Their faces were shown on CBC on Monday, though The National on YouTube does not show this. I didn’t catch if the names were identified in the broadcast.

Sounds like typical failings in reporting due to lack of training and experience.
So few reporters are allowed to spend years working a "beat" these days meaning reporters with little or no experience ending up covering stories they just don't have expertise in.
Shame.
 

Here is the Tuesday CityNews Toronto 6pm lead.  Reporter identifies all.

https://youtu.be/N3wGXsjn0vk?si=6E-4SqytIcJ9bl3h

This reminds me of a story I dealt with once a long time ago. Cops were looking for a young offender (someone under 18) for a violent crime, and had received special judicial permission to show his name and picture for 48 hours because he was considered dangerous to the public. 

We ran it on our 6 PM and other shows until the time ran out and we could no longer I.D. him. But what about our website, where nothing ever disappears? Sure enough, it was still there, and I recall having to go back to the article and completely rewrite it, to take out any hint of the kid's name and delete the photo. It was in a few different stories and was a pain in the you-know-what, but it had to be done to be in compliance with the law. 

The whole thing is pretty dumb, because once the information is out there, it's out there and you don't magically forget that you heard the name or saw the face. But those are the rules and you disobey them at your own peril. Trust me, you do not want a judge angry at you for violating one of their orders!

Any idea which higher up at Bell Beth McDonnell is related to?

RadioActive wrote:

I like to switch around during the 6 PM news to see what everyone is doing. And that's where I caught an interesting and huge difference on one of the worst stories in recent days - the death of three young children at the hands of an alleged drunk driver on the weekend. You've likely heard about this awful tale by now. 

What caught my eye (and ears) was what I saw on Global and CTV on their respective Tuesday night's 6 PM. 

On the former, veteran reporter Catherine McDonald told viewers the family members could not be identified due a court-ordered publication ban. 

Meanwhile, at almost the same time over on CTV Toronto, Beth McDonnell was not only ID-ing the late family members, but showing their pictures and publicly naming them on air. They also had an interview with a cousin, which would also identify the family. 

So which one is it? There's either a publication ban or there isn't. Somebody really screwed up here and didn't get the memo. My guess is it was CFTO, because McDonald is a veteran crime reporter and she doesn't usually make that kind of mistake. Should be interesting to see what, if anything, happens after this.

Last edited by ToRon (May 21, 2025 9:05 am)

I'm honestly not sure, but I believe the judge could issue sanctions against the broadcaster who breaks his/her ban. That could mean a fine or even worse for the company in some ways, order one of their head honchos to appear before the bench to explain themselves. That would not make for a comfortable day.

Have you even confirmed if there was a publication ban? 

This is sad beyond words. The 19 year old impaired driver ala Marco Muzzo will be out on a few years. I am not a fan of publication bans in the justice system. Always err on the side of transparency. The family has a gofundme account where all the kids are named with photos. Why was a publication ban needed and granted?

https://www.gofundme.com/f/lavinas-grand-children

I've been following this blackout as well. Monday's Star had 3 of the children pictured and they were identified. That would have been printed before the court order on Monday.  As far as I can see, that image has been wiped from Canadian media but as of Wednesday when I last checked, it was still shown on the Daily Mail (UK) website and also the family's Go Fund Me page.  The Daily Mail had more than just the one photo. Clearly, the court order is only observed in Canada, which I think puts our broadcasters at a disadvantage. Perhaps our judges are not aware that foreign media is now widely available to the public. It brings back memories of the Paul Bernardo case and that publication ban, where US media could report it and Canadian BDU's were on the hook to block those parts of the US newscasts.

I remember this differently. The Bernardo episode (I think it was Inside Edition) was shown on Buffalo's Channel 2, but cable companies were obligated to black out that one show on their systems. Any U.S. station carrying the show got the same treatment here. 

Fortunately, we still had an antenna at that time (still do) and we watched it, not only out of curiosity but as a middle finger to the courts and censors, who tried to keep the public from finding out what was going on. Another reason to keep OTA TV!

MJ Vancouver wrote:

I’ve read there were Canadians who travelled to Buffalo to buy copies of the Buffalo News to bring back across the border. The Buffalo News reported on the Bernardo trial.

One Uncle of mine worked within a public library system at the time in Western Canada and vividly remembers the periodicals department was actually obligated to physically skim and then cut the articles out of the newspaper for the U.S. and international ones they carried, where those articles reporting on the trial, once received and before they went out to customers! Apparently you'd be flipping through the newspaper with holes in certain pages during that trial.

RadioActive wrote:

I remember this differently. The Bernardo episode (I think it was Inside Edition) was shown on Buffalo's Channel 2, but cable companies were obligated to black out that one show on their systems. Any U.S. station carrying the show got the same treatment here. 

Fortunately, we still had an antenna at that time (still do) and we watched it, not only out of curiosity but as a middle finger to the courts and censors, who tried to keep the public from finding out what was going on. Another reason to keep OTA TV!

That is interesting because I was on cable back then.