Dear readers,
I am going “stumm” for the next two weeks as I embark on a family holiday to Europe. Promises were made.
I hope (ha) that I won’t miss much. That the news will be a bit like the Biden visit.
The topic of this last, pre-stumm, piece is media transparency in reporting on Chinese state interference. I wanted to reflect and respond, in particular, to a column published in the Globe and Mail on March 25 by the paper’s public editor, the veteran journalist Sylvia Stead. Ms. Stead defends the balance she claims the Globe has struck in its coverage of Chinese state interference in Canada between transparency and protecting sources.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/public-editor/article-balancing-transparency-with-protection-of-sources/
Ms. Stead makes two important points. One is that the Globe must protect its sources. No question. The other is that “no one in government has questioned the accuracy of the reporting.” Let’s pause here. She makes a connection to a very different Government response to the SNC-Lavalin affair. First, the two cases are very dissimilar (but it’s interesting to think the Globe believes otherwise). Second, the government has its hands tied. As many senior officials and Ministers have said, they cannot and will not confirm or deny the accuracy of reporting based on classified sources ( a standard response, as Ms. Stead will know). To do so would be to reveal classified information. So, I think this is a straw man argument of large backyard proportions.
I was also struck by the way in which Ms. Stead measures complaints that arrive on her desk. Are they pro or con the Globe’s reporting? She notes that “there has been more praise than usual in the comments for the work, and especially for the whistle-blower [leaker].” Respectfully, I don’t think that is the issue. Reporting can’t be measured as a popularity contest; compliments or brickbats don’t add up to an answer to the question of whether the Globe has been sufficiently transparent.
My view is that the paper has not yet met the test.
On March 13, prior to the publication of the whistleblower/leaker’s Op Ed, I sent a series of questions to Ms. Stead. She urged me to wait for her column. Wait I did.
I repeat the questions I put to Ms. Stead in full below, because they all went unanswered, and I still contend that they are important:
Whether leak sources were sought out, or came to the Globe and Mail unbidden? [No answer]
Whether the leaked material is retained, in whole or in part, by the Globe and Mail? [No answer. The Globe stories frequently refer to classified documents that were “viewed,” whatever that means]
Whether the Globe and Mail has access to all or only parts of leaked reports? [No answer]
Why the Globe and Mail has not published any of the leaked documents? [No answer]
Whether leaks are coming from singular or multiple sources, and from current or former officials? [No answer. But in the cover note from the Globe’s Editor in Chief, David Walmsley, that was printed with the Op Ed from the anonymous source, the source is described as the “backbone of our news stories” That raises, in my mind, questions around corroboration]
Whether the leaks are coming from Canadian officials only, or from foreign sources? [No answer, but signs are the sources are all Canadian national security officials]
How many leaked records (a running tally) have come into the possession of the Globe and Mail? [No answer, my tally to date is 8 CSIS records made available to/”viewed’ by/ the Globe]
What is the date range of leaked material? [No answer. The 8 CSIS documents I have identified in the reporting range in date from early November 2021 to Fall 2022]
(For the tally, see my previous substack: “Forensic examination, finally over” of March 21.)
What attempts have been made to corroborate the leaked information and what internal protocols were used to determine reporting based on the leaks? [No answer. Ms. Stead refers to due diligence around whether “the information can be trusted",” which is not quite the same thing]
Whether the Globe and Mail has engaged in any self-censorship to protect sensitive intelligence contained in the leaks. What is the protocol for any such self-censorship (A Canadian version, perhaps, of the UK D-notice system). When the CBC had an exclusive contract to report on Snowden leaks from Canadian/CSE records they had such a protocol in place. [No answer]
What arrangements, if any, including financial arrangements (I assume none), have been made with leak sources [No answer]
What the media would do if they determined the contents of reports based on leaks were false [No answer]
That’s a lot of no answers. I should have asked another question:
Whether the Globe has actually met in person the source that is the “backbone” of its reporting? Do we have a “deep throat” scenario? [No answer yet]
I concluded my email to Ms. Stead as follows:
“I do feel that when a series of reports based on leaks comes to have major consequences for public opinion, political debate, and government policy, as is the case with stories of Chinese election interference, more media transparency has to be the flip side of using leaks. “
I still believe that. I think the ultimate act of transparency would be to publish the classified documents (with whatever responsible redactions the Globe sees fit to apply). The Canadian public has not seen a single one of these documents, only fragments and snippets of quoted bits.
It’s not a case of put up or shut up, but rather put up, or make the case for why not. The case can’t be protection of sources, because there is already plenty of information in the public domain about the provenance of the records that the Globe is relying on.
One last thing. The repeated references to their SNC-Lavalin affair in Ms. Stead’s column make me wonder whether the Globe reporting is driven by a conviction that similar issues of ethical lapses and partisan political considerations that disrespected the national interest are at stake in the question of how the Trudeau government has responded over the years to intelligence warnings about Chinese state interference. No evidence to that effect has yet been reported.
More importantly, I would say to all media covering this story—be aware of what is called in the intelligence business “confirmation bias”, seeking out information and answers that only respond to pre-convictions. That would be a very distorted way of reporting and truly not “apolitical.”
Your turn, Ms. Stead.
(Anyone).
Excellent and thank you for taking the time to ask questions to the Globe, many of us have.
Excellent article. Let’s hope the special rapporteur also sees fit to examine what is responsible behaviour of mainstream media in this respect, particularly the Globe and Global, the main beneficiaries of the leaked material.