Date: March 8, 2002

To: Publishers
       Editors

From: Don Babick and Murdoch Davis

Dear Colleagues:

In light of a controversy this week in Regina and ongoing attacks on Southam and CanWest in competing media, we are writing to clarify some matters involving our editorial policy.

We have said repeatedly, to individual editors, to various internal audiences and in public, that we are more than open to publishing diverse views, including views that disagree with Southam News editorials.

In fact, either through SN or individual papers, we have commissioned writers to provide contrary or differing views. Commentary writers employed by our papers have written such pieces, too, and we have distributed them through the Southam network to all our papers.

The only constraint on any commentary that is an aspect of our editorial policy is that the company does not want to have the core positions in the national editorials contradicted by other unsigned editorials in its newspapers. People might not feel that is a policy they would enact if it were up to them, but they ought not to misconstrue it.

We have also made clear that editors, editorial writers, columnists or anyone else at the papers is quite welcome to write signed pieces in conflict with the editorials, just not under the imprimatur of the company within the editorial column. Critics, including the Toronto Star writer who made a speech in Regina this week, continue to connect a few individual decisions by editors at different newspapers to paint a false picture of some kind of conspiracy or heavy-handedness from senior Southam or CanWest management. The claim is that decisions to publish or not publish certain articles or even copy editing decisions on published copy are being made outside the local papers. That has never happened.

A few pieces have been rejected locally because they did not meet standards of accuracy or fair comment (including that fair comment must be based on facts, not speculation or outright falsehood.) A couple of pieces were declined because they attacked senior management or the proprietors, and also contained inaccuracies. That, too, is being portrayed by some as heavy-handedness.

We challenge those critics — including fellow journalists — as to how this differs from the practice at their outlet or within their company. The decisions of senior management or proprietors at other media companies are not held up for ridicule or condemnation within their pages or airwaves, either. Southam and CanWest have said that the initiative to have the national editorials will not be debated or condemned infinitely and ad nauseam in our pages. That is consistent with practice elsewhere. However, we have repeatedly made clear that the ideas expressed in the editorials are wide open for challenge, debate, disagreement or rebuttal.

This week, concerns have been reported over the Regina Leader Post's editing of a story covering the Star writer's speech. We are attaching a piece that Murdoch wrote for that newspaper commenting on the speech itself. We have also, after the fact, reviewed the editing and concluded that it was quite routine and justified. The lead was changed, but the initial lead was not backed up, and contained inaccuracies. And we hope you would all agree that while we strive in our stories to reflect what others have said, we don't publish as fact statements that we know are false, just because someone else made them. The critical comments were still published, nothing substantive was removed and the story was published prominently and at the same basic length as the original version. Frankly, the Leader Post bent over backwards to cover something that would not normally be covered, and give it more prominence than it deserved, in an effort to show we are very open and not stifling comment on our company.

Local editors went over the copy and removed or attributed inaccuracies. That happens every day at every newspaper across Canada. The Star itself did not report the speech, and we doubt that it or other Toronto media would report a similar speech made in Toronto by any of our writers or editors.

In Regina this week, some reporters withdrew their bylines to protest how the story on the Star writer's speech was handled. This was an abuse of the right or privilege of withdrawing bylines. That right or privilege is intended to apply when the writer has concerns over handling of his or her own work. It is not permitted as a way to show disagreement with general editing or management decisions, and while decisions will be made based on the language of collective agreements, and local policies, Southam will not in future allow byline withdrawal in such situations.

Some reporters also took the paper's property, including unedited drafts of another reporter's work, and shared them with other media. They also made unfounded and inaccurate comments about the company. Unfortunately, that has led to disciplinary action, including suspensions, and it will if it is done again. Journalists are not, by virtue of being journalists, free to behave in ways that would lead to discipline for employees of any business. Repeated or serious misconduct could result in dismissal.

Our newspapers are open to all reasonable and fact-based views, but they are not a platform for infinite or repetitive criticism of management or the owners. If you think that is unfair, or if it is portrayed as unfair by colleagues at other media, we encourage you to ask those colleagues to try similar attacks on the Honderichs of Toronto Star, the Peladeaus of Sun Media, Ken Thomson or Jean Monty as owner/managers of the Globe or its parent company, or senior executives or management of other media employers, and see what happens.

One of the fascinating things about journalism is the many disagreements and discussions about how it should be done. Every day at every paper there are debates about what should or shouldn't be covered or published, what to play where, what is good journalism and what is not. That is fine. But if you have issues with your paper's editing or policies, the proper thing to do is take them up with your editor, not with other media outlets or through byline withdrawal. If you have questions about the national editorials, we are more than happy to respond to them.

Thank you,

Don Babick,

President & Chief Operating Officer

Murdoch Davis,

Vice-president, Editorial