The Toronto Star Defends Its Editorial Policy on MMP

 
The editorial page of today's Toronto Star contains a column by Kathy English, who is identified as "Public Editor." The point of the article is to respond to people who criticized the paper's editorials against the Mixed Member Proportional voting system [Sparking needed debate on MMP].

The column begins with the usual motherhood statements that you would expect.

The heart of democratic politics is public debate of public concerns.

During election campaigns, it is the media's role and responsibility to encourage this debate and to provide accurate, unbiased information about politicians, parties, policies and the electoral process so that citizens can cast informed votes.

No disagreement there. It is, indeed, the responsibility of The Toronto Star to provide accurate, unbiased information. Did it succeed in the case of the referendum issue?

Not surprisingly, our election coverage was not without its critics. One group in particular was highly critical of the Star – the supporters of electoral reform, specifically, the system known as "mixed-member proportional" that was soundly rejected in this week's referendum.

Yes, there was criticism and I'm one of those who was highly critical [Toronto Star Trashes MMP, Again, The Toronto Star Endorses First-Pass-the-Post].

Dissatisfaction with our coverage of MMP began on the second day of the campaign when my office and our Letters page were blitzed by MMP supporters who took exception to the word "appointed" in a news story that explained how under MMP, 39 members of the Legislature would be selected from party lists.

I discussed this with National Editor Alan Christie, who directed our election news coverage and has worked on more than a dozen elections at every level of government in his 30 years at the Star. We realized that the word had become something of a political football in this highly polarized campaign. In the interests of our news coverage not being seen as biased for either side of this crucial debate, Christie then advised reporters that referendum articles should avoid stating that list members would be appointed. We told MMP supporters this, adding that columnists and editorials were entitled to their own interpretation of whether this word was apt.

It's not just that the work "appoint" is loaded; it's factually incorrect. The list members are elected by democratic vote. It may not be the same kind of election as we're used to but that's because Canada is one of the few Western industrialized nations that retain the old first-past-the-post system.

There may be debate over how the party list are made up but that's a far different topic than declaring that the MMPs elected from the list are "appointed." Here's what the Sept. 30 editorial said.

Although the new system promises to deliver a legislature that mirrors the voters' intent, Tory notes it would also create two classes of members of the Legislature. Some would have a direct mandate from the voters; others could simply be appointed by party bosses.

After only a few minutes of research it became clear that this statement was misleading to the point of being factually incorrect. The experience in other countries tells us that the list members will almost certainly be candidates who have been nominated in various ridings across the province. They will definitely not be appointed by party bosses and any statement to that effect reveals a profound ignorance of how the system works. The order of candidates on the list will be decided by the party but that's something different. Besides, all parties are committed to an open and democratic process for making up the list so even that part of the selection procedure will be open and transparent, and possibly democratic in the sense of requiring a vote by party members.

(Incidentally, under MMP John Tory would now have a seat in the Legislature because party leaders are almost always at the top of the party list. Nobody would argue that he would have been "appointed" to the Legislature under those circumstances, would they? Also, I note that under our current system the party boss sometimes does "appoint" candidates in certain ridings, bypassing the nomination process. If those candidates are subsequently elected to Parliament is it fair to say that they were "appointed" to the Legislature? Is this a major flaw in the first-past-the-post systesm? If so, why didn't the Toronto Star editorials mention it?)

Kathy English continues,

Meanwhile, the Star's editorial board, under the direction of Editorial Page Editor Bob Hepburn, was researching and debating electoral reform in order to decide and declare the Star's position on this important issue that could have radically changed the way we elect our politicians in Ontario.

On Sept. 30, the Star's lead editorial spoke out strongly against electoral reform. The board concluded that MMP could lead to constant electoral chaos and that our current system, though not perfect, is preferable.

Some research! Did the editors really do a lot of "research" to conclude that the countries with proportional voting systems were all constantly chaotic? I'm sure that conclusion would come as a major surprise to most Europeans. I lived in Switzerland for four years and I didn't notice that the state was in constant chaos. I also missed the fact that the surrounding states (France, Germany, Italy, Austria) were in constant chaos. Isn't that strange?

Furthermore, did the editors' research include distinguishing between the various proportional systems or did they decide to lump them all together in order to make the best case against the Mixed Member Proportional system that was before the Ontario voters? Of course they didn't make the distinction. Whether this was deliberate or as a result of ignorance is something that only Kathy English can answer. If her claim is correct—that the editors did their homework—then the only possible conclusion we can come to is that the editors deliberately took the worst examples from a fully proportional system in order to make it seem as though this would apply to the MMP system as well. That's called fearmongering. And that's one of the more polite terms that I could use if what Kathy English says is correct.

Incidentally, the use of language is important here. While it's true that the new system would have "radically changed the way we elect our politicians," it's also true that the new system would have "created a more fair way of electing politicians" and it would have "brought Canada into line with voting systems in other democracies." One of these phrases invokes alarm and fear and two of them don't. Which one did Kathy English choose in her article. Why?

That editorial also said that electoral reform would create two classes of MPPs – some with a direct mandate from voters and some who could be appointed. That raised the ire of the pro-MMP side. A press release issued by Vote For MMP accused the Star of "fear-mongering and inaccurate journalism." Some contacted my office demanding that the Star retract its editorial.

The charge is accurate. The newspaper was presented with an opportunity to clarify it's position in a second editorial. It did publish a second editorial but it was no better than the first one. The inaccuracies and the fearmongering continued. As I pointed out in my second posting, "When people spread misinformation and fear for the first time you can put it down to ignorance. When they do it a second time there's something more serious going on."

Many did not seem to understand the difference between news coverage and editorial opinion. Editorials, which do not influence news coverage, represent a newspaper's institutional position on matters that affect its community.

Effective editorials should provide leadership on divisive, important issues, as this one did. It was a studied, well-argued, sound assessment of much-debated – and disputed – facts. It was not inaccurate, nor do I believe it created fear about electoral reform.

Don't be condescending, Kathy. We're all adults here and we know the difference between an editorial and a news item. The problem is not that we object to the editors publishing their opinion, it's that we object to the "facts" that they published. "Facts" upon which they based their opinion.

It absolutely astonishing to me that you would make the claim you just made. The idea that the Star's editorials were based on "studied, well-argued, sound assessment of ... facts" boggles the mind. What in the world are you thinking?

Let me give you an example of your "facts." Both editorials brought up certain governments, some of which have systems that are full proportional systems or other types that ar not MMP. In the second editorial the authors said,

Countries that have gone this route, including Israel, Italy, Germany and Belgium, have become notorious for chaotic, horse-trading minority governments and legislative gridlock.

In what universe does this become a "fact"? And even if there was some truth to the statement why didn't they mention all the other states with PR where it wasn't true? Even better,why didn't they tell us about the states with MMP systems? Under no possible circumstances can you claim that this is a well-argued assessment of facts.

As for fearmongering, while you may think that the editorials did not create fear about electoral reform, an objective analysis says otherwise. The titles of the two editorials were "Electoral reform a backward step" and "Electoral reform fraught with risk." They made liberal use of words like "chaos" "divisive" and "special-interest parties." The first editorial warned that a minority government under MMP , "...may make alliances with the pro-life, anti-gay marriage Family Coalition party. Or with another fringe party that might be pro-gun or anti-medicare."

If that doesn't count as fearmongering then I don't know what does. I suggest that Kathy English take a more careful, objective look at those editorials and think harder about the reaction they provoked.

She closes the opinion piece by pointing out that the Star published lots of letters for and against MMP and that one of their columnists wrote a pro-MMP piece. That's nice but it's irrelevant. The problem was with the editorials and that problem doesn't go away just because the newspaper published pro-MMP letters to the editor.

I was prepared to let this issue die since the referendum vote was overwhelmingly against MMP. But when the Star editors drag it up again with an article like this one, it can't be ignored. Now, on two separate occasions, the newspaper has had a chance to seriously address it's critics: one before the second editorial, and now after the referendum. On both occasions The Toronto Star has failed to live up to the standards good journalism.

---