Working in this business with a heart, we come across everything from the intricacies of garbage disposal policies to horrific deaths and everything in-between.
But occasionally, we find out about an incident that is infuriating enough to spur an opinion column. As a reporter, I tend to keep my angry opinions to myself. It’s my job to report the facts and highlight the community’s voices. However, recently, a local elderly bird watcher who will remain nameless was falsely reported to the RCMP for allegedly watching children. We’ll call them Jamie.
Jamie is a member of the Whistler Naturalists, and was collecting data about waterfowl near the Montebellow wetlands. They and other birders use binoculars to observe wood ducks a few times a week.
However, they weren’t the only person making observations that day, though the birder’s data was definitely more accurate. An unknown woman observed the bird watcher and reported them to the Whistler RCMP, accusing the birder of peering at her children.
She also took to the Facebook group, Whistler Summer 2024, posting photos seeking the birder’s identity, including their face and vehicle’s license plate number. While the woman didn’t say why she was posting about them, she wrote she had “made several calls to the police about [them].”
The anonymous post has since been taken down, but it was published in a group with more than 50,000 members.
The birder was investigated by the RCMP, and their neighbour and family member were questioned, as well. The incident provided an opportunity for me to pause and think about anonymous posting on social media platforms, the weight our words hold, and what one should perhaps do before calling the police on another person.
I view anonymous posting as a cowardly attempt at making your voice heard without being willing to put your face and name to your statements. It doesn’t allow other people to understand who the source of information is, and in an era when source credibility is incredibly important, it leads to further opportunities for misinformation and disinformation. A free public relies on our ability to openly share our opinion, and whether that opinion is abhorrent to others or not, we deserve the right to know who is saying what.
In journalism, we reserve anonymity for very specific circumstances. The Society of Professional Journalists for issues such as anonymity, and the bar is pretty high. It notes: “Consider sources’ motivations before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.”
In line with this guideline, I’m not telling you who the birder was because it isn’t in the public interest to know their identity, and it could do further harm to their reputation.
These guidelines also beg the question: what was the motivation of the anonymous poster on Whistler 2024?
I’ll likely never know, nor will the person who was falsely accused. For better or worse, social media can protect people’s identities. I’m not saying it’s never justifiable to shield your identity online, but this instance shows the possible injustice.
Publishing a false accusation can also lead to legal action called defamatory libel. Trained journalists tend to understand this, because we publish statements widely and can be held legally accountable for our actions. The criminal code, section 298 (1), defines defamatory libel as a “matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.”
Two final notes.
I encourage everyone to pause before they take to social media to play internet sleuth. Social media allows information to spread quickly, and algorithms prioritize emotionally driven content—if information makes people angry or sad, it’s likely to get more likes, shares and comments and keep people tuned into their electronic forms of reality. There’s no truth detector built in, and what you read online can come from a specialized academic or some dude with a tinfoil hat.
Finally, next time you suspect someone, like a bird watcher, of inappropriate conduct, maybe stop for a moment, and if possible, inquire with the original source—your fellow human being—before you jump to a conclusion and call the cops on them.
