(Michael) Enright affair.

The Enright affair continues to have interesting repercussions, particularly as it reveals the bias of CBC employees. In May, Michael Enright, who subsequently was appointed co-host of the corporations's morning show, described the Catholic Church as "the greatest criminal organization outside the Mafia" (Globe and Mail).

On July 22, Archbishop Francis Spence, as president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, went to see CBC chairman Perrin Beatty to ask for a "full, frank and unequivocal public apology stating what [Enright] originally said was wrong, unacceptable, offensive and unfounded."

As Doug Saunders reported in the Globe and Mail, the Archbishop also said that he had discussed concerns about the CBC's treatment of the Catholic Church and lack of background information when producing items about it. He wanted to remedy what he perceived as "an increasing climate of disregard in the media in general toward religious commitment."

Amazingly, some veteran broadcasters were themselves amazed that the president of the CBC would agree to meet a religious leader.

Paul Rush, a professor of journalism at Ryerson and former CBC employee, said, "I've never heard of anything like this." He continued, ". . .I suppose the next thing will be a series of meetings with business, then a series of meetings with special-interest groups. It seems a strange way to run a public, open, informed broadcast operation" (Globe, July 25, 1997).

Beatty, on the other hand, in a letter to the editor (Globe, July 29) explained that it was perfectly natural for a publicly owned communications company to respond to complaints of the public and, in this case, to meet with the "Canadian head of a church to which millions of Canadians belong." Beatty also noted that while Enright did not say the words on air and "has not been asked by us to apologize for them on air," Enright has publicly given the assurance "that he will be utterly professional and fair in covering the Church."

Comment

It's ironic that Rush should have used the word "informed." The point Archbishop Spence undoubtedly made was that Enright's comment was not an informed one at all; it was a bigoted, prejudiced remark, and it virtually guaranteed that similar prejudice would be in evidence anytime Enright had to interview a Catholic figure or deal with a Catholic issue.

Archbishop Spence is one of the spiritual leaders of nearly half of the Canadian population which is Catholic.

Enright's remark was extremely offensive. It cannot be called "criticism". It could be called an expression of hatred against a defined religious body, something which is supposed to be forbidden by the Charter. If he had said that the holocaust had certainly existed, but that the Jews greatly exaggerate its extent, all hell would have broken loose--and Enright would have been re-assigned the very next day. That's why Archbishop Spence did the right thing.