The Martlet

Lobby groups exist to influence government policies and practices. They have obvious agendas and biases.

The press exists to analyze, scrutinize, criticize and hold politicians and other public figures accountable for the decisions they make. They strive to be unbiased and report on all issues fairly and accurately.

Because their aims are so diametrically opposed, lobby groups and the press should, in theory, maintain a respectful distance from one another. The Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), however, seems to disagree with this notion. Recently, the Martlet discovered the draft agenda for the CFS National Annual General Meeting (AGM), taking place in Ottawa later this month. One motion, moved by the York Federation of Students, calls for the CFS to undertake steps “to start a national magazine on higher education in Canada.” Part of the reasoning behind this: “student perspectives are often absent or minimized in mainstream press.”

Does this mean that the CFS doesn’t see university publications as being “mainstream”? Or if that’s not what they’re insinuating, do they see university newspapers as doing an inadequate job of covering student issues? Either way, we as student journalists are offended. The fact that a publication is produced at a university does not make it any less important than a national newspaper. The Martlet might not publish every day and our readership may be smaller, but we still have the ability – and responsibility – to effectively inform our communities. Like most university publications, this often includes reporting on post-secondary and student issues, including those that the CFS lobbies for, like transit, housing and tuition.

In recent years, reporting on student issues has included extensive critical coverage of the CFS at several post-secondary institutions across the country – including UVic – as those institutions question their continued membership in the organization. At times, this has included investigative stories exploring the boo-boos and blunders the CFS has made and possible problems with the organization’s structure. Coverage has also included editorial and opinion pieces critiquing the effectiveness of the CFS.

Perhaps the CFS’ proposed magazine is less about educating Canadians “on trends and changes to educational policies, issues and events that have a national scope and other issues that are important to the college and university system,” and more about pushing their agenda without the critical press that has come to surround them.

Either way, it’s dangerous for a lobby group to play the press game. Any publication the CFS releases should solely be a CFS undertaking, produced by the organization for its members. But they want something bigger. They want to produce a “national” magazine, which we assume means distribution beyond just member locals. Furthermore, despite how the CFS may view university publications, they want the help of the student press to do it. The AGM motion says student journalists should be “sought to contribute to the magazine, including through discussions with the Canadian University Press.” It seems fishy that the CFS wants the same journalists who are writing critical stories about the organization to help out with their fledgling propaganda rag. This would result in campus publications becoming saturated with the CFS line, since these student journalists would now be on the organization’s payroll.

The line between lobby groups and the press exists for a reason and the CFS should respect that by leaving university publications to do what they’re good at: being independent, critical media outlets.