As a journalist, it's not uncommon to receive criticism, especially when writing about sensitive and controversial topics like gun control. Recently, I came across a comment on a social media platform that criticized an article I wrote about the federal government's Bill C-21 titled – Government of Alberta continues to lobby against Bill C-21.
The comment said, "Jesus, someone REALLY needs to educate this reporter,” while quoting a fragment of a sentence within the article that said, “The federal government’s Bill C-21 aims to improve gun control..."
In full, this is the paragraph from the digital version of the article verbatim:
The federal government’s Bill C-21 aims to improve gun control across Canada, which includes a national handgun freeze and the banning of over 1,500 models of firearms. A November 2022 proposed amendment to the bill that could ban some hunting rifles and shotguns is being debated in Ottawa.
I contemplated changing it but decided against it. The sentence is a summary of an article I previously wrote with a link just under the paragraph. That previous article quoted Trudeau, when he said, “We’re proposing some of the strongest measures in Canadian history to keep guns out of our communities and build a safer future for everyone.”
Summarization is often crucial when writing follow-ups to an ongoing story for background and context. Linking to a related previous story is also common to further provide context and background by not burying the follow-up story.
However, the comment implied my reporting was impartial and inaccurate. Contrary to the commentator's expectation, it's not my place to speculate on the government's true intentions behind a bill, especially without hard evidence.
Instead, my role is to gather information from a variety of sources and present it objectively to the public. This requires finding and talking to those affected by a story, as well as public servants and other relevant sources, and curating the information gathered in a neutral manner – the news.
Doing otherwise would be a disservice to the public who expect us to be partial, especially in an already increasingly distrusted profession. My political beliefs simply are irrelevant as a reporter.
Thus, while I may personally disagree with Bill C-21, my job is to inform the public, not to impose my beliefs or opinions. For instance, I personally think they should just scrap the bill, and take a deeper look at Bill C-75 instead.
The public can then utilize that information however and whichever way they want, including if and when they vote. That’s my job - to inform.
So, is the article in question then partial, truthful, and accurate?
I would say so and would vehemently argue it is. My articles, which are all also available digitally and in print, are free for all to criticize. I’m willing to discuss their partiality, truthfulness, and accuracy with anybody.
After all, transparency is also in my best interest.
