 |
 |
||||
 |
|||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||
|
|
|
|
Chapter 3 | Florian Sauvageau (continued) Can we still seriously consider those conglomerates as agents of democratic pluralism? Can we still think, without laughing, that they have some role in the political process? Where is freedom of the press now? When reading the National Post — more biased than any Québec daily papers in recent decades — which is running a pro domo campaign and against the CRTC,4 one is of the impression that a century has elapsed since the answer the Kent Commission raised to this question in 1981: “Freedom of the press is not a prerogative of the owners of media. It is the right of the public.” This would mean that modern media should play the role of the forum, open to everyone in the Greek City. The “diversity of voices,” according to Terence Corcoran (2001), one of the promoters of the free market and who writes a column in the National Post, has become the “buzz word” of the CRTC, which would corrupt the orientation of the Broadcasting Act. Thus Corcoran writes of that “anti-concept” (the diversity of voices) as a tool of political correctness which undermines “genuine freedom of speech.” What type of freedom of “genuine” speech does Mr. Cororan desire, what type of freedom of the press? The freedom of expression of large size firms? Of BCA, Global and Québécor? Or freedom for everyone and a diversity of voices essential to the democratic debate? As Armand Mattelart put it (1997), the search for global culture and globalization embodied by conglomerates has created a lasting tension between “commercial freedom of expression” and “civic freedom of expression.” 3. is it “apocalypse now”? Some are of the opinion, more often in the United States than anywhere else, that the evolution in recent years of the frantic pursuit of profit has led the media to relinquish their social responsibility and to find it, one must look elsewhere, to non profit foundations and universities, to find new ways of encouraging public discussion. The analysis of those alarmists is overgeneralized. In the media at large, this does not exist! As we have seen, journalism as such does not exist, but rather journalisms and diverse types of journalists. It is urgent that Canada reaffirm the importance of public broadcasting and the kind of distinct journalism that was done some years ago in Europe with the Amsterdam Protocole, annexed to the European Union Treaty, it tries to reconcile the construction of a unique market with the responsibility of radio and television, “directly tied to the democratic social and cultural needs of each society and to the necessity of maintaining pluralism in the media.” Others show no interest in professional journalism, which they see as predictable and mechanical; they pretend a “new type of journalism” is in the process of being created, in the new form of information and interactivity being developed on the Internet and at the same time a wider and more open democracy,. These “new media,” so say those enthusiasts who more often than not place their faith only in technology, do not abide the norms of professional journalism, and are above all a counterweight to the dominant way of thinking. They create unusual ways for feeding the democratic debate. And they are not totally wrong, quite the contrary. But the lacunae of the Internet are numerous, not to mention the absence of verification of the information obtained there. Others, including myself — reformists — are of the opinion that the media must change and become hospitable to readers and to groups that form “civil society.” As Peter Newman wrote (2001): “They should all have their say. Unprofessional journalism it may be, but new voices with new ideas will be the result.” The new chief editor of La Presse, André Pratte (2001), sees his role in an original way: “to enter into a dialogue with the readers and, with them, to take part in public debates.” Is the journalism of public service going to be re-invented from Vancouver to Montréal in a new relationship with the public? Opinions and points of views are not the only things that are important. “News” per se is also essential for debating the affairs of the city. It is hard to see who other than journalists could serve that function, whether they are educators or seducers, holders of public service or of market, specialists or generalists, “writers of in-depth articles or of gossip,” as Balzac wrote in the 19th century. All contribute, in their own ways, to meeting the increasingly complex needs of democracy. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
