The media are supposed to be the
watchdogs of our democratic institutions. If media are not able to
freely exercise that control, it means that democracy is at risk. This
role is so important for the survival of democracy that it should be
protected at all costs. No individual, no profession or organization
should escape the scrutiny of the media. Unfortunately there is one
exception: the media. While we invoke the right to criticize everybody,
we ridicule or demonize whoever dares to question the quality of our
work. Don’t challenge freedom of expression—we argue—and, if you don’t
like what we say, don’t blame the messenger.
Well, a prominent Canadian, Marshall McLuhan, some time ago said that
“the medium is the message,” meaning the line between the message and
the messenger is thinning as every day goes by.
Sometimes, people ask: who controls the controller? I have some ideas,
but I’d like to elaborate on the present status of journalism in Canada,
especially on Parliament Hill.
“Controlling a free media” is an oxymoron. It’s a kind of catch 22: if
you control the media, it means that there is no freedom of expression,
and then there is no democracy. True. I agree, and let me be clear on
this subject: I am against any kind of formal or informal control. But
it is also true that we are not perfect, we can make mistakes, and we
do. How do we deal with them?
Of course there is the legal system and, if you are rich, it might even
work. But can you imagine an average citizen, or a politician like a
municipal councillor or even an MP, taking a big corporation to court?
Some newspapers have on their staff more lawyers than journalists.
As well, there may be unfair reporting that’s damaging to a politician,
a community or an organization, which can escape the checks and balances
of the legal system altogether.
So what about the concept that “the medium is the message”? Of course it
is! If you steal an apple, you can slap the news on the front page or
bury it on page 37. We are always reporting “the facts.” It’s the same
news, but the impact on individuals can be different; there is the
positioning in the paper, the use of the pictures, the length: they’re
all elements that contribute to and influence “the message,” and the law
can do nothing about those things.
Every day there are millions of events taking place in the world. The
nightly newscast can only report 20 to 30 of them, the morning
newspapers go further, but still someone is making a decision about what
is news and what is not news. Those decisions are made according to
professional standards, but there is ample room for personal judgments.
I will go back to the events of the Liberal leadership race. We all saw
the extensive coverage from certain media, last month, of the
allegations brought in front of the Liberal Party about a few
memberships signed up by the Joe Volpe campaign in Quebec. They were
talking about the payments made to the campaign instead of those made by
the individuals. The Toronto Star unleashed scores of journalists to
expose the Canadian “Watergate.” The results were parroted for days on
some networks, the media feeding themselves.
Can you take them to court? I’m not a lawyer and that’s Mr. Volpe
decision to make. However, we can argue that those were the “facts” and
you can’t dictate standards for reporting “the facts.” Each organization
is free to decide how low it wants to go.
You can only wonder about what happened to those standards when there
are much more serious allegations against Liberal leadership Bob Rae’s
campaign in British Columbia, that a provincial campaign staffer signed
delegates’ nomination papers. Such reporting can help you understand why
some newspapers may see their profits shrinking along with readership.
So, again, how do we deal with those “standards”? Who establishes them
and who checks that they are always respected? We see lawyers disbarred,
doctors expelled and the same for many other professions.
Of course, we have the Canadian Press Council, a paper tiger with no
teeth. Definitely it is not an organization that can give any guarantee
of protection. So, the current approach is that “media have to control
themselves.”
That means that we have to dare to criticize ourselves and we should be
mature enough to accept constructive criticism.
The problem is that the “control” doesn’t exist any longer because we
have created an environment where if you criticize a colleague you are
ostracized. We feel entitled to say and write any kind of bestiality
against politicians and we expect them to take it because “they should
know that’s the name of the game”; but it is a game we want to play
freely without having to sit in the penalty box.
With increasing competition and the arrival of some young, ambitious and
aggressive news editors or producers, the level of decency and
professionalism has taken a sharp turn for the worse. Not having the
guts and the preparation to take on the strong and the powerful (and, of
course, being afraid of losing their jobs), they act strong with the
weak and weak with the strong.
Jimmy Carter’s press secretary, Jody Powell, once said that journalists
“watch the battle from afar and when it's over come down the hills to
shoot the wounded.” Now media wound healthy people and then, when the
time for the battle comes, go back on the Hill to hide themselves behind
the childish cliché they have learned at school: I’m only the messenger.
I don’t like generalizations and there are many colleagues on the Hill
and elsewhere I respect. Just to name a few, starting from Doug Fisher
(who recently retired), Mike Duffy (the new dean) Lawrence Martin,
Jeffrey Simpson, Richard Gwyn, Don Newman, Ian Urquart, Carol Goar,
Lorrie Goldstein, Chantal Hébert, or younger professional individuals
like Paul Wells, Don Martin, Bill Curry, my colleagues at The Hill Times
I don’t mention for obvious reasons, and I apologize to many others I
have a lot of respect for.
This doesn’t mean that I always agree with them. In fact with some I
don’t agree at all. But I respect their stories and their opinions
because are researched and honestly presented. They do not feel to be
the depository of universal truth. In fact truth doesn’t exist; truth is
a journey that never ends.
I encourage people in general, and politicians specifically, to react to
us, to criticize us, not to take what they believe to be Bull Spit and
turn the other face: challenge us! We can handle it.
I always like to debate difference of opinions on everything, but one
subject: discrimination, whether is about sex, religion or culture.
But this is the subject for a future column.
