By Nkele Martin
Moderator Adrian Harewood kickstarted Saturday morning’s first panel — titled “What is the Purpose of Political Journalism” — by noting that the assembled speakers “have come at this question from very, very different positions.”
That range of backgrounds, experiences and perspectives would become apparent over the next hour or so.
The five panelists, journalists representing an array of career trajectories and ethnocultural backgrounds, had a lively conversation that confirmed Harewood’s introductory observation.
The discussion began with each participant providing a personal take on political journalism’s purpose. Answers varied but a few common themes emerged: holding truth to power and making political systems more transparent.
Podcaster and radio host Rick Harp, founder of MEDIA INDIGENA, said all journalists should be, at the very least, “conversant with power.”
“I feel that the role of a journalist is to make power plain — perceptible, legible, accessible, intelligible, and fallible.”
A question posed by Harewood about the role of advocacy in journalism sparked a fruitful debate.
In response to the question, panelists spent considerable time discussing and debating recent news coverage — particularly by The National Post — about the controversial playing of Haza Salam, an Arabic-language song about the eternal search for peace and justice, during Remembrance Day ceremonies at Ottawa’s Sir Robert Borden High School.
Critics, including Jewish-Canadian organizations, claimed the decision to play a song sometimes played in the context of the current Israel-Hamas war and Israeli military attacks on Gaza was disrespectful to Canadian veterans and offensive to Jewish Canadians.
Cole, a former Toronto Star columnist, decried the Post’s coverage as deeply biased and missing many key facts, including the voices of Arab Canadians. He highlighted an incorrect quote published by the Post that claimed Haza Salam was the only song played that day.
A debate on the topic ensued between public relations executive Kory Teneycke — former head of the Sun News Network and a former top advisor to Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper — and Cole and Amira Elghawaby, the former journalist now serving as the federal government’s special representative combatting Islamophobia.
Cole has written about the uproar over the song, including an interview with a Middle Eastern student who described the song as “beautiful” and felt much differently about the controversy.
Cole’s story included a photo of the school’s main sign vandalized with the spray-painted words “Hamas High.”
The principal of the school, Aaron Hobbs, later apologized for including the song in the ceremony and failing to recognize that it was “politically charged.” But many ardent critics have called for him to be fired.
The Post, Cole said, was on an “advocacy mission” with stories like its coverage of the Sir Robert Borden High incident. “They are not interested in whether or not that parent’s claim is true or false, and actually, I think that they included a parent saying it because it’s just ‘seemingly an opinion that a parent had’ and masking the fact that their job there was to report on what actually happened at the ceremony,” he said.
Cole acknowledged that his responsive piece was advocacy, too.
Amira Elghawaby, a former journalist now serving as the federal government’s special representative combatting Islamophobia, said that significant voices missing from a story like the Robert Borden High incident fuels division and disenfranchisement in Canadian society.
In response to Cole’s point about the National Post story, Teneycke argued that critics need to look at coverage from a wider perspective.
“The National Post has a filter, an approach… We should be striving to not have that [factual inaccuracy] happen. However, there is a perspective in every story,” said Teneycke, CEO of Rubicon Strategy Inc.
“Balance is pretty difficult to achieve in one story, in one media outlet. I think you’ve got to look at it all as almost a collective body of work and then make your own assessment.”
He added: “If you look at political journalism as some sort of perfect thing, that in one story, you’re going to get everything right and everything is going to be represented in every viewpoint and there’s going to be no factual errors, I think that’s destined for failure. I just don’t think it’s possible,” he said.
The contentious topic wove its way through the panel’s conversation, arising for a final time during the Q&A period.
Emilie Nicolas, sitting between Cole and Teneycke, occasionally mediated the differences in opinion.
“When you have a fish, you don’t ask it to identify the water in which it swims,” she said, highlighting the panelists disparate perspectives. “You’re just a product of the water you swim in.”
Comments by Nicolas, a Le Devoir columnist, took the conversation in a new and unexpected direction: political horserace coverage, or what Nicolas referred to as “sports commentary” applied to politics.
Nicolas said her work, which explores the effects of the Canadian political status quo, has been well-received. And she noted that those who want to see more of her brand of analysis want less political journalism framed like sports coverage, a statement that drew applause from the room.
This form of political journalism, which she described as “which powers should be exchanged” and “who’s up, who’s down,” does not acknowledge that power has consequences on people’s lives.
That conversation, which included input from all five panelists, widened into a broader discussion of the atmosphere of Canadian political journalism.
“If the question that the host is asking is, ‘Which horse is ahead in the race?’ a conservative and far-left person can agree on which horse is ahead,” she said.
But there are consequences to that kind of diverted focus, she added. “There is a conversation of actual policies and its effects it might have on people that become very hard to have.”
Teneycke favourably compared aspects of sports and its coverage to politics while Elghawaby stressed the need for political journalism to “go deeper” in its probes of public issues.
Elghawaby noted the relative success — at least in terms of attracting eyeballs — of sharply opinionated pieces compared to more moderate or explanatory journalism. She questioned if there was a way to better engage broader audiences without reinforcing individuals’ sometimes narrow viewpoints, effectively fragmenting audiences.
Harp said journalists may need to discuss an additional approach to covering the world of politics.
“I wonder if what we need is what we might call ‘apolitical’ journalism — journalism for the people who don’t vote, who feel disaffected,” he said.
Nicolas warned of the dangers of a “British Private Boys Club” culture in political discourse in which debate on serious ideas is not common.
“We need to find a culturally unique solution that speaks to our strengths as Canadians,” she said, “but also acknowledges our weaknesses.”