CKNW Editorial
for October 10, 2001

If you can get a copy, read Philip Knightley’s book, The First Casualty. He’s referring, of course, to truth and war. Governments, which as a rule by nature have trouble telling the truth, have even greater trouble with it in wartime. As often as not, the sin is omission – what you don’t know won’t hurt you, as it were.

I want to talk this morning about the programming of this show now that we are at war. Even though the Prime Minister didn’t trouble himself to get formal support of Parliament – he overlooked that minor detail with Kosovo too – we are at war in fact. I am a loyal Canadian and I support that war.

The difficulty is, how do you handle a war when you are a skeptical broadcaster who instinctively distrusts anything that any government says any time? I suppose the answer is, with care and difficulty.

Let’s get some basics out of the way. I support the United States on this matter and I support Canada’s involvement. Be in no doubt about that.

I also support the notion that in a free country, with an obvious exception, people are entitled to know what is going on. The obvious exception being where the war effort would be hurt and our military imperiled.

This is a fine line indeed. The government will always want us to believe that information sought is, and should be, classified. But we learned from the war in Viet Nam what that can mean – simply suppression of information which, if exposed, would quite legitimately embarrass the government. Had, for example, the Pentagon Papers been exposed earlier, four years of the Viet Nam war might have been eliminated. When you have former Secretary of Defence Robert Macnamara later admitting, and committing to print, that his decisions were in error one sees the error in assuming that someone in authority is right because he says he is.

My producers and I have met on this subject and I will try to tell you where we’re going.

Within the context of support of the war, we will ask questions and try to get answers.

It’s tempting to leave military matters in wartime to the military and their political masters. In general, we will do that. We won’t hesitate, however, to question what the objectives are and whether, bearing in mind the civilian population at risk, they are reasonable. The famous Prussian Field Marshall von Clausewitz once said "war is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means." He was right. We will, then, keep an eye on this war from that point of view. We will expect the United States and other coalition partners to keep us informed not only on the overall aims, namely to end terrorism, but other aims as well.

For example, and it is but one, I think it fair indeed mandatory that we question support to the Northern Alliance. I’m not saying that might not be sound policy – but we haven’t had that demonstrated. We will undoubtedly want to know more about the Northern Alliance, what support it has in other parts of Afghanistan and what sort of government can Afghans and others expect if they were to come to power. I use this simply as an example.

The effect of this war on other parts of the world is, in our view, a legitimate area of concern. Today we’re looking at the impact of what to fundamentalist Islam is a holy war, has on the world of Islam in South-east Asia. And, indeed, that question applies elsewhere. We will do more of this.

We think that Canadians have a right to know what the whole panoply of objectives is. We know that the overall object is to eradicate terrorism but we also know that this is about as probable as wiping out the drug trade. So what are other objectives? How does the United States see Afghanistan in the future? What is the exit strategy, if there is one?

What are we not especially interested in?

The case for pacifism, although we’ll no doubt hear it made on the open line – which is fair enough – and we will be speaking to Alexa McDonough about it too. But the case for pacifism is pretty straight forward – don’t fight. Don’t go to war. Since we are at war there seems to be little profit in arguing whether or not we should fight.

What I especially want to make clear is this – because we have on a guest that has a certain point of view doesn’t mean that I or the program share that point of view. We may, we may in part, we may not at all. It will be presented for what it is – an opinion. The obvious example is in Israeli-Palestinian relations. It is impossible to agree with both sides yet you will hear both sides presented.

We will try to present objective experts but most of us know that there really isn’t such a person. In fact few of us are ever truly objective on anything. Again, what we will be presenting is opinion.

There will be guests I agree with, some I do not, some who are in between and some who simply make me think. Some may change your mind or mine - many, I suspect will not.

Starting with the Korean War and very much accelerated by the war in Viet Nam the role of the public, hence the media, has changed from days past when blind allegiance and acceptance of managed news was the norm. You simply cannot do war in living colour in the public’s living-room without there being questions. Moreover people have changed from the days when whatever a Churchill or Roosevelt said was accepted without question. We are no longer overawed by authority’s ability to know all the right answers and make the right decisions.

We don’t believe that one can argue, in a free society, that people are not entitled to know what’s happening just because someone, in or out of authority, thinks that might erode someone’s morale.

As I say, it’s a fine line and perhaps I can summarize this way.

We will always remember we are at war and that our military must be supported while at the same time we live in a free country whose people are entitled to know what’s going on unless that information would impede the war effort. And this, of course, is where the fine line rests. We will do out best to stay on the right side of it.