Offensive? How about fair criticism?
JOHN DOYLE
From Monday's Globe and Mail
I do wish Peter Mansbridge had been less defensive and less self-righteous in his rebuttal to my column of last Wednesday, on the subject of The National's coverage of the Canadian military.
Mansbridge has been the object of joking remarks in my column on many occasions. He has always taken this in a good spirit, for which I admire and respect him. Few people in the TV racket in Canada are as good-natured about fun at their expense. In fact, few people are as adult about it. I expected better in his rebuttal.
Neither Mansbridge nor CBC management can have a monopoly on opinion about CBC's coverage of the military mission in Afghanistan. Those "Your View" items from viewers that pop up on The National are a poor substitute for vigorous questioning of how our public broadcaster covers key issues that matter to all Canadians, who fund the CBC with their tax dollars.
It is perfectly fair to suggest that some of CBC Television's coverage of the military has verged on the maudlin and sentimental. If CBC-TV News carried out some vigorous, internal analysis of its own coverage, I'd be surprised if that point did not arise.
And it is also perfectly fair to raise the possibility that CBC might be following the lead of the minority Conservative government in its near idolatry of the military. CBC is in a beleaguered position in the present political environment. It needs to make a strong case for increased funding and it needs to prove that it serves a vital need.
The current government has made it crystal clear that it intends to raise the status of the military through increased funding that runs into the billions of dollars. And with the public divided on the merits of the mission in Afghanistan, the government's position is a potential political quagmire. (For heaven's sake, the Prime Minister is using the Afghan mission in a game of cat-and-mouse with the opposition parties about a possible election.) There is nothing outrageous in suggesting that CBC-TV News may have leaned too far in following the government's lead.
It is not "nonsense," as Mansbridge stated, and to dismiss it as such is the worst sort of witless arrogance. It is the duty of a responsible critic to raise the possibility of mistakes, if the critic feels the CBC has erred. And, believe me, I'm not the only one who feels that, on occasion, the CBC has erred in presenting what looks like cheerleading coverage of the military. A great many people were made uneasy by The National's hour-long special from a military base and use of the phrase "home front." Of the many hundreds of responses to last Wednesday's column, the majority of correspondents felt their unease about CBC had been articulated.
CBC is entitled to be "proud" of its coverage of Afghanistan, as Mansbridge declared. It has done a great deal that is praiseworthy. But CBC's pride in itself is beside the point. CBC can pat itself on the head until the troops come home, but any time a country sends its men and women into combat and is willing to sacrifice lives, constant questioning of both the mission and the coverage of that mission by a publicly funded broadcaster is an absolute necessity.
Further, it is a fact that the idolization of the military is a key tactic used by autocratic governments anxious to gird the population into a unified stance in support of a multitude of issues and a single ideology. Militarism is not a concept I invented to attack the CBC. It is a fact of history and we can all learn something from being aware of it, including "the chief correspondent for CBC News and anchor of The National."
In the voluminous response to last Wednesday's column, I heard from several readers who grew up in countries under the rule of a military dictatorship. And to them, the public broadcaster's treatment of the military is an important signal. I called The National's sentimental treatment of the military "creepy." To others, who have direct experience of military dictatorships, it is downright ghoulish.
In the end, what Peter Mansbridge's rebuttal also raises is an important point about the state of media criticism in Canada. There isn't any.
Apart from the occasional column by Antonia Zerbisias in The Toronto Star, and the contributions of a small group of academics, largely working in obscurity, major Canadian media organizations, including newspapers, rarely face criticism or analysis. There is The Ryerson Review of Journalism, but that is written by students and, if the number of inquiries I receive is any indication, most of them are interested in writing about George Stroumboulopoulos and the CBC's attempt to offer cool news on The Hour.
Vigorous criticism of the media is necessary, whether Mansbridge likes it or not. Mansbridge appeared to be outraged by my column on The National's coverage of the military. If my point wasn't "nonsense," it was "offensive." Hello? If you're offended by criticism and analysis, you're in the wrong racket.
Criticism and analysis will continue to come in this column. And maudlin, sentimental coverage of the military will be pointed out. While Peter Mansbridge can cite the CBC network's "heritage," this newspaper has an even longer heritage. Its motto dates back to 1844: "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." We call as it as we see it, outside of the emotional context, and in the cold light of fair analysis.
jdoyle@globeandmail.com
I think Canadian's support for our military is stronger than it has been for many a year, note the general public support for increased spending on new equipment, now support for the mission is another thing.
