To say I am disappointed with The Sudbury Star’s unapologetic stance regarding their “City misled public…” article would be an understatement. The article was released on the Saturday before the election, which took place this Monday, and may have affected the results of the election. This is more than a case of poor timing.
The article begins: “One of the first things this council did four years ago was to authorize senior city managers to mislead the public about the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of a former employee, a Sudbury Star investigation reveals.”
By “Sudbury Star investigation,” they mean brown envelope that mysteriously showed up in their office at the beginning of the week, containing information only employees in City Hall knew.
Marianne Matichuk worked for the city for 17 years. The Star supported Matichuk in an editorial on Friday, even using her buzz-word in their headline (“Change;” her website is realchangenow.ca, and she’s campaigning on the idea of change in council).
The article has NO sources in it that are current, and did not allow any balance whatsoever. I have a serious issue with their “attempts” to contact John Rodriguez, and any other relevant sources for the article:
“Calls to Stephen and Mieto were not returned. E-mails asking for response sent to Mayor John Rodriguez and all city councillors were not returned.
CAO Doug Nadorozny did respond, asking for more time in order to contact Stephen.”
So you can’t pick up the phone and call John Rodriguez, the man whose campaign you just torpedoed? Don’t give me that. No journalist or paper, with integrity, would launch a story like that at a candidate, and then not even make a decent effort to contact them.
Brian MacLeod, The Star’s Managing Editor, was on CBC’s Points North with Jason Turnbull earlier today, and his interview failed to seriously respond to any of these issues. He defended the article’s timing by revealing how the brown envelope showed up in their office at the beginning of the week.
I don’t know why it would take an entire week to write a story, which did not use any sources, or how in one week’s time a city council reporter as seasoned as Mike Whitehouse could not contact John Rodriguez. Whitehouse is a better reporter than that.
MacLeod also defended the paper’s editorial, stating that they always backed a candidate. I understand their practice of backing a candidate in an election, although I personally don’t believe journalists should publicly back any candidate. I will agree to disagree with that issue.
I am not willing to let their other irresponsible behaviour in this election go, however. When you support a candidate on Friday, and then torpedo her main competition on Saturday, without letting the competition respond, that is inexcusable.
Rodriguez responded to the article, after he was defeated in the election, claiming it was something one would typically see in the southern United States. He is right. It was gutless, and to shrug off his comments as the emotional response of a defeated politician is irresponsible, and childish, but that was the Star’s response anyways.
I was pleased to see Turnbull ask some hard questions about the issue, but it’s not enough to have one interview about it and then let it disappear. As journalists, we must police ourselves when it comes to ethics and responsibility. Most importantly, we must watch for bias.
I agree with Hunter S. Thomson that objectivity is impossible, but that does not mean we can absolve ourselves from the pursuit of it. We must be vigilant to watch our biases do not interfere with our coverage of the news, and be sure not to negatively affect matters we should merely observe and report on.
The Sudbury Star has failed the public, and tried to absolve themselves of responsibility for doing so. It will likely be shrugged off by the masses, but I hope people will take notice of how important a failing like this is to democracy. Their poor judgement may have affected the results of a democratic election, and that is a more powerful failure than any ordinary slander.
Maybe shoddy reporting like this has something to do with the public’s distrust of journalists? (the three links included here are from the UK, USA, and Canada, respectively).
Andy Veilleux 
Great post, man.
thanks Colin 🙂
A clarification:
I don’t mean to imply Marianne’s campaign team had anything to do directly with the documents that were given to the Sudbury Star. My comments are meant to imply someone who felt empathetic towards her campaign from within the City probably gave the documents, which does not seem unlikely and is not a slight against her, considering she did not have anything to do with the documents being given to The Star to my knowledge.
E-mailing counts as trying to contact. True, they should have tried phoning him, but I highly doubt the man would have simply forgotten to check his email. Especially considering he’s running for reelection, and many people like email.
Now, of course they could have waited until after the election to run the story. When any possible chance of the public being able to do anything about it was lost.
So, is their inability to contact the mayor your only beef? That’s pretty weak.
Thanks for the comment. My “beef” is with the following:
1) emailing a candidate and running the story without calling him (when he makes his cell phone readily available to beat politics reporters, generally)
2) supporting one candidate than bombing another’s campaign the following day with a biased article
3) running an article on information that is four years old, which has been acquired through shady circumstances, from a person with an obvious agenda
4) claiming it was unearthed in a “Sudbury Star investigation” when it was dropped off in their office
5) the article didn’t have any sources in it that weren’t comments from nearly four years ago
6) rather than entertaining the thought the editorial followed by such a biased article might have been unethical, or at least somewhere in the grey area, they’ve absolved themselves of any responsibility
1) Agreed.
2) How exactly was the article biased? Because it criticized the mayor for his lack of transparency? Have you been paying attention? That is old news. Then again, so was this.
3) Who cares where they got it from, did Woodward and Bernstein check the motives of Deep Throat? …there’s probably a fallacy in there, but I can’t find it.
4) Agreed. That was just cheap. But I can’t help and laugh at that. They investigated an envelope.
5) Yeah, well, that’s likely because the Rodriguez campaign wanted to ensure the article didn’t come out until after the election, so they held back their comments.
6) Again, what bias? Look, I’m probably just thick but I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I encourage criticism of government, but you must always let a person have the right to defend themselves in journalism. The bias is running the article without that defense to balance it, especially after supporting the opposing candidate, and going soft on her all election. The editorial was even soft, it basically states “she doesn’t have a platform, but vote for her.” Today I spoke to a seasoned journalist who referred to it as the “softest mayoral candidate support editorial ever.”
Excellent summary of the basic points, Andy.
Don’t forget that 4 days before those ‘anonymously delivered’ wrongful dismal documents were published, the Star reported on Marianne Matichuk openly leaking the results of a unreleased focus group report on internal communications problems at city hall. This blatant act lead Rodriguez to accuse her of violating employees’ privacy.
Might the Matichuk team have learned the term ‘plausible deniablity’ before releasing their next leak?
As for the source of the leaks, it’s worth remember that Paul Demers, her campaign manager, is a fellow city hall insider. He was the ‘principal advisor’ & right-hand man to former mayor Courtemanche and has also been a Nickle Belt Conservative Party candidate in the past.
This is all speculation but if the Sudbury Star is simply going to lie about the situation than somebody has to start the ball rolling.
To summarize: our local Conservative-supporting Sun Media newspaper violates journalist ethics to disingenuously release minor but damaging city hall leaks in the final week of the campaign. This assists the Conservative-backed candidate, who the Star had just finished endorsing, to win the race for mayor. Her win results in a union-backed mayor being replaced with a Vale-Inco employee whose slick, well financed campaign appeared out of nowhere less than a month before the election.
And the response by Sudbury Star editor Brian Macleod to explain this: “The Sudbury Star is not a right wing, or left wing newspaper. We do not offer opinions based on ideology.”
F*#k you too, Brian.
His ‘non-ideological ideology’ sophistry is as common as it is inane. Why not just adopt Fox New’s “Fair & Balanced’ slogan?
I didn’t hear him on CBC, but Macleod’s article “Anatomy of a newspaper’s election campaign editorial” is a testament to double speak, sloppy thinking and dishonesty. It was the first and only time I have encountered the term ‘change culture’ – apparently it is a noun and the primary reason for endorsing a mayor.
Macleod’s endorsement of Matichuk (“Matichuk for change”) borders on the surreal, with comparisons to cartoon characters trumping the non-existence of any Matichuk platform. I encourage people to read both articles to see modern examples of journalism’s subservient to partisan politics.
Newspapers remain the lifeblood of informed citizenry and editors are vital guardians of that task. Yet my brain hurts after reading Macleod’s contorted logic. Newspapers playing partisan politics is the norm – why not admit it? The Star became part of the Matichuk campaign – why not apologize?
You don’t have to be a Rodriguez voter (I wasn’t) to realize something is deeply wrong at the Sudbury Star
PAX
Thanks for the comment Hobb. You bring up some very interesting points, and your grasp of events, as always, is incredible. It’s great to see you;ve been keeping up on these events as well, as I’ve found them to be a farce.
Probably…so? It’s not the paper’s responsibility to reveal their sources, only to confirm the information’s good.
Honest question, why do you keep mentioning the paper and Matichuk are conservative? What does that have to do with anything? Also, who cares when the campaign appeared?
Eloquent.
I don’t see anything wrong other than, they should have called Rodriguez instead of emailing him.
Besides, the story didn’t really reveal anything negative about the former mayor, other than his lack of transparency, but we knew that years ago, during the Elton John scandal. According to the article, they had damn good reason to fire the man, he was an idiot.
Hello Blackwidower,
1) Newspapers should only use anonymous source in extreme circumstances. The Star shouldn’t be Wikileaks – especially during the sensitive times of elections when journalists need to operate as transparently as possible. Also see Andy’s fourth point.
2) Most newspaper have political allegiances. It was more blatant (yet also more open) in the past and continues to this day.
Ont. PC leader John Tory was the CEO of Rogers. CTVglobemedia’s CEO was a close friend of Paul Martin. Canwest (RIP) loved Steven Harper. The current owner of Torstar has floated balloons about being a Liberal leader candidate. It’s the nature of the beast. Journalism’s focus (obsession?) on objectivity is an attempt to deal with the partisan nature of the business.
Many towns only have one daily paper and so the potential politic bias of that newspaper are important – even if only perception. Macleod’s claim of neutrality is neither self-evident nor supported by the optics of the situation.
3) The need for good journalism is especially great in municipal elections because the lack of traditional party identification can be confusing to voters. The sudden appearance of Matichuck’s campaign just a month before the election date means she had no political background or history so voters had to rely further on journalists.
4) So why didn’t they call him?
Journalistic ethics are like the Geneva Convention. The hope is that by journalists restraining themselves from the worst acts in an already blood-thirsty environment some semblance of a larger social fabric can be preserved.
Relying on anonymous sources during an important period led directly to the invasion of Iraq.
Partisan reporting undermines a communities ability to make informed political decisions.
Hope this helps,
PAX
MatichukGate: The First Real test of Real Change!
The ‘inner workings’ at City Hall are now directly tied to the Real Change Campaign through the Brown envelope leak of confidential employee records and could very well be the first test of accountability and transparency for the New Mayor and Council. Real Change and an “end to the old school politics”, was used as one of the catchphrases used in the election Campaign and featured prominently in the Facebook ad that ran for Matichuk for Mayor.
Questions remain – who leaked what and when, are both leaks from the same city employee or department, is there an email trail?, what was the role of the previous council etc. – How the issue is followed will certainly make for news for years to come as I ‘ve heard that now the City may be sued for the release of confidential employment records.
The burden now falls on the new Mayor and Council to address the questions raised. Will further leaks continue? Will councilors be instructed not to talk to the media? Will FOI requests be necessary?
I have no doubt there is a lot more ‘old news’ at City Hall that would make for outrage and hot news if released.For example I’ve requested a copy of another buried study to be released – The Energy Efficiency Audit of City run buildings funded by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund at a cost of over $150,000 over 5 years ago and am still waiting for a response. Liike WaterGate, the ‘cover-up’ could become as important as the original dirty tricks campaign.
If only the leaks had a catchy slick media catchphrase that caught on with the public. Hmm…Maybe MatichukGate? It certainly has a ring to it!!
Star-Gate?
It could bring in the Richard Dean Anderson crowd…
hah this is true.. it has a ring to it.
Michael Atkins, president of the Northern Life newspaper, sees the “busy little ghost” of former Conservative mayor, Jim Gordon, in Matichuk’s victory. [http://www.northernlife.ca/news/columns/atkins/mayor281010.aspx]
Add this to her campaign manager, Paul Demers, being ‘principal advisor’ to former Conservative mayor Dave Courtemanche and I think it is safe to say that, despite her ‘Liberal’-red signs, Matichuk was a Conservative candidate.
I’m sure this was obvious to political insiders but most of us have to rely on journalists.
What I don’t get is why the Star/Matichuk went overboard with the leaks in the last week? She won by 10% of the vote. Why the last minute dirty tricks?
If her campaign stuck to wedge issues & ripping down signs (like the Rodriguez crew did), on one would care.
One thing it’s important to realize here is that the city has a legal obligation under provincial labour law to maintain strict confidentiality around matters relating to an employee’s dismissal. Council isn’t *allowed* to discuss a former city bureaucrat’s job performance in the media, because they can get sued for violating his privacy. Accordingly, paying him to resign voluntarily, and then keeping as silent about what happened as possible, is really the only option they *have* in a case such as this.
I suppose that in a very skewed sense it can be portrayed as “misleading the public” — but the reality is that the city would actually have been breaking the law if they’d handled the matter any other way whatsoever. Admittedly, it can be difficult to balance the public’s “right” to know every sordid detail of what goes on at City Hall with the city’s legal obligations in a personnel matter — but there’s not much question the Sudbury Star acted in a biased and unethical manner here.
good point Craig, thanks for posting.
Re: MatichukGate Questions.
If Mayor Matichuk was in the Health and Safety Department in the City would Alan Stephen have been her boss at the time? Thank God the Sudbury Star has cctv cameras so the video footage of the brown envelope being dropped off will be on film!
hmm you raise an interesting point.
I wrote a brief article that puts the Star’s current electoral hi-jinx in a local historical perspective:
http://users.vianet.ca/beckettt/pluschange.htm
It has axe-handle beatings, Taliban-style ‘night letters’, Barons, whore-houses, Nazis, idealistic Harvard reporters, “debauchery trips”, Conrad Black’s evil apprentice and the Frankenstein beast called ‘Quebecor/Osprey/Sun Media’ .
All of them part of the Sudbury Star’s dark past…and present.
thanks for sharing Hobb!
Apparently Brian Macleod wasn’t the only managing editor in bed with the Matichuk campaign!
Turns out that owner of Le Voyageur, Réjean Grenier, wrote the french press releases for Matichuk during the campaign and now personally handles her interview requests.
http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/Ontario/2010/11/10/005-grenier-matichuk.shtml
Of course the Le Voyageur newspaper gave Matichuk a nice editorial endorsement and echoed her position on banning Popescu from debates.
Just like the Star did.
Grenier, a former editor with CBC Radio, wants to be Sudbury’s new Liberal MP. So who’s worse Macleod, a company man doing the bidding of his Conservative corporate masters, or Grenier who has own local Liberal ambitions?
All I know is that somewhere a public relations scumbag is cashing a fat cheque.
Yeah I was aware of that as well, and he wasn’t the only one either… the picture is looking pretty bleak overall.
Matichuk violated campaign provisions of the Municipal Elections Act and forfeits office.
She filed her nomination papers on Sept 9.
Sept 9 is when her campaign period began.
She is not allowed to spend money outside of her camapign period.
She paid for her campaign website hosting fees prior to Sept 9, on August 16 to be exact.
She paid for her domain name prior to Sept. 9 and prior to August 16.
Her applicable maximum amount of campaign expenses is set by a predeterminated formula.
She falsely increased her campaign amount by spending money outside her campaign period.
These violations of law mean she loses her office before she even takes it.
The clerk was required, before voting day, to give her notice of the penalties under subsections 80 (2) and 92 (5) related to election campaign finances.
She knows she broke the law more than once and still hasn’t issued a disclaimer resigning.
Paul Demers is a party to each of her offices by way of s. 21 of the Criminal Code.
She’s legally blonde.
Demers is legally braindead.
In March, she will be committing another offence as she will be filing a false financial election statement.
Each offence faces up to a $25,000 fine.
She’s committed several.
So has Paul.
I thought she ran on REAL-CHANGE-NOW?
It’s just more of the same.
But this time, our mayor is going to be removed.
I would love to see the evidence of all of these claims if you’ve got it. Feel free to email me at andyv92@hotmail.com.
Pingback: 2010 in review – blog stats | Andy Veilleux's website
Just an update on the claims I made in my essay on Sudbury’s 2010 mayoral election (available at http://users.vianet.ca/beckettt/pluschange.htm) –
1) So did Matichuk massively outspend all other candidates on advertising?
“Matichuk spent almost as much money on her campaign for Sudbury’s mayoralty as the seven other candidates she faced put together, records show.Matichuk spent $64,000 on advertising, $19,000 on staffing and contracted services and $11,000 on signs. Rodriguez spent $12,372.16 on advertising, $1,819.30 on brochures and $5,680.64 for signs.”
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3049264
2) Was Matichuk a Conservative Party-backed candidate?
“Christine Hogarth who acted as the senior adviser to former Progressive Conservative Ontario Premiers Mike Harris and Ernie Eves has been hired as Greater Sudbury Mayor Marianne Matichuk’s new chief of staff.”
http://www.northernlife.ca/news/localNews/2011/04/hogarth030411.aspx
3) Is the Sudbury Star’s editor still bizarrely praising Matichuk’s destructive power like when he infamously dubbed her “a Tasmanian devil whose whirlwind is destructive”?
“It was an audacious move by the mayor that had the effect…of throwing “a bomb into the centre of council chambers” ”
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3065907&pg=2
PAX
well done Hobb. Spot on for sure.
-The Matichuk Method-
In a close election race, a dominant newspaper makes an editorial endorsement of a Conservative candidate that blatantly abandons logic and morality.
*‘Matichuk for Change’ (Sudbury Star)
*‘Facing up to our challenges’ (Globe and Mail)
Forced to justify their partisan hackery by a disgusted readership, they resort to the ‘South Park defense’: “Don’t worry, we’re actually fair and balanced, but more importantly, it’s all just entertainment, so don’t take it so seriously, folks.”
*Anatomy of a newspaper’s election campaign editorial (Sudbury Star)
*Reader reaction to The Globe’s endorsement of Stephen Harper (Globe and Mail)
On the Friday before the election, the Conservatives use an ‘anonymous source’ to release some ancient piece of information about their labour opponent through the Conservative-run Sun Media. The dominant newspaper dutifully reports this crudely transparent smear attempt.
*City misled public about manager’s dismissal (Sudbury Star)
*Layton calls massage-clinic reports a ‘smear” (Globe and Mail)
Either the Sudbury municipal election was a trial run or it was taken from the same Tory playbook…
and….
The OPP racket squad is called in to investigate the leak.
*OPP to probe leak of private report (Sudbury Star)
*Police launch investigation into Layton massage-clinic breach (Globe & Mail)
This would be the same OPP whose last Commissioner is currently a Conservative candidate…
PAX
hah, that’s too funny and too true. I’d vote it was the same playbook, and that Sudbury wasn’t the first run. The only first for Sudbury I can think of was parking meters 😉
Parking meters and coronary bypass surgery, yep.
And let’s also not forget that prior to being commissioner of the OPP, said Conservative candidate was also chief of the Toronto Police (them what had the massage notes in their files in the first place.)
good advice
Mike Whitehouse, the Sudbury Star reporter who wrote the infamous article in question, is now working as “communications and media adviser” for Matichuk!
http://www.northernlife.ca/news/localNews/2012/06/18-mike-whitehouse-sudbury.aspx
The ‘revolving door’ between journalism and politics is as old as those professions, but in cases like this, where there is such an obvious appearance of a quid pro quo, there should be more than just the usual incestuous back-slapping by city councillors and city reporters about it, there should be outrage or at least serious concern.
I believe that In an era where mayors are called “CEOs” and citizens are called “tax-payers”, vital questions about democracy and ethics are becoming moot.
Je vais ԁire que ce n’еst guère іnexact !!