Experts say Doug Ford drug story well researched, Globe trusted with sources
Toronto councillor Doug Ford. Photo: dougford.ca.
An investigative story by the Globe and Mail that describes the Ford family as kingpins in their Toronto neighbourhood drug trade 30 years ago is being criticized for relying almost exclusively on anonymous sources.
The Globe story ran Saturday and describes Doug Ford, 48, Toronto councillor and brother of mayor Rob Ford, 43, as a hash dealer in Etobicoke during the early 1980s. Brother Randy, 51, was once arrested for a drug-related kidnapping and sister Kathy, 52, has had a number of publicized brushes with drugs and the law. Mayor Rob is described as a straight-shooting football player who never dabbled in the family’s alleged extracurricular business.
The Fords say the story is not true. What incenses them – Rob called Canadian media “maggots” and Doug threatened to “investigate” Globe editor-in-chief John Stackhouse’s past – is that the story was written almost entirely using anonymous sources, who for the most part claim to be former customers or colleagues of Doug Ford. None of the allegations against Doug are backed up by police records.
Rob Ford in action after a Toronto City Council meeting. Photo: Youtube screen capture.
Some journalists argue newspapers should never depend on anonymous sources. If someone isn’t willing to attach their name to comments and assume legal responsibility, then their comments should not be relied upon, say opponents.
Standard practice for journalists is to be be leery of granting anonymity and to do so only as a last resort. One or two in unnamed sources in a news story is more than enough. The Globe’s editorial code sets out pretty clear guidelines about how and when anonymous sources should be used.
But an entire story based on anonymous sources, especially one as high profile as this, is almost unheard of. Stackhouse admits the Globe has never run one before.
Should it have run the Ford story?
To answer that question I turned to two former Globe journalists. David Climenhaga is a newspaper veteran who spent much of his career at the Calgary Herald and some if it as an editor with the Globe before leaving the business to become a union communications rep. Ross Howard spent 15 years at the Globe and now teaches journalism at Langara College in Vancouver.
David Climenhaga, Beacon News columnist
Climenhaga says reporters should not rely too heavily on anonymous sources, but there are exceptions to the rule. For instance, criminals take a dim view of being ratted out and retribution is always a serious possibility for sources, meaning anonymity for crime story sources makes sense. Politics is also a nasty game and those in the know can lose a job if they’re identified as the source of a leak.
Climenhaga says he knows from working in the Globe newsroom that the paper is “extremely conservative” about politically sensitive stories.
“I suppose that insider knowledge gives me confidence that they have done their work properly and this story is accurate,” he wrote in an email.
“In summary, I doubt the Globe could have reported this story without relying almost solely on anonymous reports, and because of my own confidence in the Globe, I believe this story. I believe further that the public interest is served by publishing it.”
Ross Howard, former Globe and Mail reporter, Langara College instructor. Photo: rosshoward.ca
Howard’s interview echoes Climenhaga.
“I trust the Globe, and not just because I worked there for a long time. On most stories it tends to be well sourced,” he said.
I asked Howard about the timing of the story, coming as it did on the heels of The Star’s revelation about a video purporting to show Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine. The Globe began investigating the Fords in 2011. Why wait 18 months to publish? Was it because Globe editors weren’t entirely happy with the anonymous sources?
For Stackhouse, sitting on that story while his competitor enjoyed international attention, the pressure to publish must have been intense. Did the scoop by its crosstown rival force the Globe’s hand? Would the Globe have delayed publishing and continued investigating, searching for attributable sources to strengthen a weak story, if not for the controversy?
Howard argues the media attention on the Fords and their alleged drug habits was the perfect time for the Globe to publish.
“The video of Mayor Ford allegedly smoking crack is what drove this story onto the front page of the Globe and Mail,” he said. “In other words, there was public interest in the story already, so this was an absolutely appropriate time to do it.”
Both Howard and Climenhaga’s support for the Globe’s story and its anonymous sources relies upon trust in the newspaper’s editorial process. They’re former insiders, they’ve been part of that process, have faith in the culture of professional journalism and the skills of its practitioners.
Unfortunately, Canadians aren’t as trusting. Public opinion polls show that many Canadians think journalists in this country engage in underhanded practices, like hacking cell phone voice messages. And judging by my social media networks, American-style cynicism about the “lame-stream media” has infected many Canadians.
Tell us what you think of the Canadian oil sands by filling out this brief survey. $2 will be donated to breast cancer research for every completed survey.
Which is why the Globe should have made a greater effort to explain why it used mostly anonymous sources for the Ford family story.
Globe public editor Sylvia Stead wrote a letter about the issue that accompanied the story by veteran reporters Greg McArthur and Shannon Kari. Howard thinks it didn’t go far enough.
“[Using anonymous sources] undeniably weakens the story’s credibility in the eyes of the public, especially members of the public who don’t know the process of verifying sources,” he told me.
“I don’t think the Globe made enough of an explanation, either accompanying the story or in the story, about why those people wanted to keep their names anonymous.”
I began this column believing that accusing a high profile politician of criminal activity based on interviews with 10 anonymous sources made for a weak story and that were I in Stackhouse’s shoes I wouldn’t have green-lighted it. Now I’m not so sure. Both Climinhaga and Howard make a persuasive case that the story was in the public interest and that the Globe can be trusted to follow rigorous procedure verifying the anonymous. The story might not be perfect, but it had to be told.
Fair enough.
But we might be more willing, in this cynical age, to extend that trust if we better understood how the Globe verified its anonymous sources and why those sources refused to be named.
And maybe that’s the take away from this story for journalists and those interested in our business: We can’t assume trust anymore. That trust has eroded and needs to be rebuilt, especially by national newspapers of record like the Globe and Mail, which according to my experts did a good job on the Ford family story but could have done better.