Why is Makivik so insecure?
Because of certain fundamental flaws in the structure of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Makivik Corp. was within its legal rights when it decided last week to exclude a Nunatsiaq News reporter from its annual general meeting in Kangiqsualujjuaq.
It’s a private corporation, which means its bosses do have the right to make arbitrary decisions about who to bar from its annual general meetings. Though Makivik often acts and talks like a public political institution, that’s not what it is. Makivik’s legal status gives it the right to do what it did last week.
But for Pita Aatami, this action, apparently, was not sufficient. On April 13, he used his opening remarks to launch a venomous attack on this newspaper, in which he accused Nunatsiaq News of committing all manner of sins. He later threatened to “go after” a local amateur photographer, who committed the crime of taking three pictures.
Aatami could have helped himself by providing some evidence to support his criticisms of this newspaper. But he didn’t, probably because no such evidence exists.
He said, for instance, that this newspaper publishes “false reports.” But he cited no credible examples to back this allegation. His only attempt to do so was a vague complaint that is unsupported by any facts.
This is a complaint that in covering Makivik’s 2008 general meeting in Quaqtaq, this newspaper, in some story, quoted some person as having made some statement.
Without naming the person, or the statement, Aatami then said this newspaper had misinterpreted the statement, purported to have been made more than two years ago.
This is all news to us. Nunatsiaq News received no direct complaints from Makivik at that time about our coverage of its 2008 annual general meeting. We received no requests to publish a correction or a clarification. No one at that time, not even Makivik’s large contingent of ever-watchful lawyers, ever asked us to clarify or correct any aspect of our coverage that year.
All we know is that at the 2008 meeting, Aatami, in public remarks broadcast over the radio, did accuse a reporter of being “a liar” and of making up a story that accurately quoted some delegates as saying that Nunavik needs a better educated workforce, a reality that is self-evident to anyone even vaguely familiar with the region.
Aatami made other complaints: including — quel horreur! — that “journalists are always looking for a story, especially when something has gone wrong.”
In that vein, he said this newspaper’s coverage of the Nunavik region is excessively negative, focusing only on bad things, and overlooking “positive” news.
This, he said, creates the impression that life in Nunavik is worse than elsewhere. “We’re no different from other populations around the world,” he said.
This of course, is demonstrably untrue. The Nunavik region has a male life expectancy of only 62 years, lower even than in Nunavut. This makes Nunavik different, not the same. Suicide rates among males in Nunavik are nearly double those in Nunavut. This makes Nunavik different, not the same. The rate of illegal drug use among young adults and the middle-aged is about 60 per cent. This makes Nunavik different, not the same.
If others choose to ignore these objective facts, it is they who are in denial, not us. It is they who show no respect for the truth.
As for this newspaper’s alleged obsession with negativity, here are some recent Nunavik-based news stories, selected more or less at random:
• “Nunavik singer brings her magic to Toronto” (Feb. 15, 2010);
• “Priceless Nunavik artifacts safe and sound in Montreal” (Sept. 22, 2009);
• “Nunavik youth jump head over heels over Cirque project” (Feb. 10, 2009):
• “Nunavik may get region-wide vet service by 2012” (Feb. 28, 2010);
• “Gordon, Moorhouse win seats on Makivik executive” (Jan. 22, 2010); and
• “Nunavik survivors gather to grieve and let it all go” (March 17, 2010.)
The record shows that our news content is balanced and covers a wide range of subjects.
Indeed, if there’s a weakness in our coverage of Nunavik, it’s that it’s likely too soft. If you search our archives, you’ll find a preponderance of feel-good stories compared with the number of hard news stories on unpleasant subjects.
We publish the feel-good stories, however, because we know many readers enjoy them and like all news organizations, we try to give readers the news they want, as well as the news they need.
We have no way of knowing what motivated Aatami’s unjustified and unsupported vilification of this newspaper. Perhaps he read things in it that he didn’t like. Perhaps we may have reported things he does not want others to know. Since he refused an offer of an interview, we’ll never know.
We do know, however, that in barring this newspaper from attending most of their general meeting last week, Makivik prevented Nunavik residents, and all those outside of Nunavik with an interest in the organization, from receiving the benefit of independent news coverage.
CBC North, whose news coverage of the entire eastern Arctic has shrunk rapidly in recent months, did not cover the meeting. CBC North has yet to report that Makivik’s general meeting last week even occurred. Is this kind of journalism that Makivik prefers? The kind that remains silent?
Oh yes, there’s also a publication called Makivik Magazine, a boring propaganda organ paid for and vetted by Makivik Corp.
Taqramiut Nipingat Inc., a government-funded community radio service, did broadcast the meeting’s audio feed throughout the region. This, however, is not journalism. Pouring raw, unfiltered audio onto the airwaves is not the same as reporting.
That this broadcast even occurred, of course, makes a mockery of the term “in camera.” But as we’ve said, Makivik has a right to do this— even when it makes them look foolish.
All this raises a one final question: what is Makivik Corp. afraid of? Right now, the corporation sits astride the region in a position of near-total dominance. This dominance includes virtually absolute control of the region’s political life and ownership of business assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is an organization that by now ought be able to stand with confidence on its own two feet. Instead, their president demeaned his own reputation by attacking a part-time reporter and a part-time photographer who did not have the means to defend themselves or their reputations.
These are not the actions of mature, confident adults. These are the actions of frightened adolescents overwhelmed by fear and insecurity. Why? What is the source of this fear? JB
