The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

WIIITBY FRIFE PRESS,WEDNESDAY. APRIL 3, 1985. PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE CROW'S NEST 7Yi by Michael Knell Has Miller become a P.R.puppet? Frank Miller made his first major political mistake last week, but I don't think anyone - except his opponents - will give a damn. It seems that the man from Muskoka refuses to go on television to debate the issues head-to-head with David Peterson and Bob Rae. There are probably two reasons for this. The first one is that a recent poll showed that more people living in Ontario know who Miller is. His name recognizability is almost double that of either Peterson or Rae. Miller doesn't want to give his main opponents an equal chance at debating him in public. He doesn't want to be seen as their equal. So long as he is better known, he is not interested in debating the issues. Debating the issues would, af- ter all, only give people the chance to assess his behaviour and his strengths. We would have a good opportunity to find out what Miller believes and what he stands for. The other reason why Miller won't go on television isn't so obvious. When he was a cabinet minister, Miller had a reputation for opening his mouth. He'd scrum with Queen's Park reporters and say something he shouldn't. Onseveral occassions, he let the cat out of the bag. Now that he's Premier, he can't afford to do that. Because Miller bas this tendency to open his mouth, it's my belief that the Tories have made Miller a P.R. man's delight. What we are seeing in the cam- paign is the P.R. man's version of Frank Miller. Every step he takes, every speech be makes is contrived by the P.R. men running his campaign. (Notice since the beginning of the election campaign, Miller rarely speaks without notes.) And that is the real reason he won't appear on television. His P.R. men will lose control, they will run the risk of having Miller slide back into his old habits and speak when be shouldn't. And say something the party may not want said. In a television debate, there's no editing. It's live reporters firing live (and sometimes embarassing) questions at live candidates before a live audience. It's a pressure situation. There is no control and that's something the Tories don't want to lose. In almost every other situation during this campaign, the Tories' P.R. men can exercise some degree of control. On the hustings, the P.R. men can control where he goes, what he says, and to a large degree, who he meets. If you've noticed, television coverage of Miller bas been somewhat stifled. Rarely do you see him answering a reporter's off-the-cuff question. We are usually treated to a 10 or 15 second clip of his speech. He doesn't get into the scrum anymore. While most people will be relieved that their favorite T.V. show won't be in- terrupted by the leaders' debate, but in refusing to meet Peterson and Rae, Frank Miller has done a great disservice to the people of this province. i also think Miller will have lost any respect he ever held from members of the media. While Miller's people will try to laugh off any grumbling from reporters, they should be a little worried. Have you ever tried to get a positive review from a reporter you've stiffed for a story? Reporters are human too, and many I know have long memories, and they don't like to be used. If they think Miller is using them - they'll probably turn on him and that won't do him any good. This incident also shows the complacency, cockiness and supreme arrogance of the Conservative party. Ever since Reagan won the Presidency of the United States, they think they've got a God given right to govern. I don't think that Miller or his P.R. men believe that they have to justify the record of their party as a government. Perhaps they think it beneath them to participate in the democratic process. Debate in an open forum with peuple of a different political philosophy is not for them. After all, the polls show that the people of Ontario will follow them like little blind sheep no matter what. They don't have to prove anything. They don't have to participate in this election in a meaningful way. The polls show they command our loyalty. If this decision is going to be typical of a Frank Miller administration, we should all think long and hard before going to the ballot box. I've been a Tory all my life. Granted, I'n a "Red Tory". I'm not a dogmatic right winger but I'm a Conservative nonetheless. But before I'm a Conser- vative, I'm a journalist and before I'm a journalist, I'm a Canadian. I'm a Canadian who believes in open, honest government and participatory dernocracy. Government must be accountable and those who aspire to power must justify everything they say and everything they do. Frank Miller's decision not to debate his main political opponents is nothing less than a slap in the face of every Ontario resident and voter. He is now seen as being unwilling to participate in the democratic process. How much respect for it can he have? And if this is typical of Frank Miller, how can we expect his administration to behave? A friend of mine, a government insider, told supporters of a cabinet minister that the Big Blue Machine is a myth, because the machine, in reality, is people. Ordinary people who band together to support a common idea. I'm not sure that's true anymore. After this decision, perhaps we'll discover that the Big Blue Machine is nothing more than a publie relations firm. SOLWAY An explanation There are a lot of very nice people in Whitby and throughout the region. They have been supportive. They have been kind. They have been generous in their applause. Most of all - they have said that the Marigold filled a big need - not only in the region, but in their own lives. Nuala FitzGerald and I thank those people. But there were not enough of them. We have closed our theatre after nearly three years of con- tinuous production and seventeen professional plays. Sunday night Nuala and I stood on stage and thanked those who came. Afterwards in the dining room some of them asked what they could do; were we going to carry on soon; were we going to give up? First of all: we have closed because professional theatre is expensive and because our ticket sales did not cover costs. Secondly: we intend to re-open if, as, and when we can reorganize ourselves, our finances, and make some decisions about possible new productions. Finally: we cannot give you a precise date. It may be two weeks. It may be a month. It may be.... When we came here (and the oldtimers will remember that I used to live in Oshawa. My son was born there in 1951) many people said quality theatre would not work because of the kind of people who live here. The usual advice about "blue collar" and "lunch pail" and "beer drinkers." Rubbish. A per- son's vocation does not ensure a certain kind of behaviour. I know gpme salt-of-the-earth workingmen who go to the theatre. I know some upper-crust professionals who never do. Point. Roy Thomson, the posthumous donor of the hall named for him rarely set foot in concert hall or a theatre, and if he did it was unwillingly. He proclaimed himself to be indifferent to anything but money. Nuala and I find no consolation in the snobbish remarks by some people about lunch pails and beer. Those who will not come because they don't want to are exercising their choice. That's their business. i am not one to crusade to "educate" people or to tell them to do something because I happen to think it is good for them. Personally, I like live theatre and fine music concerts and good literature. I think I'rn a better person for having those tastes. The people I really am out of patience with fall in- to three categories: 1) "I've heard good things about your Theatre and it's great the region has its own theatre and I'm going to get there one of these days." 2) The new person leaving the theatre. "I've never been but I had a wonderful time. I'm coming back and bringing my friends." 3) If there is a "worst" this is it: "I love the theatre and cultural events and I only go to Toronto for them because how could there be anything good out here?" All three groups (not the never-comes and never- will) represent our problem. They came too rarely if at all. We really tried. Another point. It may just be that not enough people really wanted us or liked what we did. That's possible too. Finally, and this is important. Both Nuala and I believe in live theatre. We have put all our money into it. We think this region, or any region in this country, is entitled to be served by a completely professional theatre producing high quality plays on a regular basis. Cultural arms of governments and private in- dustry believe it too. So they fund them. They sub- sidize them because they have a commitment, (lately vanishing) to the quality cultural event - both as a community need and as a place where ac- tors, designers, directors, technicians, writers and producers can practice their craft and be paid for it. Nuala and I are at the theatre most days. If you want to phone - we'd love to talk to you. Meanwhile - Toronto is only a short drive away.