questions had originally been in doubt or been marginal, the actions of counsel for the plaintiffs have made them very relevant."
O'Driscoll also ordered the plaintiffs to pay $8,000 in court costs to Harris, Runciman and Harnick.
That was in June 2000. By October, Klippenstein wrote to the government and revealed his source: Richard Brennan. A law clerk provided more information:
Affidavits sworn by Klippenstein's law clerk, Erika Savage, indicate that Brennan was the only source for the Request to Admit and that she had no idea where his information came from that the supposedly removed documents were related to Ipperwash. She also affirmed that Klippenstein had faxed a copy of the Request to Admit to Brennan before his story appeared.
Klippenstein and Savage pointed out they had no reason to question Brennan as a source as he was a respected journalist with many years of experience covering Queen's Park.
Interesting that Klippenstein and Savage voiced no concerns when Brennan then turned his own leaked information into a major news story, using Klippenstein and his "Request to Admit" as a proxy source. If I saw that happen, I might re-evaluate my characterization of the reporter as being "respected".
The story peters out there. Richard Brennan essentially clammed up:
Klippenstein was asked to contact Brennan to get his substantiation for the story. That was done, but Brennan has thus far not replied.
Klippenstein told me that while the story about the removal of documents is no longer part of the George family suit, there are other important issues that need to be addressed.
Right then. Any repercussions?
Well, the Toronto Star did not trust Brennan with the Ipperwash file:
Toronto Star managing editor Mary Deanne Shears said, "the incident took place long before Rick Brennan joined the Star and as soon as the matter was brought to my attention, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety ... or bias, we decided Brennan would not cover the Ipperwash story."
I can't imagine a situation stranger than this. It is one thing to tell a reporter he can't cover a story because it involves a friend or a family member or an outside business interest. Conflicts of interest happen often, and the challenge is to make sure people aren't conflicted. But this wasn't a conflict of interest. This was a situation in which a reporter skirted close to manufacturing the news. There was enough evidence of something wrong to keep Brennan away from the Ipperwash story. To put it simply, it appeared that the Toronto Star thought Brennan's actions made it impossible for him to have credibility as a reporter on this story.
Since then, the accusation, first sourced by Richard Brennan before he reported on it, that Premier Mike Harris had been involved in the removal and destruction of documents, was dropped:
Finally, just over a week ago, on Sept. 27, a story appeared on page 2 of the Star, saying the George family had dropped the accusations regarding the removal of the documents from the premier's office. There were no apologies, or regrets, for those whose reputations had been smeared.
The Toronto Star's decision to keep Brennan off the Ipperwash story was clearly prompted by a concern that Brennan's actions made it difficult, if not impossible, for Brennan to function as a trusted reporter on this story. Which then comes back to my concern with Brennan's interview with the Harper Index. Can Richard Brennan, in agreeing to be the subject of a news story instead of reporting on one, and in using that opportunity to offer up some extremely harsh and partisan-sounding criticisms of the sitting government in Ottawa, continue to function as a trusted reporter on Ottawa politics?
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Richard Brennan Toronto Star Ipperwash Dudley George Christina Blizzard Toronto Sun Mike Harris Ontario Canada Stephen Harper Conservative Party Harper Index
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I hardly think that what Mr. Brennan said about the 'Conservative' Government would constitute any form of 'undermining' of his 'objectivity' at the 'Toronto Star. His stated values would I think be the bare minimum required to even get into the door there for an job interview.
As to the Ipperwash example you cite as a precedent ---- Native People (or whatever the current PC term is) involved in that story. Not the same thing at all. Every Star 'reporter' must by default bend over backwards to be seen as 'unbiased' and more than 'fair' on any stories involving any of the Star's personal 'favorites', but for commentary on a 'Conservative' Government.
Not so much.
Posted by: dougf at October 17, 2007 05:58 PM
I hope that Brennan is the example this extreme of MSM bias, but how do we find out?
Posted by: felis corpulentis at October 17, 2007 06:16 PM
I remember a time when Credibility was important. From the very start of this Conservative Government the Press has been complaining and characterising Prime minister Harper as uncooperative and secretive. Many of the articles along these lines really left me wondering what it was doing to there credibility. How do we trust a media that so openly shows distaste for the Prime Minister?
Posted by: Ken M at October 17, 2007 07:27 PM
How do we trust the Media? We don't.
Posted by: Libby at October 17, 2007 08:31 PM
To me as a consumer of news and information, it is impressive for a journalist to rely on independent reliable sources. It is not so impressive for said journalist to have no such sources. For Richard Brennan to pretend that he has independent reliable sources when he knows there none exist is sleazy and dishonest.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at October 17, 2007 08:39 PM
Ahh, it's nice to see that the Republican playbook doesn't only apply to the PMO. Smear the messenger, a favorite tactic of the fightin' keyboardists down south. Whenever they don't like the message, forget the facts, and smear the messenger. Michelle Malkin attacking 12-year old Graeme Frost's family, and Steve Janke going for Richard Brennan's jugular.
Good to see we've all got our priorities settled.
Posted by: Honest Iago at October 18, 2007 06:41 AM
"Ahh, it's nice to see that the Republican playbook doesn't only apply to the PMO. Smear the messenger, a favorite tactic of the fightin' keyboardists down south. Whenever they don't like the message, forget the facts, and smear the messenger. Michelle Malkin attacking 12-year old Graeme Frost's family, and Steve Janke going for Richard Brennan's jugular."
"Honest" Iago, surely you see some irony in the fact that, rather than make an actual, you know, *argument* to refute Steve's point, you simply launch an ad hominem attack against him? Jesus man, can you really be that bereft of self insight?
Posted by: Jonathan W at October 18, 2007 07:00 AM
I like this. Yes let's just f*** over anybody that doesn't see it our way. Good work on getting this on Bourque. Rip him to shreds. We must win. Always win win win.
Posted by: geely at October 18, 2007 10:33 AM
What's wrong with Republicans? BDS is incredibly far ranging and THAT'S why the mainstream press needs aggressive oversight to ensure they maintain a modicum of non-partisan, ethical reporting. Even a low-grade negative drumbeat by the press wears people down if they keep it up long enough. I'm dismayed but amused to see bullying held up as some sort of crime. Bullying is a legitimate business tool for use in negotiations and selling. Grow up folks and see the world as it is not how you wish it to be. Communal nirvana has been attempted all around the world. Vestiges are very much in evidence illustrating the reality. It ain't pretty.
Posted by: iowavette at October 18, 2007 01:16 PM
Christina Blizzard is your source? You blew your credibility out the window right there. I hope Brennan sues your ass off for comparing him to Jayson Blair.
As for ethical conduct, there must be something in your Holy Conservative Catechism about impersonating MPs on radio. Perhaps Rahim Jaffer can explain further.
The great Rahim Jaffer phone-in hoax
by Robert Fulford
(The National Post, March 21, 2001)
Some said it was a hoax, others called it a gaffe, and those who were sympathetic suggested it was a lapse. Astonishingly, no one seemed delighted to learn that Matthew Johnston had impersonated his boss, Rahim Jaffer, MP, in an interview on a Vancouver radio station last weekend. In fact, the Ottawa faces appearing on TV were so long that you might almost think something bad had happened. The 800-odd words in the National Post's main piece yesterday included apologize, disgraced, lying, tearful, devastated, imbroglio, resign, investigating, abhorrent and shocked, more baleful language than you find in most murder coverage. The Vancouver radio station's listeners were reported to be angry, which can only mean they were desperate for something to be angry about.
Has the country lost its sense of humour? Do these people --politicians, TV reporters, editorial writers, callers to phone-in shows, etc. -- imagine that Canada is such a laff riot that we can afford to be ungrateful when something genuinely funny happens? Rather than obloquy, the two gentlemen involved deserve praise for wit and originality.
What Mr. Johnston pulled off, and Mr. Jaffer briefly lied to cover up, was applied satire.
Because the MP was double-booked (so the story goes), the assistant stepped in like an understudy and took over his role. It must have seemed logical. If Mr. Johnston is like most assistants, he probably thinks he understands the material better than his boss and could expect to do at least as well on the air.
But as things worked out, the incident focused attention on two more or less serious issues. It reminded us, first, that most politicians say only what we expect anyway, and usually serve as mouthpieces for assistants and speech writers. So why not have journalists interview the speechwriters and cut out (as they say in business) the middleman? The other point is that the Alliance is so weak and unfocused in Opposition that it might as well not be there, a comment often made in Ottawa these days. Mr. Johnston simply turned this widespread perception into a literal fact.
Why did he do it? Perhaps only his subconscious knows. In any case, he spontaneously constructed what the art world used to call a "Happening," an event that was partly staged and partly unpredictable. Here, the unpredictable part was the aftermath.
The precedent was set decades ago by Andy Warhol, when he was invited to lecture at universities. Warhol couldn't speak, or wouldn't. An audience or a microphone terrified him, and he answered most questions with one or two syllables, his longer responses consisting of "Uh ... no, I don't think so, probably." So he sent out to the universities a mock-Andy, someone who looked like him, in a fright wig just like his, to show a couple of Warhol movies and take questions. To Warhol, using a doppelg„nger seemed as logical as the Vancouver substitution did to Mr. Johnston. The student audiences could enjoy gawking at a reasonable facsimile, the colleges could enjoy the reflection of his fame, and the impersonator would be, at a minimum, as articulate as Warhol.
Unfortunately, the ruse was exposed when a gossip column reported Andy's appearance at a party in New York just as the impersonator was performing at a university in the Midwest. But Warhol, always ahead of his time, had done his part to invent virtual reality.
The "lie" that Mr. Jaffer briefly told (he first claimed he had actually done the interview, then quickly changed his story) was easily the most innocent fib exposed in Ottawa in years. Even so, he was relieved of his post as chair of the Alliance's small business committee and sent in disgrace to the backbenches. Yesterday morning he stood up in the House and apologized, looking like a penitent schoolboy who had been told to take it like a man. He will no doubt be back in a while, cleansed by time and contrition. He will not be the first politician denigrated for what should be considered his finest hour. As for Mr. Johnston, the scapegoat aide, he will no doubt soon find work with an employer who appreciates his comic sense.
Together, they did more for the gaiety of the nation than most of our paid TV clowns. They also reminded us that if politicians can't organize the health system or protect the dollar (and they can't), then they can at least earn their pay by amusing us.
Posted by: Derek at October 18, 2007 01:29 PM
Hi Derek. Nice to see the Daisy Group hasn't forgotten about me.
Not sure what your point is. People do dumb stuff. Even bad stuff. That one person does something wrong doesn't give another person a freebie.
In any case, the situation you've raised has to do with identity. As no doubt you've noticed, the Brennan situation is an ontological paradox of sorts. Though you and I know what that means, I'll explain it for other people.
Imagine that an old man comes to you in a park and hands you papers. On these papers is a plan for a time machine, he tells you, and you must build it. For fifty years you work on it until it is complete. For your first trip, you decide to go back and see yourself as a youth again. You need a memorable moment to lock onto, and the most memorable is when you received those life-changing plans from that old stranger. You go back and watch from behind a tree. There is your younger self walking along the path. But where is the stranger? Suddenly you realize the stranger is not coming because it was you. Out of your briefcase, you take a recent set of plans of the machine that you constructed (the original papers long since disintegrated), run to your younger self, hand over the plans with the instructions to build the machine, and leave.
The paradox? Who designed the time machine in the first place? You built the machine based on the plans you committed to paper after having built the machine based on those plans.
Brennan tells Klippenstein about the moved papers. Klippenstein creates a Request to Admit based on that information. Brennan writes a story about the moved papers based on the Request to Admit. But the story has no beginning, because the story Brennan wrote is the same story he told to Klippenstein. As far as we can tell, no papers were moved, and the story's only basis is itself (with Klippenstein in the middle) -- a loop with no beginning.
From a journalistic point of view, Brennan's printed story never mentions the fact that Klippenstein's Request to Admit was prompted by Brennan's story. Of course it didn't.
Just from a logical point of view, this has to be a big problem, since there is nothing outside of the story itself on which to put this story on a factual basis. The only demonstrable "fact" was that Klippenstein had filed a Request to Admit, but since it was created as a response to the story itself, it is not adequate to the job of taking the story out of this self-referential loop.
And so the Toronto Star said Brennan was off the story. His behaviour compromised his ability to credibly report on Ipperwash. Not to mention giving anyone thinking about it paradox headaches.
Posted by: Steve Janke at October 19, 2007 11:51 AM
Rick Brennan as right wing as they come. Should be a supporter of any conservative government in his heart. But I suspect he's also so burned by the current government's approach to the gallery that he's no fan of THIS conservative government.
Question why the Harper group (whom I voted for and support still) decided to make enemies out of everyone in the gallery. They may not have ALL been supporters before but surely NONE of them are supportive now.
Posted by: Anne at October 21, 2007 07:17 PM
Abstract paintings
Angel painting
animal paintings
ballet paintings
beach painting
Boat painting
building painting
Children painting
Christ painting
church painting
City painting
Cottage painting
Dancer painting
field painting
Floral paintings
Garden painting
Hunting paintings
impressionist painting
Knight painting
Lady painting
Landscape painting
Lighthouse paintings
Music painting
Nude painting
Oriental paintings
Piano painting
Seascapes paintings
Still Life paintings
street painting
sunset painting
Tropical paintings
Venice paintings
Village painting
wine paintingsalvador dali paintings
thomas kinkade paintings
pablo picasso paintings
vincent van gogh paintings
claude monet paintings
diego rivera paintings
Posted by: aswkin at July 17, 2008 08:25 AM
 
|
|
