Photo: Pivot
In a decision published on Thursday by the Press Council, it confirms three of the complaints made by Le Devoir journalist Améli Pineda and citizen Suzanne Cholette and blames Isabelle Hachey, Marie-Ève Tremblay, La Presse and 98.5.
Améli Pineda, a journalist at Le Devoir, is at the beginning of an investigation against Julien Lacroix published in July 2020, which concerns allegations of assault and sexual misconduct on his part towards several women.
Two years later, in November 2022, Isabelle Hachey, a columnist at La Presse, and Marie-Ève Tremblay, a presenter at 98.5, published an article and a podcast entitled “The Julien Lacroix affair, two years later – Scars and “regret”. In this content, the journalists interviewed women who, after their denunciation in the Le Devoir investigation, said they regretted denouncing the comedian because of the damaging public and private consequences that would have resulted from their statements. The two journalists' article also questioned the methods of the Le Devoir investigation and questioned the work of Améli Pineda.
He then filed a complaint with the Press Council. The complaint included several complaints.
Of these, seven were rejected and three were accepted in the Press Council's decision: one of the complaints about incomplete information, the complaint about a lack of balance and the complaint about the appearance of a conflict of interest.
“I am satisfied with the decision of the Press Council, which recognizes significant deficiencies in the approach of Isabelle Hachey and Marie-Ève Tremblay, who deviated from several principles of the Code of Ethics,” affirms Améli Pineda in an interview in response to the decision of the Press Council.
“It is unusual to make a complaint against colleagues, but their actions were equally unusual. »
Incomplete information
The complaint sent by La Presse to Le Devoir about incomplete information related to the interview request. In Isabelle Hachey's article, the columnist wrote: “We have requested an interview with the newspaper Le Devoir to find out their position on the matter. The daily accepted our request as long as it received our questions in advance. We rejected this condition. »
However, if Le Devoir acted in this way, it was “out of a desire to respect the ethical rules of our profession in a matter involving confidential sources,” Améli Pineda explained in her complaint to the Press Council. “Compromising the confidentiality of my sources would have affected the public's trust in our profession and this decision strengthens Le Devoir's position,” the journalist explains in an interview.
This contextual element was not further explained in the La Presse article.
Council therefore agreed with Le Devoir on this point. “Given the central role that Le Devoir played in the subject of the investigation, the reasons for the daily newspaper's refusal to grant an interview to the defendant were essential information for understanding the subject. It was clear to journalists that their refusal to forward the questions to Le Devoir management in advance was not the only reason given by the media for rejecting the interview request. Simply stating that “the daily accepted our request on the condition that we received our questions in advance” ignored several important reasons for the rejection and prevented the public from fully understanding this rejection it in the decision.
Lack of balance
The Council also upheld the complaint of lack of balance.
Améli Pineda's complaint states: “La Presse had relevant information that could have offered readers a fair and balanced picture, but failed to include information published by Le Devoir that accurately related to the approach.” [de travail sur soi] by Julien Lacroix and the progress of women in this regard. She emphasizes that “since 2020, Le Devoir has published ten texts related to the Julien Lacroix affair, conducted a video interview with him and its journalists have written numerous analyzes of the denunciation movement and its excesses.”
She believes that “La Presse should have shown Le Devoir’s efforts to flesh out the issue.”
She adds, “after listening to the four episodes [du balado du 98,5]it is clear that they [les journalistes] Obscuring information, creating an imbalance that makes listeners mistakenly believe that Le Devoir aired a devastating investigation into the fallen comedian in July 2020 without ever caring about the outcome, when exactly the opposite occurred.
The Council then responded in accordance with this complaint: “Given that Le Devoir was one of the parties directly affected by this new investigation, the journalists had an ethical obligation to present a fair weighting of Duty’s perspective on this matter .” ”
“This could have been done, among other things, by clearly presenting to Le Devoir the elements that called his journalistic work into question, so that Le Devoir could respond to them in a fully informed manner, or by reporting on the various consequences. Le Devoir’s subsequent investigations into his investigation in 2020.”
Appearance of a conflict of interest
Finally, due to the appearance of a conflict of interest, the complaint concerned the friendly relations between Marie-Ève Tremblay and the current wife of Julien Lacroix, Maude Sabbagh, who testifies in the content of La Presse and 98.5. This complaint was also raised by Suzanne Cholette, a citizen, in a separate complaint.
The council confirmed that Marie-Ève Tremblay had not offered transparency on the matter. “By questioning a person with whom she had exchanged personal messages on social networks over several years, the journalist entered into an obvious conflict of interest. By conducting this interview without disclosing to the public the nature of her relationship with Julien Lacroix's partner, Marie-Ève Tremblay did not take the necessary measures to avoid this appearance of a conflict of interest. »
Turn the page?
“This decision today allows me to clarify my discretion over the last year on this issue. Protecting my sources is non-negotiable, even if I had to face the consequences. Journalism is not a show. My feelings didn’t matter,” said Améli Pineda in an interview.
“The file has progressed in the relevant committee and today I can turn the page. This complaint was not about feelings or emotions, but about ethics and respect for the ethical standards that govern the profession of journalism,” the journalist added.
La Presse responded through its vice president for information and deputy editor, François Cardinal. “We remain convinced that La Presse's reporting was indisputably in the public interest, that it demonstrated exemplary accuracy and that its journalistic approach was consistent with the rules of the art.” “It is an example of the kind courageous journalism that triggers deep social reflection and lively debate, which is at the core of La Presse’s mission,” he said.
“With this in mind, we are pleased that the Press Council has rejected the majority of the eleven complaints submitted and would like to express our strong rejection of the three complaints that have been retained. We believe that these complaints are without merit and that this decision sets dangerous precedents that will undermine the ability of all journalists in Quebec to conduct research and publish on issues of public interest – not just La Presse. For this reason, we intend to appeal this decision,” he added.
Marie-Ève Tremblay did not want to react to the council's decision.
The Complaints Committee during the decision-making process consisted of representatives of the public (Renée Lamontagne and Mathieu Montégiani), representatives of journalists (Sylvie Fournier and Paule Vermot-Desroches) and representatives of press organizations (Maxime Bertrand and Éric Grenier). .
Council recalls that “if a complaint is upheld, the press organization affected by the decision has a moral obligation to publish or disseminate it.” Member press organizations undertake to comply with this obligation and submit a complaint to the Council within 30 days of the decision Proof of this publication or broadcast must be sent.
Corrections: The first version of this article mentioned that Ms. Pineda had filed a complaint together with Ms. Cholette. However, these are two separate complaints. The article also portrayed Ms Cholette as Julien Lacroix's ex-wife: this information has been removed. (December 21, 2023)