The wild reaction against Sun TV, a 24-hour all-news network proposed by Quebec billionaire Pierre Karl Péladeau, is largely unjustified, but the choice of Kory Teneycke as the point man for the initiative made it all too easy for the critics.
I don't know Teneycke's experience in broadcasting, but his recent occupation as director of communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper reinforced the perception of favouritism during the course of the debate on the application in front of CRTC.
He made the right decision when he resigned last week from his position as Quebecor Media's vice-president of business development, not because he was unable to solve the problems—it was too early to question his skills—but because he became the problem himself.
Still, I don't agree with any of the arguments made by the critics who are creating a media riot against this initiative.
There's two parts to this. The first is the perception of alleged interference by the federal government with the CRTC to help the Quebecor application. The other is the merit of the application itself.
On the first point, there is not much to debate because the government's interference in processes established by the CRTC is not acceptable. Yet, this is just for the record. In reality, we know that interference is very common, quietly accepted, and goes unreported by the media because their parent companies most of the time are doing precisely that.
Still, it requires discretion and class in doing it and, at least in Teneycke's case, these characteristics were both in short supply. However, he is young and intelligent, he has time to learn and I'm sure we will hear from him again.
More complicated and concerning is the opposition to the merit of the application.
First, the criticism implies that a politically-opinionated network has no reason to exist and the essence of journalism and media should be objectivity. Second, we assume that viewers are stupid and they 'buy' everything we are telling them. On the first point, we are dishonest. On the second, we are presumptuous.
Let me elaborate.
As soon as journalists tell me that they are objective in their writings I don't trust them. If they are sincere, they are the most dangerous because they believe themselves to be depositories of the truth. Every journalist has a slant. This is clear in an opinion column as well as in what we call 'analysis.' Furthermore, and this is more serious, the partisan slant is also too evident in many news stories we see, hear, and read every day. A journalist cannot be objective, but he or she can be honest.
The choice of a clip to air at night or to report in the paper, out of a one-hour speech of a political leader, is made out of our subjective judgment. In fact, each journalist usually makes a different choice. Objectivity is an aspiration. Honesty is a duty.
The second point is also important because we assume that with our job we can tell people who to vote for. This is neither an aspiration nor a duty,' it is pure utopia.
Had it been left to the media, Mike Harris would have never been the premier of Ontario. He didn't receive the support of any major media outlet. He left office, undefeated, after winning two back-to-back victories. Stephen Harper used to be the one who we in the media described as a "leader that will never become Prime Minister." Michael Ignatieff, the one who was described by some of us the "new Pierre Trudeau," has just learned how to flip hamburgers after four years.
I don't know if Péladeau's political friends might help him get a CRTC licence. What I do know is that these friends will not, and cannot, help him get viewers. And Péladeau, as a good businessman, knows it full well. If he wants a new network I'm sure he knows that there is an untapped or an unsatisfied market to exploit. That's probably what the critics are afraid of and that's why I hope he will get it. With political friends you will get a licence, without viewers, you go broke.
