Toronto’s National Post Misses the Boat

The most significant fact of all -- which, believe me, I emphasized to the reporter, with whom I spoke twice for a total of 20 minutes or so -- was entirely omitted: no one ever accused me of making a false statement about the Y. This is the story: that the Y’s libel suit threat is a deliberate abuse of the legal process, intended to suppress legitimate criticism.

I forwarded the relevant correspondence to the Ontario Press Council but was informed that, unlike 201 other papers (including the other major Toronto dailies, the Globe, Star and Sun), the Post is “unfortunately ... not a member of the Ontario Press Council and does not (nor is it obligated to) respond to complaints passed along by the Council.”

I write because Post editors have blankly refused to publish a clarifying letter from me after printing a story that (1) misquotes me, and (2) presents incorrect facts about me.

The story says I "wrote letters to ... a financial contributor accusing management of breaking the `ideals and values of the YMCA, squandering funds, lying and dishonesty.' "

In fact, my only letter to a financial contributor said: "No one in management has acknowledged or shown any interest in the allegation, signed by 38 Y participants, that a particular manager has persistently lied to members in order to defend unjustifiable policies. To the best of our knowledge, the allegation has not been looked into."

The Post thus attributes a phrase to me, with quotation marks, that I never wrote or uttered. Incidentally, I was the one to provide the full text of the letter to the reporter, at his request.

Also, the story opens with: "A dispute between the YMCA and one of its members over use of the club's squash courts may soon escalate into a legal battle."

This is simply false in terms of its plain English meaning. The dispute is not with one member but unquestionably with many members, 67 of whom have signed a petition strenuously objecting to mismanagement of squash courts.

My proposed letter does, in passing, note the story's inaccuracy. This seems to have provoked a hugely sensitive and defensive reaction. But as a matter of simple fairness, I think it's clear I have a right of reply. It's regrettable I'm obliged to turn to senior editors to resolve something like this.

More serious from your point of view might be the fact that the published account misses the newsworthy crux of the story (real libel chill) as I related it to your reporter. Please see my email exchange with Peter Scowen below.

Sincerely,

Uriel Wittenberg

Dear Mr Wittenberg,

The one area in which the National Post is at fault in its handling of this story is that several statements you made in your dealings with this dispute were improperly collapsed into a single sentence. This should not have happened and the reporter has been spoken to appropriately. You were not, however, misrepresented in any material way, and I do not believe you have serious ground for complaint.

The rest of your objections are matters of journalistic judgement. While you are entitled to your opinion, so are we, and we will have to agree to differ.

Yours sincerely,

Hugo Gurdon
(Managing Editor)

Dear Mr. Gurdon,

Thanks for your reply.

I am perfectly happy for us to have differing opinions. What irks me is that yours appeared in your paper, while mine are confined to this narrow email circle.

You speak of "complaint," but my initial response to the article was merely a request that you publish a not particularly critical letter to the editor. If someone here is being too sensitive, I don't think it's me.

Sincerely,

Uriel Wittenberg

Perhaps you would permit me to clarify a story concerning me ("YMCA, member battle over squash court use," August 8, 2000).

The significance of the YMCA, a charity, using its funds to have a lawyer threaten me with a libel suit, is that (1) it is an attempt to suppress legitimate criticism of management, and (2) indications are the YMCA knows such a suit would have no genuine basis.

The dispute is not between the YMCA and "one of its members," as your story has it. Sixty seven people have signed a petition complaining of "squandered" resources and "the lack of adequate response" from YMCA management to "repeated appeals and suggestions by dues-paying members." Of those, 38 have signed a supplementary complaint regarding persistent misrepresentations on this issue by a YMCA manager.

The petition, just like two others dealing with the same issue dating back to 1997, was rejected by the YMCA without explanation.

Most significant, in light of the YMCA's threat of libel action, is that no one has ever accused me of making a false statement relating to the YMCA.

Further information about YMCA breaches is available at http://urielw.com/ymca .

Uriel Wittenberg
Toronto

What particularly hurts is that what is misquoted is not something I told Desmond in our phone discussion. The story misquotes my written communications, complete copies of which I emailed Desmond at his request.

The story says:

-----------
He wrote letters to one of the organization's executives and a financial contributor accusing management of breaking the "ideals and values of the YMCA, squandering funds, lying and dishonesty."
-----------

I emailed Desmond the full text of all the communications in question. I object to quotation marks being placed around clumsy paraphrasings like this and attributed to me. Yes, my communications have spoken of lies, but the context always indicated that thirty eight people have signed a written complaint to the YMCA regarding the misrepresentations in question. That makes it sound less irresponsible, doesn't it?

What's worse is the newsworthy elements the story omits. As I stressed to Desmond, no one has accused me of untrue statements. That makes the libel threat look very much like a misuse of funds on the part of the YMCA.

I would ask, in fairness, that you help ensure that [my letter to the editor, copy enclosed] does not get lost amidst all the Post's incoming mail.

Dear Mr. Wittenberg,

Your letter implies we were inaccurate when we reported the dispute is between the YMCA and "one of its members." In fact, you are the acknowledged leader of the squash-court movement, and are the person named in the legal letter sent by the YMCA's lawyer. There would be no petition without Uriel Wittenberg. The story quite clearly says the dispute "stems back to a 70-member petition" initiated by yourself. The reader is informed that you have the backing of other members, and are acting in their interests, but also makes it clear that you are the instigator of the petition.

Thanks for your interest in the National Post. Please keep us informed if the YMCA serves you with a statement of intent to sue, or if any other development occurs.

Yours truly,

Peter Scowen

Dear Mr. Scowen,

Point #1 (which you ignore): No one has alleged a false statement on my part. This is the central point of the story -- and your article omits it. No falsehood means no libel. No libel means the YMCA has no genuine basis to threaten a libel suit. This is classic "libel chill," the abuse of the legal system by a moneyed party to suppress speech it doesn't like. This is all the more newsworthy in that the "chiller" in this case is the YMCA (!), a charitable institution professing high ideals that is prominent in our community. There have been legal expenses already (a lawyer's letter), implying misuse of funds. PLUS -- the speech is not merely annoying, embarrassing, offensive, indecent (the conventional stuff of free-speech pleas). The speech is a 100% legitimate criticism of mismanagement and deceit that has been going on for years!

How does a newspaper manage to miss something like this?

Yes, I'm interested in the National Post. I was your source for this remarkable news item. And my reward is a story that:

- misses the central point;

- manages to misquote written materials -- which I provided -- in a way that makes me look like I'm foaming at the mouth;

- incorrectly opens with the words, "A dispute between the YMCA and one of its members over use of the club's squash courts," whereas the dispute over courts involves 67 people whose petition -- just like previous petitions over the same issue dating back to 1997 (before I joined the Y) -- was rejected without explanation. Some may have been placated by the Y's halfway measure, but I assure you I'm not the sole remaining person among the 67 who is still involved in the court dispute with the Y.

Now, I am simply asking that you publish my letter. Without alteration, if you please. I don't think that's terribly unreasonable.

Regards,

UW

Dear Mr. Wittenberg,

Peter Scowen sent me a copy of his reply to your letter and I agree with him that running a letter suggesting our article was inaccurate is unjustified. Furthermore, it seems to me that the other points you raise in your letter were already covered in our news article. I think our readers have a fair understanding of the dispute to date.

Ruth-Ann MacKinnon