RCMP must rescind inappropriate request for media to involve police before publishing news stories: CAJ statement
Neither Government bodies, corporations, nor influential individuals get a veto over independent editorial decisions
July 20, 2026
It would be a dangerous blow to democracy if government agencies, corporations, or influential individuals got to control language, information, messaging, or any aspect of what is shared with the public by independent news organizations or individual journalists.
Of course it happens all the time, that is, spokespersons and leading officials and regular citizens demand or request that a change be made to a story because they don’t like it. Errors and ethical lapses are worthy of editing to be sure, and good journalists appreciate when these are pointed out. Accuracy, truth, and clear information is the priority.
In a somewhat rare statement of concern, the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) responded to an incredibly inappropriate and troubling demand by the Saskatchewan RCMP.
After two RCMP officers were shot in what should have been a routine call about a dispute between two individuals, some outlets reported on what neighbours and witnesses saw.
Then the Saskatchewan RCMP sent out an email to media outlets asking them not to publish information from witnesses because it could affect future interviews and juries. The email suggested if they had such a detail, they should email the RCMP before publishing, presumably to ask permission.
“The RCMP needs to rescind this inappropriate call asking journalists to ask permission before reporting stories,” CAJ vice-chair Paul Schneidereit said in the statement.
It isn’t always pretty, but the messy nature of journalistic independence is that tailored, tidy messaging from governments, corporations, or individuals looking for publicity often gets picked apart by reporters for accuracy, to remove bias, fact-check, and to adhere to general journalistic principles, not to mention Canadian Press style on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntax.
Here are three local Chilliwack examples from over the years, one a government body, one a corporation, one a citizen, where attempts to control what the public finds out via independent media by decree or by intimidation failed:
- Government: A few years ago while photographing police taping off a property as part of an investigation, one officer told me to stop taking pictures. I asked him “why?” I can’t remember his response, but I told him I had a right to photograph and I refused. He then told me I had to back away, even though I was on a public sidewalk. I got the pictures that were used, but then I emailed the new superintendent to express my dissatisfaction with the interaction. He rightly recognized the officer was wrong, and invited to come in to speak to the morning meetings of the shifts coming on duty. I did so and it was a good positive piece of education for all of us.
- Corporation: More than 10 years ago, at an open house held by Tycrop at a school out in Rosedale to discuss with the public some expansion of their operation into farmland. Then Progress editor Greg Knill reporter and I with the Times attended and reported on what local government officials said, what the large local employer said, and on some criticisms and questions about the proposal from members of the Rosedale community. This reporting outraged one of the two owners of Tycrop who complained to the editor and publisher. This business owner was under the mistaken impression that paying for a corporate communications firm to create flashy display boards and presentations didn’t mean that the company’s message would be repeated word-for-word without questions. One farmer complaining about the proposal was quoted and there was reference to a small campaign opposing the expansion plans, and this owner’s attempt to control independent news coverage was thwarted.
- Individual: A few years ago when school board trustee Carin Bondar filed a defamation lawsuit against fellow trustee Barry Neufeld, we got a copy of her notice of civil claim at the newspaper. I was the editor and gave it to reporter Eric Welsh to write up. The point of the lawsuit was Bondar’s claim that Neufeld defamed her when he called her a “striptease artist” in reference to one of her popular science videos, the specific one where she alters the lyrics to the Miley Cyrus song "Wrecking Ball" and imitates the music video by appearing scantily clad, even naked, on camera. Welsh wrote the story and filed it with an image from the music video in question, since that was the point of the story. Yet Bondar – as with Tycrop and the rogue RCMP officer in the first example – was under the delusion that the news media existed to repeat her personal message verbatim, to only discuss elements of a story that she wanted discussed, and only use images chosen by her, or in this case, not use images she didn’t want used. I politely refused to remove the image from the story (which the CBC used as well) since it would have been like doing a story about a statue rudely criticized by a public official then declining to show the mural in the story. Nonsense.
The over-arching point is that everyone in the news media is fallible, but as long as they are adhering to standard journalistic principles involving balance, fairness, accuracy, and fair comment, editorial decisions cannot or at least should not be manipulated or controlled by government agencies, corporate PR agents, or disgruntled citizens.
The following is the complete statement by the CAJ issued on Thursday, July 9, 2026:
The Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) is deeply concerned by a recent Saskatchewan RCMP email urging journalists to check with police before publishing details about ongoing investigations — an attempt to give police a veto over independent editorial decisions.
Two RCMP officers were recently injured in a shooting in Melville, Saskatchewan.
Following that incident, the RCMP emailed journalists asking them not to publish information provided by witnesses as it could “reshape memories that influence future interviews” and “impact future jury pools.” The email suggests that any media “in receipt of a special detail” should reach out to the RCMP before publishing that information.
The email further discourages media from reporting on details of incidents as it could impact victims of crime and their family and friends.
“In a democracy, police must not control what information journalists publish. Reporters play a crucial role in keeping Canadians safe by giving them timely information that police do not always provide,” said Paul Schneidereit, CAJ vice-chair.
“The RCMP needs to rescind this inappropriate call asking journalists to ask permission before reporting stories.”
In the 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting, for example, the RCMP took 12 hours to tell the public that the shooter was driving what looked like a police car.
The CAJ has spent decades working with the RCMP to ensure they respect basic democratic freedoms. This has included multiple private meetings with senior RCMP officers as well as public education campaigns and, when those have failed, court challenges. In 2021, for example, the British Columbia Supreme Court ordered the RCMP to stop blocking journalists from covering an ongoing protest over logging. In 2025, the RCMP formally apologized for violating a journalist’s rights. And CAJ President Brent Jolly recently testified in support of Amber Bracken, who is suing the RCMP for unjustly arresting her.
Journalists routinely weigh what the public has a right to know against potential harms to victims, witnesses, fair-trial rights and active police operations. That judgment is central to responsible reporting. It cannot be outsourced to police, and it must never be subject to police veto.
It is not the role of RCMP nor any public body to control what the media may publish. Suggesting that the media rely only on RCMP released narratives and information about incidents is a clear violation of press freedom.
The role of journalism is to hold institutions and people in power accountable, including the RCMP, to publish information in the public interest, and to give victims of crime and others a public platform to have their voices heard. It is the role of newsrooms, not police, to determine what information is in the public interest and to uphold journalistic principles including minimizing harm.
Police investigations, meanwhile, must be able to withstand media scrutiny while the justice system has legal safeguards in place to protect an accused person’s right to a fair trial such as publication bans on pre-trial proceedings, changes of venue and jury sequestration.
-30-
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation so I can continue this work.
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social