CKNW Editorial
for September 7, 2001

My mail tells me that we should have a bit of a chat about what this show is all about. I’m getting the second most mail in my history saying that people are going to stop listening to me if I don’t do certain things or refrain from doing things I’m doing. I say the second highest amount because nothing, I’m sure, will ever come close to the Vander Zalm years when half the listenership was, for the most part, bitterly angry with me.

The reasons given are troubling because the anger is not with my opinions or me nearly so much as it is at unpopular opinions being expressed by others. Joy McPhail is not to be tolerated … nor is David Schreck … or Jim Sinclair. The statement is, roughly, we voted the goddamn NDP out and we never want to hear from them again.

We should think on that a bit. I answered one such email the other day by saying that if the listener wanted to go through life only hearing opinions with which he agreed that was his affair but that I felt sorry for him – and he was listening to the wrong show.

I don’t care what the government is or who is leading it; it must constantly be prodded by those who don’t agree. During the Second World War, when Britain’s very existence was at stake and one might think any opposition to Winston Churchill treasonous, Emanuel Shinwell of the Labour party persistently nagged Churchill about his leadership and all manner of matters involving his government’s running of the war. And while Churchill didn’t like it he never for a moment suggested that Shinwell ought not to be a prod and a scold. It is only by tests of this kind one can expect the best from governments. Note that I said the best. No government ever comes with a country mile of being perfect but if it is not constantly nagged and pestered it soon will think it’s infallible. I know about this from experience – governments are surrounded by friends and flacks who constantly tell them that they are right. The temptation to disregard all criticism as disloyal and conducive to bringing the bad guys back to power is overwhelming.

Let’s take a couple of examples. The government legislated the nurses back. Some, like me, disagreed with the way it was done. Others thought it was wrong. Many thought it was right and some thought it didn’t happen soon enough.

The government reduced taxes. Some, like right wing economist David Bond disagreed on a technical basis. Some thought it was wrong per se. Some thought it favoured one stratum of society over another. Some thought it was a great idea. Others thought it didn’t go far enough.

Can it be said that there shouldn’t be room for all opinions because any criticism of the government might pave the way for the NDP?
This was what I faced in the Vander Zalm years – criticism of the government, it was said, would bring back the NDP. And the NDP did come back. But because the rooster crows when the sun comes up doesn’t mean the sun came up because of the rooster’s crowing. It was not the criticism that did Mr Vander Zalm but the conduct giving rise to that criticism.

What I run is not a public institution but a radio show which depends for its life on opinions – all opinions. It is not a show where fairness plays a big role because I, the host, have never pretended to be fair. I am an editorialist.

Now, I hope that at days end it will be said that I gave all opinions a fair shot at an airing but if any ever think I will approach issues from an "on the one hand, on the other hand" position they will be much disappointed.

It is the very essence of an opinion show that all opinion expressed will be annoying as hell to one segment of the audience. To change that would be to turn the show into a clone of the old Peter Gzowski Show and however much I may admire Peter I am utterly unequipped intellectually and emotionally to host such a show.

When people threaten to leave the show, or inform me they already have, I tell them to fly at it … that’s what dials on radios are for. Because that leads to the last point. The popularity of a show like mine will never be judged by most people based on their agreement or disagreement with views expressed – they will judge it on the basis of whether or not it is interesting. And being interesting may mean they feel good … or bad … or happy … or sad … or supportive … or angry as hell.

But, I am sometimes asked, shouldn’t you do what people want you to do? And the answer is a resounding "no". For one thing how could I ever make that judgment? On every issue of consequence there are some who agree and some who find the opinions hateful. But of more importance, this isn’t a request show. I am judged on the size of my audience. That is not determined by what I do today, or might do tomorrow but whether or not, over the longer haul, people enjoy listening. This is why you’ll never hear of us doing anything special for rating periods – we simply try every day to do a good show and hope that over the long run people enjoy it.

It’s of no moment that you agreed with my editorial or were incensed at it … whether you liked what a guest said or hated it. There will always be plenty of both in every audience.

What does matter is that you were challenged from time to time and were entertained.

Every day my producers and I meet in order to try to present challenging programs. Never ever does the popularity of any stand to be taken either by me or my guests even come into out calculations. That’s utterly irrelevant. And though I hate to lose a single listener, I must with sadness bid adieu to any who want only opinions that accord with theirs to be heard on the Rafe Mair Show.