Source : Globe & Mail

Hey, was that David Asper I saw briefly on the news, microphone in hand, endorsing Stephen Harper? The David Asper who is chairman of the National Post and whose family owns the CanWest Global media conglomerate?

That should give the excitable souls at The Canadian Association of Journalists something to chew over. See, they'll say to one another, the largest news company in the country is being politicized by plutocrats; the CanWest journalists across the country have just been given their marching orders.

Whoa, slow down Noam Chomsky. So Mr. Asper stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Mr. Harper at a campaign rally. Buzz Hargrove does the same with Paul Martin. Does organized labour get to endorse a party, but if a business executive does it's a sign of trouble?

It wouldn't be an issue if it had been Thomas Bata, the shoe mogul, or Allison McCain, the French fry magnate, urging us to elect Conservatives. The frozen-food vote and the comfortable-shoe constituency are fair game. But Mr. Asper's family business doesn't try to sell us anything except our own attention. Corporate and political titans may stride upon the social stage. Mr. Asper's family owns the theatre.

That doesn't mean Mr. Asper is ordering his employees to be untrue to themselves. Last week, this newspaper endorsed the Tories. It set off an argument among Globe readers, but did it compromise the work of Globe journalists? Of course not. But would it look odd if the publisher or editor of the Globe appeared for the cameras at a Tory campaign rally, clasping upraised arms with Mr. Harper? You bet.

So you have to wonder about the wisdom of Mr. Asper's endorsement of Mr. Harper. Not from Mr. Asper's point of view, but from Mr. Harper's. Why invite accusations of having the press in your pocket?

Sometimes celebrity endorsements backfire. Ask the Martin campaign about Mr. Hargrove.

Perhaps Mr. Asper was appealing not to voters, but to viewers. Anything for more eyeballs, because you better believe the TV networks are locked into a fight for your attention on election night. They've been advertising themselves hoarse for days now. "Most trusted . . . fastest results . . . Canadians turn to . . ." I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Bragging rights, I guess. The next morning, is the election outcome going to be in any way affected by which network was first to declare the winner of a certain seat, or whose pundits had the pithiest observations?

As you watch the returns flow in Monday night, give a thought to a guy named Paul Bryan. He, more than any media executive, has determined how you're going to get the results this year.

Under the Canada Elections Act, it is illegal to communicate riding results from areas where polls have closed to areas where people are still voting. In the 2000 election, Mr. Bryan thought this unjustly abridged the free flow of information, and set up a website that allowed voters in the West to find out what was happening in the East.

He was charged for doing so and convicted. He appealed, and his conviction was overturned. So during the 2004 election, the law was in abeyance; there were no restrictions on how the media could report the results. In the meantime, the acquittal was overturned, so the law is back in force while the matter is before the Supreme Court. A clutch of media corporations tried to persuade the justices to either fast-track their decision and rule before Jan. 23 or set the law aside for the moment. No such luck.

So on Monday, and probably for the last time, you will see an old-fashioned election night in which the veil of ignorance lifts from time zone to time zone. Those of you, that is, who aren't busy text-messaging results from one end of the country to the other.

It's a dumb and unworkable situation. And if anyone needs a reminder of that, by all means text-message riding results to members of the Supreme Court.

Christopher Dornan is director of the Carleton University

© The Globe and Mail