Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Jan's assessment

The night was a smashing success. We filled the auditorium, despite the frigid night. I'd say it was 90 per cent full - is that about 250 people?

Our four panelists were articulate, engaging and frank. They had the audience, including many J students, on the edge of their seats the whole night. Desbarats ran the panel smoothly, keeping everyone on time, asking good questions. He also injected a dose of everyday reality with his candor; he once disclosed a source's identity in a courtroom after the plaintiff threatened to sue him.

Andrew was impassioned and moving. He talked about how he explained to his young children why he wasn't going to listen to the police: "Pinky swear," he said, holding up his little finger.
Juliet, constrained by her lawyers, still managed to rivet everyone. The police had even noted the time she peeked through her blinds to see them swarming her driveway. She also offered practical advice on what to do. (Make sure anything seized is sealed in evidence bags so they can't paw through it without a judge's order. And keep your editors and lawyers cell phones and home phones in your wallet or on your fridge.)
Ken was self-deprecating and funny. He noted the s--- hit the fan in his case 9 and a half years after he wrote the story. He got sustained applause after he talked about sticking to your promises, even when threatened with jail.
Stevie was eloquent and clear and unequivocal about not talking to cops. She illustrated with her own example of how the cops bully reporters and use them. She explained the obscure, but vitally important Supreme Court's Stinchcombe's decision.

We started at 7:35 and finished on the dot of 9:30 thanks to Dunphy, who drew it all to a satisfying close by talking about his own close encounter with the cops a few days earlier. And Dunphy noted that the four journalists' stories had one thing in common: all of them had been about government power and abuse.

Many in the audience stayed around for another half hour to talk to the panelists and to one another.

At the beginning, Dunphy announced we had spent about $500 and had no sponsor. I passed the hat (hats, with help from journalism student Elysse Zarek). We raised $486.11 plus $2 US. We broke even, with $20 gas/parking to Ken, $20 for Stevie's parking ticket, $60 for photocopying for programs done by Dunphy, $160 to reimburse Kimberley for Andrew's Via Rail ticket and $200 to reimburse Kimberley for the 5 gift mugs for the panel.

The pre-panel dinner - salads catered by Pan Bagna and soda water/baguettes bought from Dominion by Alysse totaled about $170 and somehow we managed to feed lots of people. Ryerson kicked in $120 and the CJFE paid $50.

Forum Report - brief

You probably should ask non-organizers how it went, but from our end we were quite happy. One reporter estimated the crowd at about 200 - from the stage the 338 seat theatre looked filled, with an even sprinkling of empty seats, so 2/3rds seems a safe, if conservative bet.

Thanks to Peter Desbaratt's moderating we finished ON TIME which has to be viewed as a victory.

And more importantly the speakers — Andrew McIntosh, Juliet O'Neil, Ken Peters and Stevie Cameron — were by turns charming, engaging and alarming - and only very rarely succumbed to the temptation to delve into the minutae of their own cases.

Personally I think we didn't have enough diversity of opinion and if I were to do it again I'd get an investigative reporter (or two) up there who HASN'T been tromped on by the State to see how different their take is on these issues.

But never mind me, the audience appeared very engaged, lined up at the mike five deep with the questions, and gave a prolonged round of applause for the panel at the end.

And dozens hung around the stage afterwards, arguing the issue and swapping stories.

I'm working on getting a copy of the audio recording and a transcript, which I'll post here when it's done.

Monday, January 17, 2005

Watch This Space

We'll try and publish a transcript of the proceedings as well as copies of the panelists works soon

Forum Announcement

Feeding the Hand that Bites You


What should Investigative Reporters do
when the State comes calling - with a stick in its hand?
Four Case Studies

Tuesday, January 18, 2005
7:30 p.m.
Jorgenson Hall - L-72
Ryerson University, Toronto
350 Victoria St. (at Gould)

Featuring:    Author Stevie Cameron, Juliet O'Neill (Ottawa  Citizen), Andrew McIntosh (National Post), and Ken Peters (Hamilton Spectator)


Moderator:  Peter Desbarats, former Maclean Hunter Chair of Media Ethics, Ryerson University
 
Presented by Poking the State With a Stick Enterprises, in association with the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and the Ryerson School of Journalism.

 
There are no rule books and few reliable guides to assist investigative journalists who set out to probe the State - only to find it hitting back via the police, the courts and even CSIS, our homegrown spooks.

So what do you do when the State comes calling with a stick in its hand?

The RCMP turned up at the offices of the  National Post's Andrew McIntosh demanding his copy of an allegedly forged document that was a key twist in the murky Shawinigate scandal. His paper fought the search warrant and won a lower court ruling that says freedom of the press can sometimes trump police investigative demands.

The RCMP tailed the Ottawa Citizen's Juliet O'Neill, tapped into her e-mail, pawed through her garbage - and then raided her office, her home and her underwear drawer, all in an effort to learn the identity of a source they say may have broken national security laws by leaking her a document outlining their case against Maher Arar.

Hamilton Spectator reporter Ken Peters used confidential city documents to write an expose of a troubled nursing home. Ten years later he faced a possible jail term after a Superior court judge in a civil suit found him in contempt for refusing to reveal his sources. In the end Peters was ordered to pay $31,600 in court costs.

Author and investigative reporter Stevie Cameron initially agreed to meet RCMP officers who were playing catch-up to her investigations of allegedly corrupt Canadian government officials. Nine years later the RCMP claimed in court that she was a confidential informant and it landed on the front pages of a national newspaper. The claim eclipsed the real story about government corruption and came close to destroying her reputation

In a forum moderated by veteran journalist Peter Desbarats, this quartet of  battle-hardened investigative reporters will quiz each other on the following questions:

1) Should an investigative reporter ever turn over evidence of a crime he/she uncovers? What principles govern that decision?

2)  What should/must reporters know in order to best deal with the state when it comes calling?

3) Do journalists in Canada need a general shield law that protects them from having to reveal confidential sources ?

4) In a free and open society, what kind of police/investigative journalist relationship serves the public interest best?


For more information or to arrange interviews with any of the panelists, please call Bill Dunphy - 905.526-3262 or e-mail at bill.dunphy@gmail.com

Poking the State With a Stick Enterprises is a joint effort of  Bill Dunphy, Kimberley Noble and Jan Wong, and has nothing to do with their respective employers.