News about the Gomery Commission, aka The Sponsorship Scandal Inquiry, has been on the front page (and pages 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 ...) in Quebec media since it began.
After Justice John Gomery imposed a publication ban on testimony by three witnesses at the inquiry, media reports have shifted to the ban itself. Sounds a lot like the almost continuous coverage of the non-NHL season by journalists who didn't seem to be able to switch to a different story. But in this case, instead of the non-story that the NHL players and owners can't agree on anything, the commission is hearing evidence that millions of people are eager to learn about.
This ban is intended to allow a fair trial for several ad executives and bureaucrats who stand accused of funneling public money either into private hands or back into the Liberal Party coffers.
Russ Kuykendall comments that, "in a world where much of our communications are defined by the Internet, a publication ban is de facto meaningless . . . the truth will out." He also indicates that, while Canadian media organizations are subject to the ban, some out-of-country web sites are ignoring the ban.
While publication bans are harder to enforce now that you can find just about anything on the Internet, the alternative would be to declare open season on anyone accused of a crime, whether or not it was fair to reveal testimony to potential jurors. As imperfect as the ban is in today's media environment, the legal system is still required to do what it can to avoid tainting the jury pool.
Update: On reflection, I've changed my mind about the relevance of a publication ban in this instance. Given the massive attention of the case, a ban won't have its intended effect.
Previous post: Agency Billings Probed in Sponsorship Scandal
Comments