Mon, 08/21/2017 - 04:21

Posted by Tamara Baluja on February 14, 2014

Ask a Mentor is a collaboration between J-Source and the Canadian Association of Journalists. The goal of the section is to provide advice to journalists and journalism students who may not have direct access to a mentor or subject matter expert on a particular topic.

The question: 

Shauna Snow-Capparelli, a member of the CAJ’s national Ethics Advisory Committee, is chair of the Bachelor of Communication-Journalism program at Mount Royal University in Calgary. She chaired the writing in 2011 of CAJ’s updated “Ethics Guidelines” and “Principles for Ethical Journalism.”

While every situation has its own intricacies—and the journalist in me wants to know the details of this particular situation—I simply cannot conjure a potential case when reporting on someone you’re suing might be acceptable.

I can see many reasons a reporter should not report on such a source. But I can’t think of any compelling reason why he or she should.

Simply put, we cannot—or at least should not, if we wish to maintain credibility—report on people (or entities) with whom we have a conflict of interest or may have reason to advance a certain perception (negative or positive) of that person.

Related content on J-Source:

If a reporter has taken legal action—or is even considering doing so—the reporter obviously believes, or wants to advance the belief, that wrongdoing by the other party has occurred. Whether justified or not, that reporter has a grudge. Even if a lawsuit were based on seemingly cut-and-dried facts—someone failing to pay an amount owed by contract, for instance—the reporter would have a vested interest in what gets reported about that source, and motives around reporting even unrelated circumstances would certainly be called into question.

A good bottom line that I’ve used: could the reporter personally benefit or be harmed (or be perceived to benefit or be harmed) by what might be reported? This would include if the reporter found out something unexpected—whether positive or negative—during the reporting process.

What if, for instance:

  • the reporter discovered that the alleged wrongdoing had also taken place before?
  • the reporter found out the suit’s target had much deeper pockets than previously known?
  • the respondent was voted “citizen of the year” and received international acclaim for moral or business excellence?

The answers seem clear. Any such developments could potentially sway public opinion of the source, with evidence uncovered even possibly influencing the suit’s outcome and/or how the reporter proceeds with the action.

A more interesting question might be what would happen if the respondent were found liable and appropriately sanctioned, and if the reporter were satisfied with those sanctions. Could that reporter—if full transparency disclosures were made, of course—then resume reporting on the subject?

This would be a case where the particulars would really matter. For instance:

  • how could the reporter make clear that there was no leftover grudge against the subject?
  • would the source even be willing to talk to the reporter, or would the public interest be better served by a different journalist?
  • would the audience trust the reporter to be able to set aside the past and start anew?

One such scenario has recently played out at the Toronto Star with Daniel Dale, who dropped his defamation suit against Mayor Rob Ford after the latter apologized for making false statements about the reporter. Initially Dale said he planned to continue reporting on Ford during the legal proceedings, and since dropping the suit he has continued reporting on Toronto city hall (and Ford). But the magnitude of public interest around Ford and his relationship with the media may well have made Star readers much more accepting of the reporter’s real or perceived biases.

The details in this highly unusual case are everything.

Got a question? The Canadian Association of Journalists will consult its members across the country to find the appropriate expert to craft a response to your question, which will then be posted on J-Source. Tweet @jsource your question with the hashtag #AskMentor or email your question to

Related content on J-Source:


The ethics of this are situational. If the journalist works for a large media outlet or in a multi-person news department, the story should be reported by someone independantly.

In a smaller newsroom down to a one-person opertation in a small community for example, to not report is worse than reporting. The journalist should declare his interest and try to get comments/quotes from the other side. when the issue is contentious, the other side will often make public statements or in court documents that reveal their position. The journalist also has to respect the Court or Tribunal and not attempt to try the issue themselves.

I am currently in a Human Rights complaint on PEI against the Press Gallery. No one the Canadian media has reported this story despite their being an acknowledgement by the PEI Human Rights Commission that the case is at least bona fide. I asked j-Source to cover the story; however, the reporter decided to convert a human rights case into bloggers versus the Press Gallery. Since then j-Source has refused to report that the CBC is backing the Press Gallery, despite documentary evidence.

So in this case, I am forced to report the story myself which I consider an indictment of the Canadian journalism establishment.



As far as I know, when the case is in court, you can't write about it and publish in public.

J-Source and ProjetJ are publications of the Canadian Journalism Project, a venture among post-secondary journalism schools and programs across Canada, led by Ryerson University, Université Laval and Carleton University and supported by a group of donors.