Censured writer draws fire

A racist comment in a Ric Dolphin story in the Western Standard about the leadership race for the ruling Alberta Conservative Party has caused his employer some headaches.

Aboriginal community leaders in Edmonton, who call themselves the Aboriginal Human Rights Commission, called a press conference at City Hall on Feb. 15. They were outraged by the following reference to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's Metis wife in the story:

"Colleen's influence is seen as destructive and her motives less than altruistic. 'Once she stops being the premier's wife, she goes back to being just another Indian,' says one of Klein's fishing buddies, in an unkind reference to Colleen's Native heritage. 'Colleen likes being picked up in a car with security and being driven to her next function,' says a longtime campaign manager close to both Kleins."

The quotes, as has been the practice of Dolphin in the past when passing on derisive comments about Aboriginal people, are from unnamed sources.

Metis Nation of Alberta Vice-president Trevor Gladue wants Dolphin to prove he didn't just make them up by naming the sources.

Muriel Stanley Venne, president of the Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women, said a human rights complaint is being considered.

This is not the first time Dolphin has angered Aboriginal people with his writing. He was censured by the Alberta Press Council in 2003. Within hours of that decision came the news that he was no longer employed by the Calgary Herald. Shortly thereafter, he found employment at the Western Standard.

Publisher Ezra Levant, a lawyer by training who is also a former communications person for the Canadian Alliance, said he was delighted to hear from Windspeaker when we contacted him on Feb. 22.

"You're my most important call today," he said. "People think we are hostile to Aboriginal people and that bothers me so much because it is so untrue."

He said he was surprised by the reaction to the Dolphin article.

"We didn't get why people are shooting the messenger. And then we realized they're not shooting the Western Standard so much as they have an outstanding beef with Ric that's to do with what he did at another paper."

He admitted the racial aspect of the unattributed comment got past both himself and his editor.
"Our magazine was surprised by that because we read it as a spicy political story, an inside baseball leadership story. That's how we read it. That's how I read it and I used to be a poll captain for Ralph Klein. And so when we saw the reaction ... Kevin Libin, our editor who was senior writer with Canadian Business in Toronto until he came west two years ago, this whole back story was news to him," Levant said. He defended the article as an important news story about the ambitions of former Alberta cabinet minister Jim Dinning who is waiting for Klein to move on so he can run for the job.

"When I think of Ric Dolphin I think of a spicy guy who writes with a sarcastic humor. So when I read that story that's what jumped out at me. I thought, 'Wow, this is spicy story of scheming to replace Ralph Klein' and the racial tone was not the central item of the piece. In the context of past disagreements with other newspapers of which Ric wrote, I can see how people would make that the central focus."

But he insisted his track record in dealing with the Aboriginal community shows that his publication is not anti-Aboriginal.

"I would say in our defence, two things: We know who said these words and he's a friend of the premier's and he actually said it and we think it's newsworthy and we have more or less identified him. You know, within a handful of people," he said. "Second, we believe we are the most pro-Aboriginal general interest newsmagazine in the country."

He said it was very frustrating to see "all our good work with dozens of bands and probably 50 companies was all of a sudden being attacked by folks who were really blaming us for a pre-existing fight they had with one of our writers."

Levant said he "wouldn't overstate" the backlash that his publication has faced as a result of this controvsery, and another one.

The two-year-old, bi-monthly conservative newsmagazine based in Calgary decided to publish the controversial Danish cartoons that depict the prophet Muhammad in ways that enraged Muslims all over the world and led to violent and deadly protests.

Newsstands and other retail outlets pulled the magazine from their shelves because of the publication of the cartoons. Air Canada has also decided not to carry it.

Out of a press run of 40,000 copies every two weeks, he said only a couple of hundred copies are sold to Chapters, McNally Robinson and Air Canada.

"Both of those companies, by the way, are coming back on next issue. They just thought, 'Hmm, this one's a little spicy. We'll take a break," he said. "Air Canada, at my initiative, I called up Air Canada about a week before we went to press just to give them the head's up we're doing the cartoons in a tasteful, unprovocative way. 'Let's talk about what we might do just to make them easier for you.'"

While the magazine received 7,000 e-mails, 2,000 phone calls and 500 faxes this month, the response to the Dolphin article was "literally one per cent of the fury."

Ezra Levant bought the floundering Alberta Report magazine when he started up the Western Standard. Alberta Report was generally seen as far right and anti-Aboriginal.

"I got a call from the Assembly of First Nations. I said, before you guys jump to conclusions, let's talk about how the Western Standard actually operates with Aboriginal people. Let's talk about the reality first before you say, 'Oh, you guys are the old Alberta Report. We're not the Alberta Report but some people are still thinking that we are. I put it to you that there is no mainstream magazine in Canada that writes more about Aboriginal business in a positive way than the Western Standard. I believe I can prove that quantitatively by showing you," he said. "I said to AFN, 'Look, you can call us right wing. We are. You can call us conservative. We are. You can say we're against big government. We are. That's not going to surprise anybody. But I put it to you that there are a growing number of Aboriginals, especially in Alberta, especially in the oil patch, who share our view.'"

"This is a fight between Ralph Klein and the Dinning guys who want him out and they think Colleen is hamming it up, Mrs. Boss," said Levant in the article's defence. "It's obvious they're angry with her. Even Dolphin himself said, 'an unkind reference.'"

Windspeaker called him on that one, suggesting that phrase was clearly something that a media lawyer would insist be included in the story to distance the publication from the remark and create deniability. He didn't argue that point.

"OK, it was a nasty phrase. So now what do I do? Do I say don't run it because it's nasty? So I'm in the cover-up for Ralph Klein's friends business now? I'm saying to you we had big news. All these so-called friends of the Kleins are dissing them behind their back," he replied.

But he did admit an argument could be made that the journalistic approach was questionable.
"I will concede that this is a gray area because [the comment] was unattributed. I will accept as legitimate, the contrary point of view that says this kind of spicy comment should not be published without attribution. That is a valid comment. I believe that is a valid editorial decision," he said. "We made another decision that people can criticize."

And there is a chance that other reporters can use clues in the article to find out who made that racist comment. He pointed out that the Globe and Mail was able to discover that one of the sources, who did not make that comment, is Dinning's campaign manager, Allan Hallman.
"We did more or less identify," he said. "The reason they found Allan Hallman is because we said 'long-time campaign manager.' Well, how many people is that? So 'fishing buddy to the premier.' So how many people are in there?"

Many reporters would sympathize with the conundrum faced in this situation. By the accepted rules of the profession, when a reporter agrees to grant anonymity and then the source says something that is clearly wrong or abusive, the deal cannot be broken. But Windspeaker argued that the reporter's past record played a role in the way the story was perceived.

Levant did not argue that point.

"Fair enough. And if you want to try Ric's past, I am not going to be his defence lawyer because I have nothing to do with it, frankly. It wasn't my paper. So if that is the beef, that in the past Ric did something iffy, I'm not going to defend it. It's not mine to defend. Now if you're saying, 'Why did you let him say this?' He didn't say it. I know it wasn't him," Levant said. "If people want to say, 'You shouldn't have had Ric on that story,' that's one thing. If people are saying it's not journalistically ethical to have a spicy comment like that unattributed, I would argue with them.

But I would say you can make that argument in good faith. But then to expand on that, as some of these activists have, to say we're anti-Aboriginal, I will never accept that. Never! Because we do more business in a month with real Aboriginal entrepreneurs than most mainstream media do in a year. And not just running ads and stuff that we're paid to do by these Aboriginal companies, but giving of ourselves. Promoting their resource expos, promoting them on our Aboriginal Forum radio shows."