"Readers haven't gone to the Internet and other news media because it is cheaper or easier; they've gone because they no longer trust what the major newspapers are printing."

Edward Reagan, editor, Camas Courier, Fairfield, Idaho (Pop. 395)

To what degree, if at all, does that sad commentary resonate with British Columbians?

If the question gives rise to an uncomfortable niggle, readers may find Reagan's follow-up even more troubling: "The readership of major newspapers has declined for two reasons," he wrote. "One, they no longer care about the communities they purport to serve, and two, they have bought into the idea that they should manipulate their readers rather than inform them."

Strong words to be sure, but words that, for obvious reasons, did not tar community newspapers with the same unkind brush.

Reagan, an editor in a community that's about as small as a community can be, wrote his comments in a letter to the editor of The Writer magazine. It was published in the July issue.

He did so following the magazine's review of The Death and Life of American Journalism by Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols, because he "was curious to see why someone thinks journalism is dying in America."

(I'm curious too, and look forward to receiving my copy of the book).

Although Reagan's letter took less than a minute to read, it gave me much food for thought over the past week.

If we agree that unfettered and independent journalism is essential to the health of a democracy, it is important for us to discuss where we stand with respect to Canada's major newspapers.

For some time now, I have wondered why so many excellent journalists have chosen to -- or been asked to -- leave their positions with major dailies. I miss their voices.

In today's media, "breaking news" about government matters is often little more than a regurgitation of press releases issued by the politicians themselves.

I joined more than a few friends in bemoaning the loss of many of the strongest voices from our local mainstream editions: print and radio journalists like Allan Fotheringham; the two Jacks -- Wasserman and Webster; Rafe Mair; Gary Bannerman; Russ Francis; and, yes, the ever-controversial Doug Collins.

Whether deceased or, thankfully, only retired from their beats to continue their work in a different medium, these writers are missed because, agree with them or not, we always knew where we stood with their individual opinions.

In days gone by, an editorial reflected the acknowledged leanings of both the publication and the editor.

A column was a column and, for the most part, a news report was a balanced, straightforward recitation of the facts.

Today, with mergers and acquisitions bringing us ever closer to monopolistic journalism, one could argue that Marshall McLuhan's assertion that "the medium is the message" has been irreversibly flipped; the message has become the medium by which government spin and corporate branding now direct not just the art of journalism, but the actions and reactions of an entire population.

For those inclined to doubt that, consider how many times the mass media has persuaded us to take action by bombarding us with messages of doom. They are the if-you-do-this-or-don't-do-that-the-world-as-we-know-it-will-come-to-an-end types of messages.

They are the messages delivered on behalf of those whose chief aim appears to be manipulation of our behaviour.

And of course these messages are closely followed by the comforting assertion that they just happen to have the answer to the problem.

That the solutions are usually taxes we would otherwise have protested or goods and services we do not need becomes lost as we jump on the bandwagons of fear.

Recent examples include the SARS epidemic of 2002/2003; the avian flu scares of 2004 and 2006; and the H1N1 "pandemic" which, in 2009, caused huge vaccination line-ups.

But these all pale in comparison to the mother of all fear-mongering messages: An Inconvenient Truth -- a single, flawed book written by a man whose main claim to fame was having been second-in-command to an erstwhile most powerful man on earth.

Read by the premier of this province during a Christmas vacation on a Hawaiian beach, that book has spawned not just the cap-and-trade schemes and taxes that only now are beginning to hit home, but global green industries, the carbon footprints of which are treading over every aspect of our lives.

Present, of course, were the grains of truth essential to the success of each message.

That not withstanding, the orchestrated events of the past decade would not have reached the record-breaking proportions they did were it not for the wildfires ignited by a complicit mainstream media.

We are well on the way, it seems, to having a consistent message delivered to every doorstep in the country.

Quite how publishers expect to succeed in that endeavour in light of the vibrant demographic terrain we enjoy in Canada -- without reducing the minds of an Alexandra Morton, a Leonard George, a Calgary Stampeder and a Bay Street suit to a single, sterile denominator -- escapes me. Nor do I understand why one would want to.

Like their readers, however, today's mainstream writers are not universally happy with the status quo.

This is evidenced by a June 10 release by Sidhartha Banerjee of the Canadian Press, to the effect that journalists' organizations across the country have complained in an open letter to the Harper government about what they call its manipulation of information.

Stressing that, "This is not about deteriorating working conditions for journalists. It's about the deterioration of democracy itself," the letter emphasizes that our "journalists aren't looking to judge the policies of the Conservative government. Rather, [they] want to ensure the public has enough information to judge for themselves."

Amen to that.

There was an interesting sidebar, however, when Banerjee's Canadian Press report noted that "the letter was signed by the heads of nine organizations -- including the Canadian Association of Journalists . . . and the heads of parliamentary press galleries in Ottawa, Quebec City, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island.

No mention of British Columbia?

Could it be that that journalistic paradise is already lost for the mainstream media?

Perhaps the fight has already been ceded to the spin machines in Victoria.

--E-mail rimco@shaw.ca