When the
media lavishes silence on an important public policy issue, is it any wonder the
public are not tuned in? That is what
occurred regarding the NS UARB Decision on the Maritime Link, just before
Christmas.
The last
push to secure the Federal Loan Guarantee demanded a large enhancement from
Nalcor, called the Energy Access Agreement
(EAA). By then the media was bored
with matters Muskrat; not that that issue had, at any time, stretched their capacities. The EAA may have gotten mere mention; but any explanations received neither reports
nor analysis.
I had
promised comment on this state of affairs some weeks ago but the power black
outs, though “not a crises”, coupled with the Premier’s resignation intervened. The media still deserves a good lashing.
Likely they
will finish this day much as they do any other; by 7pm the public airwaves will
have been awash in traffic accidents, the most recent holdup, the
weather and, multiple human interest pieces and, of course, that old reliable,
the courts.
Does it
suffice that the “news”, to which it is nominally referred, is delivered
without the least regard to important public policy issues? Shouldn’t the detritus of daily life be the ‘filler’ rather than ‘the’ news?
Shouldn’t
the media’s role to inform and educate, provide perspective and analysis, supersede
any responsibility it has to help us detour a supper hour traffic jam?
To watch intelligent
and trained journalists occupy themselves with ennui, the equivalent of coffee
chatter, seems not just a waste of human resources but a disservice to the
public.
Reporters rightfully
went agog over Bill 29. On Muskrat, media
reports were frequent though they barely scratched the surface of that issue’s
foundations and complexity.
Yet, since
Confederation, no other public policy decision has exposed taxpayers to so much
risk.
When the
news media, (the Editorial Department of The Telegram excepted) fails so
miserably to report and
to analyse important issues, shouldn’t it too, come under the spotlight of scrutiny along with the
Government?
The media should
never be a scapegoat when a group or individual is denied a particular public
policy choice. Indeed, it is irresponsible
for anyone to express pique against a group not party to an issue or to the
process that gives it light.
But, the
media is not just any group and Muskrat Falls is not just any issue.
They are the
self-declared guardians of the public interest.
Liberal democracy has evolved in such a way that the public and the
institutions of Government, including the Courts, acknowledge their role as an
essential bulwark against secrecy, injustice and excess of all kinds.
Society is
enhanced when the media informs and educates.
Who would deny that respect for their skills is confirmed and reinforced
when such instruction is enriched with details and explanations that are substantial
and thoughtful?
Our media
outlets are not impoverished, lacking capital or resources. They are large and financially successful;
they have profited well from our economy.
The public broadcaster, the CBC, ever critical of shrinking budgets, is
in lockstep with its competition. Yet,
like the others, it seeks breadth rather than depth.
No one
should assume that just because reporters are on the front lines it is they who
solely make story choices or editorial decisions. Often they do not.
More
frequently, it is the editors and producers who fear losing listeners, losing
ad space and being shut out of political access as, in some cases, corporate
managers lurk in the background.
Access is
when reporters are refused interviews by the Premier and Cabinet Ministers on a
one-to-one basis. Danny had no problem
punishing reporters whom he deemed unfair.
If a large
and complex public policy issue, like Muskrat Falls, were a frequent occurrence
causing strain on media resources, one might be prepared to cut them some
slack. But, thankfully, they are a
rarity.
Shouldn’t the
public have an opportunity to understand what the cost might be if the
Government’s analysis is wrong? Isn’t media
intervention more urgent when the Government openly eschews independent
analysis?
The estimated
$7.7 billion Project did not receive endorsement by the Federal/Provincial
Environmental Panel. It was ripped from the
independent public reviewer, the PUB, after that Agency demanded more current
information.
The
Project’s rationale changed repeatedly. The Government refused debate in the
Legislature. Diminutive Opposition
Parties failed to warn an uninformed public.
Did not one of those clues suggest it
was time the media stepped up to the plate?
As U.S.
President Ronald Regan once told a cranky Congress: “If not us, who? If not now,
when?” to which we might add: If not
this, what?
On what
issue might the media consider it appropriate to warn, to educate to be insightful
and comprehensive? When would they choose
to be the guardians they claim?
In an earlier
time, I watched as a vigilant media hounded J.R. Smallwood about giving public
funds to industrialist carpetbaggers, John C. Doyle and John Shaheen. Their reports might just have restrained Smallwood’s
recklessness.
During the Peckford
Administration, the use of public money, for a cucumber farm in Mount Pearl,
caused a media feeding frenzy almost daily.
Is a mega
project too complicated for modern media?
Does the process of ferretting out questionable analysis and information
cause intellectual paralysis? Or, is it
that Government Press Releases represent easy pickings for indolent scribes?
The UARB of
Nova Scotia entertained not just one, but two, detailed analyses of Nalcor’s highly
questionable deal with Emera in return for the Maritime Link. They were open and transparent Hearings. Yet, the Nova Scotia review did not register,
even as a sideshow, with local reporters.
The UARB
made it clear (page 70) that the first Agreement was deficient by up to $1.422
billion. Weren’t the media even curious
as to how that deficit might be bridged by Nalcor?
Were any NL
media present at the Hearings? If there were, they filed no reports.
Did they
even report from the UARB’s quickly prepared transcripts? No.
When the
UARB approved the deal, did they explain why the Nova Scotia Government expressed
unfettered satisfaction that it has gotten all the gravy of the Muskrat Falls
Project? Not a word.
Do NLers now
have any idea how much, for how long, or at what cost Nalcor committed so much
power to Nova Scotia? If they do, the local
media is not the source.
The Energy Access
Agreement is a prime example of the media’s failure to do its job; one more
recent than Muskrat, the main issue, but still a very important one.
In an earlier time, I witnessed Premier
Frank Moores break out into a cold sweat in advance of driving down to CBC, not
to be interviewed, but to be cross-examined by reporters Rex Murphy and
Jennifer Davis, who would grill him mercilessly.
They did the
right thing. They did their job.
Nowadays,
the Premier and Ministers, at the end of an interview, are frequently asked “is
there any final comment you would like to leave with us” which, I know, must
really must make them quake in their boots!
Is it
different with one broadcaster than another?
Alas, No. Even the Telegram news section could have done far more to distill the issues for the public, even if its Editorial Section excelled.
Few reporters are as confident
as the people they interview.
Nalcor CEO Ed
Martin openly stated on the media, recently, that the legal challenge brought by Hydro
Quebec will have no effect on the
Water Management Agreement (WMA) whichever
way the Quebec Superior Court decides.
Nalcor filed
a small roomful of evidence with the PUB detailing how the lack of a WMA would
seriously diminish the power capacity of Muskrat Falls.
How is it
possible that all that evidence miraculously became inconsequential just
because Ed Martin said so?
The legacy
of the Government will be an unwise and possibly financially devastating
Project.
Our media
will have a legacy, too.
It leaves a public
fundamentally ignorant of a Project that may well shake the economic
foundations of this Province. When the
public needed them most they demonstrated neither courage, motivation nor the
ability to punch above their weight.
It may well be
that the issues were too hot to handle, too complicated, too fraught with the
penalty of lost access, lost advertising or inadequate resources. What other reason could it have been? That Muskrat was deemed unsuitable for a
public weaned on road kill and weather?
When,
eventually, the Muskrat Falls Project, including the EAA, comes under a more
judicious and I expect, a judicial spotlight, local media organizations should
be required to sit right next to former Premier Dunderdale and Ed Martin, not
to report, but to justify their own negligence.
