Controversy helps sells books.
Janice Wells has certainly had her fair share of controversy in the first few weeks her book on former Premier Frank Moores has been in the bookstore.
First, it was her contention that Frank Moores had erred in walking away from a deal on Labrador hydro power that would have turned over 800 megawatts to the province.
In an interview with CBC radio's Jeff Gilhooley, Wells admitted she didn't know too much about the mega- or kilo-wattage involved. On reading the brief two page account in her book it quickly becomes clear she didn't know too much else about the context of the discussion beyond perhaps what Frank himself had told her during one of her interviews with him.
She even starts out the section by referring to it as a previously unknown deal. That despite a paper written for the Young royal commission - and cited here several times before - which includes a fairly detailed discussion of it. Wells does not make it clear whether the 800 megawatts was Churchill Falls power - which would have been deliverable immediately - or contingent on the Lower Churchill being developed.
Wells doesn't make it clear because, apparently she does not know. yet nothing stopped her from claiming it to be a great tragedy to have scuttled the deal base on Brian Peckford's objections. Wells even goes so far as to get Wade Locke to work up an estimated value for the power.
Lack of accurate and adequate information did not stop Wells from leaping to an unsubstantiated conclusion when it suited her purpose.
Odd then that she tries to suggest that Canadian journalists have it wrong when they linked Frank to the Airbus scandal based on testimony and documentary evidence. The trigger for Wells' comments is a criticism of the portions of her book on Airbus which ignore anything that does not present Moores in a favourable light.
Wells admits she is not an investigative reporter. That is painfully obvious. She admits she has advanced an Airbus theory with no evidence. That, too, is obvious.
Her job, says Wells, is to present a fair and balanced view of Moores.
That is not so obvious.
What Wells has done in her book on Moores is presented an account based primarily on her three days of interviews with Moores, bolstered by some other interviews. It is not really a biography as we might expect a bit of critical commentary based on research. Such a work need not condemn the subject; it could be quite favourable and Moores deserves favourable treatment. However, in the arms-length attitude between subject and writer some credibility attaches to the writer's conclusions.
What we have in Wells' book is the gin and tonic biographer at work. It presents neither a fair nor balanced view and the research for the book appears to be extremely light. Hers is a fawning account which raises Moores up in places by tearing down others, or, in others, attributing to Moores their ideas. She knows the meaning of proof and hard evidence, apparently, since she avoids both.
Frank Moores deserves a genuinely fair, accurate and well-researched account of his time as premier.
Janice Wells hasn't provided it.
The controversies, however, should help move a few books in the Christmas rush.
-srbp-
