Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Paul Wells and Maclean's - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER – Trolling my folder for things to write about, I have a stack of material on the recent "unpleasantness" at the New York Times. I've been planning another column on the Times after last week's announcement that executive editor Howell Raines and managing editor Gerald Boyd have resigned. Then there was of course the exhaustive and exhausting piece I wrote yesterday on the sacking of Rafe Mair from CKNW. So instead of dwelling on resignations, sackings and firings, today's column can be appended to the recent column I wrote on the major changes that have taken place at one of Canada's so-called national newspapers, the National Post. I enjoy following the goings-on at media outlets like the Post, The Globe and Mail and CKNW (for one), because when they make news, they tend to cover themselves with a sort of restraint as it does affect them so. With the regime change at the Post, there came a spat of resignations from well-known voices like David Frum, the former speech writer to George W. Bush, and Paul Wells, the terrific national affairs columnist. In terms of Canadian politics, Wells is one of the best.
In an interview with the CBC, Wells states his resignation had something to do with Ken Whyte's departure as managing editor. Whyte, a throwback to the days when Conrad Black shaped, birthed and ran the paper was gone with the appointment of Matthew Fraser as Editor-in-Chief. Wells, was ready (to say the least), to consider his options as a new management and editorial team was coming into place. Wells' departure signals that the Post is letting blood more than it can spin its way out of. The Post is changing, and without Wells, it's definitely not for the better.
Before I get into where Wells has reappeared, a thought about the state of the papers. I like the National Post, whose editorial style was acerbic, witty and colourful. Since its inception it has added much to the stunted and stagnant national debate. However in terms of substance, meaning straight up news coverage, it's deceivingly flat and disappointing. Case in point the coverage of the Rafe Mair story. First, the Post ran a short dispatch on page A7, below the fold, in the left-hand corner. The Globe however ran it on the front page with more on page A8. Though the Vancouver Sun did a good job covering the story and airing the grievances of both sides, the Globe did them better with a tighter piece that also included a separate article where the charges against Mair were rebutted by Mair himself. I thought that the Globe was clearly on the ball, realising that this is a big story in this part of the country. (When he was still on the air, Mair was one of the more vociferous critics of the Globe, and I know its Editor-in-Chief Eddie Greenspon got the message personally, as Mair wanted desperately the Globe to truly reflect the nation as a whole rather than Central Canada.) The Post's coverage of what was a national story (considering it made both The National on CBC and Lloyd Robertson's own newscast, not to mention the headlines it earned on Pierre Bourque's website) was lackluster. Also, there was an election in New Brunswick on Monday. The Globe and Mail managed to get the squeaker results on the front page, whilst the Post didn't even have decent coverage of the early returns. Their story, buried somewhere inside, talked about poll results prior to the actual election, and how it would be a close one for Premier Lord. (The funny thing is, my Globe and Mail hits my doorstep sometime between 2.00 and 3.00 in the morning, whilst the Post doesn't come until 6.00 or 7.00 at the latest.)
A few weeks ago came word from the management at Maclean's, that they've scooped up Paul Wells and had planned to implant him onto the magazine's venerable back page. For the last couple of years, Maclean's has made for uninteresting reading. It's been floundering really. It's gotten thinner physically, as well as in terms of its content. Gone were legendary voices like Allan Fotheringham, and familiar scribblers like Peter C. Newman and Barbara Amiel were seen less frequently. Geoffrey Stevens, who fled the Globe and Mail in the early 1990s to join the magazine as it's managing editor, left the magazine when Bob Levin was replaced by former national affairs columnist, Anthony Wilson-Smith as Editor-in-Chief.
Wilson-Smith has been criticised by many in media circles for not really placing a distinct stamp on the magazine. Under his leadership thus far, the magazine has been visionless and reads more like it's puttering along on auto pilot, rather than blazing new trails as new leadership is wont to bring. With the dumping of Fotheringham from the back page, Wilson-Smith tried a rotating group of writers, most regular being the humourist Will Ferguson. Ferguson makes for interesting reading, but Wilson-Smith's overt attempt to mould Ferguson into the Fotheringham of this era failed to catch on.
Wilson-Smith added television broadcaster Peter Mansbridge to his stable of regular contributors. For nearly three years now, I have been a subscriber to Mansbridge's dispatches every evening, where he previews The National broadcast on e-mail. He made for interesting reading on e-mail, breaking down what to expect on the show, often going into wonderful glimpses backstage at the nation's venerable newscast. I'll assume Wilson-Smith saw some great potential in those e-mails, and was willing to stake precious space for the name value of one of the top broadcasters in the country. Mansbridge's column is often readable, however because he is foremost a news reader, he is often unable to break out into straight editorialising. His columns are no more than eye fodder for the terminally bored, who only read Maclean's in the doctor's office. Frankly, it doesn't make for a good fit.
That aside, Paul Wells' addition to the Maclean's team gives the magazine some elevation in terms of its national affairs coverage. Wells is a solid reporter, and as a columnist his appointment to the back page column is nothing less than inspired. Wells has done well thus far, parlaying his skill as one of the country's top political writers, taking over Fotheringham's old stomping ground. Commenting upon the announcement that Wells was joining Maclean's, Wilson-Smith said, Wells brings "the kind of sharp wit that Allan Fotheringham offered with such distinction for many years." Thus far, Wells has done a couple of good, solid columns. He's done a piece on Canadian affairs, one on the Denys Arcand film that bowed at Cannes, and another piece on President Bush. He hasn't broken new ground yet, but he's doing fine thus far. There's a lot of promise.
Anthony Wilson-Smith has got a lot to do to make Maclean's relevant again. First, Maclean's hasn't broken any major stories in years. It's merely been a week-old repository for the current affairs of the nation, whilst presenting it in an oh so generic sort of way. Its arts section has been rather poor, as has the minimal use of their film critic, Brian D. Johnson.
Wells' hiring brings hope that Maclean's will once again break stories, rather than cover them. Perhaps it will do more investigative reporting or more in-depth reportage. Heretofore, it hasn't told readers anything new, except go into exhaustive detail regurgitating what we've already read in the Globe or Post, or have seen on CTV or the CBC.
Wells' hiring brings hope that Maclean's will once again break stories, rather than cover them. Perhaps it will do more investigative reporting or more in-depth reportage. Heretofore, it hasn't told readers anything new, except go into exhaustive detail regurgitating what we've already read in the Globe or Post, or have seen on CTV or the CBC.
- 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 .