Shawna Richer, the paper’s editor, has faced criticism for her decision to fire McCann. She insists the factual mistakes combined with the one-sided nature of the story to make it a deal breaker. Yet even the university spokesman told the Star that he was “surprised” to hear McCann was let go. In spite of their concerns, they didn’t ask for him to lose his job. (Read the story for yourself and decide if it’s so lacking in fairness and balance that the author deserves to be drummed out of a summer contract.)
The story of McCann’s firing eventually made its way to local radio in Saint John. During the report, a former editor of the paper in question suggested that the publisher, Jamie Irving, made McCann the scapegoat in order to maintain good relations with the governing party. That suggestion caused the Telegraph-Journal to respond with a story headlined, “CBC runs baseless story with no regard for facts or truth.”
From the story, which doesn’t match the aggressive tone of the headline:
“These kinds of errors of fact and judgment don’t constitute acceptable journalism at the Telegraph-Journal. We must cover stories with integrity, clarity and absolute accuracy,” Shawna Richer, the newspaper’s editor, said.In a conversation that day with Richer, McCann acknowledged the errors but “did not seem to fully grasp the seriousness of them,” Richer said. “He was not a first-year intern. He worked here last summer. We expected more of him.”
Richer says the call was hers alone and no one pressured her. The paper has also acknowledged that McCann’s story was, obviously, reviewed by editors. After all, they deemed it good enough to warrant major front page placement. Those editors have all kept their jobs.
But if we accept Richer’s standard for fairness and accuracy, then I’m afraid to say that someone else at her paper needs to lose their job. If you read the online version of the article, you’ll notice that McCann’s three factual errors—which were deemed so bad that they were a major cause of his firing—are still in the article. The paper hasn’t corrected them. Those errors are still causing damage, and it was someone’s job to fix them in the online version, not to mention issue a correction.
So who else is going to lose their job? Or is it possible that the standard being enforced by the paper doesn’t apply to anyone but McCann?
Correction of the Week
“In a June 15 story about DF Indie Studios, The Associated Press reported erroneous claims by the company and founders Mary Dickinson and Charlene Fisher. In a news release and in interviews, DF Indie Studios and the founders said their movies will be produced by such Hollywood figures as Ridley and Tony Scott. Dickinson and Fisher also said they had $300 million in loans and distribution deals and were halfway to raising $100 million in equity. However, DF Indie Studios now acknowledges that it has not finalized its line of credit, its equity investments or all of its distribution deals. And a representative for the Scotts’ production company says it has no business or contractual relationship with DF Indie Studios.” – Associated Press
Wrong Ray
“A brief report in the Inside the List column last Sunday about the crime writer Michael Connelly misstated the history of an apartment he once rented as a studio. It was used in the making of the 1973 film version of Raymond Chandler’s ‘Long Goodbye.’ It was not the former apartment of Raymond Carver.” – The New York Times
Parting Shot
“We mistakenly suggested that greater gender inequality increases the instance of female mathematicians in a country. Of course that should have been gender equality (6 June, p 7).” – New Scientist

"... UNB communications manager Dan Tanaka told the Toronto Star."
Tanaka's name should be within commas.
"... includes unattributed passages that taken from Wikipedia."
Missing "were."
In this age of computerization (incl. spelling and grammar checkers, ...), it's sad that competent proofreading skills were left behind.
Pedantry, I know, and they're certainly not up there on the level of factual errors, but I expect better. Proofreading doesn't take all that much time.
I know, it's a truism that not all errors can be caught. We might try a little harder and test that truism.
#1 Posted by S. Keeling, CJR on Sat 27 Jun 2009 at 11:29 PM
I agree with Mr.Philip Lee that the reporter should not have been fired for the story. And I also agree with Mr Lee opinion of the story itself.
"In my view, the Saint John Polytechnic was an opportunity lost. But I wasn’t the premier. Mr. Graham was, and what did he do? He listened to the howls of protest in Saint John and shelved the report. He listened to the faculty concerns at UNB. The protesters won. So what does he get in return? This public objection to his honorary degree. Why? Because he appointed an independent commission and thought about the recommendations for a few weeks. There’s a lesson here for Mr. Graham. There’s no reciprocity with this gang. They’ll get you coming and going. Someone on the radio this morning was calling the protest an expression of academic freedom. I would call it bad manners, and a cheap shot as a premier who didn’t have it coming."
http://philiplee.ca/2009/05/12/unb-protest-a-cheap-shot/#comments
#2 Posted by John Stewart Mills, CJR on Mon 29 Jun 2009 at 04:05 PM
The Bermudan crime syndicate that owns all New Brunswick newspapers (and lord knows what else) is a real joke when it comes to publishing the truth.
Jamie Irving seems destined to be the Citizen Kane of the Maritimes (without all the sentimental garbage in the beginning).
His battles with the current mayor of Irvingville will seem like a kitten toying with a mouse once the Project for a new Irving century onfolds at taxpayer and citizen expense.
#3 Posted by Dan Fitzgerald, CJR on Mon 29 Jun 2009 at 06:23 PM
Tanaka's name should be within commas.
No, it shouldn't.
#4 Posted by Patrick, CJR on Mon 29 Jun 2009 at 09:13 PM
"And I also agree with Mr Lee opinion of the story itself."
John Stewart Mills: If you read the blog post you linked to, Lee's criticism was of the stated reasons the faculty gave for protesting the honorary degree, as well as the text of their letter.
He wasn't criticizing McCann's story.
#5 Posted by Johnny Doe, CJR on Tue 30 Jun 2009 at 09:34 AM
Johhny Doe writes, " He wasn't criticizing McCann's story. "
On the contrary.
If Lee was the editor, he might have said to the young reporter" This is a cheap shot,afterall consider the source.We're not going to run this story without balance..get some more voices with counter-agendas and make it a good piece of journalism by exposing this story for what it really is.
#6 Posted by John Stewart Mills, CJR on Tue 30 Jun 2009 at 01:41 PM
Mills:
Lee, had he been the editor, might have said that, and he might not have. It would be remiss to put words in his mouth - or into his blog.
Lee didn't say either way in the post you linked to. But what he also didn't say was that there was anything wrong with the story. In fact, if you read some of his later posts, he defends the story and the intern who was fired.
And I think if you read Mccann's story carefully, you will notice that there is, in fact, other voices in it. Namely, a UNB administrator who defends the awarding of the degree on the basis of merit, Graham having met certain criteria, and a long-held university tradition.
Seems balanced enough for me.
#7 Posted by Johnny Doe, CJR on Tue 30 Jun 2009 at 05:35 PM
First, I would like to point out, as a signatory to the original letter, that it was an internal document, addressed to the Board of Governors questioning the wisdom of granting degrees to any sitting politician. The crisis was precipitated by the awarding of the degree to Premier Shawn Graham, who was extremely slow to reject a commissioned report calling for the replacement of our university campus with a polytechnic designed to service industrial needs.
Richer's actions in the McCann case are certainly questionable, but then again, so is the entire output of the Telegraph-Journal. Most recently, Ms. Richer published a piece entitled "We are doing our job. Are you, Your Worship?" (see story at http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/713984). It was published as a news item, but a journalist friend refers to it as more of an "advertorial" inappropriately placed in the "News" section of our newspaper.
One should also note that the Irving family's ownership of all three English-language dailies in the province of New Brunswick has been called "unique developed countries" in a 2006 Senate report on Canadian News Media (http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/TRAN-E/rep-e/repfinjun06vol2-e.pdf).
Finally, there is a certain irony in CJR covering this story in that the Telegraph-Journal's publisher, Jamie Irving, has a Masters degree from the Columbia School of Journalism (http://propelict.com/view/directors) and Shawna Richer is a 2009 Fellow (http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270109971/page/1212610653271/simplepage.htm).
#8 Posted by Rob Moir, CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 08:11 AM
So it's a cheap shot and balanced?
Hardly a good journalism principle at work.
We'll never know whether Mr. Lee would have run the story as is.
I suppose it would have depended on his principles.
#9 Posted by John Stewart Mills, CJR on Fri 3 Jul 2009 at 09:47 AM
Although I was never under contract, I was given the cold shoulder at a small suburban newspaper when I mistook two individual's last names and incorrectly spelt the last name of another individual. No correction was run in the following issue, but a story I had already written and sent to the copy editors was pulled and other stories I had already been assigned were withdrawn and given to other freelancers. Naturally I felt horrible, especially after the drubbing I received from the editor via e-mail, but mostly I was disappointed thinking of all the stories I could have gone on to write.
I later found out that the editor was "alienating" a lot of writers, not just me, and that tenured writers and columnists had gotten far worse comments from her, and had even been called foul language. It just so happened that this particular editor was 8 months pregnant and so a temporary editor took her place during her maternity leave. The owner of the paper, aware of the hostile working environment, made the temporary replacement her permanent replacement. Was it right of them to fire her while on her maternity leave? I don't know, but since then I've been welcomed back, and recently made the front cover. Ironically, the story contained one error, this one a mistake made by the copyeditor.
#10 Posted by Christopher Olson, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 12:43 AM
In case anyone might be interested, the editor who fired McCann was herself fired this morning.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/07/28/nb-wafergate-apology-harper-1049.html
#11 Posted by TJ Milburn, CJR on Tue 28 Jul 2009 at 02:20 PM
The chief editor was finally fired for her very serious, fabricated drive by of the Prime Minister. From her ivory tower she just could not resist using the byline of real reporters to inject her partisan sledgehammer persuasion. This control of the media message should have to be filed under electioneering expenses of the Liberal Party of Canada. But it won´t be, and there is no will in Canada to reveal anymore about this story or the sorry state of partisan journalism in Canada.
#12 Posted by Szusan, CJR on Tue 4 Aug 2009 at 12:35 PM