A letter from Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
Dear CJFE Members,
Many of you are already aware of the current court battle involving journalist Derek Finkle. CJFE Board member and lawyer, John Norris is representing CJFE in the case as an intervenor, along with the Writers Union of Canada and the Professional Writers Association of Canada (PWAC).
We believe that protection of a journalistÕs work product is a vital component in maintaining the independence of the news media.
If police and the courts are able to easily access the work of a journalist, journalists will lose their independence and will be viewed instead as agents of the police or state.
We will be joining Derek Finkle when he returns to court at the end of May. In the meantime, we would like to notify CJFE members about Write Aid, a fundraiser being held to raise money for his court costs. Please see below for more details about the case and the event which is tonight, Thursday, May 24.
Best regards,
Julie Payne
CJFE Manager
To learn more about Write Aid
visit http://www.writeaid.ca
Watching the PBS Frontline series on the news
Quote from an article about the program, in the Ottawa Citizen.
"Most newspapers are great businesses producing tremendous amounts of
cash. The Los Angeles Times produces more than $1 billion a year in revenue
at more than 20% profit. That's twice the Fortune 500 average." This was said
by Lowell Bergman, a former producer of CBS's "60 Minutes."
Meanwhile, veteran newsman Walter Cronkite said, in a keynote address at
Columbia University,
"Pressures by media companies to generate ever-greater
profits are threatening the very freedom the nation was built upon.. ."No
longer could journalists count on their employers to provide the necessary
resources to expose truths that powerful politicians and special interests often
did not want exposed."
Why do they not listen?
When Stephen Harper said that the Québécois form a nation, why did so many reporters and editors publish stuff like the following?
OTTAWA (CP) - Stephen Harper's move to
recognize Quebec as a nation ... etc... etc...
The altered terms of the agreement, passed in Parliament by a massive majority, are actually believed by a lot of people. This does not help alleviate dissent. On the contrary, it heightens it.
Harper's statement was heard by everyone, in person in the House of Commons, on CPAC, later TV clips, radio and the Internet, and has been misquoted ever since. Many of the opinions it has generated are based on words put into his mouth by people who are either deaf, or can't read their own notes. If you didn't hear him yourself, who can you believe? That's a question. Who has an answer?
And here's another question: Does Press Freedom mean that we are free to publish opinions reactions, and msunderstandings in the guise of news? Too many words, (as noted under "Redundancy" below) can be a nuisance, but quoting the wrong words is equally annoying.
(RD)
Haikus for today:
Why are we misled?
Québécois form a nation;
That's all Harper said.
(Tuesday, Nov 22, '06 RD)
Stephen got it right:
Québécois are not Quebec.
This should end the fight.
(Wed., Nov 23, '06 RD)
Newsmen, to be fair,
Should report what has been said,
When they go to air.
The Juliet O'Neil case
OTTAWA (Oct. 19, 2006) - The Canadian Association of Journalists hails
Ontario Superior Court decision that strikes down parts of Canada's
secrecy law as unconstitutional as an historic victory for media freedom.
The RCMP had used the leakage provisions of the Security of Information
Act, passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, to
obtain warrants to search Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill's home in
January, 2004.
The Mounties were trying to find out who had leaked
sensitive information on the Maher Arar case to O'Neill. In November, 2003,
the Citizen published a story by O'Neill that included accounts of what
Arar had told his Syrian interrogators under torture.
In her ruling released Thursday, Justice Lynn Ratushny found that several
provisions of the law contravened the constitutional right of press
freedom, and violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of
"life, liberty and security of the person."
"They have not been well-tailored to suit their purpose . . . they
arbitrarily and unfairly and with a blunt club of criminal sanction
restrict freedom of expression, including freedom of the press," Ratushny's
ruling said.
The judge ordered (that) O'Neill's belongings (which had been) seized in the
2004 raid (were to be) returned to (Juliet) the veteran journalist.
"Today's ruling signifies a tremendous personal vindication for Ms.
O'Neill, and an historic victory for freedom of the press in Canada," said
CAJ president Paul Schneidereit. "We hope the message reverberates through
every police service and crown attorney's office across the country.
"Journalists are not agents of the state."
The CAJ strongly urges the government not to appeal the decision, and
calls on the federal justice minister to repudiate any attempt to turn
journalists into criminals for doing their jobs or coerce them into
becoming tools of state investigations.
The Canadian Association of Journalists is a national non-profit
professional organization with more than 1,500 members across Canada.
The
CAJ's primary roles are public interest advocacy work and providing
high-quality professional development for journalists.
FOR INFORMATION:
Paul Schneidereit, CAJ president, (902) 889-2434
John Dickins, CAJ executive director, (613) 526-8061,
|
|
Fédération Professionnelle des Journalistes du Québec reports:
As a
reward for the fine piece of investigative television journalism on the
Alberta Oil Sands broadcast by Radio-Canada last week, Harper and his
cabinet ministers cancelled interviews with Radio-Canada television from Jan
19 to Jan 24.
The FPJQ says this may be Harper`s way of getting a message across to the
investigative team at Radio-Canada. The Radio-Canada television program is
expected to be high up on the list of nominations for investigative
reporting in the television category for 2007.
It is being lauded widely in Quebec as superb television.
A number of French-language journalists in this country are worked up about
what they se as the Harper government's retaliatory actions. The FJPQ has
taken a stand on the issue. What is the Canadian Association of Journalists
do about it?
Richard Cléroux, President, Canadian Association of Journalists - National Capital Chapter.
Parliamentary Press Gallery, Ottawa.
Below is the FPJQ report on the Harper Government boycott of Radio
Canada.
La FPJQ dénonce les pressions de Harper sur les journalistes.
La Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec dénonce la vague
d'annulation
de la dizaine d'interviews que des membres du cabinet Harper devaient donner
à des journalistes de Radio-Canada. Ces interviews étaient programmés depuis
longtemps.
Ce boycott, qui a duré de vendredi dernier 19 janvier au mercredi 24
janvier, lance le message à la presse qu'elle doit se tenir tranquille. Il a
découlé directement d'un reportage critique de Radio-Canada sur la gestion
des sables bitumineux par le gouvernement conservateur.
Un gouvernement qui veut punir la presse pour un reportage défavorable à son
égard donne l'image d'un gouvernement qui veut contrôler l'information. Cela
doit être dénoncé avec la plus grande vigueur.
Les élus ont des comptes à rendre à la population. S'ils ne sont pas forcés
de répondre positivement à toutes les demandes d'interviews, ils ne peuvent
pas à l'inverse les refuser systématiquement à un média à titre de mesure de
représailles.
Le gouvernement a bien sûr le droit de porter plainte s'il juge qu'un
reportage à son endroit n'est pas conforme à la déontologie journalistique.
Il existe pour cela des instances accessibles aux citoyens. L'ombudsman de
Radio-Canada en est une, que le gouvernement Harper a utilisé.
Cependant, malgré l'indépendance de Radio-Canada et malgré l'indépendance de
la fonction d'ombudsman, il apparaît plus approprié que la plainte soit
examinée par le Conseil de presse du Québec. Celui-ci ne relève pas
ultimement d'un gouvernement qui vote son budget et qui nomme son président.
Selon le vieil adage, il ne suffit pas en effet que justice soit rendue mais
aussi que les apparences de la justice soient préservées.
Freelance Writers Refuse New Contract Terms from Sun Media
The Professional Writers Association of Canada (PWAC) and the Canadian Freelance Union (CEP Local 2040) are very concerned
about the terms of a new freelance contribution contract for writers at The London Free Press, a Sun Media paper in London,
Ontario.
London freelancers report being presented with unexpectedly negative contract terms, despite a positive, long-term business
relationship with the paper. The contract comes with a signing deadline of December 11th, and continued work with the paper
appears to be contingent on signing.
"We feel this contract, and the manner in which it was presented, compromises the basic rights of Canadian writers under the
Copyright Act, and is just bad-faith business negotiation," says PWAC President, and London freelancer Suzanne Boles. "The
contract we've seen demands irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide rights to a freelancer's work, with no extra remuneration for these
extra uses."
PWAC recommends that local writers do not sign this new contract. "It makes terrible business sense for writers to work under
these conditions," says Executive Director, John Degen. "The agreement makes a show of granting writers continued ownership of
the copyright for their work, and then systematically strips away every one of those rights, including moral rights, while offering
nothing more in compensation. It is against the very spirit of copyright and cultural production in this country."
PWAC and the CFU strongly suggest Sun Media and The London Free Press withdraw the new contract, and begin negotiations for
a better deal with freelancers. Most of the freelance writers and columnists in question have a long-time, positive working
relationship with The London Free Press and want to continue their professional association with the newspaper. Their work is
respected in the community, and their departure would be a loss for London and area readers.
PWAC and the CFU have been contacted by a number of London freelancers, and there is consensus against signing the contract.
We call upon Sun Media to act in good faith and negotiate a new agreement.
PWAC, established in 1976, is the national organization representing 600 professional freelance writers and journalists in Canada.
More information:
Suzanne Boles, PWAC President
suzanne@writeconnection.org
(519) 680-1658
John Degen, Executive Director
jdegen@pwac.ca
Tying down freelancers
A local columnist recently encountered a situation that needs clarification for our profession.
He is a freelance writer who has a regular, two or three times a month, byline in one of
the daily newspapers for which he is paid $100.
He has been encouraged by his editors
to write for other publications.
However, when he wrote a piece for one of the new
weeklies in town, the minute they saw his byline, he received a call and was told that
he is not allowed to write for a publication appearing in the same market. He was given
the choice, them or us.
Bit of a sticky wicket as it is one thing to write an article that is exclusive to a certain
publication and another thing to be considered a writer, or photographer for that
matter, upon which a certain publication has exclusive rights to their output.
This is not
to say that the publication wants to publish everything that is produced; they only
want that the writer/photographer produces for them and only when they ask for it.
All this for a pittance in pay, no benefits, no security, nothing.
Our colleague feels that this is tantamount to being an indentured slave.
Comments, anyone?
Return to National Press Club
|
|