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).