THE COMPLAINT
Mr. George Muenz, an English-speaking resident of British Columbia, filed a complaint about an interview1 by host Anne-Marie Dussault that aired on August 17, 2015 on the ICI RDI program 24/60, the daily current affairs program that she hosts.
More specifically, Mr. Muenz feels that it was inappropriate for the interviewer to point out that her guest was Jewish.
A little background: Ms. Dussault’s guest on her program was Mr. Steve Maman, a Montreal businessman who leads The Liberation of Christian and Yazidi Children of Iraq, a non-government organization that raises funds to “buy back” from the armed group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) women and children whom it had kidnapped and was holding as slaves.
Mr. Muenz was reacting to Ms. Dussault’s interview with Mr. Maman based on an excerpt presented and commented on by Mr. Ezra Levant2, a commentator who presents his views on the web from his personal site, The Rebel.
Here is Mr. Muenz’s complaint:
I am beyond appalled at the behaviour of this “journalist”.
I am the son of an Auschwitz survivor whose extended family was wiped out there. In 2015, when someone helps the poor people enslaved by ISIS and because he praised the work of the current Government of Canada in this regard, she says that it’s because “He’s an Orthodox Jew and just like the Evangelicals?” How is the person even working one more day at CBC or anything affiliated with CBC? An absolute disgrace.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Mr. Luc Simard, Director, Diversity and Community Relations, responded to Mr. Muenz on behalf the News Department: Your comments relate to the program 24 heures en soixante minutes broadcast on August 17th 2015. You write that it was an “absolute disgrace” that the anchor made a link between the faith of her guest, an Orthodox Jew, and a religious current influential within the Harper government, the Evangelical Christianism.
1 http://ici.radio-canada.ca/widgets/mediaconsole/medianet/7329859
2 http://www.therebel.media/watch_quebec_tv_host
2
We understand, through your communications with the Ombudsman, that your complaint is based not on the broadcast itself but on an editorial comment that was made three days later by the polemicist Ezra Levant on the website The Rebel. In order to give you a proper answer, we watched both productions: Mr. Levant’s tirade and the above-mentioned segment of 24 heures en soixante minutes. Let’s remember that it comprised an interview with Montreal businessman Steve Maman, who has launched an initiative to free hostages detained by the so-called Islamic State group, Christian and Yazidi Children of Iraq. Here are our observations: Mr. Levant’s rant lasts 9 minutes and 2 seconds, out of which only 56 seconds are excerpts of our program. But the TV interview with Mr. Maman lasted almost 8 minutes. It is obvious, when we watch the entire interview, that the excerpt chosen by Mr. Levant does not reflect the content of the discussion. The focus was not the faith of our guest but his possible involuntary funding of the Islamic State terrorist group through his good-will action of releasing its hostages. The question underlying the faiths of both guest and government comes only towards the end of the interview, after Mr. Maman commends the Canadian government for the humanitarian aid it provides in Iraq. The guest goes on to profess a personal admiration for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and a picture of him and the PM, excerpted from Mr. Maman’s website, is shown on the air. The question is legitimate: for several years, the media have reported on a number of policies of the outgoing Conservative government, both domestic and foreign, which appeared faith-based, some of them linking Christian and Jewish beliefs. It would be wrong to restrict the questions that an anchor may ask her guests: only frank and direct questions have a chance to bring noteworthy answers. In our experience, this is the best way to give the public an accurate portrait of complex situations. But we understand that, because of their nature or the way they are phrased, some questions can make us uncomfortable. If that was how you felt after our anchor’s questions, we sincerely regret it.
THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Mr. Muenz was not convinced by the response that he received from Mr. Simard and requested that I review the file.
First, he feels that the company spokesperson defends himself by insulting and discrediting Mr. Levant: the spokesperson refers to Mr. Levant as a “polemicist” and to his comments as a “tirade” and a “rant.”
The complainant admits that it was Mr. Levant’s comments and the short excerpt from Ms. Dussault’s interview with Mr. Maman shown on the The Rebel website that led him to file his complaint, but he insists that his complaint concerns the interview’s content.
3
In any event, he feels that it has no bearing on the fact that Ms. Dussault derisorily stressed the fact that Mr. Maman was Jewish, thereby expressing her personal opinions—both political, in regard to the Conservatives, and racist, from his point of view, in regard to Jews.
Finally, Mr. Muenz pointed out that he did not receive management’s response until he had reminded me twice that he was still waiting for it. The last time he did so was on January 2, 2016.
Upon checking, we found that the response had indeed been sent to Mr. Muenz on October 7, 2015, but he reports that he had never received it. It was therefore returned to him on January 4, 2016.
THE REVIEW3
In his request for a review, Mr. Muenz affirms that he could have let matters drop if Mr. Simard had only recognized in his response that it was “inappropriate,” in the course of the interview, to stress the fact that Mr. Maman was Jewish.
However, in my opinion, the fact that Mr. Maman is Jewish is one of the aspects that makes his humanitarian efforts so noteworthy and that it was appropriate to mention it. He, a Jewish businessman, is putting his heart and soul into saving Christian women and children persecuted by Islamist extremists.
Mr. Maman said himself during the interview that his model is Oskar Schindler, the German Roman Catholic industrialist who saved 1,200 Jews from the Holocaust by hiring them in his plants during World War II.
Ezra Levant drew the same parallel in his comments on the interview when he said that there was “something poetic” about the fact that a Jew like Steve Maman is now rescuing non-Jews, just like the Roman Catholic Schindler had done 75 years earlier to save Jews from Hitler’s clutches.
Like Mr. Simard, I also feel that in journalism, interviewers are free to ask the questions they want, while interviewees are free to choose their answers. All questions are valid, as long as they are relevant and respectful of the interviewee.
To allow for an informed discussion, I am reproducing below the exchange that concluded the interview between Ms. Dussault and her guest, and which offended the complainant.
STEVE MAMAN: “Le Canada a été incroyable. Le premier ministre du Canada Stephen Harper et le ministre de la défense et du multiculturalisme Jason Kenney se sont présentés en Iraq et ont donné 140 millions de dollars d’aide humanitaire aux déplacés. C’est incroyable! C’est héroïque! C’est le seul gouvernement qui a fait ça.”
3 http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.ca/fr/a-propos/mandat-de-l-ombudsman/
4
[Translation: “Canada has been incredible. The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, and the Minister of Defence and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, went to Iraq and provided $140 million of humanitarian assistance for the displaced people. That’s incredible! It’s heroic! It’s the only government that has done that.”]
ANNE-MARIE DUSSAULT: “Vous, vous êtes un juif orthodoxe, associé aux évangélistes… Le gouvernement Harper on l’associe aussi… Vous avez des affinités avec le gouvernement actuel.” [Translation: “You are an Orthodox Jew, associated with the evangelists. […] The Harper government is also associated […]. You have affinities with the current government.”]
STEVE MAMAN: “Je suis en admiration devant le premier ministre Stephen Harper.” [Translation: “I am a great admirer of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.”]
ANNE-MARIE-DUSSAULT: “Ah très bien. Et vous récoltez des fonds pour… Merci M. Maman. On va revenir sur les enjeux éthiques avec un autre invité dans quelques instants.” [Translation: “Ah, very good. And you are raising funds for … . Thank you, Mr. Maman. We will take another look at the ethical issues with another guest in just a moment.”]
During the years where the Conservatives were in power, it is a fact that the media often drew links between the Harper government’s actions and positions and certain “Christian and Jewish beliefs,” to quote Radio-Canada’s spokesperson. Some people have seen these as a sign of an evangelical mindset, especially in the unconditional support for Israel.
Consequently, it was relevant and legitimate to raise this issue during the interview.
However, upon listening to the interview’s conclusion, I can readily appreciate that the question that Ms. Dussault asked Mr. Maman about his affinities with Stephen Harper’s Conservative government could have seemed to be “inappropriate” to some viewers, including Mr. Muenz.
To say the least, the communion of thought between Orthodox Jews, Christian evangelists and the Harper government that the interviewer was trying to suggest is anything but evident in her question.
I would add that I found it “ambitious,” or even “risky,” to bring up, in so few words, a subject that is so complex that achieving an adequate understanding would have required lengthy explanations.
In short, while it wasn’t “inappropriate” to highlight the fact that Mr. Maman is Jewish, as I explained above, it seems clear that the question asked was destined to lead to a dead end. In this sense, it was inadequate.
5
But a question that is poorly worded, awkward or asked at the wrong time is not a violation of CBC/Radio-Canada’s Journalistic Standards and Practices4. Journalists, need I remind the reader, and interviewers in particular, often work “live,” with no safety net. We cannot expect perfection.
I would add that the complainant, like Mr. Levant and all viewers, perceive the information they receive through the lens of their own sensitivities, values, principles and opinions.
Mr. Muenz did not appreciate the fact that the Radio-Canada spokesperson described Mr. Ezra Levant as a “polemicist” and his comment as a “tirade” and “rant.”
But it must be admitted that on his website The Rebel, Mr. Levant defends personal views that are often provocative and inspired by the conservative right with which he identifies, just as he used to do on Sun News Network.
Mr. Levant has never made it a secret that he hates CBC/Radio-Canada. He even makes a few unsupported statements about the public broadcaster in his comments on Ms. Dussault’s interview.
That is his right. But we have to take his comments for what they are: personal opinions inspired by his beliefs, his conception and his perception of things, often expressed in excessive terms—a fact that can be easily verified.
Consider the following example from his website, where he writes the following about Ms. Dussault: “… of course, this being Quebec, she couldn’t resist throwing in some good old fashioned anti-semitism.”
Maybe it’s because I’m from Quebec, but in my view that comment has every appearance of being racist prejudice.
Whatever the case, I wish to suggest to the complainant that Mr. Levant is not impartial and that the conclusions that he draws from the interview are his own.
CONCLUSION
The host of the program 24/60, Anne-Marie Dussault, did not breach Radio-Canada’s journalistic standards and practices in her interview with businessman Steve Maman, which aired on ICI RDI on August 17, 2015.
Pierre Tourangeau Ombudsman, French Services, CBC/Radio-Canada January 13, 2016
The Jewish Schindler
