Accountabilty - their choice
Tuesday, Jul. 28, 2009 | 02:08 PM PT
How I wish every company or organization we do stories on would be transparent and accountable - by answering our questions fully.
It makes a world of difference for viewers and readers. When mistakes are made or problems brought to light - they at least see the accountable party taking ownership. Of course, it also makes for a more comprehensive and balanced story.
Even within legal and privacy constraints, there is almost always SOMETHING they can say. And they should. We are their conduit to the public - and the public deserves better than "no comment".
Too often, though, I deal with people who seem to view us simply as the big, bad media - to avoid at all costs. Often, organizations give us only tightly scripted statements - and no chance to ask questions that should be answered. Or, they use "legal reasons" as an excuse not to talk at all.
The story we did last week about the truckers feeling pressured to drive too long - beyond safe limits - is a case in point of the worst case scenario. The "no comment, period" response.
Two firms are involved - the dispatching company and its subcontractor. One left me a message - saying they wouldn't comment because the trucker's complaints are a "labour relations issue" - whatever that means. The person calling didn't even give their name.
The vice-president of the other company was adamant he would not give us an interview when we asked him to. He wasn't really clear as to why - what was clear is he didn't want to have anything to do with us.
We were left without any information or input from either company. Then - after the story aired - one of the companies actually complained because their side wasn't represented. What did they expect??
On another story I am working on, the gag order is so extreme and comical that the receptionist gets very upset when I call asking him to take a message for others. He made it clear even HE has been told not to talk to CBC, period.
The receptionist!
He seems like a nice enough guy - put in a very weird, awkward position. The third time I called, he actually accused me of "borderline harassment". I am very polite. I was simply calling a publicly-funded group, asking to please speak to so and so.
For Pete's sake.
Thankfully, the accountable party in the story we are airing next has agreed to an on camera interview. How refreshing. I guarantee they will come off looking much better than those who don't.
Comments: (2)
Posted September 9, 2009 02:50 PM
Allan (Toronto) wrote:Yes, the lives of the press would be so much easier if everyone simply co-operated.
But it's not exactly realistic to expect everyone to be forthcoming, especially when potential lawsuits and even criminal charges are sometimes on the line.
Have you ever considered how truly transparent the CBC itself is when comes to being "forthcoming".
Even simple questions require a $5 bill and a letter to Ottawa.
This little rant comes off like whining that everyone should just help you and make your job easier.
For some parties, there's a lot more at stake than your getting a paycheque from the CBC.
Posted August 13, 2009 12:10 PM
Jill Moore (Prince_George) wrote:Couldn't agree more with you Kathy that it does make for a world of difference for viewers, readers and the public in general for organizations to walk the walk of accountability and transparency instead of just talking the talk! and this is especially true of our elected officials in the grand organization called our "democratic government". When dealing with a crisis in the world of public relations we are taught always tell the truth and at the very least invoke the EDD principle: express Empathy, tell what [the organization] has Done and what [the organization] is Doing; this is not the KISS principle nor the easy-out quote "the matter is before the courts." plus we all know that BC and some other provinces actually have an "Apology Act" that allows the accountable party to take ownership without ultimately being held to blame if indeed the matter is before the courts. Besides, legally there is nothing actually preventing a party for making a comment even if something is before the courts. Things have changed and we truly live in an era of accountability and transparency in 2009. As law professor Lorne Sossin discussed with AMT on the Current a while back, the "sub-judicae" principle is not a rule, it is a practice in the legal world that one shouldn't try to influence, urge, interfere, or suggest a pre-judgment. Imagine believing that a politician could actually influence a Judge. Ha! our elected officials need to work on influencing bureaucrats first.
Leadership (political or corporate) is about balancing and judgement not shutting down a discussion. Good for you for working to acheive this and it is refreshing journalism when you do. Incidentally, one could never accuse you or the CBC of borderline harrassment - personal experience with you folks is nothing but polite, sincere and full of integrity. thanks for that and keep up the good work!