Why did the CBC not follow its guidelines from 2014 for Faisal Hussain in 2018 “The guide also recommends consulting experts and to only report mental conditions when they have been confirmed by an expert, as opposed to hearsay of a neighbour or friend.”

 

People with mental illness have been under attack the past few weeks because of reporting by the media. Seems every horrible attack these days is committed by someone who is “mentally ill.” Often without verification. As I have written before, the first report is spread the most through social media. Corrections are way behind. Human bias.

I am going to share with you the response to my complaint to the CBC regarding abuse of the mentally ill in what might appear to be an attempt to deflect away from terrorism. This happened in 2014. A terror attack at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa when Corporal Nathan Cirillo was murdered by Zehaf-Bibeau  and the Parliament buildings were under attack. 

 

Then I am going to share with you the vile comments made by John Cruickshank, past publisher of the Toronto Star, during that discussion. Ask yourself why he believed he could speak this way about the mentally ill. Ask yourself if he would have spoken about black people or indigenous or gay people in the same way.

       Corporal Cirillo

Then I am going to take the ethical standards that the CBC says it follows and use them to discuss the latest attack on the mentally ill by the media following the Toronto Danforth attack. Was the attack made to deflect away from terrorism, again?

You decide.

From the Official complaint that I sent to them. I am the “YOU.”

You  wrote to complain about a media panel discussion on the October 24, 2014, edition of the Radio One program Q. The media panel is a regular feature of the program. This one was convened the week of the two assaults on Canadian soldiers, resulting in the death of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Cpl. Nathan Cirillo in Ottawa. You objected to the panelists labelling the perpetrators “mentally ill.” You said the panelists’ statements were “an attack on millions of Canadians with mental illness and their families and friends.” You pointed out they used terms like “crazy” and “clinically insane” without any facts based on professional assessment to back this up:

No proof. No professional references. Judy Rebick, John Cruickshank and Jonathan Kay- three journalists giving us their opinion. They had a feeling that he was mentally ill.

You added that the program host did not challenge their assumptions in any way. You said you believed there was ample evidence that the label of terrorist was more apt and questioned why the panelists chose to define Michael Zehan-Bibeau, the killer of Cpl. Cirillo, as mentally ill instead of a terrorist even though there had already been statements made that Zehan-Bibeau was a terrorist…

It seems the CBC was far more concerned about offending Muslims than the mentally ill. Perhaps you don’t fear a backlash from the mentally ill community as much as from the Muslim community. At the very least there should have been some discussion about the fact that both men fit the parameters of a lone wolf terrorist…In my humble opinion the panel and moderator on Q that day chose to plant a seed of fear for the mentally ill in order not to cast aspersions on Muslims and Islam, or be accused of Islamophobia.”

 

From the official response by the Ombudsman at the CBC  to my complaint.

“What is to be avoided, and wasn’t in this discussion, is labelling and setting up the notion of mental illness as the cause of the behavior. It reinforced the stereotype that people with mental illness are perpetrators of violence when the truth is that people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence. There were times when it sounded like issues of mental health were the only legitimate explanation, other than terrorism. And while the host intervened to clarify when other ideas were raised, you were right, there was no challenging these assumptions. In making his argument not to see these events at acts of terrorism, Mr. Cruickshank says:

Let me note that in every age craziness takes on a particular complexion. Just as people go to Jerusalem and they begin to believe they are Jesus Christ, and people go to Iceland and think they are Bjork, right? I mean that’s just the kind of thing that happens. And right now in a period when a kind of craziness leads to people thinking that they are terrorists supporting ISIL. If we take that seriously we are simply taking the nuttiness seriously. We are taking crazy seriously. And we’re telling people this is on all fours with an organized attempt to create terror amongst the population and subvert our society. This is not what is happening here.

 

CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices does not have specific policy about discussing mental illness. It does have policy about use of language and avoiding the reinforcement of stereotypes.

Here it is.

Mindset: Reporting on mental health. (Full disclosure: I (The ombudsman, Esther Enkin) was involved in the creation of the guide in a volunteer capacity through my association with the Canadian Journalism Forum on Violence and Trauma. The Mental Health Commission of Canada sponsored the project.)

The guide is designed to provide general assignment reporters and editors with a clear understanding of mental health reporting issues and to provide guidance on how to report responsibly, without reinforcing stereotypes. Among some of the suggested best practices is to be very careful to use specific terms and diagnoses and not to use vague and loose terms. The guide also recommends consulting experts and to only report mental conditions when they have been confirmed by an expert, as opposed to hearsay of a neighbour or friend. It also cautions not to jump to conclusions about cause and effect. In other areas of reporting such as minorities and other vulnerable members of society, practice and approach have evolved.

 

If the CBC believes in these practices then why did the CBC allow the following to be reported on July 23 after the Danforth attack in Toronto by Faisal Hussein?

Here is a statement reported by “family friend” Mohammed Hashim:

“We are at a terrible loss for words but we must speak out to express our deepest condolences to the families who are now suffering on account of our son’s horrific actions.

“We are utterly devastated by the incomprehensible news that our son was responsible for the senseless violence and loss of life that took place on the Danforth.

“Our son had severe mental health challenges, struggling with psychosis and depression his entire life. The interventions of professionals were unsuccessful. Medications and therapy were unable to treat him. While we did our best to seek help for him throughout his life of struggle and pain, we could never imagine that this would be his devastating and destructive end.

“Our hearts are in pieces for the victims and for our city as we all come to grips with this terrible tragedy. We will mourn those who were lost for the rest of our lives.”

Is this not a flagrant disregard of the CBC ethical policies? “The guide also recommends consulting experts and to only report mental conditions when they have been confirmed by an expert, as opposed to hearsay of a neighbour or friend.

On July 25 the CBC again  reported Hussain’s mental health problems — “he suffered depression and psychosis according to his family — have raised questions about how he got a gun.”

Yet, despite a statement from ISIS that he worked for them, the CBC reported:

“As investigators work to determine Hussain’s motive, police refuted a report that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) had claimed responsibility for the shooting.

“At this stage, we have no evidence to support these claims,” said Toronto police Chief Mark Saunders said in a statement.

No evidence to support ISIS claims?

Where is the evidence of mental illness other than family and hearsay?

 

So you decide. Why did the CBC break with its journalistic standards in 2018 that were clearly stated in 2014:

“The guide also recommends consulting experts and to only report mental conditions when they have been confirmed by an expert, as opposed to hearsay of a neighbour or friend.”

and report on hearsay evidence of mental illness while denying any connection to ISIS?

 

From the Ethics of the Fathers: “Rabbi Tarfon used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it.”