Vancouver Courier
for September 27, 1998

The questions raised by publisher David Black in his statement that his 60 community papers in B.C. will oppose the Nisga'a Treaty are so many that your poor old scribe's head is truly spinning.

Mr Black didn't help things when his initial statement was "The opinions to be expressed in our papers are going to be against the treaty." That led to outrage because, leaving aside the question that the man does after all own the newspapers, it seemed clear that not only would editors toe the line but that no contrary opinions, either by way of letters to the editor or on the Op-ed page, would be tolerated. He has since said that this doesn't apply to letters to the editor.

Let's clear the air on this before we go further. I oppose the Nisga'a Treaty, as it stands and, though I disagree with him on some aspects, I can think of no more articulate presenter of my point of view than Mel Smith, QC, the noted constitutional expert who will be writing articles on this matter for Mr Black's papers. And it is very right of Mr Black to identify the government's disgraceful behaviour in using tax dollars to fund a glitzy, highly expensive propaganda campaign which makes no attempt whatever to present the other side and where the facts alleged bear no relation to reality.

So I should be happy, right?

Not so fast. The question remains - should an owner dictate the editorial policy of the paper.

Like many, I despair at the centralized control of the expression of opinion in this country and I lament the truth of the statement that freedom of the press rests with the person who owns one. I'm still in a state of shock, six years later, that the entire mass media of this country, without even the most superficial of questioning, supported the Charlottetown Accord.

I also recognize that Mr Black is rare amongst his peers in having the honesty to be up front about his decision. Most publishers handle the problem by making sure that the local publishers and the editors are only hired from the "right sort of people." I presume that the sheer number of editors involved in Mr Black's chain encouraged his honesty of approach.

One of my main concerns is that editors don't sign their names. The paper gives off the lofty impression that the editorial represents a great deal of thought and consultation from all points of view thus is more to be respected than most. Nothing could be further from the truth. The opinion is that of the publisher's hired hand who has his job because he agrees with the publisher.

I make no criticism of the editors - they're as entitled to their opinions as the next person. My quarrel is with the inference that this is something more than one person's opinion or, at best, that of the editorial board.

But if there's a problem here, then those who complain about it must have a solution that's no worse than the problem itself. And there doesn't seem to be one. For freedom of speech and of the press means that any of us can publish a tract containing our opinion. And if we can publish one page we can publish dozens of them. And how can it be logically argued that I can print my own opinion and sell it but that this right ceases after I publish a certain number of pages more than one?

But let us agree, for sake of argument, that there should be some restrictions and some laws about fairness. (Presumably this would go to the entire reporting of news, given Premier Clark's threatened action alleging unfair reporting against the Vancouver Sun). Now we must ask just who will make the necessary and difficult interpretations about "fairness" and "balance" in editorials and news coverage.

Will it be the government or some board they create? God forbid! That's what free men and women, over the centuries, have died fighting against,

Will it be the courts? I hope not given the enormous expense involved to say nothing of the increasing politicization of courts we're seeing.

Perhaps we'll give the power to a "Press Council" to deal with. Given that these institutions around the world have become the poodles of the publishers that idea seems rather unproductive.

I believe that the answer lies with the people. Perhaps we do what we've always done best - reject the voice of authority when we don't agree with it. To arm ourselves, we must stop assuming that we understand all right but that the rest of the stupid public is easily led. We must inform ourselves better and not simply fortify our prejudices by accepting what some editorialist we usually agree with says.

And that's our defence for when all's said and done, the Charlottetown Accord, championed so uncritically by the establishment media, went down to resounding defeat when we had our say, didn't it?