The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

An editorial on the topic of editorials Mr. Piatkowski‘s column this week makes reference to the Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2002 national editorial carâ€" ried by Southam‘s major daily newsâ€" papers. Since Southam‘s national editorials are not published in the Waterloo Chronicle or other publicaâ€" tions in this market, we have pubâ€" lished this editorial in its entirety for the benefit of our readers. n Dec. 6, this space carried a national â€" editorial _ from Southam News. It was the first of occasional national editorials to be published in 14 newspapers from coast to coast. As with all editorials, they preâ€" sent informed opinion on matters of public interest, to stimulate discusâ€" sion. But the editorials themselves have become a public issue. Some journalists at The Gazette in Montreal challenged the plan before it even began. Competitors could â€" not resist that â€" story. Unfortunately, some opponents and critics have crossed the boundaries of either fair or factual reporting. Let‘s set the record straight. Southam newspapers have a proud history of fine journalism, and of defending freedom of the press. The only Canadian newspaâ€" per ever honoured by the Pulitzer Prize organization is Southam‘s Edmonton Journal, in 1938, for resisting legislation that sought to control content. Newspapers _ have _ always changed as new media competed for readers‘ time and attention, parâ€" ticularly radio, television, and now the Internet. Each new medium adds to the diversity of news and information. Canada, too, has changed. While Canadians still reflect their regional and local roots, there is growing feeling for the whole of the country, and for its potential. _ Relationships between federal and provincial governments, and our cities and towns, are constantly You said it Newspapers are not exempt YOUR FAVOURITE OLYMPIC MOMENT? WHAT WAS QUESTION a o# a # from such changes. Under the ownership of CanWest Global Communications Corp., Southam seeks to recognize the new realities of media and of Canada. Occasional national editorials reflect that. I K( We seek to bring Canadians together through national discusâ€" sions of ideas. We believe that exploring issues from a Canadaâ€"wide perspective, rather than only regionally, is good for the country. But in the worst manifestation of closed minds, critics have conâ€" demned it before even seeing the initiative develop. On some national or internationâ€" al issues, we will speak with one voice across Canada, in an open and transparent manner. Our national editorials are clearly identified. In order to be consistent within the publisher‘s space on editorial pages, local editorials won‘t contradict our core positions. However, local editorials will expand on the topics addressed and add regional perspectives. Editors, editorial writers and others can express differing views in signed pieces; many already have. Other views are welcome, even invited. Counterâ€"arguments and contrary views have been published, just as with all editorials, and will continue to be. Many contrary letters are printed. Despite that â€" straightforward approach, a chorus of alarm has been raised. Some competitors and critics characterize this as a threat to the principles of journalism, to localism, diversity, freedom of expression, even to democracy. It is not. First, we reject (and trust most thoughtful Canadians will reject) assertions that the proprietor has no right to influence editorials. Some companies simply replace contrary editors, or act behind the scenes. We have chosen a more open approach. _ _ Second, we reject that this is a threat to localism. It is an honest JCE EDITORIA] "Canada winning the gold for men‘s hockey. I was ecstatic." "Both hockey games {men and women). I was waiting and waitâ€" ing, and when it finalâ€" ly happened it was crazy." Adam Lanyon COMMENT recognition that local and national concerns coâ€"exist, in society, and in the newspaper. Local editorial boards continue to determine posiâ€" tions for most editorials, including all local and regional ones. On some issues, a national editoâ€" rial board will weigh the views of editors across the country, and we‘ll draw on our best writers, for a national editorial. Third, we reject that this threatâ€" ens diversity of opinion. Those who have made this argument indulge in unfair distortion. Our initiative does not constrain access to the newspapers for those who disagree with any editorials. We welcome debate. We have run numerous articles, and dozens of letters, differing with our national viewpoints, and will continue. And the volume of comâ€" ment and coverage in other media puts the lie to the notion that Southam so dominates that other views can‘t find voice. (Some of that coverage misconstrued the circumstances of a few pieces rejected because they falsely or even maliciously portrayed the iniâ€" tiative, or the owners and senior managers, or got other facts wrong. It is appropriate to withhold articles that don‘t meet journalistic stanâ€" dards. Those were reasonable deciâ€" sions by the editors involved, nothâ€" ing more.) Lastly, it is wrong to characterize this as an intrusion into freedom of expression. That term defines the freedom of media and individuâ€" als from government intrusion. It does not mean freedom to have one‘s words published even if they don‘t meet standards. Nor does it mean proprietors are not free to manage newspapers as they feel is best. Those who call on government to act against this initiative are inviting limits to freedoms, not defending Editorials are judged in the marâ€" ketplace of ideas. We believe this iniâ€" tiative will succeed there. "Canada beating the U.S. in both men‘s and women‘s hockey. Especially since it was the two best women‘s teams out there." "I enjoyed the speed skating, and men‘s and women‘s hockey, since it‘s thought of as our sport." Sabrina Jorgensen IROMCL1 Andrew Wooster At least once a week since December, 14 Canadian daily newsâ€" papers â€" Halifax Daily News, St. John‘s Telegram, Montreal Gazette, Ottawa Citizen, Windsor Star, St. Catharines Standard, Regina Leader Post, Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, Vancouver Sun, Victoria Timesâ€"Colonist â€" have expressed exactly the same opinion on the issues of the day. Besides their editorials, these papers have one thing in common: they are owned by Southam News, which is owned by CanWest Global, which is controlled by the Asper family. The papers have become, in the words of former Southam publisher Clark Davey, "purveyors of syndicated thought." Not only have these newspapers been directed to run CanWest‘s national editorials (which 1 like to call "Aspersions") but, according to a national editorial published Jan. 29, "in order to be consistent within the publisher‘s space on editorial pages, local editorials won‘t contradict our core positions". This is an outrageous abuse of power, and it‘s exactly what critics of media concentration have been warning about since the 1970s. A webâ€" site created by frustrated reporters at the Montreal Gazette notes that, "credibility is the most precious asset a newspaper possessâ€" es. When the power of the press is abused, that credibility dies." Ironically, one of the most eloquent defences of local editorial control comes from Southam‘s 1992 annual report: "A major strength of Southam publications is that each is absolutely indeâ€" pendent in setting its own policy on all matters involving news and opinion. This has been Southam policy for more than a cenâ€" tury. It is a policy we are proud Of. IU mm means that in the widely different enviâ€" en e R ronments in which weyoperate across ANOT HER ‘ this varied country, publishers and ediâ€" . | VIEW I tors make their own editorial decisions, . | | free from interference." n zi Ti David Asper now argues that "someâ€" | i times that local view is not always what ude is arguably best for the nation as a ul whole. In those cases, there must be a S t view that goes beyond regional selfâ€" & § interest. As an example, when the fedâ€" Cld eral government awarded the CFâ€"18 contract to a Quebec firm, it might have | | made some sense for our Montreal SCOTT readers to have exposure to a point of view saying that sending the work to PIATKOWSKI Winnipeg made better sense in terms " _ of decentralizing economic opportunity in Canada." As Ottawa Citizen columnist Charles Gordon points out, however, "it would certainly have been good for readers of The Gazette to ‘have exposure‘ to that point of view. But imagine what reader wrath might have awaited The Gazette if it had been forced to adhere to the line that the contract should have gone to Winnipeg. This is why there are local editorial boards making local decisions." Based on the treatment of other columnists and reporters who have either challenged the national editorials or differed from the Asper line on an issue (people like Steven Kimber of the Halifax Daily News, Murray Dobbin of the National Post, and Doug Cuthand of the Saskatoon Star Pheonix), Gordon may soon be a FORMER columnist for the Ottawa Citizen. "I think that they could have gotten away with the ‘national editorials‘ policy,‘ says Kimber, who quit this month when editors refused to run his column critical of corporate policy. "But it‘s clear now that what they really wanted to do was stifle other peoâ€" ple‘s opinions." According to the National Post editorial on the central editoriâ€" als, Kimber (and the rest of us) need not be worried. "Press freeâ€" dom is freedom from state censorship; it is not the freedom of journalists to write whatever they choose, regardless of the opinâ€" ions of their employer. Newspaper proprietors own newspapers not simply to make (or lose) money and to provide writers with jobs; they own them because they are usually men of decided political views who want to press those views forward." This posiâ€" tion directly contradicts a more public spirited definition of press freedom put forward by the Kent Royal Commission on Newspapers in 1981: "Freedom of the press is not a property right of owners. It is a right of the people. It is part of their right to free expression, inseparable from their right to inform themselves." The Canadian Association of Journalists, the Quebec Federation of Professional Journalists and NDP Culture and Communications critic Wendy Lill have all called for parliamenâ€" tary hearings into CanWest‘s central editorials and the wider issue of media concentration. Such hearings would not represent, as CanWest absurdly suggests in yetâ€"another national editorial, a move towards "state control of the editorial process", but merely politicians acting in the public interest. When the Kent commisâ€" sion was created in the late 1970s, James Fleming (then parliaâ€" mentary secretary to the Minister of Communications) argued that, "when media concentration endangers the free flow of information, diversity, accuracy, the mobility of reporters, then surely it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to act." That time has come again. Not a national editorial | ANOTHER | _ VIEW Nes P e ind | ’ P y** prge s = 53