Ipperwash and the Freedom Convoy
Part 2: How the media is straying from the core principles of journalism, losing audience trust, and making matters worse
Ten years after Dudley George was killed by an OPP officer, and around the same time that the Ipperwash inquiry was taking place, John Miller, a Ryerson University journalism professor and former long-time managing editor and reporter for the Toronto Star, penned a “critical analysis” of how the story was covered by the press.
Miller is also the author of the 1998 book, Yesterday’s News – Why Canada’s Daily Newspapers are Failing Us, about the decline in audience trust and what needs to be done to change that.
In his Ipperwash news study, Miller assessed 435 news and opinion articles, and found only one that even mentioned the role of media in the tragic events leading up to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) shooting death of George. It was Gordon Sanderson, writing for the London Free Press, who noted that there were no reporters present the night 40 riot police marched on the small group of protesters occupying the park. This meant, Sanderson wrote, “the public was left with widely conflicting accounts of what happened, without independent verification by a media witness… With the benefit of hindsight, it is apparent the media would have served the public better had they kept a closer watch on the deteriorating situation.”
Miller notes in his study:
He [Sanderson] was articulating one of the core values of journalism – that reporters have a responsibility to serve as independent verifiers of facts, so they can provide people with reliable, impartial information upon which to base their decisions as citizens in a democracy.
Miller says that despite Sanderson’s hope that an accurate account would emerge, it never did, at least not in the news coverage of the event. For instance, one of the stories that gained wide traction was that according to police sources, the protesters had guns, and that there was an “exchange” of gunfire the night that George was killed. The protesters have always maintained they were unarmed and that police used excessive and unnecessary force.1
As reported in Part 1 of this series, the discrepancy has contributed to the view that the nighttime raid on the protest camp was a result of Premier Mike Harris putting pressure on the police to clear the park.2
Miller’s analysis of hundreds of news stories, editorials, columns, and letters to the editor dating a month before the shooting to about a month afterwards revealed that while the news coverage did perform a public service by “bringing to light an alternative view of events that challenged the OPPs statements that the occupiers fired first and police were acting in self-defence,” the “press did not seem to give enough credence to the claims of the Stoney Pointers or consider them worthy of further investigation.”
Anthony Dudley George was shot and killed by an OPP officer at Ipperwash Provincial Park on the night of September 6, 1995. His sister is pictured here holding a photograph of George. Screen grab taken from CBC news video.
Miller writes:
Neither did they [reporters] pursue the calls for an inquiry into what happened, or critically examine the role of the Harris government. In this respect, the news coverage frequently strayed from what are commonly understood to be the core principles of journalism (first obligation to the truth, the discipline of verification, an independent monitor of power).
In his cogent analysis, Miller says much of the opinion-writing was based on “crude generalizations,” and “racist stereotypes.” Stories were ‘framed’ most frequently as about “violent, lawless First Nations people causing a fuss, instead of one about people who believe they had a legitimate right to their land.”
Miller’s other observations included that reporters “relied heavily on interviews with ‘official’ sources—police, outside First Nation leaders and politicians” with little news told from the viewpoints of those occupying the park.
“Not one reporter succeeded in covering Ipperwash from inside the barricades,” he writes.
His study also observes that many news stories linked the events at Ipperwash to other First Nation disputes, including a simultaneous confrontation at Ts’Peten (Gustafsen Lake), British Columbia, where the occupiers did have guns and used them.
Miller says, “this tended to create a ‘moral panic’ that First Nation people were on the brink of a co-ordinated and potentially bloody nation-wide revolution.”
The way protesters are described or characterized also has a “significant impact on how legitimate their situation seems to be in the minds of readers,” he writes. Indigenous protesters in the park were called dissidents, members of a splinter group, rebels, warriors, wild and lawless, and radical aboriginal activists. They were also linked to the American Indian Movement, which Miller says was never verified by any reporter, but “it took on a life of its own.”
The idea that angry young men, spurred on by outside militants, were on the warpath, and this was happening elsewhere across Canada, took root early in the media.
According to Miller, as time passed, the opinion/ analysis that appeared “led us further away from the facts as they were known at the time, almost as if the wrong co-ordinates had been punched into the sophisticated media guidance system.”
“The Ipperwash crisis was not journalism’s finest hour,” writes Miller.
One of Miller’s most significant findings, in my view, is that the media coverage influenced how the protest was dealt with, and therefore, on the eventual outcome of the blockade in the park. Miller writes:
How a crisis is reported, the sources that are used or ignored, and how those stories are “framed” can impact the actions of governments, participants, police and onlookers, who frequently act according to how the media set the agenda. Accurate, comprehensive coverage can promote understanding and resolution, just as inaccurate, incomplete and myopic coverage can exacerbate stereotypes and prolong confrontations.
Miller provides numerous examples of superficial media coverage that failed to independently verify anything. For instance, if a news story mentioned any of the reasons for the occupation – and typically they did not – they would simply present it as, ‘he said, she said.’ For instance:
Protesters said the park is the site of a sacred burial ground. But a spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources said a study in 1972 found no signs that such grounds existed within Ipperwash park.
Peter Edwards, the Toronto Star reporter who wrote One Dead Indian, figured it would take him a month to check out whether the burial ground story was true, so he didn’t bother trying, until he was researching his book, Miller says. “He found the proof in half an hour at Western University.”
John Miller, professor emeritus at Toronto Metropolitan University School of Journalism.* Miller penned a critical analysis of how the Ipperwash protest was covered by the press.
As previously reported, in the first week of the Public Order Emergency Commission, the commission heard from a key witness, whose sworn testimony raised serious doubts about whether there were reasonable grounds to declare a national emergency in the first place.
Superintendent Patrick Morris, the Commander of the Ontario Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau (POIB), told Brendan Miller, the lawyer representing Freedom Corp—the entity that represents the protesters—that there was no evidence “in the intelligence” of espionage, sabotage, or foreign influenced activity that involved the threat to any person relating to the Ottawa blockade.
Referring to espionage, sabotage, and foreign influence, Morris stated: “I saw media accounts, yes… I saw online rhetoric. I saw information on social media. I saw assertions of that type of activity. I'm aware of no intelligence that was produced that would support concern in that regard.”
In an email about the Freedom Convoy, sent by Morris to Deputy Commissioner of Investigations and Organized Crime Charles (Chuck) Cox of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), Morris noted that the movement was “not comprised of Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremists (IMVEs),” and that the organizers were “not violent extremists with histories of violent criminal acts,” although, he said, “events do attract unpredictable and extreme elements.” Morris continues:
The absolute lack of criminal activity across Canada, and the minimal violent crime throughout this event illustrate this. But now the public discourse is dominated by political figures and the media – and the commentary is providing a very different picture than what law enforcement collectively gathered. It is painting a different picture – it speaks to extremism, it offers parallels to terrorism, it speaks of sedition.
During cross-examination, Morris was asked, “In your view, were politicians and the media responsible for a certain amount of disinformation and misinformation with respect to these protests?”
Morris replies (in part):
I was leading the criminal intelligence collection of information and the production of criminal intelligence in relation to these events. I believed I was in a unique situation to understand what was transpiring. So, when I read accounts that the state of Russia had something to do with it, or that this was a result of American influence—either financially or ideologically—or that Donald Trump was behind it, or that it was un-Canadian or that the people participating were un-Canadian and that they were not Canadian views and they were extremists, I found it to be problematic because what I ascertained from my role—which is not all-knowing and certainly there may be information that is presented to this committee that illustrates the error of my ways—but I did not see validation for those assertions.
…
I did not see information that substantiated what was being said publicly and via the media. And I found the subjective assertions, sensationalized, yes, and [they] exacerbated conflict.
Superintendent Patrick Morris (R), Commander of the Ontario Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau (POIB) being cross-examined by Brendan Miller (L), the lawyer representing Freedom Corp—the entity that represents the protesters.
While I haven’t done a thorough analysis of the news and opinion pieces written about the “Freedom Convoy” and Ottawa blockade, I did follow the reporting in the Canadian mainstream/ corporate press, alternative news sites, and on social media. I think it would be fair to say that stories were “framed” most frequently as being about potentially violent, ideologically motivated, extremists. For instance, the protesters were linked to the “siege” of January 6, 2021 in the US Capitol, were called “right-wing agitators” and “fascists”, anti-democratic thugs and insurrectionists and were said to be influenced by foreign donors.3
I would argue, that early on, a narrative took hold, which did not help to promote understanding of the many legitimate grievances of the protesters, or lead to a resolution. Categorized into themes, these perspectives are now summarized and on record with the POEC in the form of 9,500 pubic submissions.
According to the Commission, the members of the public were asked to share their “experiences, views, observations, and ideas” regarding the “circumstances that led to the declaration of a public order emergency; and the measures taken for dealing with the declared emergency.” The point of the exercise was “to allow the Commission to fully appreciate how these matters affected Canadians.”
If you scroll through the POEC power point summary, you will see a diversity of views expressed on various sides of the ledger. Most of them were not represented in the press coverage.
The other concern that arises here is that even if there were individuals participating in the assembly that were engaged in unlawful or criminal conduct, this should not taint or compromise the entire assembly. The individual should be held accountable for their actions.4
Trucks converge on Wellington Street, January 28, 2022. Wikimedia commons.
Miller is currently professor emeritus at Toronto Metropolitan University’s School of Journalism (formerly Ryerson).* In an email correspondence I asked Miller about whether he saw any parallels between the Ipperwash coverage and the Freedom Convoy.
Specifically, I asked Miller what he thinks causes the media to latch onto narratives that may not necessarily be grounded in fact.
The Internet has forced journalists to hurry up, get the news faster, and that makes them prone to latch onto self-styled spokespeople for causes. Instead of doing bottom-up reporting, talking to participants, they seek out designated spokespeople to give them the big picture in a nutshell. Journalism is only as good as its sources, and if the sources are fewer and have their own agendas, journalism's ability to cover reality is limited and skewed.
Miller also says that the “hollowing” out of newsrooms means “there is less time and resources to find out the truth,” and in the void, “power is ceded to ‘spokespeople’ who often have an “agenda that is often not based on the truth but what is in their best interests.”
For his study of the reporting of the Ipperwash crisis, Miller counted the sources journalists used and the most prominent ones were Indigenous leaders outside of Kettle and Stoney Point, as well as police and politicians.
Miller continues:
Journalists have an unfortunate habit of treating so-called "official sources" as the more credible sources, and that is often a blind spot. Thus, police claims that the protesters had guns was almost always reported as fact and first; if anyone bothered to get the other side, it was reported as an afterthought. At Ipperwash, the official sources lied. Reporters believed them rather than being skeptical and missed the whole story.
The same thing happened at the Ottawa protests, I believe. The police were on one side, with an imperfect understanding of the various factions drawing people to Ottawa, and the official spokespeople for the rally were on the other, with their own spin. There wasn't enough bottom-up reporting, reporters talking to people who were part of the protest to find out why they were really there. It was a far broader protest than just angry truckers.
Miller’s observation brings up an important point. For the most part, the media reports focused almost exclusively on the Freedom Convoy’s official organizers—who they were, what their social media presence was, and what they were demanding.
But in his 5-volume report for the POEC, Justice Rouleau said that there was “not a unified movement,” but “many groups with unique characteristics and overlapping but differing goals and beliefs.” He said that while the Freedom Convoy was the result of a “collective effort” by individuals who were upset with what they saw as government overreach with vaccine mandates and pandemic restrictions, Rouleau concluded that overall, “the organizers did not speak with one voice but were sufficiently aligned not to denounce each other’s goals.”
Rouleau also said that the “origins of the protests… can be traced to populist movements that pre-date the COVID-19 pandemic and revealed a growing distrust in government by certain segments of the population. Government responses to COVID-19 exacerbated this pre-existing dynamic.” Rouleau continues:
I also accept that health measures had a profound impact on many Canadians. Businesses were closed and livelihoods were lost. Families and friends could not meet in person. Children could not go to school. People died in hospitals and long-term care homes at times when their loved ones were not allowed to visit them. The protesters who testified at the hearings spoke passionately about the impacts of COVID-19 and how, from their perspective, the desire to change these rules was a driving force behind the protests. I accept that this was the case. Canadians who disagreed with COVID-19 policies had the right to engage in lawful protest against what they saw as government overreach.5
To be clear, Rouleau had much more to say about the protests and what led up to the invocation of the Act, and ultimately concluded that the federal government did meet the threshold to do so. As I’ve previously reported, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association disagrees with Rouleau’s conclusion and a hearing on the legality of the invocation will be heard in federal court in April.
Protesters supporting “Freedom Convoy” in downtown Halifax, February 12, 2022. Photo: Linda Pannozzo.
Miller says that journalists are taught to ask who, what, where, when, why and how, but “the lost art of journalism is finding out why.” He says it’s “often lost in the rush to deadline.” But ultimately the question that needed to be asked was “why were so many people drawn to” the protest? Miller says the “lack of understanding perpetrated by the news media added to the sense of chaos… and contributed to the government’s declaration.”
Miller says that journalists need to “pay more attention to diversifying their sources” and that the “shortcut” of relying on official sources is not working. To illustrate he points to his 2010 study, “The Toronto-18 Terror Case: Trial by Media? How Newspaper Opinion Framed Canada’s Biggest Terrorism Case.” He says his analysis of the sources most often quoted in the news “showed a reliance on anonymous sources, ignoring journalistic guidelines for their use.”
In an email, Miller explains that “many turned out to be self-styled security experts or CSIS agents promoting the theory of ‘homegrown terrorism’ and the suspects were painted with that brush,” in the media. Instead, the truth was that many of the suspects were motivated by their “opposition to Canada's involvement in the War on Terror,” he says.
In the end, Miller says his study informed Linden’s report and garnered a special recommendation “calling for the media to educate themselves better on how to cover Aboriginal protests like Ipperwash.”
Attorney General Lametti is right. The Ipperwash Inquiry report has a lot to say about the nuanced relationship between police and government, and how it should be properly configured in a democracy. But there are other lessons to be learned as well. Ones that can just as easily be applied to the Freedom Convoy.
Like this one:
Participatory democracy depends on an informed public. When the press stops informing, make no mistake, democracy is in peril.
* An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Miller was professor emeritus at the University of Toronto School of Journalism.
In terms of sourcing, Miller tells me that when he was researching the Ipperwash news coverage he spoke to a CBC journalist who managed to get into the reserve and talk to an Indigenous woman who was present when Dudley George was killed. The woman said, "My people can shoot birds out of the sky. Don't you think that if they had guns that night, they would have hit something?" That telling quote was not used by CBC until the journalist’s documentary appeared nearly a year later.
In 1997, Sgt. Deane was convicted of criminal negligence causing George’s death, after the court ruled that he did not have “reasonable belief” that George was armed. Deane later resigned from the OPP. A few weeks before he was scheduled to testify at the Ipperwash Inquiry he was killed in a motor vehicle accident.
In terms of funding, it should be noted, that during the POEC it was indicated that of the $10 million raised in the original Freedom Convoy’s GoFundMe campaign, 86% of donors originated in Canada, and made up 89% of the value of donations. All e-transfers to the campaign originated in Canada. When GoFundMe cancelled the campaign (and returned money to donors), the campaign moved to GiveSendGo, which raised more than $12 million in donations, with 35% of the donors in Canada, accounting for 47% of the value of funds. For a complete breakdown of domestic and foreign funding, go to the testimony of Jason Beitchman from the National Crowdfunding and Fintech Association. His power point was presented on November 16, 2022, and the transcript can be found here.
This was one of many important issues raised during the policy phase of the POEC during a panel discussion on “fundamental rights and freedoms in public protest.”
Report of the Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Order Emergency. Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2), pages 158-159.