Ontario Press Council releases concerns and conclusions over reports critical of Rob and Doug Ford

The Ontario Press Council has announced that two newspaper reports critical of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and his brother, Coun. Doug Ford, were both ethical and appropriate. And while this conclusion is unlikely to satisfy the most ardent members of Ford Nation, it does lend credence to the reports into the pair's history with drugs.

The Ontario Press Council held hearings in response to public complaints about a Toronto Star story that two reporters were showed, and offered for purchase, a video of the mayor smoking from what appeared to be a crack pipe. Public complaints about a Globe and Mail investigative report that suggested Doug Ford operated as a hashish dealer in the 1980s.

On Wednesday, the press council released the finding of a three-person panel, which determined that the newspapers followed "appropriate journalistic guidelines when producing and publishing" the stories.

The Ontario Press Council did express some concerns, however, including the inclusion of two other Ford siblings, who are not in the public spotlight, in the Globe’s report and a disconnect between the industry’s use of anonymous sources and the public’s perception of the practice.

"In dismissing the public complaints, however, the Press Council expressed concern that not enough has been done to build public understanding of the laws and regulations governing the role of the media and news coverage – particularly where investigative journalism techniques are employed," the Ontario Press Council stated.

The Ontario Press Council's duty is to deal with complaints and assess whether organizations follow acceptable industry practices, not determine whether the facts of a story are true. The Ford brothers did not respond to requests to participate in the council's hearings.

Here are each complaint, and how the council came to its conclusions.

[ Related: Are you with us?' Tories ask as speech signals drive to election ]

The Toronto Star

Complaint: "The May 17 story, “Rob Ford in ‘crack cocaine’ video scandal,” lacked credibility since an alleged video showing the mayor smoking what appeared to be crack cocaine has not surfaced."

Did the article death with a matter that is in the public interest?

The council ruled that the mayor "is a senior public servant in a very important elected position." It is therefore appropriate to subject him to a greater level of scrutiny than a private citizen.

Were adequate efforts made to verify the allegations before publishing them?

The council concluded that the Star reporters thoroughly analyzed the video and came to a reasonable conclusion. It also found that, in this case, it was reasonable to rely on anonymous sources to support those conclusions.

Was Mr. Ford given adequate notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to respond, and did the newspaper include that response in its reporting?

Representatives for the Star testified that they had made several attempts to contact Ford and his representatives the night of publication, and all were rebuked or ignored. They included in their story comments from lawyer Dennis Morris to Gawker regarding a previously published story on the matter, and an account of how Ford's former chief of staff hung up on a reporter. The Council suggested "it would have been wise for the Star to inform their readers of these additional efforts" to contact Ford, but found they were appropriate measures.

[ More Brew: Company targeting women cyclists looks to Rob Ford for PR ]

The Globe and Mail

Complaint: "The May 25, 2013 story, “Globe Investigation: The Ford family’s history with drug dealing,” was defamatory to the Fords and lacked credibility because it relied on unnamed sources."

Did the article deal with a matter that is in the public interest?

The story of Doug Ford's previous dealings with drugs, which touches on the lives of two other Ford siblings who are not in the public spotlight, relies heavily on unnamed sources. The council found that the councillor's drug history is a matter of public interest. It also found that detail provided about the other Ford siblings was "concerning" and "the Globe came close to crossing the line into what are the problematic, but private affairs of family members." It concluded the overall theme of the article did justify the references.

Were adequate efforts made to verify the allegations before publishing them?

The Globe's investigation lasted 18 months and included no sources willing to go on the record, all of whom are said to have been involved in illegal drug activities themselves. The council concluded that the lengthy efforts made by the newspaper satisfied it that the information was reasonably reliable.

Was Mr. Ford given adequate notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to respond, and did the newspaper include that response in its reporting?

This was never a matter of complaint. Doug Ford was aware of the Globe's investigation for some time and was asked for comment seven or eight times. The council did state that efforts to reach the two siblings were more limited but were still satisfactory.

The ruling will likely do little to change the way the public perceives the use of anonymous sources, although the Ontario Press Council confirmed that in these cases, such sources were justified due to the illegalities they themselves may have participated in.

And, as the council itself stated, the hearings were not intended to confirm the veracity of the allegations, only that the rules of journalism were properly followed. The process was clean, it remains up to the public to come to their own conclusions.

Want to know what news is brewing in Canada?
Follow @MRCoutts on Twitter.