The notion that the office of the prime minister of Canada — or any other politician or public official — could simply “lineup all kinds of people to write op-eds” and expect them to be automatically published in newspapers like the Toronto Star, is both disturbing and laughable.

It cynically suggests that our journalism is a passive process of publishing to appease powerful special interests.

It is not.

Journalistic standards demand that journalists weigh any information offered for publication in any section of the Star with a strong measure of skepticism, the imperative for verification of facts and consideration of the public interest.

In reality, it is harder for politicians to get their perspectives published on the Star’s op-ed pages than just about anyone else. Political staff are routinely made aware of this fact when they come to the Star looking to make their partisan case to Canadians through the Star’s many publishing platforms.

Undoubtedly many Canadian journalists and quite likely, members of the public, were rattled by the allegations this week of former justice minister and attorney-general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, in which she stated that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford had told Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff that the PMO would lineup op-eds in support of the then attorney-general coming to a decision to provide a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. Wilson-Raybould made these statements Wednesday before the House of Commons justice committee examining allegations that she was pressured to politically interfere in criminal charges against the Quebec company.

“It would appear they tried to manipulate Jody Wilson-Raybould by promising to manipulate the media,” said Andrew Phillips, the Star’s editorial page editor, who oversees our opinion pages. “She did not allow it, and neither would we.

“All journalists are in the business of many people — politicians and others — trying to manipulate us through various means to publish what they want known, and we are also in the business of resisting and coming to our own judgments,” he said. “The fact that they are seemingly so cynical they would tell people they can do that, does not mean they can.”

Phillips and Scott Colby, the Star’s Opinion editor, routinely make it clear to those with political and other interests, who make efforts to place op-eds in the Star to support their arguments on various issues of the day, that politicians are held to a high publication bar. In past, this includes the PMO’s office and political operatives from every other level of government.

“What I say regarding contributions from all politicians from all parties, especially those in power, is that the piece really has to meet the criteria for an op-ed — it has to add something to an issue,” Phillips said. “If it’s basically a reheated news release or reworked speech, we won’t publish.

“We hold politicians, especially office holders, to a higher standard than most because they have multiple channels to get their message out,” he said, adding that those same standards apply for letters to the editor submitted by politicians and their staff.

Of course, none of us are so naive as to believe that all attempted manipulation of the media is clearly obvious. We well know that political interests could indeed encourage supporters and cronies to submit carefully written op-eds in support of a partisan position, particularly on controversial issues.

But, journalistic judgment and the requirement that outside contributors fully disclose their affiliations, expertise and any relevant conflicts of interest are always at play in deciding what op-eds meet the Star’s publication standards.

On the opinion pages, the Star makes strong efforts to disclose any relevant information about its outside contributors to indicate to readers any special interests involved. All those who submit op-eds to the Star for publication consideration receive a detailed email that makes clear, “If you have an involvement in or connection with an issue that is not apparent from your credentials or the content of the article, you must disclose that to the Star.”

“We spend most of our time saying no to people” Phillips said. “We make decisions about any op-ed submission based on the merits of the piece — is it relevant, does it advance an argument, is it well-written.”

As well, the Star strives to include a diverse range of voices and viewpoints on its opinion pages, including its weekly Tuesday feature, The Big Debate, that provides opposing viewpoints on issues of public interest.

Cynicism aside, as Phillips rightly points out, the revelations from Ottawa regarding op-eds do provide some measure of a silver lining for those who believe that opinion journalism matters to public discourse.

“It is a brilliant tribute to the power of traditional op-ed pages,” he said.

Kathy English is the Star's public editor and based in Toronto. Reach her by email at publiced@thestar.ca or follow her on Twitter: @kathyenglish

Read more about: