The Globe and MailMission UnrealizedThe Globe and Mail is perhaps Canada’s foremost newspaper. George Brown selected its motto, which appears every day at the top of the editorial page, when he founded the paper in 1844: “The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.” The Globe website explains: “the quotation is from Junius, the pseudonym of an English writer of the 18th century. The Globe and Mail believes, as Brown did when he founded the newspaper, that only an informed public can defend itself against power seekers who threaten its freedoms.” And yet, the Globe routinely fails to inform the public ....
This webpage provides specific criticisms of the following Globe and Mail articles:
Each of these items was submitted to the Globe as a letter to the editor; none was published or otherwise acknowledged.
“Told truth about payment, family still to be deported,” May 19, 2001, by Kirk MakinA recent Globe and Mail report states that, “largely because of a bureaucratic error involving an unpaid $50 fee,” a Toronto couple and their four young children are to be deported to Poland. (“Family faces expulsion over $50 unpaid fee,” May 16.) The causal connection between the unpaid fee and the deportation is not an opinion attributed to someone, but is presented in the news article as established fact.A subsequent news article reports, also as fact, that new disclosures by immigration officials “contradict statements made by Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan earlier this week.” (“Told truth about payment, family still to be deported,” May 19.) The same article gives lavish space to the views of Guidy Mamann, a lawyer for the family, who accuses the government and the federal immigration minister of persisting with the deportation for political advantage, misrepresenting the issue, and making “false allegations” against the family. The problem is that Globe readers have no way to determine whether any of these grave charges against the government have any basis. In the three articles to date addressing this story, one can see no basis for the Globe’s assertion that a “bureaucratic error” is the reason for the deportation; no information contradicting the immigration minister’s reported statements is discernible; and no “false allegations,” no misrepresentation, no divergence from standard policy can be found. The government’s position does not emerge clearly in the articles, but it appears to be that the family neglected to submit an application form within the prescribed time period. This may be false, or it may not justify deportation under established procedures. But nowhere in the Globe’s reports is this position of the government’s questioned. The problem with this idle reporting of clashing viewpoints, without any investigation or inquiry, is that it is the negation of the reasoned civic discourse towards which a newspaper should be contributing. With journalism like this, bluster and noise are the surest route to political victory, and every cause with inherent merit is in peril. In the long run, such reporting corrupts democracy, as citizens who have come to regard the reasoning faculty as a useless guide to political insight turn to the only alternatives: emotion, prejudice, divination and superstition. On this issue as on others, the Globe’s letters page reflects the predilection of Canadians for arriving at political convictions that lack any reasoned basis. Unfortunately, this betrayal of the reader’s essential need to be informed on civic issues, this languid kind of reverse journalism, is typical of the Globe’s coverage. Another recent issue that comes to mind is the University of Toronto law school’s investigation of a faculty member for her possible role in the school’s false-grades scandal. The school administration’s action was criticized by numerous legal scholars here and abroad, and led to open letters from each side criticizing the other -- but the Globe’s several articles on the subject neglected the central questions and offered the reader no way to arrive at an informed view. It is worth reflecting on the Globe’s role in the problems discussed in an opinion piece appearing around the same time (“No laughing matter,” May 21, by pollster Allan Gregg):
[H]ow could we have come to a point in politics where telling the truth is considered a mistake by all elements of society? ... The combined cynicism of the press and public suggests that we may well be at the point where being morally right -- telling the unvarnished truth -- has become politically wrong. If this is the case, it is not simply regrettable, but is an extremely dangerous state of affairs that should galvanize all those who care about society and the political process.... “Liberal’s apology to veteran rejected,” May 11, 2001, by Shawn McCarthyAs I have recently come into a situation where the Globe and Mail regularly appears on my breakfast table (with no volition on my part), my morning routine has become marked by indignation and a generalized despair about the fate of our nation. I have also become prone to ruminating on how little light it is theoretically possible for a newspaper to shed on the issues of the day. It is a settled matter, however, that no question is too obvious, too central to the point of a story, to be overlooked by Globe news writers.On May 10 and 11 we have stories reporting that Toronto MP Tom Wappel refused to help an 81-year-old constituent because he voted for another party. It is predictable, and not interesting, that when such a story breaks, everyone going on record will proclaim that all MP’s should represent all constituents equally. But the relevant question of fact to be explored here pertains to the records maintained by Wappel and other MP’s of their constituents’ past votes. How extensive are they? How far back do they go? How routinely, and for what purposes, do staffers consult them? If these questions have been addressed, the Globe articles give no indication of it.
“Nolo contendere,” May 4, 2001, by Michael ValpyThe slalom course run by “ethics writer” Michael Valpy through the University of Toronto Law School false-grades affair achieves a perfect miss of the most important and interesting issues.The headline boldly declares that “the legal education system should really be on trial,” but no indictment is offered beyond a general moan about the “culture of frenzy.” This is the kind of mushy, non-specific charge that would gladden and embolden anyone who is truly culpable -- and it is sure to comfort all who disapprove of meaningful public debate. The students, as Valpy remarks, are “mere fetus lawyers.” The bigger story here, which Valpy does not touch, involves allegations implicating the people in charge of Canada’s top law school. As reported by the Globe in a February 23 news article, credible sources allege that the school administration has contributed to “unjustified, irreversible damage” to the reputation of a faculty member, Denise Réaume, because of her past criticisms and in an effort to “deflect attention” from those who properly bear responsibility for the scandal. The administration has been defended by the university president, who claims in an open letter that these are “misunderstandings.” But when reporters prefer to philosophize about “an entire culture of dysfunction” rather than explore the issues, it is impossible for readers to intelligently assess reports of starkly clashing views of significant events in our national life.
“Let’s trash all high schools,” April 7, 2001, by Margaret WenteMargaret Wente’s April 7 column recalls a current advertisement for the Globe and Mail -- the part that says it’s easy to have an opinion. Saying she herself hated high school, Wente writes that “modern high schools” (which “haven’t changed since the industrial age”) “deaden the souls” and “bludgeon the spirits” of students with a curriculum consisting mostly of “innocuous, inoffensive, utterly unchallenging material,” and with an “unspeakably banal” intellectual climate whose “life lessons are all wrong.”In case this is too mild, Wente adds bluster from an “expert” who asserts that high schools make “the vast majority of girls ... feel ugly and inadequate,” while boys must endure nothing less than “torture” for their “entire adolescence.” No evidence is offered for any of this. Also striking, though Wente’s fierce words presumably have a salving effect on readers who are angry about this or that in their lives, is that a Globe columnist can in these times urge upon readers the view that “We need to blow up the high schools.” I recommend the Globe’s advertising campaign be redirected inwards, to its writers. That might promote the advertising department’s vision of a newspaper that acts as a corrective to unfounded opinions, rather than a vehicle for them.
|