**** ALBOIM ************** EJC/REC Vol. 1, No. 2, 1991 ***


RESPONSE TO 'MIRROR? SEARCHLIGHT? INTERLOPER? --
THE MEDIA AND MEECH'


Elly Alboim
CBC TV News


        Abstract.  The only professional currency a
     journalist has is his or her credibility, honesty
     and integrity.  Thus, a man of Dr.  Meisel's
     experience and judgement might have considered
     more carefully before taking a sledgehammer to my
     reputation and assaulting my integrity.  Despite
     allegations to the contrary, my personal opinions
     didn't influence my professional conduct and
     practise related to CBC TV coverage of the Meech
     accord.
        David Taras' content analysis of the period,
     reported in this volume, is critical of CBC's
     coverage but does not state that it was negative.
     Indeed, contrary to Dr.  Meisel's conclusions,
     Rick Salutin in Saturday Night magazine and James
     Winter in this volume have argued that CBC
     coverage favoured the Meech accord.
        This evidence therefore contradicts the
     assertion that CBC TV coverage was biased against
     the accord.  But in addition, Dr.  Meisel
     concludes there was a major turnaround in CBC
     coverage of Meech, between the 1987 accord and the
     1990 negotiations.  Yet, the same group of
     reporters, editors and producers was responsible
     for the Meech coverage of 1987 and 1990.  Meisel
     can't have it both ways.  If I was in a position
     to malevolently distort the 1987 coverage, I must
     have been in a position to exert what he describes
     as, the "extraordinary...efforts to provide
     competent and balanced accounts" in 1990.  What
     could possibly be my motives?

        EN RESPONSE A 'MIRROIR?  PROJECTEURS?  INTRUS?
     -- LES MEDIAS ET MEECH' La valeur professionnelle
     des journalistes repose sur leur credibilite, leur
     honnetete et leur integrite.  Un homme de la
     stature de M. Meisel aurait donc du regarder deux
     fois avant d'attaquer brutalement ma reputation.
     Contrairement aux allegations dans ce sens, mes
     opinions n'ont pas influence ma demarche
     professionnelle lors de la couverture des
     evenements du Lac Meech.  L'analyse de contenu de
     David Taras (dans ce numero) a critique la
     couverture de la CBC mais elle n'a pas etabli que
     celle-ci etait negative.  Contrairement aux
     conclusions de Meisel, Rick Salutin dans "Saturday
     Night" et James Winter (dans ce numero) ont estime
     que la couverture de la CBC favorisait l'accord du
     Lac Meech.  Ceci vient donc contredire les
     allegations a l'effet que la CBC etait defavorable
     a l'accord.  De plus, M. Meisel conclut qu'il y a
     eu un changement dans la couverture de la CBC
     entre l'accord de 1987 et les negociations de
     1990.  Mais ce fut le meme groupe qui fut
     responsable des deux couvertures.  Meisel ne peut
     avoir raison dans les deux sens.  Si j'avais ete
     capable de fausser les faits en 1987, je dois
     aussi avoir ete capable de produire la couverture
     "competente et neutre" de 1990.  Quels sont alors
     mes intentions?


     It is unusual to be attacked so vociferously by
someone of Dr. Meisel's reputation and stature,
particularly since we have never spoken about Meech Lake,
media issues, my views or CBC coverage patterns. He never
sought my views nor asked for comment. I was not even
offered the courtesy of foreknowledge of his presentation
several months ago.
     I believe that Dr. Meisel had a responsibility to
deal civilly and responsibly with a full set of facts
when he set about damaging others.
     And make no mistake. Damage he has done. There have
been a number of journalistic accounts of his paper --
all making the point that a former CRTC chairman has
accused a CBC employee of unethical conduct.
     I think in this particular effort, he has demeaned
himself. It is also somewhat disorienting to be
criticized for being anti-Meech Lake when I have spent
the past year trying to deal with criticism that CBC
coverage was too supportive of Meech Lake and the current
federal government.
     Dr. Meisel quotes extensively from a speech and
subsequent question and answer session at the University
of Calgary in 1987. I do not quarrel with the accuracy
of the individual quotations. However, As I will try to
show further on, much of the quotation is taken out of
context and distorted. I am deeply troubled by the way
Dr. Meisel chose not to use quotations that ran counter
to his thesis and that I view as exculpatory.
     It was an oral presentation based on notes (as Dr.
Meisel infers) later transcribed for publication. I was
responding to intense criticism from an audience largely
hostile to Meech Lake, many of whom laid much of the
blame for the ease with which Meech Lake initially
succeeded, on the media, for failing to provide critical
scrutiny of the document.
     I spoke under the clear understanding (articulated
at the time) that I was not representing the CBC, nor
enunciating policy. To establish context, the conference
centred on criticism of the accord -- both substantive
and procedural -- and I was invited to speak about media
practises and performance in reference to the Meech Lake
accord. I am a critic of media behaviour in Canada and
spoke from that perspective.
     At the conference I was asked for my opinions and
gave them, making it clear that they fit within an
analytical frame about media practises.
     Dr. Meisel does say I might have been carried away
somewhat and overstated some propositions. I thank him
though that assessment did not preclude a word by word
parsing of the presentation.
     Dr. Meisel, who strongly objects to my imputing
motive on the part of some of the political actors, then
proceeds throughout his analysis to impute my motives.
He uses harshly pejorative characterizations like
"Alboim, apparently knowing a great deal more than anyone
else" or "was dead certain" or "as Alboim NO DOUBT
(emphasis added) hoped."
     He is deeply offended by my saying that rivalry (not
"petty, peevish rivalry" as he rewrites it) between Brian
Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau was the sole motivation for
the federal initiative. I accept that I overstated the
motivation. I believe it to have  been a strong
motivator; I am not so naive that I believe it to be the
sole motivator. I spoke in heated emphasis at the time.
     He hangs his argument on my assessment of Mulroney's
motivation without dealing with my assessment of the
politics of the process itself.
     He says the CBC stressed process over substance
"intentionally" because of the mind set I betrayed. This,
even though I went through in explicit detail the
reasoning and context for the emphasis on process. He
ignores my setting out of the 14 months of negotiations,
the trade offs by provinces to participate in the Quebec
Round, the political management of the period between
Meech and Langevin, the fears politicians had of
opposition crystallizing, the bartering over substantive
clauses of the accord.
     As to the concentration on process, I explained in
detail the apprehensions over the substance in some
quarters and outlined the difficulty in covering the
debate because of the reluctance of academics and
opposition to enter into it.
     On a more minor level, Meisel assumes throughout the
piece that every time I spoke of media assumptions and
assessments I was speaking of my own convictions. Though
there is much of my own opinion in the piece, I insist,
again, I was speaking about media practises and providing
an analytical frame. In oral shorthand, the use of the
word "we" does NOT necessarily mean anything other than
a descriptive collective pronoun. To have added the
caveat "that is not my personal belief" after each
reference to collective attitudes would have sounded a
bit silly. I, personally, and some of my colleagues, were
very interested in the substance. It would be extremely
difficult to have covered a decade of constitutional
discussion and not be. It was also possible to be
interested in, and even supportive of, the substance, and
be critical of motivation and process.
     He quotes extensively from my presentation and says
it is "patently obvious" that "the CBC was bitterly
hostile and vigorously trying to drum up commentators
who would attack it." To leap from my personal analysis
of motivation and process several months after the Accord
was signed to a statement that an entire broadcasting
corporation was bitterly hostile to the Accord's
substance during its negotiation, is, frankly offensive.
It is equally offensive for Dr. Meisel to assume that my
personal assessment (from a vantage point of having
covered ALL federal-provincial constitutional
negotiations since 1977) would interfere with my
professional standards and conduct.
     Dr. Meisel continually seeks out the worst possible
constructions and writes floridly and angrily about my
work. Where he concedes that "the line between arranging
for a balanced coverage and engaging in partisan
journalism is not easy to draw," he cheerfully draws it
and accuses the entire corporation of trying to
(presumably illegitimately) drum up opposition.  Then he
uses his conclusion to explain his "impression" that the
accord was consistently presented in a bad light. I said,
and will concede again, that we sought opposing views.
I am not embarrassed that we did so. Public policy debate
is enhanced by the clash of views and the testing of
propositions. Dr. Meisel is at best disingenuous when he
chooses to interpret my words as supporting his
proposition of an unethical exercise in partisanship.
     There is a very revealing section of Dr. Meisel's
argument where he writes: "It is possible, although by
no means established, that early in the game, in the
spring of 1987, the CBC, possibly like other media,
contributed to the process which ultimately scuppered
constitutional reform by seeking out and encouraging
attacks against the Meech project by people who could be
expected to attract a lot of public attention." The
obvious implication is that opposition was not
thoughtful, was publicity-seeking and not relevant. He
implies that had the media not balanced its coverage with
opposition as well as support, the desired result of an
approved accord might have obtained. Furthermore, he
appears to foster the proposition that it is acceptable
to have people who attract a lot of public attention (the
premiers, the Prime Minister) on your side but not on the
other side.
     Evidence of evil intent appears to be the coverage
of interventions by Pierre Trudeau, the unstated
proposition being that he had no business in the
discussion.
     I am forced to believe that this all may flow from
a wilful misunderstanding.
     Dr. Meisel somehow assumes that because I am cynical
about the reasons the exercise was undertaken and
critical of its closed nature (which I detail extensively
-- the secretiveness of the Murray/Remillard rounds, the
lack of paper trail, the lack of briefings, the rush to
text at Langevin, the resolute determination to block
amendment.) I was implacably hostile to the accord and
took action to destroy it.
     Dr. Meisel, being "aghast and shocked", unleashes
a torrent of sarcasm and scorn about my "extremely
questionable judgment" and "quite inexcusable
attempt...to engage in the political process". Dr. Meisel
accuses me of somehow devising a coverage strategy based
on naive and untrue assumptions, all with an eye to
interfering with the political process. I can imagine no
stronger accusation to make against a political
journalist. The ONLY professional currency a journalist
has is his or her credibility, honesty and integrity. A
man of Dr. Meisel's experience and judgment might have
considered more carefully before taking a sledgehammer
to my reputation and assaulting my integrity. He might
have spoken to me. Or, he might have produced some sort
of analysis to prove the existence of this strategy. He
might have done a content analysis of CBC TV's coverage
of that period. The one content analysis done of that
period (by David Taras of the University of Calgary and
quoted elsewhere in Dr. Meisel's paper) is critical of
the CBC's emphasis on politics and process but makes no
case that our coverage was strongly negative.
     Dr. Meisel then sums up the reasons for his "very
negative" reaction. He finds it "frightening" that I
could "feel so sure" of myself in reading motives and
that I "would feel confident enough to plunge the
medium...into the political process". He is "deeply
troubled" in my " arrogating so critical a role" without
being in any way accountable.
     I point out again that he has no trouble feeling so
sure about my motives and level of confidence and has no
trouble stating what seem to him to be self-evident
propositions without any evidence whatever.
     In fact, there was substantial evidence to the
contrary in the very same speech, in quotations he chose
not to cite.
     For instance, I said: "At a certain point, media
have to reflect reality. We have no special role. We're
unaccountable. No one elected us. Nobody gives us special
responsibility to go tilting at windmills when the
collective leadership of this country is saying something
has been done and it's okay. Despite all that, I must
say, we tried our best.  We tried our best NOT TO TEAR
IT DOWN, BUT AT LEAST TO ILLUMINATE IT."(Emphasis added)
     Another quote is: "The journalistic community was
not a player in the drama. When the political leadership
of this country has made that kind of commitment and
expressed that kind of will twice, the media have little
recourse." And yet another: "I have no responsibility for
social change. I'm not a social engineer. I report as
best I can." I think a reasonable reader might have
concluded that I am sensitive to questions of
accountability and role and reject political
intrusiveness and involvement.
     Whatever he may feel to be a fair assessment of my
mindset (and I reject his assessment categorically) it
is ENTIRELY another matter to believe that my
professional conduct and practise would in any way be
influenced. It is almost inconceivable that after 13
years of being responsible for CBC Television News
coverage of public policy and politics in this country
including federal and provincial elections, all first
ministers meetings, economic summits, leadership
conventions, the Quebec Referendum, the Free Trade
Negotiations, that I would suddenly have lost my sense
of judgment and propriety.
     I have many opinions and feelings about policy
matters, leaders, processes and media practises. Does Dr.
Meisel believe that I determine my personal opinion on
each, then develop a coverage strategy to sway opinion
in order to enter the political arena to effect the
conclusion I desire? There are lots of things I, like any
other person, like or dislike. There are lots of things
I see happen that may or may not be good for the country
depending on your point of departure. My views about
people and process may have nothing to do with my views
on substance. (It would, for instance, come as a distinct
surprise to my colleagues that I was bitterly hostile to
the Meech Lake accord. It certainly would stun most of
my critics.)
     My professional ethics say all of that has to be
irrelevant.  That is what is so hurtful about Dr.
Meisel's analysis. He makes the blithe determination that
I am a sleazy, unethical, incompetent journalist. He
makes that determination assuming that some opinions I
held in 1987 on some issues (which I might say a number
of people hold and for which there is ample evidence --
not least of which is the only major book written on the
subject) inevitably (without stating evidence) dictated
coverage policies that I cynically devised and foisted
on my employer. And he does all this without the courtesy
of a discussion, without the intellectual rigour of a
content analysis or some other proof stronger than his
"impressions".
     As to accountability, I participated in that forum,
and at least a dozen others since, to discuss -- at an
unprecedented level of detail --our sourcing, coverage
strategies and standards. I thought it important at that
time and subsequently, to discuss some of my views and
assessments PRECISELY because I accept that
accountability is an issue. David Taras was given free
access to all our material to do a content analysis, then
and subsequently, because of our views on accountability.
The CBC itself has devoted hours of programming to debate
this very issue, including its two media criticism
programs, one on CBC radio and the other on Newsworld.
Other academics have sat in our offices through the last
four election campaigns and have been privy to our
decision making for the same reason. In 1989, after the
last federal election, Dr. Meisel himself participated
in a conference organized by the CBC.  That conference
was called to discuss contentious media issues arising
from the campaign and was in itself a remarkable exercise
in accountability. There is NO other media organization
in this country that allows the sort of access and
engages in the sort of debate that the CBC does. We have
a set of journalistic policies that are public, an
ombudsman to handle investigations, and we account
publicly to the CRTC and parliamentary committees. No one
who works in the CBC can ever be unaware of public
access, criticism, debate and the inevitability of public
(and often harsh) accountability.
     It is appalling that a former chairman of the CRTC
is so unaware of the journalistic practises of the CBC.
No one person is responsible for setting the tone or
substance of coverage. There are layers of editors,
producers and managers who oversee scripts and approve
material. There are post mortem discussions, program
evaluations and continuous self assessment. Unless you
posit some sort of giant conspiracy, there is no way
individual agendae can superintend.
     A former chairman of the CRTC should also know how
deeply concepts of the public trust are ingrained through
CBC News. There are decades of honourable tradition and
a public broadcasting culture absorbed by its employees.
I have worked in public broadcasting for 21 years,
beginning at the CBC in Montreal a week before the
October Crisis. I believe profoundly in that public trust
and understand how important our, and my personal,
integrity and credibility are. The thought that I would
contemplate the sort of subversion and journalistic
perversion Dr. Meisel contemplates is contemptible.
     Finally, and in my view limply, Dr. Meisel adds "one
or two qualifying observations" because " it is only
fair". First, he makes the point about this being an oral
presentation. Then, remarkably, he concedes that I never
refer specifically to CBC policies or decisions but
assumes, nevertheless, what I said generally applies to
my own news service. He concedes that others in the
corporation of different view must have been involved in
decision making so that the entire corporation cannot be
tarred "with the Alboim brush." A brush, I point out, he
cheerfully wielded several times before the mild caveat.
     He says with absolute confidence that "the views he
expresses INDUBITABLY (emphasis added) represent the
positions he took during discussions within the
Corporation". How he would know that is a bit of a
mystery. Obviously, he would be extremely surprised to
hear the views I DID express in those conversations. Had
he asked, I would have been happy to tell him about the
conversations and shown him the written memoranda.
However, that might have upset the thesis a bit.
     And why he assumes information I may have possessed
and views I may have formed months after the event would
somehow have influenced decisions DURING the event is
another mystery. Now. After all is said and done, Dr.
Meisel concludes there was some sort of major turnaround
in CBC coverage of Meech Lake. He says there is evidence
that in the latter stages of the Meech episode, the CBC
went to quite extraordinary lengths in its efforts to
provide competent and balanced accounts. He says those
efforts succeeded, says the CBC employed appropriate
judgment in decision making, says our assessment of the
stakes and consequences were correct, quotes supporting
studies, and presents polling data that show the Canadian
public thought us more balanced and fair than anyone
else.
     It is not my intention to reenter the debate about
what the CBC did or did not do. There are other papers
in this volume that do that and the debate has been
raging for many months. I, and others at the CBC, have
appeared at countless fora to discuss the issue.
     However, I will point out two things.
     First, there WAS a shift at the CBC in the latter
stages of the debate. Partly as a result of criticism,
partly because of the lack of literacy on the issue but
mostly because of the changing context, CBC Television
deliberately augmented the volume of its coverage and
concentrated very heavily on the accord's substance.
     Second, may I point out that there was no change of
personnel. It was the same group of reporters, the same
group of producers, the same group of editors and the
same group of managers that produced coverage of Meech
Lake in 1987 and 1990. I was in the same position and had
the same degree of authority. Our standards and practises
were the same. Dr. Meisel ascribes far more authority to
me than I deserve, but he can't have it both ways. If I
was in a position to malevolently distort our Meech Lake
coverage in 1987, I must have been in a position to exert
"extraordinary...efforts to provide competent and
balanced accounts" in 1990. I wonder what motives he
might ascribe to me in 1990?
     Finally, I am quite bewildered by the profound
emotion, the deep anger, the sneering, dismissive tone
that permeates the section of the paper that deals with
me personally. Throughout the rest of the work, Dr.
Meisel is moderate, cool, analytical and reasonably fair.
I honestly believe I deserved better, irrespective of the
critical judgments he might have made. It is remotely
possible that I DO know something about what happened,
that my judgment is not altogether faulty; that I behaved
reasonably and responsibly by some set of rules and
standards.

---------------------------------------------------------
Elly Alboim is the Bureau Chief for CBC TV News,
Parliament Hill, Ottawa Ont.

                  Copyright 1991
Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.