Bcpc Complaint Dismissal And Response
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Bcpc Complaint Dismissal And Response as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,129
- Pages: 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
May 14, 2009 "You have failed democracy and because of you democracy is failing" Introduction In the spring of 2005 I had first hand experience with the British Columbia media that confirmed, unequivocally, that it is corrupt. By 'corrupt' I mean that it has come to serve the needs of its corporate owners and their masters, not the citizenry. To turn an old media saw, they have come to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. My seminal proof of that came to me via a senior editor of The Vancouver Sun. Fazil Mihlar lied in an editorial that denigrated a labour union. And while lying editorialists are surely not rare, in this particular case I had been researching the very topic about which he dissembled, and when I called him on his misstatement of fact Fazil Mihlar responded, in writing, with an open, even proud admission to having lied, and the selfserving justification of it having been a good lie because he has 'considered judgement.' I was at first stunned, and then enraged, by this response. After recovering from his blasé admission I began a response that prompted my wife to call out from the other room in defense of the keyboard I was pounding into submission. I didn't send that vitriolic outburst, but allowed my heart and head to cool overnight, after which I recomposed something more ... calm and meaningful than the earlier verbal eruption. In my 'calm' rant I set out to prove in no uncertain terms that Fazil Mihlar is ignorant of history, language and ethics. It was summarily dismissed by Mihlar – although quite likely unread because it had a history and a vocabulary. That dismissal prompted me to appeal to the British Columbia Press Council for their show of policing integrity and ethics in their journalistic members. I was saddened that once again my concern was dismissed, but shocked at just shallow and ill- or even unconsidered was the rational dismissing my complaint. I have, rightly or wrongly, taken the inane dismissal as a final sign of how fully corrupt is the media in, at least, British Columbia. And here by corrupt I mean lacking even the integrity to chastise, even with a token gesture, a prominent editorialist who not only lied but publicly admitted to lying. I have chosen to publish the second part of this tale first, that being comprised of: - the transcriptions of the BC Press Council's dismissal of my complaint - my response to them of that dismissal. Note: for publication in Scribd I have edited this edition to correct small editorial and grammatical errors in my text, and to remove identifying personal information. The transcription of the BCPC's response is unchanged, except as marked with squared
Page 1 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
brackets [like these]. In a later Scribd publication I will publish: - Mihlar's offending article - my initial letter of remonstration - Mihlar's flaccid defense of it - my extended 'proof' of Mihlar's ignorance.
Page 2 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
July 21/05 Guy A. Duperrealt [address] Dear Mr. Duperreault: The Press Council review board which was assigned your complaint against The Vancouver Sun (Editorial of April 27) has ruled the council should take no further action on the matter. The board found the complaint did not merit a public hearing, saying the editorial in question was not intended to be, and was not, a chronology of labor [sic] relations between the Telecommunications Workers' Union and Telus [sic], or a chronology of events. The board noted that the newspaper, almost immediately after the editorial ran supplied op-ed space for a response from the union's president and in addition, also published a lengthy letter from a union member. In its ruling, the board said latitude should be shown opinions contained in articles like editorials and found that the actions of the paper did not violate any of the rules in the Council's cod of Practice [my emphasis]. [signed] Bill Bachop, Executive Director [Addendum by Guy from the BCPC "Code of Practices": [4. ... However, newspapers and journalists shall strive to avoid expressing comment
Page 3 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
and conjecture as established fact (my emphasis).] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [My response is comprised of two parts, the e.mail preamble to BC Press Council and the attached letter of disgust]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [e.mail preamble:] Mr. Bachop: I received a few days ago the BC Press Council’s rejection of my demand for an apology for Fazil Mihlar of The Vancouver Sun having knowingly made a misstatement of fact. Their reasoning is contemptible. I have attached my full reason for such strong language, if you are interested in reading it. You, the BCPC, and The Sun have all conspired to kill a little what little remains of democracy in Canada. This saddens me more than a charming corporate bully enriching himself at my and my community’s expense while being praised by our “respected” media. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [The body of my response:]
August 1, 2005 Guy A. Duperreault [address] Bill Bachop BC Press Council #201 - 1290 Broad St. Victoria, BC V8W 2A5 Dear Mr. Bachop: I am ambivalent as to what made me feel sadder when I received the Press Council's finding: that your organization failed its obligations to hold accountable the members who pay you to hold them accountable, or that this failure was not that big a surprise to
Page 4 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
me or to the many others who have been following this sordid saga. Mr. Bachop, you may as well stop reading now. I see no tangible value in my pointing out to the naked emperor's tailors the hairy wee-wee truth. Unfortunately I feel compelled, in my own tiny way, to defend Canadian democracy against its imminent death by a thousand tiny cuts, of which you, your organization, Fazil Mihlar and his corporation, have inflicted at least three: that lying to the public is acceptable behaviour, that an exposed lie is excusable because the liar's pride in having considered judgement is able to metamorphose the lie into the truth, and that it is the media fox who is guarding the dissembling hens' media houses. So, if you are still reading, I take with complete disdain the quality of the tribunal's ruling. "The board found the complaint did not merit a public hearing, saying the editorial in question was not intended to be, and was not, a chronology of labor [sic] relations between the Telecommunications Workers' Union and Telus [sic], or a chronology of events." What?!? I say again: what?! What was this trio smoking when they wrote this? My complaint was that Fazil Mihlar lied. And when I provided the proof of the truth, Mihlar admitted to lying. FAZIL MIHLAR ADMITTED TO HAVING KNOWINGLY LIED! I will repeat that last sentence: FAZIL MIHLAR ADMITTED TO HAVING KNOWINGLY LIED! In case you or your tribunal think I am exagerating, here is what Mihlar wrote: While it is true that the TWU proposed renewing the existing contract with improvements, our considered judgement was since Telus was a new company (merging of the two firms from Alberta and B.C.) and the competitive landscape had changed, any proposal should consider these realities. So in our view, there was no new proposal or counter proposal to what Telus had on the table [my emphasis]. In his reply, here, he adds the adjective "new." In his editorial he used the adjective "single." He knowingly lied. After that admission, which quite frankly caught me by surprise, I asked for a front page apology for an admitted, even proud liar, having publicly lied so as to hurt the reputation of an organization. It seems that that must have been a surprise to ya'll, my not being overawed by the power of an admitted meritocratist's "considered judgement" to morph a lie into a truth. My verbose letter was a dismissal of Mihlar's argument, knowledge of labour history and of the TELUS/TWU legal wranglings. Near the end of it, three paragraphs after demanding a front page apology for his lie, I suggested that the public deserves a fair reporting of the events by which they can judge for themselves what is "fair", "truthful", "correct", etc. Yet you dismissed my claim because his editorial was not to be a chronology?!!! When I suggested that responsible reporting .... Oh. Maybe I had better cite myself, since your organization seems to have trouble reading. The public deserves a detailed and honest reporting of TELUS’ s and the TWU’s bargaining history, as well as some honest details of the contract, and
Page 5 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
not just TELUS’s sugar coated version honeyed up by a band of self-considered dissembling anonymous editorialists. Then, after printing a disinterested truth, if the anonymous editors and/or publisher so incline, then opine their properly “adjectived” babble until the cows come home [my emphasis]. I repeat: I even add that once an "honest reporting" is done, then the editorialists are most welcome to "opine ... until the cows come home." (Perhaps the neologism threw you, but I have been reading Shakespeare lately and am suffering from neological inspirationitis.) The tribunal dismissed my claim because his editorial was not to be a chronology!!! I had to repeat that, because the tribunal omitted to comment on my complaint, which was that Mihlar lied and admitted to lying. Why did the tribunal fail to comment on that "fact", even if to pedantically suggest that the lie wasn't black enough to warrant censure. No, the tribunal simply ignored it. Well, not quite. It seems that there was a kind of glossing over of it, because the tribunal also wrote: In its ruling, the board said latitude should be shown opinions contained in articles like editorials and found that the actions of the paper did not violate any of the rules in the Council's cod of Practice [my emphasis]. But that isn't quite true. I would like to cite one of "your" foxy rules: 4. ... However, newspapers and journalists shall strive to avoid expressing comment and conjecture as established fact (my emphasis). And perhaps here the waters of clear language run muddy. Did Mihlar strive to be truthful in his misuse of the adjective "single"? Quite frankly, his proud defence of it would argue otherwise. What does that tell me of your role in keeping honest the media, except that the BC Press Council is at best token arbiters of ethics in journalism? By not addressing the lie have you not tacitly admitted it? Would it be an unreasonable psychological stretch to suggest that you were unwilling to attend to it ethically and so your unconscious quietly, unobtrusively, blanked it out of your reasoning? Nah! That would be a stretch. Your tribunal simply ignored the issue with the hope that I would go away. And that is a democratic cancer almost as pernicious as Mihlar's "considered judgement." What dismays me most of all in all this media anti-democracy cancer is the full realization that I, as a member of our so-called democracy, have come to understand that an individual who takes pride in lying, who is even ignorant of the root of the word "meritocracy" let alone labour history as espoused by such economic heroes as Adam Smith and JS Mills, has the "considered judgement" I need to keep healthy my democracy! And thus I am left with the first hand knowledge, which I will disseminate to all who will read it, that not only does at least one of the The Vancouver Sun's editors lie, that he takes pride in the considered judgement that gives him the authority to lie, and that the
Page 6 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
BC Press Council condones it. I am unlikely to read anything in any of The Sun's pages, or its affiliates, again. (Except when a "friend" wants to see me enraged by its corruption.) I will never knowingly buy any such paper. I will assume that all of the TV affiliates associated with The Sun broadcast lies designed to mislead me, and so will attend them not or with complete contempt. With anger and deep sadness,
Guy A. Duperreault, BGS AScT CC: Peter Julian, MP.; Dennis Skulsky, President and Publisher The Vancouver Sun; Bryan Cantley, Vice-President of Member Services Canadian Newspaper Association [And I did not received a response from any of these people, our guardians of democracy.]
Page 7 of 7
09.05.19 10:44 PM
May 14, 2009 "You have failed democracy and because of you democracy is failing" Introduction In the spring of 2005 I had first hand experience with the British Columbia media that confirmed, unequivocally, that it is corrupt. By 'corrupt' I mean that it has come to serve the needs of its corporate owners and their masters, not the citizenry. To turn an old media saw, they have come to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. My seminal proof of that came to me via a senior editor of The Vancouver Sun. Fazil Mihlar lied in an editorial that denigrated a labour union. And while lying editorialists are surely not rare, in this particular case I had been researching the very topic about which he dissembled, and when I called him on his misstatement of fact Fazil Mihlar responded, in writing, with an open, even proud admission to having lied, and the selfserving justification of it having been a good lie because he has 'considered judgement.' I was at first stunned, and then enraged, by this response. After recovering from his blasé admission I began a response that prompted my wife to call out from the other room in defense of the keyboard I was pounding into submission. I didn't send that vitriolic outburst, but allowed my heart and head to cool overnight, after which I recomposed something more ... calm and meaningful than the earlier verbal eruption. In my 'calm' rant I set out to prove in no uncertain terms that Fazil Mihlar is ignorant of history, language and ethics. It was summarily dismissed by Mihlar – although quite likely unread because it had a history and a vocabulary. That dismissal prompted me to appeal to the British Columbia Press Council for their show of policing integrity and ethics in their journalistic members. I was saddened that once again my concern was dismissed, but shocked at just shallow and ill- or even unconsidered was the rational dismissing my complaint. I have, rightly or wrongly, taken the inane dismissal as a final sign of how fully corrupt is the media in, at least, British Columbia. And here by corrupt I mean lacking even the integrity to chastise, even with a token gesture, a prominent editorialist who not only lied but publicly admitted to lying. I have chosen to publish the second part of this tale first, that being comprised of: - the transcriptions of the BC Press Council's dismissal of my complaint - my response to them of that dismissal. Note: for publication in Scribd I have edited this edition to correct small editorial and grammatical errors in my text, and to remove identifying personal information. The transcription of the BCPC's response is unchanged, except as marked with squared
Page 1 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
brackets [like these]. In a later Scribd publication I will publish: - Mihlar's offending article - my initial letter of remonstration - Mihlar's flaccid defense of it - my extended 'proof' of Mihlar's ignorance.
Page 2 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
July 21/05 Guy A. Duperrealt [address] Dear Mr. Duperreault: The Press Council review board which was assigned your complaint against The Vancouver Sun (Editorial of April 27) has ruled the council should take no further action on the matter. The board found the complaint did not merit a public hearing, saying the editorial in question was not intended to be, and was not, a chronology of labor [sic] relations between the Telecommunications Workers' Union and Telus [sic], or a chronology of events. The board noted that the newspaper, almost immediately after the editorial ran supplied op-ed space for a response from the union's president and in addition, also published a lengthy letter from a union member. In its ruling, the board said latitude should be shown opinions contained in articles like editorials and found that the actions of the paper did not violate any of the rules in the Council's cod of Practice [my emphasis]. [signed] Bill Bachop, Executive Director [Addendum by Guy from the BCPC "Code of Practices": [4. ... However, newspapers and journalists shall strive to avoid expressing comment
Page 3 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
and conjecture as established fact (my emphasis).] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [My response is comprised of two parts, the e.mail preamble to BC Press Council and the attached letter of disgust]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [e.mail preamble:] Mr. Bachop: I received a few days ago the BC Press Council’s rejection of my demand for an apology for Fazil Mihlar of The Vancouver Sun having knowingly made a misstatement of fact. Their reasoning is contemptible. I have attached my full reason for such strong language, if you are interested in reading it. You, the BCPC, and The Sun have all conspired to kill a little what little remains of democracy in Canada. This saddens me more than a charming corporate bully enriching himself at my and my community’s expense while being praised by our “respected” media. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [The body of my response:]
August 1, 2005 Guy A. Duperreault [address] Bill Bachop BC Press Council #201 - 1290 Broad St. Victoria, BC V8W 2A5 Dear Mr. Bachop: I am ambivalent as to what made me feel sadder when I received the Press Council's finding: that your organization failed its obligations to hold accountable the members who pay you to hold them accountable, or that this failure was not that big a surprise to
Page 4 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
me or to the many others who have been following this sordid saga. Mr. Bachop, you may as well stop reading now. I see no tangible value in my pointing out to the naked emperor's tailors the hairy wee-wee truth. Unfortunately I feel compelled, in my own tiny way, to defend Canadian democracy against its imminent death by a thousand tiny cuts, of which you, your organization, Fazil Mihlar and his corporation, have inflicted at least three: that lying to the public is acceptable behaviour, that an exposed lie is excusable because the liar's pride in having considered judgement is able to metamorphose the lie into the truth, and that it is the media fox who is guarding the dissembling hens' media houses. So, if you are still reading, I take with complete disdain the quality of the tribunal's ruling. "The board found the complaint did not merit a public hearing, saying the editorial in question was not intended to be, and was not, a chronology of labor [sic] relations between the Telecommunications Workers' Union and Telus [sic], or a chronology of events." What?!? I say again: what?! What was this trio smoking when they wrote this? My complaint was that Fazil Mihlar lied. And when I provided the proof of the truth, Mihlar admitted to lying. FAZIL MIHLAR ADMITTED TO HAVING KNOWINGLY LIED! I will repeat that last sentence: FAZIL MIHLAR ADMITTED TO HAVING KNOWINGLY LIED! In case you or your tribunal think I am exagerating, here is what Mihlar wrote: While it is true that the TWU proposed renewing the existing contract with improvements, our considered judgement was since Telus was a new company (merging of the two firms from Alberta and B.C.) and the competitive landscape had changed, any proposal should consider these realities. So in our view, there was no new proposal or counter proposal to what Telus had on the table [my emphasis]. In his reply, here, he adds the adjective "new." In his editorial he used the adjective "single." He knowingly lied. After that admission, which quite frankly caught me by surprise, I asked for a front page apology for an admitted, even proud liar, having publicly lied so as to hurt the reputation of an organization. It seems that that must have been a surprise to ya'll, my not being overawed by the power of an admitted meritocratist's "considered judgement" to morph a lie into a truth. My verbose letter was a dismissal of Mihlar's argument, knowledge of labour history and of the TELUS/TWU legal wranglings. Near the end of it, three paragraphs after demanding a front page apology for his lie, I suggested that the public deserves a fair reporting of the events by which they can judge for themselves what is "fair", "truthful", "correct", etc. Yet you dismissed my claim because his editorial was not to be a chronology?!!! When I suggested that responsible reporting .... Oh. Maybe I had better cite myself, since your organization seems to have trouble reading. The public deserves a detailed and honest reporting of TELUS’ s and the TWU’s bargaining history, as well as some honest details of the contract, and
Page 5 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
not just TELUS’s sugar coated version honeyed up by a band of self-considered dissembling anonymous editorialists. Then, after printing a disinterested truth, if the anonymous editors and/or publisher so incline, then opine their properly “adjectived” babble until the cows come home [my emphasis]. I repeat: I even add that once an "honest reporting" is done, then the editorialists are most welcome to "opine ... until the cows come home." (Perhaps the neologism threw you, but I have been reading Shakespeare lately and am suffering from neological inspirationitis.) The tribunal dismissed my claim because his editorial was not to be a chronology!!! I had to repeat that, because the tribunal omitted to comment on my complaint, which was that Mihlar lied and admitted to lying. Why did the tribunal fail to comment on that "fact", even if to pedantically suggest that the lie wasn't black enough to warrant censure. No, the tribunal simply ignored it. Well, not quite. It seems that there was a kind of glossing over of it, because the tribunal also wrote: In its ruling, the board said latitude should be shown opinions contained in articles like editorials and found that the actions of the paper did not violate any of the rules in the Council's cod of Practice [my emphasis]. But that isn't quite true. I would like to cite one of "your" foxy rules: 4. ... However, newspapers and journalists shall strive to avoid expressing comment and conjecture as established fact (my emphasis). And perhaps here the waters of clear language run muddy. Did Mihlar strive to be truthful in his misuse of the adjective "single"? Quite frankly, his proud defence of it would argue otherwise. What does that tell me of your role in keeping honest the media, except that the BC Press Council is at best token arbiters of ethics in journalism? By not addressing the lie have you not tacitly admitted it? Would it be an unreasonable psychological stretch to suggest that you were unwilling to attend to it ethically and so your unconscious quietly, unobtrusively, blanked it out of your reasoning? Nah! That would be a stretch. Your tribunal simply ignored the issue with the hope that I would go away. And that is a democratic cancer almost as pernicious as Mihlar's "considered judgement." What dismays me most of all in all this media anti-democracy cancer is the full realization that I, as a member of our so-called democracy, have come to understand that an individual who takes pride in lying, who is even ignorant of the root of the word "meritocracy" let alone labour history as espoused by such economic heroes as Adam Smith and JS Mills, has the "considered judgement" I need to keep healthy my democracy! And thus I am left with the first hand knowledge, which I will disseminate to all who will read it, that not only does at least one of the The Vancouver Sun's editors lie, that he takes pride in the considered judgement that gives him the authority to lie, and that the
Page 6 of 7
BCPC Dismissal and Guy's Response - Scribd-complete.rtfd
09.05.19 10:44 PM
BC Press Council condones it. I am unlikely to read anything in any of The Sun's pages, or its affiliates, again. (Except when a "friend" wants to see me enraged by its corruption.) I will never knowingly buy any such paper. I will assume that all of the TV affiliates associated with The Sun broadcast lies designed to mislead me, and so will attend them not or with complete contempt. With anger and deep sadness,
Guy A. Duperreault, BGS AScT CC: Peter Julian, MP.; Dennis Skulsky, President and Publisher The Vancouver Sun; Bryan Cantley, Vice-President of Member Services Canadian Newspaper Association [And I did not received a response from any of these people, our guardians of democracy.]
Page 7 of 7
Related Documents
Bcpc Complaint Dismissal And Response
June 2020 5
Dismissal Of Rodeo Complaint
April 2020 11
Dismissal Of Strege Complaint
June 2020 8
Dismissal
June 2020 14
Dismissal
May 2020 20