News

In June, The Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper with a rich heritage dating back to 1844, launched a new era in its relationship with its readers with the first of what is now a monthly "Ask the Editors" series of live on-line discussions with the senior editors of the newspaper and the Web site.

Edward Greenspon, editor-in-chief of The Globe, was on-line Thursday, Aug. 3. The transcript of that discussion is at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Greenspon has been editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail since July, 2002.

He has an honours degree in journalism and political science from Carleton University and was a Commonwealth Scholar at the London School of Economics, earning a masters degree in politics and government with distinction in 1985.

Mr. Greenspon began his journalism career at The Lloydminster Times and also worked for The Regina Leader-Post and The Financial Post before joining The Globe in 1986 as a business reporter specializing in media industries. He has held various positions over the years, among them, European Correspondent, Managing Editor Report on Business, Executive News Editor, Founding Editor of globeandmail.com, and Ottawa Bureau Chief.

Since 2000, Mr. Greenspon has been closely involved in challenges facing all newspapers in an increasingly electronic world.

He is also co-author of Double Vision, The Inside Story of the Liberals in Power, for which he shared the 1996 Douglas Purvis Award for the best public policy book, and Searching for Certainty: Inside the New Canadian Mindset. He has also won the Hyman Solomon Award for Excellence in Public Policy Journalism.

Editor's Note: The same rules will apply to this live discussion as normally apply to the "reader comment" feature. Globeandmail.com editors will read and approve each comment/question. Not all comments/questions can be answered in the time available. Comments/questions will be checked for content only. Spelling and grammar errors will not be corrected. Comments/questions that include personal attacks, false or unsubstantiated allegations, vulgar language or libelous statements will be rejected. Preference will be given to those who ask questions under their full name, rather than pseudonyms.

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: Thanks for joining us, Ed. Lots of questions today, so we'll get right to it.

D N from Whitby writes: Hello, Mr. Greenspon. I was wondering how the addition of comments to the website is going from the Globe's perspective. The fact that the comments are edited makes them somewhat more civilised than the typical blog, but I find that overall, the effect of all this online punditry seems to lower the public discourse into the equivalent of a bunch of people in a room shouting at each other. A few people comment, then people disagree, then everyone criticises everyone else and the whole thing seems to degenerate into name calling and attacks. How does online reader feedback fit into the Globe's future? And do you care to comment on the overall effect of the internet on public discourse and the role of the G&M therein?

Edward Greenspon: I guess this set of questions will get us off to a fast start! We see the Internet as a far more horizontal (or level) medium than newspapers or broadcasting. One of its great strengths is the immediate interactivity you can enjoy with your readers and they with one another. We've invited our readers to "join the conversation" and I don't think society can ever be worse for having more discourse. We don't edit comments per se. We either post them as they are, or we decide not to post if an individual comment is judged by our editors to be racist or defamatory or resorts to foul language or personal attacks. I don't think about it as "a bunch of people in a room shouting at each other,: as you state, but rather as a salon or restaurant, where we serve up the food (the news), but we don't determine what people discuss at their tables. The good thing about our salon, we hope, is that it attracts a more intelligent clientele than the other places on the street. I think this ongoing conversation is an important part of our future, but the most important thing about dining at Chez Globe is the quality of the food and service.

Miles Lunn from Vancouver writes: Hi Edward. I know there has been a lot of talk about the Middle East recently and Harper's position on it. Based on the most recent polls do you think this issue could cost him the next election? If not do you still think there is a good chance of the Liberals returning to power in the near future?

Edward Greenspon: Thank you Miles for the opportunity to put on my old pundit hat. Canadian elections traditionally do not turn on foreign policy matters, and I think the current fighting in the Middle East will not be top of mind when we get to an election. I suspect that Afghanistan is far more troubling for Mr. Harper and the Conservatives. The party has been hoping to gain seats in Quebec, the country's most isolationist and pacifist region. And soldiers from Quebec are scheduled to take up duties in Afghanistan next February, which will exacerbate the problem. Perhaps Mr. Harper will try to time an election to fall after the Mideast turmoil subsides and before Afghanistan hits home in Quebec.

Mary Smith from Toronto writes: In 2003 the G&M ran a section celebrating the racial and ethnic diversity of Canada. However, at the G&M all of your regular columnists are white and are predominantly male. How can your paper report on the different perspectives of Canada correctly when your reporters are all from the same race?

Edward Greenspon:There's no disputing, Mary, that our newsroom is predominantly white. I think our gender balance is more in kilter, but we clearly have a lot of work to do in attracting and developing reporters and columnists and editors with a more diverse background. When I became editor four years ago, I concluded that while it would take some time to achieve an appropriate balance in the newsroom, there was no reason not to do a better job immediately in reflecting the diversity of the country in our pages. Thus the New Canada project, a wonderful series by Jan Wong on Thorncliffe Park in Toronto and many other important stories by our Immigration reporter Marina Jimenez and others. I recognize that there is a relationship between these two goals - a more diverse newsroom and a more representative paper - but we live in an imperfect world. Progess takes time. Today, we employ an editorial staff that far better understands the complexity of the country. We still have a long road to travel.

Annette Hester writes: Good morning Eddie; I write you from our island abode, near Desolation Sound. It provides for a peaceful background to what I feel is a increasingly tense and uncertain world. Events in the Middle East, Latin America, and other usual hot spots leave one with heads spinning. While all this is taking place, I have been really warmed to see the Globe's coverage. Your international team is providing interesting analysis, balanced (I sent a few articles to friends in Brazil, Israel, Lebanon, etc...and the comments are very positive), and insightful. I notice you have a few new independent journalists, such as Caroline Wheeler and Stephen Handelman providing some of the coverage, as well as now having Patrick reporting from Beirut (with Mark and others). All this to say, you are doing a very good job. Still, I wonder what your permanent plans are for the future. The geopolitics of oil are going to be increasingly important, and I don't see anyone covering that. Latin America, with Cuba changing and Chavez doing what Chavez does, needs attention, and the list goes on..... Can you share your plans with us? It would be great to find out you are ready for what is to come (actually, it is already here). Best, Annette

Carlota McAllister from Toronto writes: Mr. Greenspon, I am curious as to why the Globe and Mail has no permanent bureau in Latin America, given the growing importance of the region for Canada's economy, and the growing number of Latin Americans coming to Canada. Currently, your Washington correspondent seems to do what little coverage of Latin America you have, which I think skews the paper's vision of developments there. Your lack of coverage is even stranger given that opinions about Latin America appear fairly frequently on your editorial page--one wonders why the people writing these opinions feel authorized to do so, given the real lack of information about Latin America in the paper.

Edward Greenspon: Hello Annette. Nice to hear from you. And from you, too, Carlota. I'm going to take these two questions together since they cover similar territory. Let me start by saying that foreign news is one of our core missions here at The Globe and Mail. The paper has been outward looking since its founding in 1844 and Canada is, of course, as connected to the world as any country you can name. The Globe was the first Western newspaper to set up a bureau in post-revolution China, with Geoff York as the latest in a string of excellent correspondents. At a time when most news organizations have been pulling back from foreign news, either because of its enormous costs or a misperception that readers only care about their immediate communities, we have increased our investment. We believe it is more important than ever to understand the wider world around us.

One of our big decisions was to send Stephanie Nolen to Africa three years ago, where she has honoured for producing award-winning journalism. We currently employ 10 reporters in seven foreign bureaus, the most of any Canadian newspaper. And we are rotating reporters through Afghanistan, obviously a place of vital interest to Canadian readers.

But as you point out Annette, we also maintain formal relationships with a number of freelance journalists and we dispatch Globe reporters from Canada to cover certain stories. Marina Jimenez covered the recent election in Chile and has visited other countries in the region. Alan Freeman is currently in Cuba. We have so-called stringers in Argentina, Chile and Brazil.

Would we like to have more foreign bureaus, including a permanent one in Latin America? Of course. But we have no "permanent plans for the future." We need to reassess our priorities on a regular basis as the world around us evolves.

Phil Harrington from St. John's writes: Hi, What is your take on the whole 'liberal media bias' phenomenon that seems to be sweeping over conservatives, its becoming very prevalent since the election of a Conservative PM, every article critical of the current government is met with screams of 'liberal bias' from the Conservative peanut gallery. Is this a dangerous trend in the polarization of politics? and is it a fair assessment?

Edward Greenspon: Thanks for the question Phil, which I consider very important. Every day, I receive complaints from someone or another that were are too liberal or too conservative or biased in one way or another. My first thought always is why does my interlocutor recognize that their own reading of a story is clouded by bias. Communications is a two-way street. Different readers often complain about the same story from opposing perspectives.

We obviously take great care to be fair-minded and balanced in our reporting and to promote a diversity of viewpoints in our commentary pages. I say fair-minded rather than objective because I think objectivity is an unattainable goal and one that would probably lead to the most banal stories.

Now, of course, there is a bigger thing going on out there, particularly in the United States, where organized groups have taken to attacking the press as a means of intimidating and marginalizing it. This phenomenon is, fortunately, not yet nearly as prevalent in Canada. All I can say is that when you have people who believe they possess "the truth" - whatever their brand of truth might be - they will inevitably find journalism, which at heart is more about questions than answers, dissatisfying. Such is life.

Timothy Nessus writes: Why is that comments are so heavily edited??? Anything that has to do, even remotely, with upsetting topics, national security or taboo subjects gets chopped off. What is this, do as I say but not as I do? So it is OK to have freedom of speach for newspapers but not for people??? From here, the trenches, it would seem that the G[AMP;]M and by extension yourself, you are ALL for freedom of suppression.

Edward Greenspon: If for no other reason, let me respond to this question to disprove your thesis. We have no taboo subjects. And we are certainly very much in favour of freedom of speech. Indeed, one of the long standing postions of the newspaper's editorial board opposes anti-hate speech laws. We believe even the most reprehensible views should not be suppressed by the state, so long as there is no incitement to violence.

But we do have rules about the manner in which people can express themselves as oppose to the subjects on which they can express themselves. Here for your interest are the rules as published by globeandmail.com.

Editor's Note: Globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject, in its entirety, the appearance on this website of each comment. Allowed comments are not the opinion of The Globe and Mail, but only of the comment-writer. Spelling and grammar errors will not be corrected. HTML is not allowed. Comments that we will not allow include the following: comments that include personal attacks on Globe journalists or other participants in these forums; comments that make obviously false or unsubstantiated allegations; comments that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact is not publicly known; or comments that include vulgar language or libelous statements.

Mildred Renzetti from Toronto writes: Does the Globe and Mail support Michael Ignatieff as the next Liberal party leader?

Edward Greenspon: The Globe and Mail has not endorsed any candidate for the Liberal leadership. It is still far too early in the race to make a final determination on the qualities of those in the field. When we do take positions on issues such as this, they follow several long and sometimes heated discussions of our editorial board, the group charged with writing the considered views of the paper on the editorial page. In the meantime, we have written a number of editorials on various aspects of the race and positions candidates have taken on particular issues. I have no idea at this point where we will end up.

I want to thank you all for your provocative questions. I find these interactions with our readers very revealing and rewarding. We received many questions today than I could handle, so apologies to those I wasn't able to address.

Kenny Yum, globeandmail.com: Thanks for joining us Ed. Sorry to everyone who submitted questions but like Ed said, we couldn't get to all of them. If you have any comments or questions about our chats, feel free to e-mail me.