! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Private lives?: Covering family, children and other bystanders in the Ford affair

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Graeme Bayliss Sarah Murphy JN8107 Standards of Journalists Care School of Journalism, Ryerson University

Private Lives? Covering family, children and other bystanders in the Ford affair For years, Mayor Rob Ford has cultivated a regular-guy persona. He drinks Tim Hortons coffee; he volunteers with the local high school football team. On Halloween, he takes his kids trick-or-treating and hes not above dressing up. Ford has made his family available to the media when its politically advantageous, but at other times, he has accused media of threatening the privacy and even safety of his family. Have news media crossed a line? Sarah Murphy and Graeme Bayliss explore ethical issues in covering Fords family, children and other bystanders. WATCH AND LISTEN: COVERING KIDS AND FAMILY AN 11-MONTH SAGA OF STALKING AND STAGING IN THE FORD AFFAIR <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/t-SwacifnO0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> On November 15, 2013, Renata Ford stood beside her husband at City Hall as he apologized for the lewd comment he had made on live television the day before. A politicians wife standing next to the podium occupied by her disgraced husband is hardly a fresh sight, but this particular occasion marked Renatas second-only public appearance the first was on the night Rob Ford was elected mayor. It was also another instance of a troubling pattern that has seen Rob Ford use his family members as props, when convenient, to deflect attention from substance abuse allegations and bolster his public persona as the best father around.! Its easy to argue that public officials deserve to be scrutinized, as their actions are matters of public interest. As Gail Hulnick notes, Canadian journalists are more guarded than Americans when it comes to reporting on character issues, but personal details become relevant when information about a politicians personal life is deemed to have an impact on his or her ability to do the job (Hulnick 15). Covering the private lives of politicians, while commonplace, raises a number of ethical questions when family members get drawn into the story.! Covering the mayors wife! The night Rob Ford was elected mayor, Torontonians were introduced to Renata Ford. She stood next to her husband, sharing the celebratory moment, but disappeared from the public eye rather quickly. In February 2011, Jan Wong attempted to profile the mayors wife for Toronto Life, but her piece, The woman behind the mayor: Who is Renata Ford?, ended up a detailed account of being denied access to Renata. Friends and coworkers willing to speak about the mayor clammed up when Wong asked them about his wife. After approaching the Fords house several times and speaking with Renatas parents, she was still unable to meet the mayors wife. In the piece, Wong asks, Why the veil of secrecy? She answers her own question: It only makes journalists more curious especially when Ford uses his family to burnish his image.! Amidst a crack video scandal that continues to unfold and has seen Ford stripped of most of his powers, the mayor has developed a habit of using his wife and children as props to deflect attention and boost his image as a respectable family man and regular guy. Following

accusations of having a prostitute in his office and making advances toward a female staffer, Ford responded with a lewd comment about his and Renatas sex life: Im happily married, he said on November 14, 2013. I have more than enough to eat at home. It was a shocking remark to many, but the decision to run the quote wasnt a matter of choice it was heard across the city on live television. While potentially humiliating to his wife, news media considered it fair to report the mayors comment. It was said in response to allegations from a public police report and took place at City Hall amidst a scrum of reporters and television cameras. By this argument, the blame for any damage done to Renata should not be placed on media outlets that ran the comment, but rather Ford, whose comment pushed her into the spotlight.! Renata also made headlines back in 2008 when Ford was arrested and charged with assault and threatening death; the charges were eventually dropped, due to inconsistencies in Renatas story a saga included in Wongs Toronto Life article. After recounting separate incidents where Renata and Rob called 9-1-1 on each other, Wong compares the mayors wife to those of scandalized politicians like Eliot Spitzer or John Edwards standing by idly, projecting the image that everything is all right. By the end of the story, she is barely closer to knowing Renata and concludes, Were all married to him now. For richer or for poorer, for better or for worse.! Its a piece that gives insight into the journalistic process of tracking down sources and getting people to talk, but it also raises questions about publishing personal information about someone who is not a public official. Gabriel Foos 1992 Ryerson Review of Journalism article Is Nothing Sacred? explores the tensions between serving the public with responsible journalism and granting political figures a reasonable level of privacy. Eminent Canadian journalist George Bain told Foo that journalists shouldnt denounce politicians as unfit for the job because hes vain or because hes going bald, arguing that, these things have no bearing on the person's capacity to perform in the office." But do allegations of driving drunk, smoking crack and having ties to gangs suggest a more serious situation? One in which personal afflictions may have a real impact on the way business is conducted (or not conducted) at City Hall? Interviewed in the same article, Toronto Star columnist Carol Goar challenged Bains sentiments. There are some things in the way a man or woman conducts his or her private life which give you an insight into the kind of leader the person is, she said. Ones behaviour may change between home and work life, but he or she remains the same person.! In a 2011 study for the Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Bartosz W. Wojdynski and Daniel Riff analyze public opinion about the coverage of political figures private lives. Using the example of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, they note that private indiscretions often lead to public lies and deception (207). So although readers dont necessarily feel that a politician who cheats on his wife is unfit for the job, a politician whose repeated public denials are proven false will likely lose public support. They continue: The public expects, or at least accepts, mainstream

print and broadcast media to shed light on behaviours and issues that may be perceived as personal, even if this means coverage of tawdry affairs or drug problems (219).! But omitting information about the personal lives of politicians from coverage of their professional lives isnt a realistic or helpful solution. Jeffrey Dvorkin, director of the journalism program at the University of Toronto, recognizes that curiosity and coverage surrounding new politicians and their families is normal. As the journalistic tradition goes, people want to know more about who this elected person is, what his background or her background is, what the familys like, just to get a fuller picture, he says. As for whether its ethical for the media to take on a politicians wife, Dvorkin recognizes the voyeuristic nature of revealing personal information, but maintains that there are important issues to be covered. Theres something kind of creepy and sort of brutal about it, plus theres a history of police being called because of domestic violence in the house on a number of occasions, he says, speaking about Toronto Lifes Renata feature. This definitely is a legitimate story.! Toronto Star editor Michael Cooke says theres nothing untoward about approaching Fords wife especially given the mayors Herculean efforts to avoid giving the media any information himself. Why isnt it fair? Cooke asks. Why isnt it fair to ask his wife to knock on the door and say, Mrs. Ford, can you answer some questions please? If she doesnt answer or she says she doesnt want to answer, you go away. But whats unfair about it?! Stories about Rob Ford may generate buzz, but it is important to remember that hes a public official who must expect to be in the spotlight. The media should strive to ensure that all information published about bystanders like Renata is in the public interest.! Covering the mayors siblings! Rob Ford is not known for offering himself up to the media. Press conferences and scrums at City Hall are often met with no comment or vague denials. He wont do sit down interviews with Torontos major media outlets. Is it okay then to approach those who know him best to gain information and a better understanding of the mayor? The easy answer is yes.! On May 25, 2013, The Globe and Mail published Greg McArthur and Shannon Karis expos entitled The Ford familys history with drug dealing on the front page. The main allegations were made against Doug Ford, who according to unnamed sources dealt hashish in Etobicoke when he was younger. As an elected Toronto councillor himself, it would be in the public interest for his constituents to know that he has a history of illicit activity. Dvorkin deems the story to be fair, but calls into question the way the story played out. In addition to the lack of named sources used, he worries that it was an attempt by the Globe to show that theyre in the game too, following the Toronto Stars reports on the crack video scandal. Theres no record of the police doing an investigation that the Globe could discover, he says. So theres a lot of innuendo.!

McArthur, however, poured 18 months of reporting into the story and stands by the newspapers ethical decision-making process. He argues that, besides being inextricably linked to how Rob and Doug grew up, the brothers ties to drug trafficking go against the very public family mythology of community involvement and care that they present to Toronto.! Wojdynski and Riffes study suggests that personal information is often reported on if a link can be established between personal behaviour and public policy that reveals a politicians hypocrisy (209). In this case, the Globes portrayal of the Ford familys involvement in drug trafficking is very different from the tough-on-crime agenda the mayor has pushed.! McArthur believes Doug is responsible for roping his family into the media coverage. When he talks about the history of the Fords in Etobicoke and he talks about family, he speaks about the Ford family, he says. He doesnt just speak about me, he doesnt just speak about Rob, he talks about all the Fords.! For this reason, The Globe and Mail felt it acceptable to publish sordid details of Dougs past but they also ran information of siblings Randy and Kathys legal troubles.! Randy is revealed to have been a drug dealer, charged with assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement in relation to a botched deal. Kathys history with gun violence and ties to white supremacist groups are also detailed. Going to Rob Fords periphery to figure out who he is is legitimate, says McArthur. As long as its respectful and as long as youre willing to accept no for an answer, I think all politicians should expect that. Information was left out of the story, however, on an ethical basis; the Globe chose not to publish the fact that Kathy was a heroin addict. We felt that the history we were providing to people about her involvement with white supremacists and gun violence was sufficient to illustrate to readers how tumultuous her life was and her familys life, says McArthur. Her addiction, it seemed to us, was a much more private matter. It didnt necessarily help further advance peoples understanding of her connection to drugs.! Probing into a familys past may seem extreme, but what options do journalists have when the elected officials in the family wont speak? The issue at hand is not whether a Prime Minister had spent too much money on Gucci shoes. This is a mayor who has advocated for a crackdown on crime, but has since admitted to smoking crack an act captured in a video that has since been connected to extortion and the murder of an alleged gang member.! And what if the family members are finally willing to speak? Kathy and her mother Diane agreed to a television interview on CP24 on November 7, 2013. Open about her own problems with drugs, Kathy insisted that the mayor was not an addict. Both women felt the media had been unfair to Ford and believed he was still capable of running the city.! The interview raises ethical questions: Was the media complicit in allowing the Fords to air their political agenda at the peak of a family scandal, or was getting a Ford on camera to discuss the

mayors substance problems too important of an opportunity to pass up? How can the media avoid exploiting a familys personal problems? Are they fair game to interview at all? They may not be entirely used to dealing with the media, but I think theyre still fair game because the family is so tight, says Dvorkin. They operate in this incredibly close-knit circle of entitlement and encouragement.! Covering young bystanders! On September 12, 2012, Rob Ford was dogged by accusations that he had been using taxpayerfunded staff, as well as resources of the office of the mayor (including cell phones and a cityowned vehicle), to help run his volunteer football activities. When reporters at City Hall sought Fords answer to the accusations, he responded typically, offering brusque no-comments to some questions and dodging others entirely. Later that day, a number of reporters attempted again to approach Ford for comment, this time as he was walking to his vehicle following a Don Bosco Eagles football practice. But the reporters could not reach Ford, because he was surrounded by his players, whom he used as an apparently willing human shield, and who jeered the media and applauded as Ford, studiously ignoring his pursuers, entered his vehicle.! There is universal consensus amongst professional journalists and those who study the media that news organizations must take special care when covering children and other minors. In a paper entitled Covering Kids: are journalists guilty of exploiting children?, Romayne Smith Fullerton of the University of Western Ontario suggests that journalists covering children should consider that kids are likely to have more difficulty than adults in understanding what coverage means; they are vulnerable because of both their social power or position and their ambiguous legal status as minors; and parents and children do not always have identical interests in participating in interviews or being photographed (Smith Fullerton 523-4). Each of these considerations has been a factor in coverage of Fords children and his football team. Various guides, including those published by the Poynter Institute, the International Federation of Journalists and UNICEF, outline best practices for interviewing children. Obtaining their consent, and ensuring that such consent is properly informed, is always stressed. When Ford was filmed after the aforementioned football practice, none of the high school students he was using as a shield were interviewed. But there are ethical implications to having filmed them without consent.! That Ford was using high school students as a shield is certainly a matter of public interest, but was it in the students best interests to be filmed? The media, obviously unable to obtain the consent of each student present, might have considered the extent to which Ford cajoled the students into shielding him, or the extent to which the students understood why they were shielding Ford in the first place. The media might also have asked themselves what it was they were trying to achieve in filming the students. Is the story that Ford has been accused of using his staff improperly, or is it that he was desperately avoiding questions about those accusations? Most people who follow Toronto politics would have been aware of Fords tendency to avoid the

media. Does video of him avoiding the media in this way illustrate anything the public doesnt already know?! In Poynters Guidelines for Interviewing Juveniles, Al Tompkins suggests that, when interviewing children, journalists should ask themselves: How would you react if you were the parent of this child? (Tompkins 2) Greg McArthur of The Globe and Mail acknowledges that if he had seen his child shielding the mayor, he would have been furious. But he adds that the fault lies with the mayor, not the media, who were asking necessary questions the mayor should have answered at City Hall. It is Fords refusal to speak that forced the media to approach him outside of the usual forum. Most mayors dont coach football while theyre trying to run the city, McArthur says.! In this case, we suggest that the media acted responsibly in filming the students. Although the students were aiding Ford in his avoidance of the media (and thus in his avoidance of doing his duty as a public servant), its clear that Fords avoidance, and not his teams abetment of that avoidance, is the focus of the video. It is clearly in the publics interest to see the mayor abuse his influence as a coach and neglect his duties as a mayor, and the video effectively illustrates those wrongs without posing any substantial risk to the students who appear in it.! Covering Fords children! Fords children, who are five and eight years old, have been an occasional presence in media reports about the mayor himself. The following three major instances stand out, and each raises its own questions about the ethics of covering the children of public figures.! The rst instance pertains to the omission of children from stories about public figures in which they are only peripherally involved. On March 26, 2013, Robyn Doolittle and Kevin Donovan of the Toronto Star reported that, on February 23, Ford was asked to leave the Garrison Ball, a major gala event that celebrates the Canadian armed forces, because he was inebriated. Sunny Dhillon and Elizabeth Church of The Globe and Mail reported on the story shortly after the Star published. Both stories omitted a fact that would come to light months later, as part of a police ITO that Ford was accompanied at the Garrison Ball by his children.! Its reasonable to assume that Ford, in bringing his children to a much-publicized official event, understood that his childrens presence might be noted in the press, and the media could therefore reasonably infer parental consent. But did Fords inebriation cloud his decision to bring his children along? Would reporting that Ford was drunk with his children in tow cause the children additional or undue embarrassment? And, most importantly, while its clear that the mayors poor conduct is a matter of public interest, is informing the reader that his children were with him necessary to illustrate that conduct accurately?!

Dvorkin thinks so. He says the media erred in not mentioning the presence of Fords children at the gala. I think that has to be reported, he says. Again, this is part of the collateral damage, but I dont see any way to get around that [...] I think in this instance its a story and it has to be told with all of its implications.! McArthur, conversely, believes the story amply demonstrated inappropriateness of Fords conduct without mentioning his children, and that, therefore, shielding his children from unnecessary public scrutiny was advisable. Did it really advance everyones knowledge that much of what kind of a person Rob Ford is to know that his kids were at the Garrison Ball with him when he was hammered? McArthur asks. He was asked to leave a military gala because he was so inebriated. The fact that his kids were there was the cherry on top of despicable behaviour, but its pretty despicable in itself.! Cooke, meanwhile, says the decision to omit Fords children from the original Star report was not made on the basis that the story was sufficiently effective with out that detail, or because it was irrelevant to a story about the mayors ability to do his public duties. Rather, it was about protecting his children from harm and embarrassment. I think it wouldve been perfectly legitimate to mention that he had his kids with him, but at that stage we decided not to, Cooke says. It was a matter of humanity.! McArthurs response calls to mind a familiar ethical question: what would the media have hoped to achieve by including the children in the story? Is the point of the story to expose Fords deficiencies as a public servant, or to expose his deficiencies as a parent? Clearly the former is the side of the story that is more a matter of public interest. The Star and the Globe therefore acted responsibly in deciding not to mention Fords children, as the fact of Fords public inebriation was sufficient to illustrate the public interest aspect of the story.! The second instance: Politicians often use their children as props for photo opportunities, and Ford is no different. But is it ethical for the media participate in events where children are used as political tools?! On August 29, 2013, Ford invited the media to the Staples store on University Avenue for a photo op. Ford was back-to-school shopping with his two children. He was also seeking publicity for his $40 donation to a school supply drive. A National Post report by Natalie Alcoba notes that, at one point, as reporters were following Ford and his children up and down the aisles of the store, Fords daughter, Stephanie, turned toward the gaggle of media and announced, I hate cameras.! Of the many ethical questions Poynter suggests journalists should ask themselves when dealing with children, a few are pertinent here: What is my journalistic purpose in interviewing this juvenile? What motivations does the juvenile have in cooperating with this interview? What are the parents motivations for allowing the child to be interviewed? (Tompkins 1-2)!

The journalistic purpose in showing Stephanie is unclear. Only the policy questions directed at Ford during the photo op were of any significant public interest, and those questions were not related to back-to-school shopping. Stephanie Fords declaration that she hates cameras brings up a particularly interesting ethical question. Its a rule of thumb that journalists looking to interview or publish photos of a child as young as eight-year-old Stephanie a child who is likely not mature enough to give informed consent should seek the permission of the childs parents. In this case, Ford has given the media consent to take pictures of Stephanie. But Stephanie clearly states that she does not like cameras. Should the media consider this a withdrawal of the childs consent, and, if so, should the childs consent (or lack thereof) trump her parents?! Dvorkin says he is sorry that the mayors children are dragged to events like the above, but believes news organizations are right to cover them. If Rob Ford insists on bringing his children into staged media events, theres not much that the media can do about it, he says. Rob Ford is the story; hes responsible for bringing his children into it. I think that taking pictures of Ford with his children is collateral damage, frankly. Dvorkin says its disgraceful that Ford uses his children as a media human shield at photo op events, but that the media has a duty to cover those events nonetheless, because Rob Ford has in the past proven that he is capable of saying anything at any time.! The third instance: When Bill Blair announced on Halloween that Toronto Police were in possession of the so-called Rob Ford crack tape, the media tried to get the evasive mayors reaction. A number of reporters spotted Ford trick-or-treating with his wife and children, and some took photos. The Globe and Mail ran one such photo on their web site.! Again the public interest must be weighed against Fords childrens right to privacy. In this case, the public interest in getting Fords reaction to the verified existence of a tape Ford had claimed did not exist was great, and the media has a clear duty to seek out that reaction. But what are the ethical implications to seeking it while Ford is with his children? The self-inflicted negative media attention that Ford receives is likely upsetting for his children. They deserve and must be granted the right to be kids to enjoy some semblance of a normal life, even as their politician father is constantly (and rightly) scrutinized. Moreover, the childrens parents, much less the children themselves, did not give the media consent to have the picture taken, which, although not a legal requirement, is an ethical practice for journalists covering the children of public figures especially public figures embroiled in scandals as serious and extensive as Fords.! The Globe and Mail received a letter of complaint pertaining to the photo they published. Murderers, crooked civil servants, even newspaper editors have privacy, but not the innocent children of Rob Ford, it read.!

The Globes public editor, Sylvia Stead, noted that the photo was removed from the web site and did not run in the paper. Managing editor Elena Cherney said of the photo, Were always sensitive about our use of childrens pictures and discussed the use of this one, which led to the decision to take it down out of concern for the childrens privacy. But its hard to argue that Mr. Ford had an expectation of privacy when he took his children trick-or-treating last week, especially since he has previously offered photo availabilities with his family.!

! !
Conclusion! On January 2, 2014, Rob Ford filed his nomination papers for the upcoming municipal election. The campaign will provide Ford with more opportunities to trot out his family at public events, which will in turn provide the media with more opportunities to consider the ethical questions raised above. Although these questions must be answered on a case-by-case basis, the media would do well to remind themselves, as the election approaches, of their duty to the public that is, to provide the public with such information as is necessary for them to make an informed decision on election night. Personal details about Rob Fords family should be reported only if they serve to fulfill that duty.!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !
Works Cited!

Alcoba, Natalie. "I Hate Cameras: Taking on the Media Becomes a Ford Family Tradition as! Mayor Stocks up on School supplies." National Post. Postmedia, 28 Aug. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Cooke, Michael. Telephone interview. 11 Dec. 2013.! Dvorkin, Jeffrey. Telephone interview. 3 Dec. 2013.! Foo, Gabriel. "Is Nothing Sacred?" Ryerson Review of Journalism Mar. 1992: n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2013.! "Ford's Mother 'heartbroken' over Controversy Surrounding Mayor." Interview by Stephen! LeDrew. CP24. Toronto, 7 Nov. 2013. Television.! Hulnick, Gail. "Defining the Line Between the Publics Right to Know and the Individual's Rightto Privacy." (n.d.): n. pag. Chumir Ethics Foundation. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.! International Federation of Journalists. Putting Children in the Right; Guidelines for Journalists. Brussels, 2002.! Mcarthur, Greg, and Shannon Kari. "Globe Investigation: The Ford Family's History with Drug! Dealing." The Globe and Mail [Toronto] 25 May 2013: n. pag. Print.!

Mcarthur, Greg. Telephone interview. 6 Dec. 2013.!

! ! !

Peat, Don. "Rob Ford Defends Staff 'volunteering' at Football." Toronto Sun. Quebecor Media, 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.! Smith Fullerton, Romayne. "Covering Kids: Are Journalists Guilty of Exploiting Children? Journalism Studies 5.4 (2004): 511-24. Print.! Stead, Sylvia. "Public Editor: The Media's Complicated Relationship with Rob Ford." The Globe and Mail. Phillip Crawley, 7 Nov. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. Tompkins, Al. "Guidelines for Interviewing Juveniles." Poynter. The Poynter Institute, 14 Aug. 2002. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.! UNICEF. The Media and Childrens Rights. The MediaWise Trust. New York, 2005. Wojdynski, Bartosz W., and Daniel Riffe. "What Kind of Media, and When? Public Opinion about Press Coverage of Politicians' Private Lives." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 26.3 (2011): 206-23. Print. Wong, Jan. "The Woman Behind the Mayor: Who Is Renata Ford?" Toronto Life Feb. 2011: n. pag. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.