Maclean's publisher feared boycott of wireless and its other magazines
By DON MACPHERSON, The Gazette October 2, 2010 When Premier Jean Charest's office finally released his letter of protest to Maclean's three days after he sent it, Charest as much as admitted that he was only going through the motions for the benefit of the home crowd.
He said he really didn't expect the magazine to satisfy his demand for an apology for smearing Quebec on its cover as "the most corrupt province in Canada."
For one thing, by the time his office got around to releasing his letter in response to requests from journalists, Maclean's had already refused to apologize.
So Charest must have been surprised the next day when the magazine's owner, Rogers Publishing, issued a statement of "regret." ( snipurl.com/1837j3)
But he might not have been as surprised as the editors of Maclean's, who had responded to Charest's letter by reiterating their refusal to apologize, or those who had begun to rally around them against an attack on freedom of the press.
Although, as such attacks go, a letter from a posturing politician hardly compares to the assassinations of journalists elsewhere in the world.
And as for the expression of "profound sadness" by the House of Commons on behalf of the "Quebec nation," there is little shame in being denounced by pandering hacks.
In an apparent attempt to avoid having it look as though the publisher wasn't selling out its journalists, Rogers's statement didn't actually admit anything.
It was the kind of PR-ghostwritten, carefully-worded, non-apology we've got used to hearing read by professional athletes after they get into trouble.
After acknowledging that the magazine had "clearly offended some readers," the statement said "we sincerely regret any offence that the cover may have caused." May have caused?
In other words, we regret if anybody is so sensitive as to have been offended. But that's really their problem, isn't it?
The statement made no bones about what really concerned Rogers, and it wasn't journalistic standards or political pressure. This was all about money.
"We value all of our customers and their perspective," it said. "Quebec is an important market for the company and we look forward to participating in the dynamic growth of the province and its citizens."
The corruption cover issue of Maclean's had been an immediate commercial success in the province it targeted, selling out within a couple of days. And the magazine wouldn't have had many subscribers in French Quebec to risk losing.
But the parent Rogers Communication Inc. does have a lot of customers in French Quebec for its other products and services, including French-language magazines and wireless.
And its publications and their advertisers were vulnerable to a consumer boycott that was already starting to develop.
On Wednesday, the editor of L'Actualite magazine, which has a circulation of 170,000, told LCN that "a good number" of its readers had already cancelled their subscription to punish its parent company.
And note that the Rogers statement referred only to the cover of Maclean's, which depicted the snowman mascot of the Quebec City winter carnival holding a briefcase overflowing with cash.
The publisher had no regrets over the "constructive criticism" of Quebecers inside the magazine for tolerating corruption.
And the regret it did express was directed not to the premier of Quebec, but Bonhomme Carnaval -and the carnival committee, which has threatened to sue over the cover.
Charest can claim an unexpected victory. But it really belongs less to the premier than to Bonhomme.
dmacpherson@montrealgazette.com