Geoff Meeker asked VOCM news director Gerry Phelan about VOCM's coverage of the cell phone story.
According to Phelan, VOCM reported the cell phone accusation against the Premier but only after he admitted to the offence. Then there was this curious comment that VOCM reported it "reluctantly" and that he was "chagrinned":
VOCM did follow the story the next day when the premier admitted to the infraction, Phelan said. However, they did so reluctantly.
“We ran it that evening, much to my chagrin because it was still a non-story,” Phelan said. “How often do you have to react to someone making an allegation? I still have a problem with (reporting on) someone making an allegation that may or may not be true. Where do you draw that line? Where do you stop?”
Okay.
So if VOCM doesn't report unproven allegations, why is there a story on a 79 year old man accused of impaired driving? He's not named but the accusation against him hasn't been proved. How come there's a story on there reporting this at all?
Or what about the police officer accused of impaired driving and refusing the breathathalyzer? Unproven but widely reported by VOCM both on air and on line.
Withholding the accused's name seems hardly sufficient to avoid violating the VOCM "standard" standard of not reporting unproven allegations. After all, the news director apparently reluctantly reports admissions of guilty so reporting an accusation should leave him apoplectic, not just feeling a little chagrin.
Seems like a bit of a, editorial double standard or at least a highly malleable one.
-srbp-
