As I sit down to write this month, I am mindful that, since my last column, "Use it or Lose it," I’ve received the first criticism since being invited to express myself in this forum. It comes from a journalist I respect. He not only disagrees with publication of the photograph of a gun-wielding youth, but he accused me of "cloaking news in the guise of opinion." In consequence of this criticism, the present column will be opinion, pure and simple, as an experiment.

People, who are very good at what they do, have often made some sort of compromise. Broadly put, they’ve limited their lives in order to allow reliable and consistent performance in their professions. In my experience, journalists are among the worst offenders. To report or edit reliably is to relinquish an active voice in the theatre presented. To report well, one must understand not only the issues, but also the part that each event plays or may, in the future, play in the public’s consciousness, as unforeseen aspects emerge. To achieve this well, one must be fully qualified to be an actor, oneself. However, good journalists relinquish the role of participant, and in my experience, they relinquish a good deal more, in order to meet the challenges that the job presents.

Journalists who work for community newspapers are among the most dedicated. Those that don’t give their jobs blind and complete loyalty are, at least, aware of the shortfall, and appear to me to be sensitive to the consequences of their deliberate compromise. About a year ago, one editor advised me that he felt his newspaper belonged to his community and that the editor’s chair was entrusted to him temporarily, subject to an obligation to understand and serve the community. I have rarely encountered an editor or reporter who does not appreciate that a paper is a primary vehicle of a community’s self-awareness.

The character of the typical journalist is relevant to issues relating to editorial independence. Conrad Black is among the worst repeat offenders, to cross the line and interfere. For example, he recently imposed, on the many readers of his many newspapers, a "book review" regarding his pal, Brian Mulroney.

Conrad is, at the same time, well-known for his disparagement of journalists. He believes that journalists are lazy and sloppy, and he expresses these concepts with his usual florid bombast. Conrad’s public attack on journalists is really quite remarkable, considering his continuing program of purchasing and creating print vehicles. I believe that few businesses could survive, much less flourish, with leadership which attacks the integrity of its product and personnel. How does Conrad get away with it? How does he prosper?

In my view, it’s because journalists primarily answer to the trust of the readers.

Inevitably, in a competitive market, a paper will seek to mollify a frequent and "big-budget" advertiser, within reasonable bounds. That tension between a publisher and an editor is inevitable, and is part of the fabric of the community, albeit that the trust requires that the editor’s freedom be respected. A greater level of concern arises from the imposition of Conrad’s opinion, or David Black’s interdiction. These instances are regrettable, but at least they are open and obvious to the reader. The most insidious interference, in my opinion, usually takes the form of inappropriate personnel assignments and the intentional "dumbing-down" of content.

I do not believe that David Black poses a threat, with one instance (of which I am aware) in his long history as a publisher. I suspect he has allowed his papers to find the means to give the Nisga’a Treaty the full discussion it deserves.

In my view, it is too much to ask an individual and dedicated journalist to stake his or her livelihood on any particular level or threshold of editorial independence. In my view, the principle of editorial independence must depend, in the end, on the choices of readers and advertisers in the marketplace, so that according editorial independence comes to be in a publisher’s enlightened best interest. This is not to say that editors shouldn’t howl and quit. It is to say that there is no shame in remaining on the job, and the best defence is quality, that is, to prove Conrad wrong on both counts.

There is no law to enforce editorial independence. Glen Clark’s Press Council complaint is posturing, not to pre-judge the outcome. To say that publishers are within their rights to impose editorial policy is to acknowledge a clear legal entitlement. However, the law sets minimums in many contexts and does not always speak to the desirable state of affairs.

---