Macleans Biased?
December 17, 2005 · By Martin Street
It seems strange that a nominally conservative poster like myself would choose to defend Svend Robinson in his inaugural post here at ThePolitic, but I couldn’t let the cover of the December 19 2005 edition of Macleans pass by without comment. For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure, the cover is a close-up photo of Svend (puckishly youthful at 53, by the way) with the sub-heading “Let’s Svend Him Packing”. The full text of the editor’s column is here.
The bulk of the article argues that Svend, with a history of lawbreaking (mostly protest-related) culminating in his 2004 conviction for the theft of a $21500 ring, is no longer fit for Parliament. Which, on it’s own, is a perfectly acceptable arguement.
But that’s not the point of the article. From the title onward, it’s clear that the intent of the editors was to persuade the people in Vancouver Centre to reject Svend at the polls. The language of the article frequently crosses the line between general politcal philosophy (in this case, what makes a citizen an unacceptable candidate for office) and advocacy against a specified political target. The most obvious example is the ad hominem attack that constitutes the final paragraph:
The presence of Svend Robinson in an election that has government ethics as a key issue is a blight on the New Democratic Party and an insult to the public at large. The voters of Vancouver Centre are obviously free to elect whomever they please. We trust them to see Svend Robinson’s opportunism for what it is and make a stand for higher standards of political, ethical, and legal behaviour. In other words, to send him packing.
Hmmm. “…higher standards of political and ethical” behaviour.
The editors acknowledge that the people of BC are free to elect whomever they please, and indeed they’ve re-elected Svend time and again over a 25 year period despite his history.
The difference is that this time Svend is running in Vancouver Centre against Liberal insider Hedy Fry, and not in Burnaby.
Elections Canada’s website has details about the long history of gagging “third party” spending. Apparently, it’s against the law for “third parties” (that is, political activists not aligned with a party) to spend more than $3000 in any one riding during an election.
How much do you think the front cover of a national newsmagazine costs? Is is appropriate for Macleans to be advocating against candidates in this manner during an election? Is anyone looking in to this?
I think anybody, but anybody should have a whack at Robinson. It is not reasonably possible for anyone that does to be a character much worse than he is. There is no sign of remorse that I can see, only calculation. Part of that calculation seems to be the use of the sympathy that the truly disabled can justifiably expect of our society as a cover for a naked act of theft by a person who is undoubtedly in full possession of his faculties.
The points I’m trying to make are that Macleans has given the appearance of having forsaken it’s role as a neutral observer in favour of defending a Liberal riding at risk, and that the rules about third party spending don’t apply when a newsmagazine ostensibly uses it’s front cover to defend a Liberal riding that is threatened by a high-profile opponent. Svend’s past criminality and his abuse of our propensity to go light on people with medical conditions appears to be a cover for inappropriate attack-dog political activism, and Macleans should be called on to explain why what it has done is anything but. It’s one thing to question the general appropriateness of a convicted criminal running for office in between elections; it is entirely another to go after a specific candidate during a hotly contested election.
Even if you dislike Svend Robinson intensely, and disagree with the politics espoused by the NDP, it is wrong for a government-protected (think Sheila Copps) news media organization to advocate for or against specific candidates this way. If they go after Svend and get away with it this time, it sets an ugly precedent.
Good points, Martin, but 3rd party election spending are bs and are an unacceptable limit on our freedom of speech. In addition, magazines like Macleans should not be given any type of government financial support whatsoever.
When was Macleans ever a neutral observer?
Don’t treat the symptoms of this problem, treat the cause.
All commentary is biased; this reply is biased. To suggest that Macleans should act as a neutral agent when reporting on an election would be impossible; an election is designed to voice opinions - not facts. If Macleans wants to be held in “higher” political circles it would have provided a counter-point article hearlding the good aspects of Svend. On the point of government supporting media/arts in Canada: the reduction in support for Canadian media/arts over the past 25 years has resulted in a reduction of Canadian designed publications and arts groups. I don’t want to live in the US, but I often felt that I did: we alreadly get all of their programming, publications and art. If Canada wants to maintain its values it must do something to create Canadian content.