Sun, 08/20/2017 - 09:50

Posted by Tamara Baluja on March 03, 2014

By Dan Rowe

So far, the discussion about Peter Mansbridge’s decision to accept money to speak at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ (CAPP) Investment Symposium last December has centred on why the CBC chief correspondent did it and why he and “senior management,” who apparently approved the gig, thought it was OK— and, by the way, neither of those questions has been satisfactorily answered yet.

But the controversy should also be raising questions about the news judgment of Mansbridge and his bosses, especially when it comes to the topic of oil sands development and climate change.

Mansbridge’s written response to his critics, published on the CBC’s website last week, made no direct reference to CAPP, but did refer to “a resource industry” as one of a list of the types of groups that he has often spoken to. His list also included “…a food bank, a financial services group, a teacher's association, nurses, lawyers, doctors, police officers, environmental organizations, judges.…”

If CBC News’s chief correspondent can’t distinguish the qualitative difference between speaking to CAPP and one of the other groups he mentioned, the CBC has a bigger problem than a possible ethical impropriety that can be papered over with an internal policy review.

Related content on J-Source:

While CAPP represents many of the major players in the Canadian oil and natural gas industry, with a particular focus on the oil sands, it has become the public face of the pro-oil-sands-development side of the debate, thanks to a major TV advertising -campaign. The development of the oil sands, the growth of fracking and U.S. government approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, all of which CAPP wholeheartedly endorses, of course, are all major and still very much contested economic, environmental and political issues.

By lumping this resource industry group in with food banks and teachers’ associations, Mansbridge is downplaying the prominence of CAPP and the significance of the debate over Canada’s energy policy, specifically as it relates to the oil sands. And this, even if it was meant to get the critics off his back, is the most disturbing development from this story.

It’s hard to believe Mansbridge would speak to another group with as direct and significant an economic or political interest in the outcome of another comparably contentious issue. It suggests that Mansbridge and whoever rubber-stamped this speaking gig may not think that the development of the oil sands is especially contentious.

Many studies that have looked at coverage of the topic of climate change around the world have found that the political agenda leads the news agenda at most large, traditional news outlets. In other words, most journalists won’t spend much time reporting on this issue (or any other) unless political elites are debating it.

For example, when John Howard was prime minister of Australia and showed no interest in mitigating climate change, news coverage of the topic in that country dried up. The same was true during George W. Bush’s administration in the U.S.

In Canada, newspaper coverage of climate change peaked after Stéphane Dion (of Green Shift infamy) was elected Liberal leader in late 2006 and plummeted after his electoral defeat in fall 2008.

Except for an international increase in coverage around the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009, the number of stories about climate change in the National Post, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star continue to drop, according to the results of a tracking project led by Dr. Maxwell Boykoff at the University of Colorado. (There hasn’t, to my knowledge, been a project looking at Canadian TV coverage of the issue.)

If you are a Canadian journalist who takes your cues from the public statements and sentiments of top federal and even provincial politicians—and, given the glee with which Mansbridge reports on political news and anchors the At Issue and The Insiders panels, I would put him in that category—there is little reason at this point to think that climate change should be anywhere near the top of the news agenda.

Barring any unexpected twists, the controversy over Mansbridge speaking at a CAPP event for a fee will soon begin to fade. Apparent ethical lapses by anyone, especially celebrity journalists like Mansbridge, should be big news. But in the long run, they probably aren’t as important to journalism and the audience’s perception of the world as an understanding of the influences and factors that shape news judgment.


Dan Rowe is the bachelor of journalism program coordinator at Humber College in Toronto. He is also the book review editor of J-Source.


Related content on J-Source:


Thank you for writing a thoughtful piece Dan.

I just wonder which groups Peter Mansbridge would decline to speak to for a fee. Would the Knights of Columbus make the grade?  A big construction company like SNC-Lavalin Group?  The B'nai  Brith?  

It would be interesting to see which groups Mansbridge turns down.

Still, I find it incredible that Mansbridge would not consider the optics of his decision to speak to such a partisan group lie the CAPP. Perhaps he tried to educate them or was it a feather in his CAPP?

The CBC holds itself above reasonable ethical standards. Everything floats for them to fit their situation. Murphy, Mansbridge are big name journalists for hire. The public get no insight into how deep the rot goes. Last week, President Lacroix again refused to disclose Mansbridge's salary or extra income to the Senate Transportation and Communications Committee.

While CBC hounded the Senators last year to get disclosure on their expense claims, the CBC President was allowed to hide his $30,000 per diem over claim for 3 months before it was paid back and then 5 more months before it was disclosed publicly. It was so obviously scripted not to become public knowledge until long after the Senate debates and censure votes.

There will be no reporters scrum with Mr. Lacroix to allow journalists to probe the veracity of his press release. There is a reason why the public lack confidence in corporate journalism.

Our neighbors to the south are much more vigilant in keeping journalists to ethical standards.


The problem is not that he speaks to them, but that he takes money from them. I doubt the food banks gave him $20,000.

I suspect that Mansbridge is not underpaid or near the poverty line. So can we presume that he donated his fat speaker's fee to Environmental Defence, so as not to be seen favouring the partisan petroleum lobby? Peter, we need to know!

I see that once again my comment didn't make it. Can you tell me if I am generally blocked? It would save me from wasting time.

thanks, Eric

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.