On February 12, it looked as though freedom of the press and freedom of expression might actually be improving in this country (slightly). That was the day CanWest Global announced plans to scale back their much-publicized (in non-Southam papers), and much-criticized corporate editorial policy. They had planned to force major dailies in the Southam chain (about 13 papers across the country) to publish three weekly editorials assigned by the head office. And these chain-wide editorials came with strings attached—namely, the stipulation not to publish any editorials contradicting these chain-wide edicts. But then they announced that rather than three weekly editorials they would only have one. And as small a step as this might seem, it really did seem like progress.
Of course, then came the recent controversy at the Regina Leader-Post, a Southam-owned paper. Haroon Saddiqui, an editorial writer from the Toronto Star, speaking to a gathering of students, voiced the opinion that what the Aspers were up to amounted to censorship. Management at the Leader-Post didn’t like that much. A report that quoted Saddiqui saying “CanWest Global performed chilling acts of censorship when it refused to publish several columns containing viewpoints other than those held by the media empire,” was changed to read, “columnist says it’s okay for CanWest to publish its owner’s views, as long as the company is prepared to give play to opposing opinions.” At least 10 reporters at the Leader-Post thought that was itself a “chilling” act of censorship and promptly protested by withholding their bylines on stories (just as their colleagues at the Montreal Gazette had done earlier this year.)
It’s an alarming pattern and it extends well beyond CanWest (though CanWest Global, which is the country’s largest newspaper publisher and owns one of three national television networks, is the biggest and most frightening example). Freedom of the press and freedom of expression seem to be constantly under threat, and these threats consistently overshadow what little progress is being made. At the University of Toronto, for example, it was recently announced that the former Southam Fellowship for Journalists, which had been scrapped (due to lack of funds from CanWest—why would they want to encourage thinking about journalism?), was being resurrected by CTV and the CBC. Of course, the name Southam is being dropped. Now it is called only the Canadian Journalism Fellowship. But even this relatively small yet extremely positive step has been overshadowed.
Specifically, it has been overshadowed by a controversy arising from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty’s Queen’s Park demonstration in 1999. More specifically, a controversy over evidence in one of the cases against the protesters. A court case against anti-poverty activist PJ Lilley will hinge upon video footage from networks like CTV and CBC.
Of course, camerapeople from the networks were not forthcoming with this footage, and why would they be? Quite rightly, they see their role as reporting events for the people, not informing on the people for the police! Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada felt a bit differently about the situation. The CBC fought against handing over the footage, it went to the Supreme Court and it lost. And that’s an overwhelming double-blow to freedom of the press. Firstly, it compromises the autonomy and credibility of reporters—are they just instruments of the state?—but worse, it sets the precedent of press freedom not being protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Similarly, positive steps to further freedom of press, freedom of expression and diversity of opinion are being taken at Carleton University (home to one of Canada’s best-known journalism schools). Three students there have just launched a progressive newspaper called Manufacturing Dissent. The intention is to counter the conservatism of their hometown Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Sun. Once again, a positive step. But then again, one of the students’ stated goals is to take a hard look at (soon-to-be-former) Premier Harris’s policies in Ontario. This comes at a time when Harris has chosen to use taxpayer money to pursue a legal case against the Globe and Mail for their coverage of him. The final outcome remains to be seen, but we can only hope that once again the small positive steps will not be overshadowed by the overwhelming setbacks.
