Arthur Kent column defended by Calgary Herald editor

The editor of the Calgary Herald says an article at theheart of a defamation lawsuit filed by former journalist Arthur Kentis defensible because its main facts are true.

• MORE CALGARY NEWS |17 flood-damaged homes bought by province for $51M to be razed
• MORE CALGARY NEWS |Justin Trudeau applies political pressure in country of origin labelling dispute

Lorne Motley testified Wednesday that the paper often runscolumns on news pages from senior columnists and it was obvious DonMartin's article was an opinion piece.

Kent, who became known as the "Scud Stud" for his Gulf Warreporting on U.S. television, is suing Martin and the Herald'sparent company, Postmedia, over the 2008 article, which waspublished when the former journalist was running in the Albertaelection.

The column called Kent a "dud" on the campaign trail andportrayed him as an ego-crazed star candidate who refused to becontrolled by the Progressive Conservative party.

The column was based on information from unnamed sources anddidn't include comment from Kent.

• Arthur Kent defamation trial hears 'Scud Stud' was 'rogue' candidate
• Arthur Kent painted as 'lone ranger' by Postmedia lawyer at defamation trial

"We feel this column was defensible -- that the main facts it wasbased on are true," said Motley.

"It was quite clear it's a column and not a news story."

Motley said the Herald editor who reviewed the column was fullyaware that Martin was using anonymous sources. He said it's notuncommon to give senior columnists some latitude.

"He did not question Don Martin on that mainly because that issomething, when done by a senior columnist or senior writer likehimself, is not unusual," Motley said.

Martin earlier testified that part of his column was not true.

'Dud scud' came from single source

Hewas questioned about a paragraph that read: "Alberta Conservativeshave bestowed problem candidate Arthur Kent with a less flatteringdesignation as he noisily blusters his way through their reelingelection campaignthe Dud Scud."

Martin said that nickname had come from only one source, whosename he couldn't remember.

During cross-examination, Kent's lawyer, Kent Jesse, suggestedthe Calgary Herald had painted Kent in a negative light for severaldays in a row with its coverage. Court has already heard how Kentprovided fodder for news stories during the campaign by questioninghis own party's leadership, including its plans to do a royaltyreview.

'Negative light' questioned

"I take exception to the painting in a negative light," Motleyreplied. "We weren't saying those words. Mr. Kent was saying thosewords.

"We weren't inventing the dispute between then-leader EdStelmach and the candidate. He was putting it out there. We weredoing our job in relaying that information to our readership."

Motley said the best columnists are ones that tell the readersomething new.

"I think it's a column and it has an opinion. It is just that,"Motley said. "Mr. Kent had landed in hot water with the ProgressiveConservatives hierarchy. There were divisions within his owncampaign team and the headline reflects that."

No rebuttal

Motley said the Calgary Herald decided against publishing arebuttal from Kent because it was defamatory in nature.

• Highly critical' Arthur Kent rebuttal rejected, hears court in defamation trial

He hesitated when asked if he harboured any ill will toward Kentover the lawsuit.

"It's been a very challenging litigation. I can only be honestabout that," Motley said.

"But I would also say there is no illwill."