The DOVE declaration is far from being the first expression of our concerns regarding loss of Canada's diversity of voices. These letters are a sampling of our early protests.

Published: December 8, 2001
Ottawa Citizen
Canned editorials are wrong

By Clark Davey

Re: Southam News introduces national editorials, Dec. 6

For nine years since my retirement from daily newspapering I have resisted successfully the frequent temptation to comment publicly on the current state of journalism. But enough is enough.

The decision by the relatively new Southam ownership to give us an increasing diet of editorials canned in CanWest Global's Winnipeg head office demands reaction.

Gone in one swoop is the absolute editorial independence that used to be the hallmark of what the publishers liked to refer to as the Southam group. Today, as links in a chain, they are purveyors of syndicated thought. Little matter what the individual communities and their editorial boards across the country might think on the burning issues of the day, Father in Winnipeg knows best. No doubt the next national political endorsement will come out of the same canning factory.

Knowing readers should not be surprised. These are the same people who denied Citizens readers the services of their best political commentator, Lawrence Martin, because he was too tough on their friend, the prime minister, and who denied The Montreal Gazette and its readers the leadership of the best publisher that newspaper has had during the Southam years because, apparently, The Gazette had been too fair in coverage of the Middle East.

A sad, sad day for the uniqueness that was the individual editorial stance of the Southam newspapers and a sadder day for Canadian journalism.

Clark Davey
Ottawa

NOTE: Mr. Davey was publisher of the Citizen from 1989 - 1993.

to top

Published: February 2, 2002
Ottawa Citizen
Newsroom chill

By Clark Davey

Murdoch Davis says editors, editorial writers and others can

express differing views in signed pieces.The bravest of the brave columnist Charles Gordon has made the most of that opportunity (The Local Voice Is The Issue, Jan. 31) with a succinct argument that shows, in spite of Israel Asper's assertion to the contrary to the CanWest annual meeting, that the national editorial policy is neither right nor smart.

There is another, equally important issue. Mr. Davis, seasoned journalist that he is, must be very much aware of the Winnipeg-inspired chill, driven by the national editorial policy, which has settled over Southam newsrooms on such subjects as reporting or commentary that casts Israel in an unfavorable light or attacks the integrity of the prime minister and other Asper-sensitive topics.

Perhaps the next time he takes his self-justifying cursor to computer Mr. Davis will explain to this questioning reader and others just how this chill benefits Canadian journalism and those of us who feed on it.

Clark Davey
Ottawa

NOTE: Mr. Davey was publisher of the Citizen from 1989 - 1993.

to top

I am surprised that there has been no questioning outrage by the public or even by journalists themselves at the new benefits that are being conferred on us as readers and viewers by the latest example of commercializing editorial content in the name of convergence.

We have always understood the church-and-state division that exists between editorial content and advertising. But perhaps we really don't understand what is behind the specialized series on competitiveness that is appearing in the Citizen, the National Post, three other major Southam/CanWest dailies and in magazines and on radio across the country during an 11-week period.

It is described by its creators as "themed content" supported by exclusive advertising positions for the sponsoring company, Microsoft.

And while I have no doubt that Microsoft will have little if any direct control of the themed editorial content being provided and co-ordinated by the Joseph L. Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, I also have no doubt that the series will not have anything nasty or difficult to say about the smothering approach to competitiveness taken by Microsoft and its founder, Bill Gates, as undeniably established by U.S. courts.

Don't take my word for what the various partners are trying to do. Listen to what they had to say themselves in trumpeting the arrangement when they first announced it in a press release on May 3.

Noting that the program had been co-conceived by CanWest and Rogers Media, Anne McKeon, senior communications manager at Microsoft Canada, described it as "part of our strategic marketing efforts" and added, "We needed an innovative advertising approach to reach senior executives."

Roseanne Caron, vice-president, Integrated Business Solutions, CanWest Media Sales, chimed in with, "The program is unique in that the themed content from two media companies provides an association strategically aligned to Microsoft's position of enabling business."

And Hugh Dow, president of M2 Universal, a media management company which provided strategic framework (whatever that is) for the program, added, "We are convinced that relevant content is the key to a successful convergence program."

Tony Viner, president and CEO, Rogers Media Inc., underlined the beneficiary: "This breakthrough convergence program is a shining example of two media organizations working together to deliver greater value to a common customer."

Make no mistake. That common customer is Microsoft. Microsoft advertising would not be there if the specific articles were not published beside it.

And the articles would not be there if Microsoft had not agreed to buy the space adjacent. They are all part of the package designed to deliver the Microsoft message.

Yet another slide down the slippery slope from the pinnacle of media integrity.

Clark Davey
Ottawa

NOTE: Mr. Davey was publisher of the Citizen from 1989 to 1993.

to top

By Clark Davey

For those of you who might be confused at the sequence of events in feature and editorial pages of the Ottawa Citizen the last several days stretching back to last Saturday let me attempt to make sense of it for you by recalling a little history.

On September 10, 2001 the relatively new proprietors, Canwest, in a written submission to the Heritage Committee of the House of Commons made a clear commitment to maintain the vigorous independence of Southam newspaper newsrooms in these words:

"Each of our metropolitan and local newspapers is a strong player in its own community. Each is relentlessly local in its coverage and fiercely independent in its editorial policy. Under CanWest's ownership, that will not change. On the contrary, CanWest understands that the success of our newspapers is due largely to their ability, in their editorial policies, to mirror the interests and values of their local readers...

"... CanWest will maintain policies of individual editorial integrity in the operation of our television and newspaper properties. We will maintain clear and distinct editorial and management structures for each medium. We recognize there is a clear consistency of interests in preserving the distinct editorial voices and traditions of our newspapers and television operations and our commercial self-interest in running those operations as successful business units that are valued and respected in their communities."

Then on December 6, the first of what were called national editorials written in Canwest's Winnipeg Head Office apppeared on the editorial pages of the major Southam newspapers. After the subsequent furore about "canned" editorial, another editorial appeared on January 29, 2002 explaining that in order to be consistent within the publisher's space on editorial pages, "local editorials won't contradict our core position."

In the fallout from the early round of coverage--led by The Citizen and The National Post--concentrating on Prime Minister Chretien's involvement in the Shawinigate affair, the Southam papers were told in an article signed by David Asper, chairman of the publications committee of Canwest, in these pages that if they had proof of malfeasance on Mr. Chretien's part they should put it up. Otherwise shut up.

The Citizen obviously took up the challenge and last Saturday in a four-page story of rather mind-boggling detail came to the conclusion, baldly stated, that the prime minister had lied. A strong editorial in the same edition, noting all the ethical lapses of the recent past, called on the prime minister again--The Citizen had said the same thing many months ago--to resign. The editorial's sub-heading said it all: Chretien's own behaviour inspired government rot. He must leave.

But on Monday and Tuesday there appeared the latest ukases from Canwest in editorial stances from which their publishers and editors now cannot deviate. The Monday editorial said: "On any calm and reasoned analysis there is no evidence of government "rot" or "corruption." The prime minister has taken the proper steps. "That should end the matter until investiogations are completed." The media and opposition have been irresponsible.

Tuesday's Holy Writ from Winnipeg was more of the same. In the wake of the firing of Paul Martin, lay off the prime minister. He has earned the right to decide how long he wants to stay in power and when he will go. By inference, the public and certainly the media have no part to play in that decision.

So given the two wildly contradictory views expressed on The Citizen's editorial pages you, the reader, have to make up your own mind who you want to believe: your "fiercely independent" local editorial leadership (as promised by Canwest) or the absentee ownership who made promises of independence they haven't kept and who have a strong vested interest in the continued health of the Liberal Party.

Clark Davey
Ottawa

NOTE: Mr. Davey was publisher of the Citizen from 1989 to 1993

to top

Submitted June 21 2002
Ottawa Citizen (Unpublished)

By Clark Davey

To the editor:

Leonard Asper has revealed again in his lengthy interview that he, his brother and his father just don't get it when it comes to newspapers and free speech. We are told incidentally from Winnipeg that they are isolated even within their own company on their approach to this issue. If that was his idea of damage control, don't let him close to the land mines.

By indicating that he felt the Ottawa reaction to the firing of Russell Mills as publisher was "an indictment " of the Citizen he demonstrates his inability to understand Ottawa in any visceral way and to realize that the overwhelming, continuing and proliferating, nationally and internationally, reaction is instead a scathing indictment of the Asper leadership.

The issue is no longer about Russ Mills but about freedom of the press and the ownership approach to the exercise of that freedom. Contrast Mr. Asper's view of a newspaper or newspaper chain centrally controlled on any editorial issue of potential controversy with Mr. Mills' credo as set out in his convocation speech at Carleton University just a week ago.

The Aspers again, as they did before the CRTC and the Heritage Committee of the House of Commons, have promised us a free press, a promise important enough to be the front page headline in The Citizen without any bothersome questions asked. But why should we believe them now? They have demonstrated that they either don't know how to keep a promise or understand why, in terms of integrity-based journalism, it needs to be kept.

No lake is shallow enough to contain them.

Clark Davey
Ottawa

NOTE: Mr. Davey was publisher of the Citizen from 1989 to 1993

to top

Published: December 10, 2001
Windsor Star
Local, regional considerations are key

By Robert Hull

Re: Editorials get national voice, (Star, page A1, Dec.6). It was normal for independent, one newspaper owners to establish editorial positions. As mass ownership evolved, the real Southam tradition was to give news and editorial page autonomy to its many papers.

The latest Southam proprietor, the CanWest Company, has emasculated its newspapers' editorial boards and will impose editorials on national issues to more than a dozen papers in major Canadian cities, including Windsor.

Local and regional considerations have always played a central role in determining a newspapers' opinion on national affairs.

Not any more.

Financial leverage is one thing, but centralized thought control crosses the ethical line and wounds journalistic credibility and integrity.

As for creating what is called a national "virtual editorial board," I hope it gets lost looking for its role in the unworkable world of media convergence.

Robert Hull
Windsor

NOTE: Mr. Hull is a former publisher of the North Bay Nugget.

to top

Submitted June 18 2002
The Record, Kitchener-Waterloo (Unpublished)

By Wayne MacDonald

To the editor:

Russ Mills, the fired publisher of the Ottawa Citizen, was the president of Southam Inc. when that company purchased the independent Record from the Motz family in 1990. Prior to that, he said then, his largest purchase had been his house.

The firing of Mills by media "giant" CanWest Global may not mean much to ordinary Canadians. But it should. It is one more reason -- and a big one--to worry about the rapid erosion of one of our fundamental freedoms, the freedom of expression and the press, guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Mills and the Ottawa Citizen rankled the Asper family (CanWest Global) for the Citizen's notable efforts in uncovering some of the untruths coming from the Liberal government. It also had a large role in unseating Art Eggleton. The paper, among many others, also called for the resignation of Jean Chretien, another no-no. Mills apparently made matters worse by speaking critically of CanWest Global's central control over editorial policy. That was the day he was awarded an honorary degree from Carleton University.

Next day he was fired.

His firing is a great loss to Canadian journalism. Russ is honest to a fault, an intelligent spokesperson on many subjects, and wholly dedicated to a free press in a democratic society. He is a leader in quality newspaper publishing.

His replacement, on the other hand, also has a long history in journalism, some of it as editor of the Citizen. But more recently he has worked diligently on behalf of Conrad Black and the National Post to topple the Chretien government and defeat liberalism in Canada. Now, apparently, he will work just as diligently with the Aspers to ensure the same government stays in power. We'll see how the public interest is best served.

Another good publisher, at the Montreal Gazette, also bit the dust, again in apparent conflict with Asper central control of editorial policy.

So here we have it.

Good people fired for the wrong reasons.

Political and media power in Canada is more concentrated today than ever and its in the same camp. There's no effective opposition anywhere to be seen.

True liberalism died a decade ago. Freedom of speech and independent newsrooms may be the next to go.

Unless, of course, right-thinking Canadians wake up.

Wayne MacDonald
Kitchener-Waterloo

NOTE: Mr. MacDonald is a former publisher of The Record.

to top

Published: December 10, 2001
Windsor Star
Independent views are still the best

By Carl Morgan

On the front page of the Dec. 6 Windsor Star was an obituary, sounding the death knell of a tremendously important aspect of Canadian journalism -- independent views expressed by diverse editors working in a variety of newspapers across the country.

Of all the changes we have seen in recent years, papers being bought, sold and merged, none is as sadly significant as the news story that Southam News should provide homogenized editorial opinion for up to 13 daily newspapers, including The Windsor Star, across the country. Whatever happened to the independent editorial integrity?

Whatever happened to the stuff that made the local paper a voice for local opinion based on the experience and background of the editors working in that community?

As one of the former editors of The Star, I was frequently barraged with harsh challenges from our critics who believed that our editorials were dictated by the absentee owners. The only real defence I had was the honest knowledge that that was simply not the case.

No longer can the editor or anyone else at The Star stand up and say, "our editorial views are our own, no one dictates to us!"

A lot of changes have occurred at The Star in the past decade and none of them has really bothered me; new owners, new brooms, clean sweeps. In my heart of hearts I agreed with some, not with others, because change is what happens every day.

Today, though, whoever calls the shots from Winnipeg crossed the invisible line. What will happen on hot button issues like abortion, gun control, the CBC, federal elections, even provincial elections? We don't know, but it won't be good. The position that Edmonton might hold on gun control legislation probably differs for that held in St. Catharines or Windsor. Now, every paper will parrot the same view, courtesy of Murdoch Davis, whether they like it or not.

When I finished reading the story, I was struck by the fact that there was no comment from the editor, the editor of the editorial page, or the publisher. More often than not, when there are significant changes about to take place, someone in a senior position explains how good those changes will be for the reading public. In Thursday's paper those voices were absent. Silenced? I have to wonder if they felt the same as I do that this move is repugnant, bad, unjust, unfair and just plain wrong.

Carl Morgan
Tecumseh

NOTE: Mr. Morgan is a former editor of The Windsor Star.

to top

Submitted: January 29 2002
The Windsor Star (Unpublished)

By Carl Morgan

To the Editor:

I have just finished an unusual exercise - I actually took the time to read the incredibly insulting lead (and only) editorial in today's Star - the one dealing with editorials, produced by CanWest's national editorial board.

If ever there has been a piece of self-serving drivel disguised as a "thoughtful" commentary on an important issue to appear in the editorial columns of The Windsor Star, this has to be it. If the National Newspaper Awards competition established a new category for the worst snippet of pointless pap, this editorial would take first prize… second and third, too.

I would dearly love to respond to the editorial point-by-point but since contributors to The Star's Op Ed Page are usually limited to about 600 or 700 words, the task would be impossible.

The author of the piece is not identified but the suggestion is made that "most thoughtful Canadians" will agree with their position. Well, I don't know which "thoughtful Canadians" CanWest's national editorial board has been listening to, but I cant tell you that most thoughtful Canadians in these parts certainly do not, because I have heard more than my share of negative and sad comments from a lot of our community leaders.

But the real point is that CanWest's national editorial board just DOES NOT get the point. Of course individual publishers of individual papers have a right to call the editorial shots - but that's not what is in question here. What we have here is one view being published in 12 or 13 papers - and the local publisher or editor dare not disagree or he/she will be back writing obits on the Oshkosh Times.

Furthermore, if a reader disagrees with the so-called national editorial, his/her opinion might appear in one paper only - and not in every paper that carried the editorial. I ask you: where is the editorial fairness in that?

I also take personal and profession umbrage at the audacity of CanWest to carry the Southam logo in the mandated editorials. That is a dishonourable practice and the record needs to be clarified.

In all the years I worked for a proud newspaper company called Southam Inc., not once - NOT ONCE - did any of the Southam brass in Toronto ever attempt to influence any editorial content in any part of any of its papers. That's a proud record that is being sullied by these new, and unacceptable practices of CanWest.

Shame on them! If CanWest wants to be truly up front and honest, let those self -indulgent editorials carry the CanWest logo - not the Southam logo.

The only thing I can take heart from in seeing this particular "editorial" published, is that someone somewhere must be feeling the heat generated by their decision to provide common editorials for their newspapers.

Their attempts, in today's paper to justify their corporate position and to squash any opposition have only exacerbated the situation. They say that only those readers who agree with them are "thoughtful" - and the rest of us, I suppose are knuckle-dragging dolts.

Write your editorials, Mr. CanWest, and be damned they won't be read by right-thinking Canadians anyway… you've already sullied the good name of many fine Canadian newspapers - including The Windsor Star.

As I thought through this proposed letter, I wondered whether it would see the light of day, and then I was heartened when I read the quotation at the top of the editorial column:

"The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of the subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind." - John Stuart Mill, 1859

If that is the foundation of your mission statement, then there is hope that other Canadians - thoughtful and otherwise - will have a chance to read at least one opposing view.

I only wish I could respond more fully to this most anemic of all editorials, but alas, space restrictions dictate otherwise.

Carl Morgan
Tecumseh

NOTE: Mr. Morgan is a former editor of The Windsor Star.

to top

Submitted June 22 2002
National Post (Unpublished)

By Paddy Sherman

Sirs:

The Asper controversy has clearly put many of their excellent
journalists under stress. After 50 years in journalism I have watched
sympathetically as many have dealt with it. In your paper Andrew
Coyne handled a tough situation with considerable professionalism.
Mark Steyn, by contrast, came across as a venomous hack, a clever
writer doing his master's work while professing that he wasn't.

Paddy Sherman
West Vancouver B.C.

to top

By Paddy Sherman

Dear Sir/Madam:

As someone who ran the Southam Newspapers(including yours) under previous ownership, I have been watching with astonishment the developments under the new owners, CanWest Global. Forty former publishers, editors and directors of Southam newspapers published a full-page advertisement noting that the new policy would severely limit regional comment on major issues in all the metropolitan Southam papers. Head office decreed that in future the papers would publish the owners' editorial views on selected "national" topics whether the editors agreed with them or not--and the editors were banned from commenting on those issues in ways that might contradict the head office views. Your readers did not see the advertisement in your paper, although we tried to have it published there. You can see it in full at www.diversityofvoices.ca.

Under the previous ownership, local publishers and editors had complete editorial control of all content, and strong and informed regional comment on all major issues, national and international , was the norm. Now at least one major subject a week is put beyond their control. After a year, the total could be fifty major topics on which some of the country's best editors would be forced to stay mute. That hardly fulfils the written commitment CanWest gave to the Commons Heritage Committee when they took over the newspapers to add to their extensive television holdings. That commitment noted that Southam papers were "fiercely independent" in their editorial policies, and went on :"Under CanWest's ownership that will not change." It noted that success depends, among other things, on "freedom from corporate editorial influence or involvement in their daily productions."

As novices in the newspaper field, they clearly have no idea of the fragilityof newsroom morale. When editors and reporters fear they may be fired for researching subjects that may prove their owners wrong, a major chill on covering certain subjects is predictable.

The full-page ad that did not appear in this newspaper urged CanWest to take serious second thought on this new policy . It invited the public to suggest ways in which full editorial freedom could be regained while recognising the legal rights of the owner. It noted that CanWest was able to buy Southam because of federal legislation that effectively ruled out foreign ownership of Canadian newspapers. That law kept Canadian newsrooms free of foreign control- without even referring to content.. The ad suggested there might be ways in which legislation could keep newsrooms fully free without government getting involved in content.

The company reply to the advertisement, given by president Leonard Asper, did not deal with the issues set forth. Instead it raised a red herring--the totally false statement that the advertisement favored letting governments into the newsrooms.

If the government ever did try that, the people who signed the ad would be the first to fight against them. The signers include people who derailed the last such government attempt in the days of the Trudeau government.

It is sad indeed that in their lack of knowledge the new owners have done so much to harm newspaper credibility. There are ways in which the owners can put their views into print without seriously damaging the credibility of their major newspapers and perhaps their eventual profitability. I join those who urge them to be mature enough and wise enough to to review their policies before they go too far down the road of Canada's first "chain journalism" with serious impacts they clearly have not well considered.

Paddy Sherman
Former President, Southam Newspaper Group

to top

By Wilson Southam

In a June 7 article in these pages, Leonard Asper, president and CEO of CanWest Global Communications Corp., voiced strong criticism of the recent advertisement bought and paid for by a group of former Southam employees and Southam family members. Unfortunately, Mr. Asper did not deal with the central issues raised by this ad.

Signed by 40 former publishers, editors and directors of Southam Inc., the ad expressed concern that CanWest's policies are limiting editorial diversity across the country. In particular, this is the effect of CanWest's insistence on editorials produced at its head office for Southam newspapers -- editorials from which editors and publishers cannot subsequently depart.

This practice flies in the face of CanWest's own assurances. On Sept. 10, CanWest told the Canadian Heritage Committee of the House of Commons, in a written submission: "Each of our metropolitan and local newspapers is a strong player in its own community. Each is relentlessly local in its coverage and fiercely independent in its editorial policy. Under CanWest's ownership, that will not change."

This promise to Parliament was in keeping with the century-old Southam Inc. policy on local editorial independence.

This promise, however, is inconsistent with CanWest's imposition of a head office view of the world that cannot be questioned locally once it appears in the company's "national editorial" of the week.

While we acknowledge the right of owners to issue national editorials, CanWest's policy goes further in a disturbing way. The "gag order", as it has come to be known in Southam newsrooms, was outlined by Murdoch Davis, editor-in-chief of Southam News, in a statement published in the Sault Star Feb. 16: "We have told our publishers and editors that 'core positions' taken in national editorials should not be contradicted in subsequent editorials. That is, after all, the proprietor's space, whether delegated to local managers or not, and senior management has decided we should be consistent within that space."

This objectionable practice does not just control selected editorial subjects. It is already skewing commentary and news, to say nothing of the deleterious impact it has on the newsroom climate that subtly affects the balance of daily news coverage.

CanWest's response to our ad, however, has been to publish articles coast to coast depicting the authors of the ad as favouring direct government intervention in the newsrooms of Canada. Why? Ostensibly, it is because we seek a dialogue to discuss a range of public measures that might protect editorial diversity. Such measures include the possible use of federal tax policies.

Canada currently employs tax policies to protect its media companies from foreign ownership with the aim of preserving Canadian culture. Why not explore using tax policy to encourage genuinely independent newsrooms also with the aim of preserving our culture? Might it not be a sound investment for Canadians to foster such local editorial independence, providing, of course, that the measures do not lessen freedom of the press?

Are we concerned by the prospect of government, the media and the public studying this problem cooperatively? Of course we are, and we would watch such a process very carefully.

But we are less perturbed about examining this issue rationally than we are by certain trends in Canada's media, as exemplified by the recent experience with CanWest concerning our advertisement - CanWest's refusal to publish the ad in the first place, and the unfair and inaccurate response to it.

Democracy is not a static condition; vigilance is a precondition of its survival. Our group reluctantly concluded it is time to carefully study the rapid build-up in power resulting from cross-media ownership by business conglomerates.

If CanWest ever does find a real threat of government intervention in newsrooms, the signatories to our ad will be standing shoulder to shoulder with them to oppose it. Indeed, some of us helped derail a threat of government intervention during the Trudeau era.

Interestingly, the derisive response by CanWest to our statement may have highlighted the problem better than our ad itself ever could. The company's attack on us has demonstrated the kind of gag we complained of, the skewing of coverage we abhor and the attempted squelching of diversity we fear.

Can Canadians afford to stand by while the editorial and advertising space of so many are centrally controlled to protect and project the views of so few?

NOTE: Wilson Southam is a former director of Southam Inc.

to top

By Bryson Stone

"Southam newspapers have a proud history of fine journalism, and of defending freedom of the press" (quote from your January 29 National Editorial out of Winnipeg).

It is to be hoped that such a statement will be accurate five years from now.

It well may not be.

During my tenure as a publisher with Southam Newspapers we often referred to a statement, made by a well-known American, as follows: "Freedom of the press is enjoyed by the man who owns one."

In actual fact, freedom of the press is, and always has been, measured and controlled by the men and women who own the company. Thankfully, up until this time at least, those at the top of the leading newspaper companies appreciated that powerful right… and then they promptly gave it away. They put it where it rightfully belongs, in the hands of the publishers and editors (or editorial board) of each individual newspaper.

Members of the Southam family who were major shareholder-owners, in particular, treasured and were very proud of this policy. Members of the family, whether or not they were active in the day-to-day operation of the organization, controlled the company as well as the board of directors. That control was basically from a business policy and financial standpoint, not from a news content or editorial position.

As an example, although it was never spelled out to us at the time, the general impression was that most of the Southam family supported the views and position of the Conservative Party. However, on at least one occasion, one of my fellow publishers supported the NDP party in a federal election campaign because, in his view, that party offered the best platform for his readers, the constituents in the area covered by his paper. He was not impeded at all by head office or the family. I wonder if that sort of freedom will continue within the newly structured Southam "family" of newspapers.

Your National Editorial states that, "we reject assertions that the proprietor has no right to influence editorials." Of course you have the right to influence editorials. But is it right to do so? I do not believe that it is a moral right. If there is concern, and fear, that the result of your new National Editorial policy could be damaging to our freedoms, then it should not be enforced. It is a very dangerous precedent, not just for the company but for our country.

What do you expect to accomplish by injecting such fear into the hearts and minds of Canadians? I suppose there may be some self-satisfaction… if your ego is big enough… but little else.

You also say "our initiative does not constrain access to the newspapers for those who disagree with any editorials. We welcome debate." In that very same National Editorial I picked up on the use of the term "we reject" three times. Makes one shudder a bit.

The proof of "we welcome debate" is in the pudding.

Who will decide whether or not this very response to your editorial position will appear in any of your newspapers? It is entirely your choice, and yours alone. If you should decide not to run it, very few people will even be aware that it was written.

Should you come to that decision and not run this letter, then I suppose I could submit it to your advertising department… and pay for it out of my pocket. However, if you decide not to run it as an opinion piece… you could also reject it as a paid advertisement. You have the right to reject it either way.

It all boils down to what you do with that right that counts. And it is not only whether or not you use it properly… but more importantly, how your use of that right is perceived.

At this point in time, I, and I'm sure many other Canadians are nervous about how you will handle this right in the future.

Bryson Stone
Victoria, B. C.

NOTE: Mr. Stone is former publisher of the Prince George Citizen and Daily News (Kamloops).

to top

Submitted 11 June 2002
Windsor Star (Unpublished)

By Jim Thomson

To the editor:

The CanWest fairy tale which appeared on page A14 of the June 8 edition of the Windsor Star demands comment and clarification.

My credentials for doing so are as follows. I was Publisher of the Windsor Star for ten years. Prior to this I was Publisher of the Brantford Expositor for nine years. During the 44 years with Southam I can modestly claim to have developed a keen sense of smell for when something is rotten in newspaperland.

The CanWest tale was in answer to a full-page advertisement that appeared in several Canadian newspapers.

The advertisement was sponsored by 40 retired Southam Publishers, Editors and Board members of which I am one. I am retired and have no stake in the media. The advertisement in question criticized CanWest's policy of one voice for all papers which abolished the editorial independence of it's newspapers. Under the CanWest system, once a week, an editorial on a national topic is written at the direction of CanWest's headquarters in Winnipeg. The major CanWest papers including The Windsor Star are required to run that editorial word for-word as dictated by head office. In other words in the world of CanWest all wisdom flows out of Winnipeg. The CanWest spokesperson quoted in the June 8 article either did not comprehend what the advertisement was saying or, more likely, was solely intent on attempting to justify CanWest's policy of one voice (CanWest's) fits all. The spokesperson indicated that Editors and Columnists were free to publish a signed opinion piece that differed with the clearly- labelled views of Head office. Who would dare in their right mind to do this after they have seen some of those people resign at the strong suggestion of CanWest or fired for expressing a view contrary to the one held by Mr. Israel Asper. The CanWest spokesperson goes on to intimate that we proposed government interference in the newsrooms of the nation. What we did suggest was that some sort of tax incentive might help to ensure the independence of the newsrooms.

We were ridiculed for suggesting that CanWest had 97.6% coverage of the market place. One would have to assume that the figure changes depending on which hat Mr. Asper is wearing. If he is talking about cross media ownership the figure will come out very low. If it is selling advertising their web sight did show a figure of 94%. We would be happy to let Mr. Asper use our verified figure if it will help him sell more advertising and relax his one voice policy.

CanWest would have you believe that this issue is merely a diversion for academics and disgruntled journalist. It is not. This has a direct effect on the newspaper which comes into your home. It has a direct effect on Windsor and Essex County. You deserve diverse opinions made in Windsor and Essex County, not in Winnipeg. If you are interested in a free press, I suggest you write to a letter to the Editor of the Windsor Star or Mr. Israel Asper, Executive chairman, CanWest Global Communications, 3100 T.D. Centre, 201 portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3B 3L7. For more up to date information visit our website at http://www.diversityofvoices.ca .

Jim Thomson
Amherstburg, Ontario

to top