Don Orchard, Regional Director
CBC Calgary, Box 2640
Calgary, AB T2P 2M7
Dear Mr. Orchard,
I am extremely concerned and distressed by the decision to make Don Hill “redundant” as is the claim made by the CBC. In an era of waning democracy in North America, Canada, and more specifically Alberta, Don Hill provided a fresh, inclusive, and open forum that reached all corners of Alberta. We knew this from the callers who identified from where they were calling.
Don Hill offered topics and issues of substance, importance, and concern to many Albertans. Consequently topics included health care, pollution, the beef industry, BSE, electricity deregulation, democracy, and globalization (NAFT etc). He provided his audience with an unmatched level of dialogue through his own rigorous and investigative research and knowledgeable guests for one hour each day.
Compare this with the one-sided highly charged four hour Dave Rutherford show with two additional hours of more one-sided propaganda of “Adler-on-line” funneled from Winnipeg and broadcast throughout Alberta. One could easily assume that Albertans were united of one mind and one thought. A “group think” situation.
It has also been noted that Rod Love, advisor to Premier Klein, has stated that he contacts journalists if there is displeasure with particular articles. Furthermore if there is not the desired reaction or effect, then the editor is contacted. Add to that the fact that Dr. David Swann was fired from his position for stating that ratifying the Kyoto Accord would improve the health of many Albertans. Mark Lisac, a Provincial Affairs columnist for the Edmonton Journal found himself relegated to a position as night shift copy editor. Examples such as these may well send a chill throughout the journalistic community, and fearing that jobs may vanish, it is not unreasonable to assume that some journalists might be hesitant to pursue a lead for fear of consequences.
The consequences of these kinds of seemingly innocuous actions across time do not go unnoticed. They serve “notice” what will or will not be tolerated. This leads to the further erosion of the democratic process. It appears to the outside observer that this may be the case regarding Don Hill. Was he a “marked” for someone’s disenchantment?
What Don Hill offered was a single hour per day of calm and reasoned discussion of issues that considered and entertained divergent points of view. His program not only demonstrated that there were different points of view, but promoted civilized discourse free of the kind of antics frequently found on commercial radio. Don Hill’s willingness to engage Albertans in open dialogue was healthy for democracy and Albertans responded.
It is little wonder why so many Albertans are extremely concerned by the actions taken regarding Don Hill. I join with the many Albertans who have expressed skepticism over the CBC explanation.
His untimely dismissal came during discussions about electrical deregulation which raised questions about that issue? Transalta Utilities figured prominently in the conversation. Interestingly a few days later, former provincial cabinet minister Jim Dinning, Executive Vice President, Sustainable Development and External Affairs of Translta Utilities, appeared as guest of the program but and no one thought to ask him about Project Stanley, Enron, or deregulation in Alberta. Given that that was a concern just a few days before, why were there no questions regarding this issue? Is it possible that some Albertans would have been interested in hearing how Mr. Dinning might respond?
An explanation was given that budget cutbacks were responsible for the CBC action taken. The federal government provided CBC with an additional 60 million dollars to bolster regional programming in the most recent budget http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget2005/issue_other.html Could this added revenue be a way to reinstate Don Hill to his former position?
There continue to be unanswered questions regarding this issue. Why was Don Hill declared “redundant” despite dealing with issues of importance, substance, and relevance to Albertans? Why was the issue of democracy not considered when making this decision knowing that Don Hill was probably the only talk show host providing this particular brand of discourse and discussion? Was there pressure from outside sources to close down Wild Rose Forum? If so, by whom? Who might stand to benefit from Wild Rose Forum being terminated by removing Don Hill from this position? Who stands to lose from this decision? Why has the CBC been silent on this issue?
Finally, Mr. Orchard, I would like to indicate how pleased I was to hear you acknowledge a few years ago during your travel forums that the CBC had a special role to play in Alberta given there was so little opposition in this province. I thought how fortunate we were since, with an army of some two hundred employees in the PAB (Public Affairs Bureau) reporting directly to the premier, someone had to assume the role of investigative reporting.
I hope that you will join the many Albertans to work to support democracy in media by implementing steps to reinstate Don Hill to his former position as host of Wild Rose Forum. CBC’s role in connecting Canadians and allowing open, unfettered, and varied exchange of ideas has been important to its citizens. It is of paramount importance that CBC work unstintingly to fulfill the mandate of democracy through the media.
I look forward to your prompt reply.
Yours truly,
Ted Woynillowicz
Calgary, AB
cc. Mr. Robert Rabinovitch
Ms. Jane Chalmers
Senator Joan Fraser
Mr. Ian Morrison