May 15, 2003
WHAT KIND of idiot newspaper
WHAT KIND of idiot newspaper editor would fire Mark Steyn? Apparently the kind who now edits the National Post. Below, a series of answers from Steyn to readers asking if he has, in fact, been sacked:
Obviously it would be highly inappropriate for me to comment on internal matters at the National Post, but as a general observation I would say that the new owners' penchant for big dramatic public gestures has not served them well. There is no reason to believe this latest one will prove any more successful than their disastrous public downsizing of the Post's arts and sports coverage after 9/11.
Obviously it would be highly inappropriate for me to comment on internal matters at the National Post, but as a general observation let me observe that at the time Conrad Black sold a half-share in the Post to the Aspers the paper was neck and neck with The Globe And Mail in circulation - there was, as often happens in media markets that have been somnolent for years, a lag between sales and revenue: advertisers are often slower to pick up on things than readers. Making the product weaker editorially is unlikely to solve this problem.
Obviously it would be highly inappropriate for me to comment on internal matters at the National Post, but as a general observation I would note that in the first week of the new puppet regime there does seem to be a marked Paul Martinization of the paper. If that's what David Asper means by a "strong conservative voice", it would seem to me that that's highly unlikely to do anything for the Post's commercial viability, given the already crowded market of Liberal cheerleaders.
Obviously it would be highly inappropriate for me to comment on internal matters at the National Post, but as a general observation I would say papers should avoid relaunches that give the appearance that the pre-existing paper had got it all wrong. That tends to drive away old readers without attracting new ones. See The Independent.
Obviously it would be highly inappropriate for me to comment on internal matters at the National Post, but as a general observation I would say that that new editor's "letter to his readers" the Friday after the coup was laughably lame, and to avoid all mention of his predecessors looks not just graceless and petty but extremely insecure.
Obviously it would be highly ... aw, never mind.
UPDATE. Due to the usual tech troubles here the above post was originally published at Instapundit. Subsequently Mark Wickens in Toronto dashed off an e-mail to the Nat Post and received a reply claiming that Steyn hasn't quit or been fired. As Wickens writes: "How to account for Steyn's comments?" It's a media mystery! More comments on this at LGF and from Damian Penny, while Colby Cosh writes:
Mark Steyn cuts loose with a few snarky "general observations" about the National Post and immediately everybody is taking it for granted that Steyn has been fired.
Well, not quite. There's a big "apparently" in the original post, due to Steyn never stating outright that he is no longer with the Post. Damian Penny asks "if this is true". Instapundit leads his item with "MARK STEYN FIRED?" The overall tone is questioning. As it should be, given what we know at this point.
Another clue in this Beatles-like "Paul is dead" controversy: one of Steyn's replies refers to SARS as "Sudden Asper Random Sackings".
Posted by Tim Blair at May 15, 2003 02:37 AM