CBC World to tackle Bush on false flag terrorism?

Despite his hedging around the truth, this reporter serves up a dose of reality to the still semi-conscious Canadian public on Bushite plans for Iraq in their New World Order. - Dan F.
The blueprint for Forward Base America
Neil Macdonald - CBC News
June 11, 2008

Like the guy in the movie yelling pointlessly out the window how he's mad as hell and isn't going to take it anymore, American voters have a persistent fantasy about their own transformative powers.

They want out of Iraq, which is understandable. Beyond all the corpses, walking wounded and destruction, George W. Bush's expeditionary adventure in social engineering is costing Americans $2 billion a week and there are all sorts of good uses for cash like that here at home.

But most Americans don't understand what is going on right now, urgently and secretly, in Baghdad and Washington. Nor do they realize it may be part of a grand plan, hatched by the same conservative group that brought about the war on Iraq in the first place.
Article Continues / Image Source

1 comment:

David Raymond Amos said...


----- Original Message -----
From: David Amos
To: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
Cc: diane.valade@bell.ca
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: I am curious

Ms. Turcotte

Great. Thanks for the response. It saves time and unnecessary expense and redundancy because as I said, your local ATV Station is getting a hard copy and Mr. Pozen will receive his upon my return to the USA. I will attach hardcopy of this email to those documents so they will understand that I am serious about my complaints. But I will remain true to my word and not forward this email to anyone outside of your company. Trust that I am seeking friends not more foes. I truly believe that CTV should capitalize on this story but I am somewhat dubious after I saw how Bell Canada employed its media to slam the people striking against Aliant last night. Please never forget I have been compelled to play the wicked political game and I do understand the argument at the bottom of this email. I am very much against the huge mergers at the Global Level. I am certain every lawyer and politician knows why.
Best Regards
David R. Amos

----- Original Message -----
From: martine.turcotte@bell.ca
To: motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca ; W-Five@ctv.ca
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: I am curious

Mr. Amos, I confirm that I have received your documentation. There is no need to send us a hard copy. As you have said yourself, the documentation is very voluminous and after 3 days, we are still in the process of printing it. I have asked one of my lawyers to review it in my absence and report back to me upon my return in the office. We will then provide you with a reply.

Martine Turcotte
Chief Legal Officer / Chef principal du service juridique
BCE Inc. / Bell Canada
1000 de La Gauchetière ouest, bureau 3700
Montréal (Qc) H3B 4Y7
Tel:(514) 870-4637
Fax: (514) 870-4877
email: martine.turcotte@bell.ca

Executive Assistant / Assistante à la haute direction:
Diane Valade
Tel: 514) 870-4638
email: diane.valade@bell.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: David Amos motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:12 AM
To: Turcotte, Martine (EX05453)
Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca; W-Five@ctv.ca
Subject: I am curious


I did not receive a response from you to the last email so I am not certain if you received it. I must inform you that I will be closing my briefcase in Yahoo for public view at the end of the week. I have a great deal of material to add and I only wish certain parties to view it. I opened it for you the other day as an act of good faith. Mr. Pozen can check my work in the dockets of the various courts around Boston they are a matter of Public Record my files are not. As you can see by this and some following emails. I am very busy dealing with criminal matters first before filing civil complaints in the USA. As I told you when you called a lot has been happening. I have made a lot of cops mad at me and I don't trust them a bit particularly after the Police Commission is willing to check their work so i have been busy watching my back and covering my butt. However that does not mean that I have not thought about our conversation and was curious about a few things.

I was glad to receive your call and impressed by the fact that you were more than willing to receive the material and a copy of the wiretap tape in particular. Your stated willingness to uphold the law was a rare statement to me. However I was curious why you only mentioned my voicemail to Mr. Pozen and not the email to your company and the news program that it owns. Did they not inform you as well? If they didn't I am not surprised because I have some other rather interesting denials from the Media. the most interesting would have to be from the PBS program called Frontline when I introduced its producer Michael Sullivan to the US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan. Now that is a story well worth W5 telling. Too bad they showed me their ass. As a courtesy to you and a further act of good faith, I will not forward this email to anyone else until after I return to the USA and nothing has been resolved between BCE and I and I am compelled to name it in my complaint. I would find it very hard to believe that Mr, Pozen does not know everything he needs to know about me right now.

I had also called a lawyer, Steven Skurka who had a week long little special on CTV . I had tried to inform him that I knew my rights his assistant hollered at me. You from speaking to me yourself that I am not a rude character. I found it too funny to be treated that way and I had resolved to serve him this stuff byway of the local ATV Station that had presented his smiling talking head to me. That is why I was telling you that you could get this stuff from the local ATV station. I found it quite strange that you did not rely on them to send it on to you. Thus I must make an extra copy to comply with your request.

I know the date stamp on the forwarded email is incorrect but that is because my old laptop goes to the first year in it when I boot up and sometimes I am too busy or tired to bother changing it. However MSN tracks it with the true date. Brad Smith and I have a bone to pick as well and I have been checking his work rather closely since he ignored my letter to him last year. His boss Bill Gates is gonna be very angry and Brad Smith and Steve Balmer in the near future if I have anything to do with it. If you do act ethically and immediately I will settle with your company very cheaply in comparsion to the bottom lines of my first two complaints. In fact I will be so impressed I will immediatlely offer you a better job than the one you have now. Please study the material I will provide you closely and ask me any thing you wish.

I will do as I promised and send the material you requested as soon as I can put it all together. Right now I am on the move and far away from my printer. Is the following your correct address? Perhaps you should consider sending someone to the my meeting with the Police Commission in Fredericton next week in order to hear me speak of these matters to law enforcement before I return to the USA. Once I do return there I will serve the Mr. Pozen the material as promised and call him to testify in my pending trial. The following emails should explain some of my concerns to you. My wife will be in Canada next week as well to pick up our kids. I will allow you to speak to her if you wish. She has had a nervous breakdown over the legal crap and I do have her Durable Power of Attorney pursuant to M.G.L. 201 B. Mr. Pozen can ask Robert S. Creedon Jr. about that document. I argued it with him before the entire Judicuary Commitee on Sept. 18th 2003.

I will call you in a minute to make certain that you get this and the following emails.

David R. Amos

Martine Turcotte
1000 de la Gauchetiere Ouest
Floor 41
Montreal, Quebec H3B 58H Canada
Tel: (514) 870-4637
Fax: (514) 870-4877

----- Original Message -----

From: David Amos

To: W-Five@ctv.ca

Cc: bcecomms@bce.ca ; oldmaison@yahoo.com

Sent: Sunday, January 06, 1980 4:07 PM

Subject: My turn to tell a tale.

I think is time to let a little something out of the bag for the benefit of a few Maritimers who think they know something about the Media.I did notify CBC, the Rogers crowd and Harry Steele's folks that I knew a little bit about the Media and that I had written a book about it. Problem is I need an editor and I believe I may have found one.He comes in the form of a disenchanted newspaper man. But the thing is I want to put it on the web for all to read for free so there is no money in it for him. So I guess I wiil sue some big company with a Prima Facia complaint and settle for a lesser amount out of court. Lets just say I am looking hard at you dudes. I had zeroed in on the Yankee media long ago and I am certain folks within the Ottawa Citizen and Democracy Watch had checked my work(Hey Duff say hey to Dan for me) I have crossed paths with many of Globemedia's people many times for many reasons and I can easily prove it. What I haven't bothered to tell them that I knew the reason Gobal etc never mentioned me was Frank McKenna and the Irving influence because basically that was a no brainer anyway. However If Globemedia and all their cohorts didn't think I knew about the influence Robert Pozen in Boston, you had best think again. then give Mr. Spitzer, Mr. Galvin, Mr. Shelby and Mr. Donaldson a call and drop my name along with Mr. Nesters and Mr. Koski's and tell them my stuff is off to the Arar Commission I am heading back to the USA to call Mr. Pozen and many folks he calls friends to court. Perhaps in Ottawa Bill Rowe will truly speak for the common man after all if the worm turns on his buddies. How do you people sleep at night? What say you? Why not get honest with the world and I will settle cheap? I will give one of your lawyers something real soon before I serve Mr. Pozen his just due byway of this lawyer Jeffrey N Carp MFS Investment Management
500 Boylston Street Boston MA 02116-3741 617-954-5747 Perhaps he should call Putnam investments or the Brookline Savings bank and say hey to Mr Chapman and Mr Tripp for me. I just called Bob Pozen at 617 954-5707 and introduced myself so that he can never say that he never heard my name.
MFS set to agree to second settlement
· MFS set to agree to second settlement

00:00 EST Wednesday, March 31, 2004


00:00 EST Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Sun Life Financial Inc.'s Boston-based mutual fund arm will agree to a $50-million (U.S.) settlement today with U.S. regulators over allegations the firm directed trading commissions to brokerages in exchange for preferential treatment, according to people familiar with the matter.

Sources said Massachusetts Financial Services Co. will announce a deal with the Securities and Exchange Commission this morning that will also include "compliance reforms," in addition to a token $1 disgorgement penalty.

Eric Morse, a spokesman for MFS, declined to comment. A spokesman for the SEC refused to discuss any talks with the firm.

The embattled fund company is hoping this settlement will enable it to move beyond the intense public and regulatory scrutiny it has endured in the past several months.

In early February, MFS agreed to a $350-million settlement with the SEC and New York State Attorney-General Eliot Spitzer for allegedly permitting improper trades in some of its bigger funds. That figure included $225-million in penalties and restitution to investors, along with $125-million in fee reductions spread out over the next five years.

The fallout within MFS, which manages about $140-billion in assets, was also considerable. Its two highest-ranking officials -- chief executive officer John Ballen and president Kevin Parke -- were each fined and slapped with temporary suspensions by the SEC, leading to their departures from the firm. Long-serving chairman Jeffrey Shames also retired in the aftermath of MFS's problems, and was replaced by Robert Pozen, formerly a senior executive at Fidelity Investments and onetime associate general counsel at the SEC.

Mr. Pozen has been charged with cleaning up the mess, and tightening the firm's internal controls.

He has already hired new legal and compliance officers, added monitoring staff, and imposed a ban on so-called "soft dollar" transactions. The firm also prohibited the practice of directing trading fees to brokerages in exchange for being placed on a preferred list of customers and receiving better visibility for its funds.

This latter arrangement, known in industry circles as "pay for play," is at the centre of MFS's pending settlement with the SEC. Sources said the current settlement talks advanced fairly quickly because of the voluntary compliance improvements MFS has undertaken.

In a recent interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Pozen attacked the basis of the regulator's case as "very weak" and said it should have raised this as a problem when it conducted audits of the company.

Nevertheless, he said he hoped to settle the matter quickly, in large part to avoid a costly legal battle and prevent nervous investors from pulling their money out of MFS funds. So far, the damage has been contained to one major client, the Illinois Teachers Retirement System, which fired MFS last month as lead manager on a $664-million portfolio.

The SEC is investigating about a dozen other fund companies for directed brokerage, although sources say MFS will settle individually, rather than as part of a group.

Last fall, brokerage powerhouse Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $50-million to settle charges it failed to tell investors it was promoting funds with which the firm had a special arrangement. Morgan Stanley had a "Partners Program" of 14 funds, including MFS, that paid "substantial" fees in return for the brokerage steering their funds to investors, the SEC claimed.

The regulator indicated a few months ago it would begin investigating a number of fund companies for directing commissions, but did not say which firms it would target.

Sun Life revealed in a filing that MFS was under investigation for this practice just a couple of weeks after its first settlement with the SEC and Mr. Spitzer. The news came as a surprise to most observers, some of whom criticized the insurer's CEO, Donald Stewart, for not disclosing this probe earlier.

MFS is hoping to recoup some of the $175-million it must repay investors under the terms of the first settlement by suing firms and individuals that engaged in market timing and late trading of its funds. Market timing involves making frequent trades in and out of funds in order to cash in on minor pricing discrepancies. It is not illegal, but is usually prohibited by many fund companies, since the quick trading can raise administrative costs and undermine returns to investors.

----- Original Message -----

From: R. S. Webb

To: Amos David

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 12:50 AM

Subject: Fw: possble story

----- Original Message -----

From: R. S. Webb

To: Amos David

Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:15 PM

Subject: Fw: possble story

----- Original Message -----

From: W-FIVE Viewer Mail

To: 'R. S. Webb'

Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 3:03 PM

Subject: RE: possble story

Dear Mr. Amos,

I would like to thank you for your email to W-FIVE, sorry for the delay in responding.

We review every email and story idea that we receive here at W-FIVE and give it serious consideration. Your email has been forwarded to our executive and senior producer for review. If we are interested in pursuing your idea further, you will be contacted by one of our researchers.

Thanks again for your input. Your interest in our program is much appreciated.



Production Coordinator


-----Original Message-----
From: R. S. Webb [mailto:cei@nbnet.nb.ca]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:28 PM
To: W-FIVE@ctv.ca
Subject: possble story

I am a Canadian Citizen who thus far, as a plaintiff, has two Lawsuits in the US District Court of Massachucetts they are numbered 02-11686- RGS and 02-11687-RGS. They were removed to that Court from the Norfolk Superior Court by the US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan very improperly. However they shall remain there because of my status as a Canandian Citizen. Judge Sterns has not even held a Conference about the matters because he likely does not want to hear the matter because I have presented all Members of the Bar with their worst fear of a catch 22 problem. Accordinging to law he is late. I have complained of 47 defendants 34 of whom are State Defendants( the Attorney General, The Commission of Judicial Conduct Board of Bar Overseers etc) and 3 are Federal Treasury Agents. Some of the defendants are over two months late in their answer to the Summons. The smallest suit amounts to 188 million dollars in the form of relief. There is a lot to these matters and too much to briefly explain. But in a nutshell my wife's Aunt, who is buried beside Rose Kennedy, left my wife some money. It was stolen by her relatives in executing the estate. No news there. But the crooks are very well connected politically and every part of the old crony network in Boston covered for them. The crook and our cousin, Charles J. Kickham Jr of the Kickham Law Office on Beacon St, has been past President of Bar Associations. He has sat on the Board of Governors of Harvard Law School etc. I have given much information to many members of the press who have simply ignored some interesting facts. What should be somewhat newsworthy is how far a wild colonial boy has come in prosecuting Pro Se the most profund Yankee carpetbaggers. My next two lawsuits Under title 18 are wickedly righteous. I have left one copy of much information in Saint John New Brunswick at a lawyer's Office, Mosher and Chedore 33 Charlotte St if some one wishes to view them. I can be reached at this Cell number 506 434- 1379

David R. Amos


Canadian Media Deregulation Provides Insight Into FCC Proposal

Critics of consolidation say the integrity of the news is being undermined by the effects of concentrated ownership

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to correct inaccuracies. Please see the corrected version here.

The original version of this story (see below) posted on May 29, 2003 incorrectly stated that Canada's two national newspapers, The Globe and Mail and the National Post, recently laid off their online editorial staffs. According to globeandmail.com editor Angus Frame, there have been no recent editorial layoffs at globeandmail.com; the site's 18-person staff continues to write and edit stories that are published exclusively online. The National Post did not have dedicated online editorial staff, and did not have online editorial layoffs. The story also failed to acknowledge that the country's largest newspaper, the Toronto Star, also has a significant online operation.

The Federal Communications Commission is poised to unveil new media ownership rules June 2 that some experts believe may change the face of American journalism.

The new rules would allow media companies to own television stations and newspapers in the same cities.

The FCC barred companies from owning newspapers and TV stations in the same market in 1975, but big media owners like the Tribune Co., Knight Ridder, MediaNews Group and the New York Times say it's time to lift that ban.

They argue that cross-ownership makes for better journalism: Staffers working for companies that own newspapers and TV stations in the same market can work together to create richer, multimedia news reports that can then run in the company's paper and on their stations and Web sites.

Advocates say the synergies of convergence lead to cost savings, increased advertising revenues and greater efficiencies.

Cross-ownership already exists in some markets: The FCC granted about 40 exemptions to the cross-ownership rule in cases where a company already had television or radio stations and a newspaper in a single city. The FCC also granted exemptions in larger markets after media mergers produced cross-ownership situations.

‘The concentration of ownership in a lot of major Canadian cities is of interest for a lot reasons, but mainly because it provides too much news coming through one pipeline.’
--Russ Mills, former publisher of the Ottawa Citizen

The Tribune Co., for example, owns television stations and newspapers in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and Miami.

How further media consolidation and convergence would play out if the FCC does lift the ban on cross-ownership has been the subject of hot debate in the weeks leading up to the commission's June 2 vote.

Experts familiar with the rapid consolidation of media in Canada say the U.S. should look northward for some lessons on what loosening cross-ownership restrictions could mean to journalism in the U.S.

In Canada, the deregulation of cross-media ownership occurred gradually over the last 20 years. Within the past eight years, it has led to massive consolidation of media companies.

Most of Canada's news media -- including newspapers and broadcast stations in all of its major cities -- are in the hands of two media giants: CanWest Global Communications Inc., and Bell Globemedia -- a division of the country's largest telephone company, Bell Canada.

The rapid media consolidation in Canada has inspired an often-acrimonious debate over whether Canadian journalists are able to report objectively on social and political issues and whether the country's corporate media has allowed business interests to undermine the role of journalism in a modern democracy.

"Based on the experience in Canada, dropping restrictions on cross-ownership certainly hasn't worked out well," said Russ Mills, former publisher of the Ottawa Citizen in Canada's capital city, who was fired by CanWest in a fight over editorial independence.

"The concentration of ownership in a lot of major Canadian cities is of interest for a lot of reasons, but mainly because it provides too much news coming through one pipeline," he said. "When companies use ownership to control the news, and they do have the ability to do so, it hurts everyone."

Though the two media conglomerates said cross-media consolidation would improve online journalism, many media observers say online journalism at local papers has gone downhill in the wake of consolidation.

The country's two national newspapers, the National Post, half-owned by CanWest, and The Globe and Mail, owned by Bell Canada's media wing, Globemedia, have laid off the online reporters and editors at the two papers that once produced copy separate from print editions.

The two papers, former online staffers said, were the only ones in Canada that were doing something other than simply repurposing content from newspaper pages into newspaper Web sites.

Executives at Bell Globemedia and CanWest have defended the cutbacks, saying they were a result of cost-cutting efforts and consolidations undertaken after spending billions of dollars to acquire newspaper and broadcasting properties.

Consolidation accelerated in 1990s

Canada's restrictions on cross-media ownership were carved largely from regulatory decisions on broadcasting licenses made since the 1950s by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission -- Canada's version of the FCC.

By the mid-1980s, Canadian media experts say, exceptions to cross-media ownership rules had eroded the cross-ownership ban to the point that it was unenforcable and largely ignored.

By the mid-1990s, consolidation of Canadian media companies had accelerated on the strength of dot.com economics. And in 2000, CanWest, the second largest broadcaster in the country, announced a $3.5-billion deal to purchase a majority of the nation's newspapers -- including papers in the nation's 12 largest cities.

Within weeks, Jean Monty, Bell Canada's CEO at the time, announced that Canada's largest phone company had set its sights on owning both content and the multimedia pipelines into consumers' homes.

The decision prompted Bell Globemedia to purchase the Globe and Mail and the nation's largest TV network, CTV, in 2001.

Despite the rising consolidation of media outlets, the massive purchases of newspapers by CanWest Global and Bell Globemedia took many Canadian journalists and media-watchers by surprise.

CanWest and Bell executives convinced Canada's CRTC that convergence was necessary to attract advertising revenue and reduce costs if newspapers in many Canadian communities were to survive. And they promised that resources from new revenues would be devoted to improving the quality and reach of journalism through the Internet.

When questions about convergence arose during CRTC hearings on both companies' broadcast licenses shortly after their newspaper purchases, they promised regulators that they would separate management of news-gathering operations by their television stations and newspapers.

Officials from the Canada National Newspaper Guild complained that keeping management separate would not prevent companies from forcing journalists to perform work for both newspapers and television, to the detriment of journalistic independence.

Critics -- including journalism professors, journalists, newspaper and broadcast union officials, and some government officials -- have argued that the quality of journalism has gone down, not up, as a result of convergence.

Joyce Smith, an assistant professor at Canada's Ryerson University, teaches online journalism and worked on the online staff at the Globe and Mail before those employees were laid off last year.

She said the one opportunity to see convergence succeed might have been missed by Bell Globemedia in its efforts to cut costs to recoup some of what it spent on media acquisitions.

"What I found interesting was that the actual idea of convergence wasn't a hit with people working with just the newspaper or just television," Smith said. "Where it really happened was with the online news team. There were things the TV folks could clearly do much better with the online newspaper. By pooling resources, it all did work much better.

"But in the tradition of journalism," she said, "reporters were asking, 'What does this mean for me? Does it mean that I have to file stories to the Web and then do stand-ups in newsroom, while doing my piece for the deadline at the end of the day?'

"Basically, (owners) wanted reporters to be one-man bands," Smith said. "That has been played and replayed here. It made sense from a business model, but journalists, especially those who have been around for a while, went into newspapers and TV for a reason. Some are great at doing both, but not everyone has the same aptitude. And no one has the time in the day to do it all. Some of the expectations were outrageous."

Canada reexamining changes

While U.S. media critics and media executives have been testifying over the past few weeks in Senate hearings on the proposed changes in the FCC's media ownership rules, Canada is busy reexamining what has come of its own cross-media consolidations.

Two inquiries are underway by Canadian government officials to explore the impact of cross-media ownership and consolidation on journalistic integrity and media responsibility.

The Canadian Senate's Committee on Transport and Communication began taking testimony at the end of April on those issues and is expected to report its findings within the next year.

A House of Commons committee on Canadian heritage is expected to release an 800-page report next month on its own yearlong investigation into the impact of media concentration and political efforts by corporations to ease restrictions on foreign ownership of Canadian media.

But media-watchers, who have a ringside seat on Canada's great media debate, say they are doubtful that government investigations will produce any new regulation on media conglomerates.

"The horse is out of the barn," said Arnold Amber, director of the National Newspaper Guild of Canada. "But the good news is that this has at least inspired a vigorous national debate on press freedom and responsibility."

Amber and other critics of media convergence said promises of more stories and better information from combining print and broadcast news staffs have largely failed in Canada.

"Bell Globemedia is talking about restructuring and selling off its media wing," Amber said. "The failure of convergence to bring in revenues was primarily responsible for the resignation of Bell Canada's CEO, Jean Monty," who stepped down in April 2002.

Geoffrey Elliot, vice-president of corporate affairs for CanWest, said that convergence has not led to revenues, or the reduced costs, the company had hoped for.

But Elliot, and other supporters of cross-media ownership, argues that all sides have benefited from consolidation.

"We are a family-owned business that saw an opportunity in which the whole was greater than the sum of the parts," Elliot said. "We saw substantial potential synergies on the sales side by putting television and newspaper assets together, since they both serve primarily advertising clients as sources of revenue, and serve a combination of local and national markets."

Amber said the companies likely saw their primary financial advantages from a convergence of back-office technologies -- combining circulation, sales, printing and management operations.

But it was something else that brought issues to a head in Canada over media consolidation and sharing newsroom resources: The loss of diversity of voices within the Canadian media took on new importance, observers say, after a series of events that led to accusations of censorship and political bias by CanWest's owners.

In December 2001, CanWest -- which owns 11 major dailies and 22 smaller papers in Canada -- issued a directive to its newspaper editors that they would be expected to run three editorials per week that reflected the position of CanWest’s owners on political or social issues.

The decision was met with a spate of criticism -- especially when editors were told that other local editorials were not to contradict those from corporate headquarters.

A byline strike ensued at the Montreal Gazette, and inquiries by the newspaper guild there led to findings that work by columnists and cartoonists was spiked when it conflicted with opinions from corporate headquarters.

Several journalists quit; some staffers published a protest Web site.

The furor finally boiled over into the public arena last June when Russ Mills, the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen, was fired by CanWest for running a series of stories and an editorial that outlined alleged political and financial irregularities in the administration of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Elliot, the CanWest vice president, said the controversy arose because Mills failed to let CanWest's owners know in advance of the series or the editorial -- which called on Chretien, a friend of CanWest patriarch Israel Asper, to resign.

Mills said he had not sought permission for either the investigative series, or the editorial, because he believed in preserving "editorial independence."

The problem, Mills said, was that the new owners were trying to dictate local editorial policy from corporate headquarters.

Elliot described the concern over attempts at a national editorial policy -- which has since been largely abandoned –- as a tempest without substance.

He said CanWest’s owners were "well within their rights to propose national editorials," and that their actions were no different that those of other newspaper ownership groups prior to media consolidation.

"There has never been any effort to control what was published in news stories," he said.

Since his firing, Mills has become an outspoken critic of media consolidation in Canada, and he testified in April before the Canadian Senate committee conducting media hearings. He was also awarded a Neiman Fellowship at Harvard University and is the incoming dean of the journalism program at Algonquin College in Ottawa.

Meanwhile, Mills' firing prompted a public opinion poll by Canada's largest media union that found that the incident had caused the public to lose confidence in the media's editorial independence.

The results, union officials said, showed that Canadians were concerned about press freedom and wanted the government to look into problems associated with media concentration.

Peter Murdock, then vice-president of the communications union, told Canada Newswire that the poll "demonstrates that Canadians want their journalists protected from the whims and prejudice of media barons. It is a grim warning to media corporations and government that Canadians believe that the very integrity of the news that feeds our democracy is being undermined by the effects of concentrated media ownership."

It is clear that online journalism at Canada’s newspapers has changed dramatically under CanWest’s corporate control.

The company replaced independent newspaper Web sites with a common site, Canada.com, which allows consumers to access local news by clicking on the community they are interested in.

Elliot said community news on the Web site comes from local newspapers and television stations, and said that consolidating that information on a single Web site provides consumers better access to local news across the country -- as well as reduces costs.

Bruce MacCormack, former head of interactive media at CanWest, said supplementing newspaper and television content with a common Web site has made access to news more efficient and allowed the corporation to serve consumers better.

"The consumers of online media … were also television viewers and newspaper readers, and at different points in the day, different media were the best way to reach those people," MacCormack said.

"Someone watching television in the evening could be told about stories being developed for the next day's newspaper, which is read on the commuter train as people go to work," he said. "Then, during working hours, the Internet was the most effective way to get them up to date on news, and tease them for television use at night."

"These were handoff mechanisms that worked to reach people, so consumers and the public were able to access services in the most appropriate media, for whatever method they could best be served."

CanWest recently filed testimony with the FCC to support the relaxation of cross-media regulations in the U.S. That testimony challenges media critics on their central objections to cross-media ownership.

"Today's media market is the richest and most diverse in the history of modern media," the document says. "Cross-ownership has strengthened media companies and encouraged greater diversity and more sources of information.

"Experience," it adds, "simply does not support the contention of some opponents of cross-media ownership, that consumers would have access to fewer point of view, or would see only repackaged versions of the same content across multimedia platforms."

Smith, the Ryerson professor -- despite her criticisms of the handling of online media opportunities in Canada -- said she sees differences between media ownership consolidation in Canada and in the United States.

"In the U.S., because of the size of the market, the chance of one or two owners gobbling up everything, I think, would be less than in Canada," she said. "But there is some caution in that.

"If you are thinking about journalists, there are wonderful things about operating in a converged environment. It was really exciting thinking we could potentially have video, and it may be good for news consumers in the sense that (online video) will be a faster way of converging types of media.

"But you get a lot of the same stuff. There is no alternative. You are going to lose some (editorial) voices in the process."