Standards and Expectations
We believe our stakeholders are entitled to reporting that is accurate, complete and unbiased. Specifically coverage on our company should be:
Newsworthy and timely – Reporting should honestly convey the scope and significance of any news involving Bombardier, enabling readers to understand it in its proper context. Too often, reporting driven by confirmation bias inflates the significance of a particular person or event to drive a preferred narrative. For example, if the press reports on a few vocal shareholders or one dissatisfied customer, they owe it to readers to contrast these perspectives with those of other stakeholders, and to give the conflicts a proper sense of scale. Reporting should also be timely and relevant, reflecting the best available information. Pieces that focus exclusively on the past without reporting on the present give readers a dated view of our company.
Accurate – Coverage should include data that is accurate, up-to-date, and well sourced. Reporters should make readers aware of underlying methodology, as well as of any potential conflicts or biases from third-party sources, and should seek comment from other experts who might have alternative perspectives.
Balanced and reliably sourced – Sources should be reliable, vetted, and numerous. Claims and allegations should be corroborated and verified, and when they make specific claims about Bombardier, we should be given a full opportunity to respond. The company’s position should be given adequate and proportional space, and on-the-record statements should take precedent over disparagements from unnamed sources.
Since commentary from major news outlets can significantly impact public perception on a given issue, it’s essential that opinion journalist and commentators also be fair and responsible. Specifically, that requires:
Good faith – Authors should examine the issue at hand sincerely, thoroughly, and without malice. Commentary should be focused on the issues, and free of ad hominem and excess hostility, so that the public can focus on what’s actually important and draw the appropriate conclusions.
Transparency – Authors should be upfront with their audience about any bias, conflicts, or relevant affiliations so that readers can better weigh these factors and assess opinion in its proper context.
Accountability – Commentators should be prepared to address principled and substantive criticism of their work, and open to amending their positions when the facts warrant.
We understand that reporters and their editors may not like us challenging them to uphold these widely accepted journalism standards, but they nevertheless have a professional duty to do so. Just as we have a duty to hold them accountable—and to encourage other stakeholders to hold them accountable—when they fall short.