THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESS
Wangersky: We don't have to agree with an opinion to publish itRussell Wangersky is the editor in chief of the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.
Leader Post Newspapers publish a variety of opinions to try to spark a more comprehensive public debate on issues.
You take your openings where you can find them.
This starting point for this column comes from Twitter, where a reader questioned our publication of a Toronto Sun columnist on the editorial page of the Leader-Post last week.
“We don’t regularly see a piece by Lorrie Goldstein in the Leader-Post but have him write a piece about a Fraser Institute health-care study suggesting user fees and the Leader-Post gives him a spot on the editorial page. I thought Editor-in-Chief Russell Wangersky was a breath of fresh air, but …”
First off, let me say that I understand the sentiment.
Goldstein’s opinions trend, shall we say, to the right side of the political spectrum.
But if he appears on our op-ed pages, does that automatically mean we agree with his position?
No.
Does it mean I agree with him? Do I believe that things like a two-tiered health-care system or user fees will strengthen the public health-care system by taking the strain off the public system, and in the process, improve health care for Canadians?
No, I don’t — for a simple reason. Policy-makers and the people whose voices are most heard by those policy-makers will fall into the camp that’s both able to pay for private services and not notice the personal impact of user fees.
User fees could dissuade lower-income Canadians from seeking early intervention for medical conditions, and potentially lead to Canadians not getting medical care until their illnesses are considerably advanced (and potential treatments are correspondingly more expensive).
I feel the same way about building a parallel health-care system, where those who can afford care can essentially jump to the front of the line.
I think that won’t just take strain off the public system — I think the public health-care system will continue to deteriorate and, in fact, deteriorate even faster as concerns vanish from view and also as doctors and other health-care workers move to a better-paying, better-resourced and less-difficult-to-work-in private system.
When decision-makers aren’t looking for their own care within a public health system, their involvement in the system becomes second-hand at best — and their attention can be, shall we say, diverted from the needs at hand.
I also think that there are legitimate reasons to question the role of think-tanks like the Fraser Institute in the Canadian political system.
I find a particular irony in agencies questioning public policy, particularly around government spending, while at the same time depending in part for their fiscal existence on a taxation loophole.
As charitable research operations, think-tanks get to issue tax receipts to donors who agree with the think-tanks’ choice of issues to study, and how to study them.
But I’m also keenly aware that I’m only one voice in a debate that involves us all — from the cost of the service to the equity of its delivery to its flaws and potential improvements — and that since it does involve us all, we all have a right to speak.
The goal, hopefully, is a health-care system that serves all Canadians in the best way it can, and that means a no-holds-barred discussion.
That can’t be only publishing the side of the debate you agree with. (I should point out, as long as there is really a debate. And that’s key.)
Does that mean it’s open season for repeated letters or op-eds dismissing climate change or touting unproven COVID cures? Not without a cogent argument and a healthy dose of something approaching facts — because airing things that are demonstrably false doesn’t advance the debate at all.
But if we’re all so precious that we can’t even find a place for a different opinion on public policy, how do we ever hope to reach common ground?
Sometimes, readers won’t agree with opinion pieces. And sometimes, I won’t agree with opinion pieces either.
That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be printed.
Luckily, anything that does get printed can be responded to as well.
So, if you disagree with something on the editorial page, find your keyboard and get writing.
Russell Wangersky is the editor in chief of the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix. He can be reached at rwangersky@postmedia.com.
Leader Post Newspapers publish a variety of opinions to try to spark a more comprehensive public debate on issues.
You take your openings where you can find them.
This starting point for this column comes from Twitter, where a reader questioned our publication of a Toronto Sun columnist on the editorial page of the Leader-Post last week.
“We don’t regularly see a piece by Lorrie Goldstein in the Leader-Post but have him write a piece about a Fraser Institute health-care study suggesting user fees and the Leader-Post gives him a spot on the editorial page. I thought Editor-in-Chief Russell Wangersky was a breath of fresh air, but …”
First off, let me say that I understand the sentiment.
Goldstein’s opinions trend, shall we say, to the right side of the political spectrum.
But if he appears on our op-ed pages, does that automatically mean we agree with his position?
No.
Does it mean I agree with him? Do I believe that things like a two-tiered health-care system or user fees will strengthen the public health-care system by taking the strain off the public system, and in the process, improve health care for Canadians?
No, I don’t — for a simple reason. Policy-makers and the people whose voices are most heard by those policy-makers will fall into the camp that’s both able to pay for private services and not notice the personal impact of user fees.
User fees could dissuade lower-income Canadians from seeking early intervention for medical conditions, and potentially lead to Canadians not getting medical care until their illnesses are considerably advanced (and potential treatments are correspondingly more expensive).
I feel the same way about building a parallel health-care system, where those who can afford care can essentially jump to the front of the line.
I think that won’t just take strain off the public system — I think the public health-care system will continue to deteriorate and, in fact, deteriorate even faster as concerns vanish from view and also as doctors and other health-care workers move to a better-paying, better-resourced and less-difficult-to-work-in private system.
When decision-makers aren’t looking for their own care within a public health system, their involvement in the system becomes second-hand at best — and their attention can be, shall we say, diverted from the needs at hand.
I also think that there are legitimate reasons to question the role of think-tanks like the Fraser Institute in the Canadian political system.
I find a particular irony in agencies questioning public policy, particularly around government spending, while at the same time depending in part for their fiscal existence on a taxation loophole.
As charitable research operations, think-tanks get to issue tax receipts to donors who agree with the think-tanks’ choice of issues to study, and how to study them.
But I’m also keenly aware that I’m only one voice in a debate that involves us all — from the cost of the service to the equity of its delivery to its flaws and potential improvements — and that since it does involve us all, we all have a right to speak.
The goal, hopefully, is a health-care system that serves all Canadians in the best way it can, and that means a no-holds-barred discussion.
That can’t be only publishing the side of the debate you agree with. (I should point out, as long as there is really a debate. And that’s key.)
Does that mean it’s open season for repeated letters or op-eds dismissing climate change or touting unproven COVID cures? Not without a cogent argument and a healthy dose of something approaching facts — because airing things that are demonstrably false doesn’t advance the debate at all.
But if we’re all so precious that we can’t even find a place for a different opinion on public policy, how do we ever hope to reach common ground?
Sometimes, readers won’t agree with opinion pieces. And sometimes, I won’t agree with opinion pieces either.
That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be printed.
Luckily, anything that does get printed can be responded to as well.
So, if you disagree with something on the editorial page, find your keyboard and get writing.
Russell Wangersky is the editor in chief of the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix. He can be reached at rwangersky@postmedia.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment