February 17, 2000

In a perfect society, ideas would be discussed openly and freely, with opposing arguments getting equal exposure through a compliant media. That is, in a perfect society. "Utopia", however, comes from the Greek meaning "nowhere". In the here and now of our society, people such as I have to bombard the media with an incessant barrage of heavy explosives before a little shrapnel of argument gets through to the reader or viewer. If the message is at all complicated, forget it. Simple messages - and what can be simpler than "one island one city" - slip right through.

One is reduced to trying to get exposure using newspaper op-ed pages, where some sort of commerce of ideas does take place. The rest of the newspaper, and all of TV, is dedicated to "news". "News" means the reporting on the conflict of personalities, not on the conflict of ideas.

Case in point. While I have had a number of debates with Pierre Bourque, none got reported in the mainstream media - well, at least, the content of these debates never got reported. With one exception: that's when La Presse erroneously reported I called Bourque a dictator. That earned me nearly half of a page. The reporter, who was in the studio during the whole hour-and-a-half radio debate on CJAD, mistook my citing Phyllis Lambert's calling Bourque a dictator for my calling him a dictator. While I think Ms Lambert is not far off the mark, I do not directly use such ad hominem arguments. But knocking your opposition rather than his arguments seems to be the only way to get debates reported. Except, I must say, in The Suburban, which has covered my speeches and debates quite extensively. Closer to home, though, they remain unExamined. And there is not much point in me spending much time preaching to the converted in this column, is there?

This handwringing of mine about lack of coverage has nothing to do with my ego and everything to do with my belief in open discussion. When the Bedard Report launched the debate about amalgamations nearly a year ago, Minister Harel said that it would be healthy to have a public debate on the subject. Do you, dear reader, feel there has been such a thing? I don't.

Bourque has everything to gain by this media self-censorship. La Presse and Le Devoir, both of which have taken an editorial position in favour of Bourque's position, rarely publish op-ed pieces against "one island one city", and certainly have never reported in any meaningful way the content of any debate or speech. The Gazette's coverage is generally far better.

The other night during yet another unreported debate I had with Bourque, I watched Bourque drag out the same pre-packaged PowerPoint presentation that he has been using for nearly a year, I almost understood why journalists have turned a deaf ear.

Anyway, watch out for new offensives soon to be launched by the City of Westmount and the suburban mayors against forced mergers. Coming (I hope) to a TV screen or a newspaper page near you.

The best the amalgamationists come up with (other than the "too many cities" non-argument) is that it would rid Montreal of all those suburban parasites. Oh, yes. And it would also create a uniform tax rate. A uniformly high tax rate, I might add. Since when is the mere fact of uniformity a virtue?

June 10 7sep00Trent nest page