Offleash is the Ryerson Review of Journalism‘s first-ever regular podcast, published on RRJ.ca every second Wednesday at 3:33 p.m.

In this week’s episode of RRJ’s Offleash, Viviane and Allison speak to Alex Gillis, who recently made news in the journalism industry after his story was killed then used by The Walrus. We also interview Derek Finkle from the Canadian Writer’s Group about the different kinds of kill fees, and RRJ alumna and freelancer Carly Lewis about her experiences with kill fees and story theft.

Music courtesy of Paul Nathan Harper, also known as A F L O A T. Find his music here: @a-f-l-o-a-t

Election day is finally, finally upon us, but the longest campaign in Canadian history since 1872 didn’t end quietly for the country’s print newspapers. If anything, it ended nonsensically.

Questions of who controls newspapers’ editorial voice haunted the final week of #elxn42 as print media outlets published their editorial board’s federal election choices. Some internet media, including the RRJ, questioned whether such endorsements are a practice worth keeping.

“For us, it seems a bit outdated,” said BuzzFeed Canada’s Emma Loop, while speaking to The Current on October 9. Although BuzzFeed does weigh in on particular issues, Loop said, the organization will “stay away from the partisan element” of politics by not endorsing a candidate.

Kathy English, public editor of the Toronto Star, was on The Current with Loop. She maintained that newspaper endorsements still have a place. “The Star is an institution that dates back over three centuries. Every day, it takes stands on issues that matter to the community,” said English. “It would be a cop-out not to do so in an election campaign.”

That morning, the Star published an editorial endorsing the Liberal Party of Canada. Two other Torstar papers, the Hamilton Spectator and the Waterloo Region Record, also endorsed the Liberals on October 15 and 17 respectively.

But it was the Postmedia endorsements on October 16 that made noise on Twitter as paper after paper in the national chain published an editorial endorsing the Conservative Party of Canada. The endorsement wasn’t by the editorial staff, however, as Edmonton Journal writer Paula Simons said in a tweet:

And yes. Before you ask, this was a decision made by the owners of the paper. As is their traditional prerogative.

— Paula Simons (@Paulatics) October 16, 2015

On Saturday, the National Post itself followed suit. Its editorial board’s pronouncement was also at odds with the opinions of columnists at the Post and other Postmedia holdings whose columns appeared on Friday and Saturday. Even Conrad Black himself weighed in, favouring a Liberal minority and referring to Stephen Harper as a “sadistic Victorian schoolmaster” who doesn’t know when to leave office. And one column was notable in its absence from the Saturday edition: that of Andrew Coyne, head of the Post’s editorial board.

According to Canadaland, Coyne’s column would have endorsed somebody other than the Conservatives, unlike the editorial endorsement he signed off on for the Post.  He has not spoken out on why his column did not appear, and his usually voluble Twitter feed has fallen silent — though Ricochet’s Ethan Cox noted that Coyne has disappeared in similar circumstances before.

UPDATE: Coyne has resigned from his post as editor

So anyway… I have resigned as editor of Editorials and Comment for the National Post, effective immediately. I will remain a columnist.

— Andrew Coyne (@acoyne) October 19, 2015

2. Postmedia executives and I had a professional disagreement. Their view was that the publication of a column by the editorial page editor…

— Andrew Coyne (@acoyne) October 19, 2015

3. … dissenting from the Post’s endorsement of the Conservatives would have confused readers and embarrassed the paper.

— Andrew Coyne (@acoyne) October 19, 2015

4. My view was that that was what I was paid to do as a columnist: give my honest opinion on issues of public interest.

— Andrew Coyne (@acoyne) October 19, 2015

5. I don’t see public disagreement as confusing. I see it as honest. Readers, in my view, are adults & understand that adults can disagree.

— Andrew Coyne (@acoyne) October 19, 2015

Numerous Postmedia properties were also notable for their front pages in the last days of the election campaign: full-page, bright yellow wrap ads from the Conservatives bashing the competition. The ads appeared on the covers of the Penticton Herald, Vancouver Sun, Calgary Sun, The Province, The London Free Press, Ottawa Citizen, and 24 Hours Toronto. Most were aimed at the Liberals, but the Penticton Herald ad targeted both the Liberals and NDP. Curiously, the Friday edition of 24 Hours Vancouver, also a Postmedia property, featured an NDP wrap ad. While it isn’t a new practice, one reporter noted that these ads were a step up from the norm.

@belindaalzner Never seen one in such big papers, either, but correct me if I'm wrong

— Selena Ross (@seleross) October 17, 2015

Meanwhile, back at The Globe and Mail‘s offices, editor David Walmsley spent an hour fielding questions on Facebook about the paper’s unconventional endorsement of the Conservatives without endorsing party leader Stephen Harper. 

“The half-heartedness is a sign of the weakness of the political candidates,” Walmsley said in response to one questioner. “It would be great to find a clear, obvious winner the country could unite behind, but we don’t have that at the moment.”

In response to the Globe’s ambivalence, some Twitter users channeled their inner political humourist with the hashtag #MoreGlobeEndorsements.

Globe endorses BLT: hold the bacon, hold the lettuce, hold the tomato. #MoreGlobeEndorsements #elxn42

— Jeff Meldrum (@jeffmeldrum) October 16, 2015

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, without the rights and freedoms. #MoreGlobeEndorsements

— Justin Mathews (@JustMath19) October 16, 2015

The Walking Dead. But no zombies. We have enough of them on our editorial board. #MoreGlobeEndorsements

— Erynn Watson (@erynnwatson) October 16, 2015

Here at the RRJ, we endorse newspapers, but we’re on the fence about newspaper endorsements.

On February 21, the Toronto Star pulled its controversial Gardasil investigation offline after weeks of public backlash and outrage. A note from publisher John Cruickshank posted on February 20 said that while the paper remains “committed to this line of reporting, we have concluded that in this case our story treatment led to confusion between anecdotes and evidence.”

The story initially ran on February 5 with the headline “A wonder drug’s dark side,” and detailed the accounts of three young women who had experienced adverse health issues within weeks of receiving Gardasil, an HPV vaccine. The investigation depicted horror stories of swelling joints, muscle spasms and, in one case, death. Through the 2,000-plus words of fear mongering, the article included one caveat in its 11th paragraph: “There is no conclusive evidence showing the vaccine caused a death or illness.”

Within hours of being posted online, the story received pushback from the medical community. Dr. Jen Gunter, a San Francisco-based ob-gyn openly critiqued the article on both her blog and in a piece for Canadaland, citing many troubling aspects in the reporting. Most notably, the reporters relied heavily on anecdotal evidence while giving little weight to evidence-based medicine, misinterpreted data and failed to disclose that one of the medical experts consulted had worked for a Gardasil competitor. Gunter chastised the Star for failing to disclose essential facts, writing “the paper’s editors should know better than to distort facts with presentation, and yet they chose sensationalism over truth.”

The common concern was that this investigation’s influence could prevent young women from deciding to get vaccinated, all for invalid or inaccurate reasons. As Gunter writes on Canadaland, “I don’t believe anyone who read it who is contemplating an HPV vaccine for themselves or their child is going to remember the short statements about vaccine safety: no, they will remember the photograph of the anguished mother or the girl with the nasogastric tube. I know I do.”

Health reporter Julia Belluz critiqued the piece for Vox.com, calling it a “textbook case of how to botch a health story.” She cited many of the same errors that Gunter had, including the reporters’ misuse of the Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS tracks what is known as “post-market surveillance,” which monitors vaccine safety after it has been administered. Anyone – doctors, nurses, patients themselves – can report what they believe to be vaccine-related health issues to VAERS. Because it is self-reported, the data cannot be considered conclusive. The investigation’s reliance on VAERS to support the girls’ claims left Belluz fearing the worst about the article’s influence: “There’s no doubt that, despite the caveats, this report will turn people away from the vaccine unnecessarily. This is a particular tragedy in the Canadian context, where the uptake of the HPV vaccine is already abysmally low.”

In response to the criticism, the Star went on the offensive. When Belluz reached out to the paper for comment, editor Michael Cooke told her to “stop gargling our bathwater and take the energy to run yourself your own, fresh tub.” Columnist Heather Mallick slammed Gunter’s criticisms, telling readers “Here’s a tip: don’t read a website run by a rural doctor whose slogan is ‘wielding the lasso of truth.’” (Gunter is a board-certified ob-gyn in both Canada and the U.S.)

Faced with more criticism, the Star began to backpedal. The headline was changed to read “Families seek more transparency on HPV vaccine.” Investigative editor Kevin Donovan, in another piece for Canadaland, said he stood by the investigation and reporting, stating the piece “provided a balanced account of concerns around an important public health initiative.” Donovan also said he “welcome[s] debate,” and believes the Star’s readers “are smart enough to take in all of the information available, including our story, and make their own decisions.”

Evidently, the publisher disagreed. The story was pulled from the Star’s website just eight days after Donovan’s defence.

The Star implemented a policy in 2008 that states, it will not unpublish any material, save for legal reasons. As public editor Kathy English wrote in a 2009 report on unpublishing, all content is regarded as “matter of public record whether it is published on newsprint or online.” English’s report included the opinions of editors of papers from across North America, and notes that unpublishing should only happen in “very rare” circumstances –instead, papers should update stories as they change to remain transparent and most importantly, weigh the implications of their content before it goes to print. The report goes on to conclude that “news organizations do not rewrite history or make news disappear.”

The Star may want this to just disappear, but it’s not going to. No amount of updates could lessen the Gardasil story’s dangerous implications. The investigation is a black mark on an otherwise well-reputed unit that has uncovered some of Toronto’s most shocking news stories, from the treatment of the elderly in nursing homes to the former mayor’s substance abuse. Since Donovan’s stance, both the publisher and public editor have issued apologies. Cruickshank summed it up nicely on CBC’s As it Happens: “We failed in this case. We let down. And it was in the management in the story at the top. I take responsibility and we will focus on doing better in the future.”

Just because the Star has deleted their mistake from public record, doesn’t mean we’ll forgive – or forget.

Last Tuesday evening I learned some new things from Jesse Brown: he and a friend made the song that opens his show Canadaland, News Canada—which provides free editorial content—sources articles from the federal government and, well, that’s about it.

“The news, Jian and me: a conversation with Jesse Brown,” was advertised as two hours of in-depth discussion about the Canadaland host’s work, especially what went into breaking the Ghomeshi story.

Instead, as these things often do, it turned into a conversation of how great he is. When asked how he finds his stories, Brown said they “just come” to him. The moderators asked if swearing is part of his brand and wondered if he’d welcome fame. The talk turned into “My show, me and me.” And it’s not all Brown’s fault. What is he supposed to do when questions like these are lobbed up like softballs other than knock them out of the park?

Brown is a polarizing figure. On an episode of Canadaland’s “Short Cuts,” The Globe and Mail’s senior media writer Simon Houpt spoke about his recent feature on Brown’s track record of playing “fast and loose” with facts. Another journalist told Houpt, in reaction to the piece, “It’s as if people decided they were a ‘Jesse’ or a ‘Globe.’” To some, Brown is a saviour. To others, a danger. To more: a jerk. And he knows it.

“As a friend,” Corey Mintz wrote in the Toronto Star, “I feel qualified to say that Jesse Brown is a smug, loud-mouthed, know-it-all who’s easy to dislike.” Brown himself freely admits he’s “unapologetically sensational.” Certainly, writing that Amanda Lang undertook a “shocking campaign” sounds more like something on Upworthy than a news site. But as a crowdfunded journalist, he needs to grab attention somehow. Getting people to objectively scrutinize their favourite media personnel is difficult. The only way people are going to notice you today is if you shove yourself in front of their faces. “The work speaks for itself” adage doesn’t hold true anymore.

Brown is also often asked to speak about himself, and in many interviews, mentions how thrilling it is to be Canada’s only media critic. In his “Nobody’s a Critic” piece in The Walrus, he wrote, “Although we have a few media reporters, our attempts at substantive criticism never last long.” (Although the Review has been around since 1984.)

The self-promotion is paying off. Brown has became something of a celebrity and support for Canadaland has reached almost $10,000 a month. He also told the audience Tuesday night that he’s getting more tips than ever, which is deserved. He’s dug up important stories. His podcasts are often honest and thoughtful. But like anyone, Brown’s reporting isn’t perfect—he’s been accused of jumping to conclusions and has his own critics.

So what is Jesse Brown? He’s a saviour to those who’ve ignored the media reporters working in Canada before 2013. A danger to those in the press with secrets that affect their work. And to many, a jerk. He’s a mix of all three. He’s a good journalist.