Thursday, May 8, 2003
Wither the Post? - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER – I've been reading the National Post ever since it debuted four and a half years ago. I liked the Post very much, for its format, which was refreshing, as well as its tone, which was something we didn't find in the Canadian psyche heretofore. Sure, it was right-wing, resembling the mind set of its colourful proprietor Conrad Black, but it challenged long held orthodoxies in Canadian politics and Canadian journalism. The Post, were we in need to sum up its achievements thus far, was an interesting publication that raised the level of debate in this country and made other papers better, chiefly, the Globe and Mail. No one, not even its former owner, now Lord Black of Crossharbour, would admit it was a successful business. When the former Mr. Black was inching to become a Lord in Britain's upper house, he renounced his Canadian citizenship in favour of the peerage, and at the same time unloaded his Canadian business interests including his newspapers across the country, including the fabled Post. He sold them off to the Winnipeg-based CanWest Global, which is controlled by the Asper family.
The Asper's, never showing much interest in the newspaper business, only bought into the medium, to get into the Globe/CTV game of convergence. They have been taking severe losses in subsidizing the National Post. Since day one, four and a half years ago, the Post has been losing money. Newspaper wars what they are, Conrad Black heavily invested in hiring top notch writers, yet slashed subscription and newsstand prices to boost circulation. The Asper's, less politically inclined than Black, have surely regretted undertaking the same gusto in losing money. They've tried to cut the paper, including their horrible gutting of the arts and sports sections last year. The public uproar was loud, and even though they've restored arts and sports, predictions of the National Post's demise have been rampant since. (Clearly, it doesn't instill confidence both within and without the Post, that they resort to layoffs, thereby shutting down sections of the paper, yet re-open them again later.)
Then came the war in Iraq. This war, perhaps the most divisive in the field of public opinion, saw the Post wade in with American fervour unbecoming of the Canadian temperament. Goaded on by its dislike of anything to do with Jean Chrétien and his regime in Ottawa, the Post took a very hawkish line, supporting the war and the President. It didn't help that the ineptitude seen with the government's waffling, only stoked the fire further for the Post, who seemed far more patriotic than even the New York Times. It was rather embarrassing, I must say, even though I thought the war was just and I happen to be a fan of this President, to see the Post's editorial board hammer the Dean of the United States Senate, Robert Byrd, for being "un-American" with his vociferous opposition to the war.
Now comes the point of this column, the future of the Post, considering the events of the last little while. First, the Post's survival has been in doubt ever since Lord Black sold it off. Clearly, the Asper's were not interested in owning a paper; they're much more interested in owning television licences, and the Post helps in some way. Writers from the Post have fled before, but when an op-ed piece by former Post scribbler Patricia Pearson appeared in the Globe and Mail, nearly two weeks ago, the unravelling was just about to begin.
Ms. Pearson, the granddaughter of former prime minister Lester B. Pearson, was a Post columnist for a while (probably since day one, but I haven't bothered to check). Hers was a lonely voice in the middle, or left, or whatever you want to call it. She was a liberal, like her famous grandfather. That in itself was odd considering the Post's stable of writers is made up of right-wing types like Christie Blatchford, Diane Francis, Andrew Coyne, Mark Steyn, David Frum and Robert Fulford. (Fulford isn't really known as a right-wing type, but I consider him right-wing if not for his views on the Middle East.) In her Globe op-ed she says that she quit the Post because it was being too pro-American, and that it was because of her own bias that she decided to quit. It's a rather disjointed piece, that talks about self-censorship (a subject far too interesting and multi-faceted to talk about here), the Post's pro-Americanism, and the self-hating Canadianism of one Diane Francis from the pages of the Financial Post.
The following week, Christie Blatchford, from her own op-ed column in the Saturday National Post, shot back. She said Ms. Pearson was taking a path of least resistance, and that Pearson had no reason to quit the Post, except that she found the conditions intolerable, thanks to her own bias. (Thus, not a reason to blame the Post for.) Blatchford, branded a neo-con slut in some circles, does not mince words saying that the Post has always stood for the widest expression of views, that for every Mark Steyn or Andrew Coyne, there was a Patricia Pearson or Mark Kingwell or Adam Lamey. (Funny, because in Monday's Post, Andrew Coyne, in 800 words or so, ripped into Mr. Lamey for his wishy-washy view on geopolitics. Mr. Lamey, in his Arts column, responded in kind in yesterday's Post.)
Then, former Post columnist (now the page two columnist at the Globe) Roy MacGregor, writes on Tuesday, that David Frum, the neo-conservative columnist who was a speech writer for George W. Bush, in a blog on the National Review magazine's website, has quit his Post column. This in consequence to last week's news that the Asper's have dumped publisher Peter Viner, editor-in-chief Ken Whyte, and managing editor Martin Newland. Ms. Blatchford in her Saturday op-ed column, wrote a love letter dedicated to Whyte and Newland, while Frum's blog claims that the small-c conservative vision of Conrad Black's Post was now at risk to the Asper's grand design, which is deeply rooted in their enamour of the Chrétien Liberals. Frum also blamed his resignation on the manner to which Whyte and Newland were let go. It seems that their dismissal was less than magnanimous.
So what will happen now to the Post? Will it become more commercially viable by gutting the dissenting voice it has fronted for nearly five years? Will it give up the tough probing that it has been known for, because its proprietors are fans of the current regime in Ottawa? Ms. Pearson, two weeks ago, scorned the Post for sliding into orthodoxy, instead of upholding the vision of the paper's launch – imaginative and vibrant skepticism. (I thought they were the same thing?) Will Ms. Pearson now return, since the right-wing pro-Americans have been ditched for Asper-types? Or will the Post merely fade away? Clearly, the Post needs to re-invent itself. If it'll continue to be the shit disturber that we've known and loved it for, then so much the better for the Canadian consumer who has been mired in, what David Frum calls, "a dreary bog of left-liberal conformity." Otherwise, if as I suspect, the Post will reflect the vision of the Asper's, then so goes the National Post. It's been a terrific ride, and we're sorry to see you go.
***
An addendum to the above: Surrounding these events at the National Post, came the testimony, last week, of former CBC journalist Patrick Watson, to a Senate committee. There, and in a Globe and Mail op-ed piece, he called for the creation of a government-funded newspaper version of the CBC. This, a reaction to the media convergence we're seeing both at Bell Canada (which controls the Globe) and CanWest Global (which controls the Post, the only two dailies in this city and similar cities across the country). We all admire Mr. Watson for his pioneering journalism on the legendary This Hour Has Seven Days back in the 1960s at the CBC. Personally, I like his voice, and wouldn't mind sounding like that. However, Mr. Watson's idea is dumb. It's an idea that recalls Pierre Trudeau and the nationalisations we saw in the 1970s. It belies any realisation or recognition of globalisation, and would be utter folly in this day and age. Watson's vision of a public newspaper includes a governing board "composed primarily of journalists and appointed only for ability and representational reasons." How would an editorial board be culled, that would represent both anti-American and pro-American Canadians? What about the old and useless division between the left and right? How about regional concerns – ever widening thanks to geography? Mr. Watson's idea, though rooted in journalistic experience and I believe, much thought, is, as Roy MacGregor wrote in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, the journalistic equivalent of "putting the inmates in charge of the asylum."
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .