PUBLICATION:
Edmonton Journal
DATE:
2004.01.09
EDITION:
Final
SECTION:
Opinion
PAGE: A16
COLUMN:
Lorne Gunter
BYLINE:
Lorne Gunter
SOURCE:
The Edmonton Journal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Globe
provides cover for Martin: Much-touted review of gun registry is designed to
keep issue out of campaign
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday
it appeared the Globe and Mail was set to challenge the Toronto Star for the
position of unofficial house organ of the Liberal government.
"Martin
targets gun registry," blared the headline on the front page of Wednesday's
Globe. The sub-heading even promised that "sources" had revealed to
Globe Ottawa reporter Jane Taber that a review of the registry might produce
"major changes."
How
did this one story suggest Globe complicity with the Liberal spin machine?
First,
by the time the Globe ran it, it was a non-story. When a paper reports as
breaking news a story that has been given extensive coverage elsewhere, it is
usually a sign that something other than news judgment is driving the paper's
editorial decisions.
The
Globe version on Jan. 7 contained no new details from those in a spate of
CanWest News Service stories on the same subject that ran Jan. 2 and 3.
Five
days earlier, The Journal reported "Gun registry costs targeted: Troubled
program to be reviewed in 'a very pragmatic way.' " The Victoria
Times-Colonist said "Dollar-gobbling gun registry faces review," and,
as The Journal had, told of how Civil Preparedness Minister Albina Guarnieri had
been put in charge of a cabinet-level review of the national firearms registry.
Similar
stories ran the following day in a handful of other CanWest papers. The Montreal
Gazette reported last Saturday, "Ottawa reviews efficiency of its
gun-registry program." That same day the Ottawa Citizen went further,
picking up a followup story by The Journal on opposition reaction to the
registry review under the headline "Critics call gun-law review a delay
tactic: McLellan's attempting to get gun registry off election agenda, opponents
charge."
By
Jan. 5, two days before the Globe offered its revealing scoop, the Calgary
Herald had time to editorialize that the Guarnieri review was "a
joke," that at least two other expensive reviews of the registry had
already been paid for by the Liberals (using Canadians' tax money) in the past
12 months, to no avail. So, the Herald concluded, "Forget the new review,
drop the registry and spend our money on actual crime reduction."
So
the Globe story was a non-story because by the time the Globe got around to
mentioning the review it was old news. (Psst. Tip to Globe sports department:
the Edmonton Eskimos won the 2003 Grey Cup!)
But
the Globe nonetheless put this stale, old item on page one, above the fold,
under its banner headline. That's the second way in which the story made it look
as though the Globe was eager to usurp the Star. It's a familiar Star tactic to
give over its front to new spin on old information, so long as it favours the
Liberals.
And
the third way the story made the Globe appear to be in bed with the Grits was
the absence of any critical voices. Not one opponent of the government or the
registry was quoted. The entire 17-inch story was given over to comments and
promises from the government and from Liberal backbenchers.
Four
days before the Globe piece, this paper had found a trio of sceptics ready to
cast doubt on the motives of the review. Three days before, the Herald had found
a spokesman for the Calgary Police union who was prepared to argue the registry
should be disbanded. But the Globe could only find Liberals to comment (probably
because the Globe went looking only among Liberals).
It
doesn't get much cozier than that between a paper and a government.
To
the Globe's credit, it did put a sceptical commentary by John Ibbitson on its
front page, next to Taber's apple-polishing puff piece. And the following day,
Thursday, it did editorialize that "the universal gun registry should
die."
But
those were hardly enough to counter the pro-Paul Martin, pro-Liberal boosterism
of coupling the one-sided Taber article, with a picture of a beaming Martin and
a positive banner headline, and pretending the entire package was somehow new
and somehow balanced.
The
review of the registry by Albina Guarnieri is exactly what its detractors claim:
a stall, a dodge, a delaying tactic designed to take a contentious, potentially
damaging issue off the government's shoulders before it calls the election it
wants in May or June.
Guarnieri
will not say when her review will be done, only that she expects to finish
"sometime this year," likely "within months." But within
five or six months, the timeframe for the next election? Ha! Not on your life.
The Guarnieri review is designed to give the government political cover until
after the votes are counted -- nothing else.
When
the opposition raises the registry and its billion-dollar price tag during the
campaign, or mentions that Toronto had a 35-per-cent increase in gun violence in
2003 -- thus proving the registry's ineffectiveness -- the Guarnieri review will
be there to enable Martin to say, "I take these cost overruns and crime
statistics VERY seriously, which is I have instructed my associate minister of
defence (Guarnieri's other portfolio) to conduct a thorough review of all the
registry's expenses and operations. That review is ongoing, and I promise to act
on it shortly after the election if you re-elect my government."