Journalists, Columnists, and Political Censorship

The blurring boundary between journalism and political commentary has led to a serious case of censorship at the Globe and Mail.

On Christmas Eve morning I awoke to a fascinating column by Norman Spector, a revealing rebuttal by Susan Delacourt, and a troubling example of censorship at the Globe and Mail. For me, Christmas came early.

Ever since the Juan Williams fiasco unfolded a few months ago, I have been fascinated by debates on the difference between journalists and those who offer commentary.

In his Globe and Mail editorial, Spector wrote about long-standing rumours that Prime Minister Harper is having marital difficulty, the failure to cover this in the Canadian lame-street media, and the indirect rebuttal that was to be offered on CTV/GlobeCorp Media the next day. Although Spector carefully meandered around any direct accusations and noted that this was at present an unsubstantiated rumour, in the time it took me to read the column and brew my first cup of coffee, his column and all the comments were deleted. This is the message that appeared in its place:

Editor's Note: We have removed the text of an original posting on this blog as it fell short of the Globe and Mail's editorial standards with respect to fairness, balance, and accuracy.

Now I am no journalism expert, but whenever I have had the occasion to have my own commentary published, it is often read before being published. Even for the low and politicized standards employed by the Globe these days, it is unbelievable that the respected Spector would have his piece accepted, posted, and then retracted for the above stated reasons. The optics are appalling.

In her Toronto Star post of the same day, Delacourt pointed to columns by Spector and Andrew Cohen and decried the high standards of journalism that were being increasingly undermined by gossip journalists (Jane Taber – this means you).

Delacourt argued that reporting rumour and waiting for others to do the real reporting is lazy journalism. She also suggested that there was no evidence that the rumour was true, and that – not the influence of the Prime Minister’s Office – is what has kept the story out of the media.

While I have a lot of respect for Delacourt, I worry that she paints with too broad a brush when she conflates journalism with political commentary. I agree with her that journalists must be held to a high standard, check their facts, and attempt to remain neutral. I do not accept that these efforts should be required of those who offer commentary.

Political commentary is not journalism. It is, more accurately, someone’s unique take on the news of the day. It provokes, queries, and offers a particular point of view. It can be and often is incomplete and/or erroneous. It requires no academic degree and demands a different editorial process. It must always be taken with a grain of salt.

The irony is that whether or not this rumour is true is irrelevant. With the censorship employed by the Globe, the story is not about the personal life of the prime minister. It is now about control.

Once again it appears that those with political power in this country are limiting access to information, attempting to quash unpopular or unconventional views, and hoping the public won’t wake up from its slumber. The irony is that had Spector's article been ignored, the rumour would have continued to be as well.

Canadians are too nice to punish someone for struggling in their personal lives. It might have even further humanized Mr. “Tickle my ivories” Harper. Instead it looks like the long arm of the PMO is meddling in our democratic right to know and pulling a few too many strings at the Globe and Mail, Canada’s once-great newspaper.