Since you’re reading this, you must believe in journalism.
I’m sure glad you do.
I never viewed myself as a defender of journalism. It never cross my mind as something that needed to be defended when I was growing up. It was a fundamental truth that journalists work hard to uncover the uncomfortable truths in society or share stories that would otherwise go untold.
That institution was as solid as a rock until it suddenly wasn’t. And I guess that’s about the time I decided to come to its defense.
Pinpointing that moment is difficult and not necessarily “rock solid” (making good on my 2023 goal to use more rock metaphors here).
You can argue the mistrust rose to significance with the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States. He went out of his way to dismantle journalism– with routine criticism and giving credence to the phrase “fake news”.
The phrase has become sort of a catch-all for anything people don’t like these days– any news they seem to disagree with. It’s an easy way to dismiss the facts of something without offering an alternative argument or set of facts. You can say it– promptly move on as if you just laid a trump card or flipped the board in monopoly.
It works because it’s hard to prove something is “fake news” if you are the person who believes it is “real news”. The person calling it fake news has already made up their mind that said news is not real or absent of truth. And generally, as humans, when we make up our minds about something, it’s incredibly difficult to change.
And it should be a surprise to nobody, that premier Danielle Smith invoked a similar argument this week, to dismiss criticism of her handling (or not handling) of COVID-19 cases that are in the process of prosecution. She called for a series of CBC articles “defamatory” and that it contained “baseless allegations”.
The CBC (which I recognize is a supercharged organization in its own right in our province) reported that the premier’s office had reached out to prosecutors about certain cases pertaining to COVID-19 public health violations.
I find the part about baseless allegations particularly amusing, seeing as, on the record, the premier on several occasions said she had contacted prosecutors, to direct them on how to proceed with COVID-19-related public health violations. She was forced to “correct the record” saying she used “imprecise” language in those instances.
That’s a pretty solid base.
Of course, the Premier, a politically elected official, is not supposed to intervene or communicate with prosecutors of specific cases. It’s called separation of powers.
Prosecutors are directed to pursue cases based on the sufficiency of the evidence and the public interest. It’s fair to wonder if COVID-19 cases are still in the public interest, but that’s an argument for a different day.
Because, it could set a dangerous precedent if those who did break the law at the time, are let off the hook years later, but again, it’s easy for a prosecutor to decide that. Nobody else.
The premier especially didn’t need to remind them of that.
So, the province launched an internal investigation, looking for emails between the premier’s office and crown prosecutors. And what do you know, nothing was found.
Furthermore, CBC reporting revealed that of course nothing was found because the government admitted that deleted emails would only be retained for 30 days, which reaches back to Dec. 22.
In a response to a number of complaints, CBC released a response from Helen Henderson, manager of the CBC Calgary newsroom. She outlined that the CBC in fact knows the identity of the sources and they were protected for a reason, as well as had their stories corroborated by others.
Henderson also revealed that their sources indicated the alleged exchange of emails took place in the fall. Which, if deleted, would not have been found in the premier’s search.
That all prompted the premier to go on the offensive. She suggested that the CBC was colluding with NDP leader Rachel Notley and that the articles they produced, with more criticism of improper communication between her office and prosecutors, was defamatory and she demanded a retraction.
Those who trust Smith, likely believe that CBC used phony sources to produce a hit piece on Smith.
There is an alternative world where CBC’s reporting could be accurate, using sources who are verified by the organization and protected through journalistic ethics.
In this case, the answer might not necessarily be one or the other.
CBC doesn’t seem to have a paper trail in this case, which makes them an easy target. It doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination mean their reporting is wrong, just harder for the public to trust.
And an institution that already doesn’t have a lot of public trust in this part of the country just gave a mountain of political fodder to Smith and the UCP.
She can ride this wave of anti-CBC, Justin Trudeau/ Rachel Notley alliance nonsense right into the premier’s chair in May.
Whether the sources are right or not doesn’t even matter to her. She knows that in a province where there is significant mistrust in institutions, specifically, a federal government-funded public broadcaster – any opportunity to tear them down is one she’ll jump on whenever she gets the chance.
She was a member of the media, she knows what confidential sources are. She knows how this works.
She knows she holds the cards because she knows CBC won’t reveal their sources.
Smith knows what she’s doing and is playing the game to get enough Albertans on her side to win another election. She has power and it seems she doesn’t want to lose it.
Only time will tell whether this latest stunt will be enough to fend off the NDP and win over the majority of the province.
Byron Hackett is the Managing Editor of the Red Deer Advocate.