Sun sets on Trudeau's relationship with a certain broadcaster

So, Justin Trudeau isn't talking to Sun Media reporters, or opinionators, or whatever other categories of people they employ, until the organization apologies for a ridiculous Ezra Levant segment I don't care to describe -- suffice it to say it was a highly offensive personal attack not just on him, but his family.

The press gallery, apparently confident that their condemnation of Levant's bloviating is so obvious it need not really be vocalized, instead lept straight to the hustings of journalistic freedom. Much furious tweeting amongst themselves ensued; how dare Trudeau do this, and so on. We've seen the pattern often enough when the Harper Conservatives have curtailed media access -- much tweet and fury, followed by filing straight copy of the government's news of the day.

I have stood with the gallery in the past, although, while I admit there are no easy answers, their acquiescence long ago sent the message to the government, and other parties, that shutting out or limiting the media will not have lasting consequence. It pains me as a democrat, and as a journalist, but it's the sad reality.

While I stand for access, and I'm not sure I'd have taken the step of a blanket ban on talking to Sun Media employees until a resolution on the Ezra complaint, I'd wish some of the journalists on the hustings for press freedom would apply a little of that critical thinking the profession prides itself on, as this isn't a case of a blanket limitation of access to avoid exposure and control the narrative.

Rather, Trudeau's action here raises some questions that we all, media and political operatives, would do well to consider: what is the line between journalist and opinion commentator, and when is enough enough when it comes to a pattern of bias and bile?

There are strong journalists at Sun Media, and many young journalists getting their start. Jobs are tough to find in this industry, and I'm sure many are disgusted by the antics of Ezra et al. They don't have the luxury of quitting on principle, even if they wanted to. Were I them though, I would be angry not at Trudeau, but at my management for perpetuating a culture that makes it harder for me to do the good work I want to do, and be recognized as the professional I strive to be.

For the antics of the opinion whatever side of the house do reflect on the whole organization. There is no Chinese wall. And the argument "that was the opinion side of the company that called your dead father a slut and insulted your mother" just doesn't fly.   Yes, they have the freedom of speech to say whatever offensive thing they want. But politicians also have the freedom to decline to engage with an organization whose management encourages, and profits, from such behaviour.

It's unfortunate they're caught in the middle, but blaming the offended politician here seems offbase. This is the direct, and probably not unintended, result of the type of channel and image Sun's ownership and management set out to create.

And lest we forget, this isn't just about Ezra, or about one incident. And while the hard news/straight talk line may be clung to now, it has has often been hard to see in the past.

• When Trudeau was chased through the hallways by two cameras and cricket sounds were added to the soundtrack, which side was that?
• When he was chased again by another Sun personality (who the anchor called a "reporter") that would later argue for his excommunication from the Catholic Church as a "heretic" and "abortion extremist", which side was that? 
• It goes on and on. To which split personality should we attribute graphics like this?

The point is, they've allowed the lines to blur. It's not fair to their journalists, and you can forgive the rest of us from needing a program to tell the players sometimes. But it's the reality.

So while I'm a bit uncomfortable at the blanket ban, I understand the reasoning, and I don't really see a better way. I would not want to support an organization that attacked my family either. They have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I have to listen.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Scrum shopping on Parliament Hill

Every day that the House of Commons is sitting, just before the end of question period members of the press gallery begin to gather in the foyer outside the chamber for the scrums. It's usually the best opportunity to grab an MP and get a few quick questions answered or some comments on the story of the day without having to phone communications staffers who have to fill out message event proposals.

There are three pool cameras and microphones set up in the foyer, one each on the government and opposition sides and one in the centre ostensibly reserved for the Prime Minister, although he rarely scrums and anyone can and does use it. Impromptu scrums will also often break-out throughout the foyer when an MP stops and is surrounded more informally by questioning reporters.

Reporters typically stake-out the government and opposition doors waiting to see if someone comes out they want to speak with. If someone is trying to dodge the media (say, Dean Del Mastro this past week) they can go out a back door out of sight. Government ministers also like to escape up the stairs (like Peter MacKay) as protocol dictates media don't follow up the stairs. Rarely will anyone want to speak with government backbencers, they can just walk through ignored by the media. Ministers are least likely to want to talk, while opposition members will often wonder around in the hopes a reporter will want to interview them.

One fun part of the scrum culture is that you're always looking for someone better. While you have your microphone in one scrum, you're often continuing to scan the foyer, in case someone you'd much rather speak to decided to come out and scrum. It's not uncommon for an opposition member to suddenly be abandoned when a government minister suddenly pops their head into the foyer. Some call it scrum shopping.

I've tried to capture some of the scrum shopping experience in this video, which I shot after question period on Monday. Look for cameos from Charlie Angus, Bob Rae, Tony Clement, Elizabeth May, James Moore and Peggy Nash. Watch for Rae and May at the PM's microphone (he was out of town).

 

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Quoted on affairs Liberal

Postmedia's Lee Berthiaume filed the obligatory Justin Trudeau and the Liberal leadership story yesterday, and I'm quoted. First, in defence of charisma:

 "Charisma can be seen as superficial, but it is important," said Liberal blogger Jeff Jedras. "I'm looking for someone who can go into small groups in small towns across the country and win Liberals over one by one. And in that sense he's far more a natural politician than Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff were." 

 And secondly, on the need to marry that charisma with substance:

"I still want to have a conversation about policy," said blogger Jedras, before acknowledging: "It's one factor to be weighed amongst the others. But what he brings to the table obviously is a lot and that's weighed in."

That second thought came out a little more awkwardly than I'd have liked, but basically my point was while we shouldn't dismiss charisma as superficial and unimportant, it does need to be married with substance to be successful. Should Trudeau run he's going to have to prove the doubters of his alleged lack of substance wrong, and before deciding who to support I, for one, would want to know see his thinking on policy. But having the charisma tool in his toolbox, if you will, is a head-start few will have. Real success, though, will mean building on that. (Also, see my earlier blog, The case for Justin Trudeau and a two-election strategy)

Also, earlier this week Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star referenced an earlier blog I wrote about the Conservative Party's anti-Bob Rae attack ads in a piece she wrote analysing his decision not to seek the permanent Liberal Party leadership:

One astute Liberal blogger, Jeff Jedras, saw the method in the Conservative attacks. The ads, Jedras wrote, were an attempt to fuel internal tension in the Liberal party — to get the party arguing over whether to respond or not. And on that score, the strategy worked: the Liberals, despite their vows to never again leave a leader undefended against attack ads, couldn’t agree on whether to invest precious resources in a formal reply. Why would the Liberals spend money to defend the record of a former political opponent in Ontario?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Vikileaks and the death of the journalist as news gatekeeper

I was in Las Vegas for a work trip and tuned-out of all news from back in Canada, so it was only Friday that I returned and caught myself up on the “Vikileaks” drama, and it was fascinating to read some of the commentary and follow the tweets on the topic, particularly those from hill journalists and political sorts.

I won’t pass judgment on whether or not the information about Vic Toews should have been published or not, except to say it’s not how I would chose to do politics. Which I guess is passing judgment, so there you go. This sort of thing is par the course in modern politics though, and for the Conservatives, who have taken it to new levels, to now wring their hands is silly. And, for the record, it is only an ethical question, and we are talking about publicly available information and documents.

What really interests me though is the reaction of the proverbial “main-stream media” to the Vikileaks story, with an Ottawa Citizen piece attempting to trace the IP address of the “@Vikileaks30 leaker” spurring endless speculation and demands to identify the person or persons responsible. It should be noted that had @Vikileaks30 given their documents to a journalist who chose to publish a story based on them, then the media would be reminding us how important it is to protect the confidentiality of their sources. Even competing outlets wouldn’t try to unmask another journalist’s confidential source. That’s just not cricket, old boy.

What the media reaction to @Vikileaks30 really shows though is how angry, and perhaps frightened, they are about losing their traditional role as the gatekeepers of news, the people that get to decide what we, the unwashed masses, need to know and what we don’t need to know. Journalists are used to being in the know, to having the inside details, the scoop. It helps make up for the low pay, long hours and heavy drinking.

Journalists made judgment calls every day on what is news and what isn’t, what people have a right to know, and what isn’t relevant. It's part of the job in one sense; there's always more news than column inches or air time. And they see it as a public service. But no one elected them as the arbiters of good taste. They’re accountable to no one but their publisher and the shareholders. It’s a lot of trust, and a lot of responsibility.

The internet, blogging and social media are changing all that however. Now you no longer need a printing press or a television or radio station to publish information to the masses. Anyone with an Internet connection can publish anything they want, and potentially find an audience. And the market will, in a way, make its own judgment on its news worthiness. If people find it relevant, they’ll share or re-tweet it and the news finds a wider audience; if they deem it inappropriate it will wither and fade away, perhaps after first being soundly condemned.

What it means, though, is that the role of the traditional media as gatekeeper is drying, if it’s not already dead. With their breadth of reach and size of audience, the regular media is still the fastest way for news to be disseminated to the wider public. But thanks to social media, even if the press deems something “un-newsworthy,” if it gets enough traction online they eventually have no choice but to cover it anyway.

Whether or not you think publishing details of Vic Toews’ divorce as a form of protest against privacy-invading Internet snooping legislation is appropriate, what this drama shows about the eroding power of the media gatekeeper is very much a positive, in my opinion.

But back to the moral media tut-tutting around this story. Here’s the National Post editorial board weighing-in, for example, with a reflex attack on the always handy partisan scarecrow:

… their partisan opponents wouldn’t care. Rightly or wrongly, to embrace, promote or even acknowledge Vilikeaks — as a remarkable number of opposition MPs have done — is to accept yet further debasement of the Canadian political conversation. There is no way around it. The ends may justify the means in some people’s minds, but all politicians’ private lives are less private today than they were on Monday.

The media’s role in this is more tricky. The content of the Vikileaks tweets has been widely known in Ottawa since the events occurred. Yet not a word of it was breathed in the mainstream press, in accordance with the basic Canadian understanding described above.
But now it is all over the news — if not the particulars of Mr. Toews’ situation, then the fact that someone is publishing those particulars at a Twitter account called @Vikileaks30.

Attacking evil partisans is always easy for journalists, or in this case anonymous editorial writers, but the fact is the Post’s statement that “not a word of it was breathed in the mainstream press” is easily and demonstrably wrong, as a simple search of any newspaper archive service shows.

* May 17, 2008, Mia Rabson in Winnipeg Free Press

Sources suggest Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants Toews to step down because of concerns about issues in his personal life -- he's currently in the midst of a divorce. An appointment to the bench makes sense because of Toews' background as a former Crown prosecutor in Brandon and lawyer for the Manitoba government.

* May 17, 2008, Don Martin in Calgary Herald

But the 55-year-old Toews' public face of self-righteous morality is now clashing with his troubled private life. An MP dubbed the "minister of family values" by Liberals is embroiled in a messy divorce after fathering a child last fall with a much younger woman.

That's his business, frankly, yet it might explain why Mr. Toews was demoted to the Treasury Board and immediately cloaked by invisibility, stewing in question period silence while his junior parliamentary secretary juggles tough questions on election financing irregularities.

* May 23, 2008, Joan Bryden in Waterloo Region Record

As well, Tories have been whispering that Treasury Board President Vic Toews, embroiled in a messy divorce, has fallen into disfavour with Harper.

In June of 2009, Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe even wrote a column headlined “U.S. 'affairs' so much more interesting.”

And last year, then-Justice Minister Vic Toews split with his wife of 33 years after having fathered a child with a political staffer. A Winnipeg newspaper called it "messy personal stuff.

Toews since has been re-elected and appointed Treasury Board president. His website features nothing personal beyond "Vic enjoys roller blading and jogging. He resides in Steinbach.

In fact, here’s a May 21, 2008 story from the National Post with Toews reacting to a story about his divorce proceedings, in, you guessed it, the National Post (I guess the op/ed writers missed this one):

Mr. Toews, appearing at a news conference for a joint federal-provincial program for aboriginal youth sport, was also asked about a report in Saturday's National Post indicating he is currently involved in a messy divorce after fathering a child last fall with a much younger woman.

"I don't talk about my personal life," Mr. Toews replied.

Perhaps Vic, but the media sure does an awful lot. It seems obvious that the media tut-tutting has nothing to do with publishing such personal details; it’s just the feeble protests of the dying news gatekeepers.


UPDATE: An earlier post along these lines that has relevance to this one: On Adam Giambrone, morality vs. privacy, and the media as gatekeeper.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Everybody needs to pause, take a deep breath, and relax

Sometimes the partisanship really does get ridiculous. I’d say it’s a product of perpetual minorities, but I’m reasonably certain that the partisanship has always been pretty ridiculous and any memories of a golden era of peace and love are illusory.

Some of the worst partisanship revolves around the most trivial of events, like music. And everyone, from partisans of all stripes to the press gallery, is guilty of overdoing it. I bring this up, of course, because of Stephen Harper’s “rock concert” last night at the Conservative Christmas party on Ottawa. It was somewhat bemusing to watch it unfold on Twitter last night, and then read the flurry of coverage this morning.

It’s all rather over the top. Conservatives say it’s a master-stroke that shows Harper’s regular guy awesomeness. Some of my Liberal friends are all in a lather, calling it a cynically-staged photo-op by a guy who can’t sing. And the media are all in a tizzy giving it wide coverage and, of course, asking how this all impacts the horse race and election timing. (Because everything is about election timing to our media friends.)

The worst is this so-called “senior Ignatieff official” who, if they do really exist and hold a senior position, should be moved to a job that involves neither talking to the media or communications strategy of any kind, because these have got to be some of the stupidest comments I’ve read in years:

“Not even one song in French,” a senior Ignatieff official told The Globe and Mail on Thursday morning. “One week after Quebec’s artistic elite (over 100 songwriters and singers) came to Parliament Hill on C-32. It shows that he is clueless about Quebec culture.”

Dude. Senior whoever the hell you are. Seriously, you need to get a life. Do yourself a favour and get out of Ottawa, because you seem completely clueless about what people really give a shit about.

And as passionately as the partisans of varying stripes hold their positions on Harper’s rock show, they all probably had the exactly opposite reaction when Bob Rae, for example, did his piano man thing earlier this year. Liberals lapped it up, great show and all that. I posted the video, and I still get comments months later on it from Conservatives saying he’s a crappy performer who should stick to his day job. Their hostility was fierce.

Or when Michael Ignatieff danced for Much Music – un-priministerial and not a leader, the Conservatives huffed.

The problem with blind partisanship is that it blinds everyone’s judgment, and leads to a tendency to blow things out of proportion on both sides. My side’s goals are just, so anything we do in their pursuit is peachy, and the other guys are evil, so anything they do is wrong. And as David Akin pointed-out, it forces politicians to act like robotic automatons to avoid the inevitable attacks.

It's a war room mentality, and it's the same no matter who is running it. Everything is an opportunity to attack, to oppose, to advance the agenda. I know applying the "if you don't have anything nice to say" rule to politics would be ridiculous, but knowing when to hold your powder is important.

People need to just breathe. So Harper played some songs at a Conservative Christmas party, and the room of party loyalists loved it. Good for him. It has no deeper meaning. Was it a coincidence the media were there? Probably not. (I'd have not invited the media, but make sure someone got it with a Flip camera and let social media take it viral, myself.) Were they hoping for positive coverage? Probably. But who cares. Everyone is hoping for positive coverage.

They had a fun night, and that’s all it is.

The Conservatives shouldn’t pretend its step one to a majority.

The Liberals should focus more on having more fun nights of their own.

And the media should leave trivialities to lighter-side briefs or too much information segments and spend more of their time reporting on issues more substantive than Christmas parties or Caribana dances.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who's more emasculated, the media or parliamentarians?

I follow lots of parliamentarians, policios and political media on twitter, and it's amusing sometimes to watch some of the discussions and debate that goes back and forth. Take last night. I was treated to a bevy of snarky tweets back and forth, and the topic can be summed up thusly: whose is smaller?

On the one side, you had the media types snickering at the politicos for allowing themselves to be emasculated by the government/PMO, for not standing up for the righteous principle of parliamentary supremacy, for letting the PMO (multiple historical PMOs, they say) neuter MPs and render them virtual nobodies, even on Parliament Hill.

And on the other side, you had the political types snickering at the media types for allowing themselves to be emasculated by the government/PMO, for submitting to question lists controlled by the PMO at their infrequent news conferences, for attending every photo-op and statement-only event where they can't ask questions but just duly transcribe the talking points, for standing meekly by while the government restricts access to ministers and civil servants, and using their rare opportunities to question the PM for lame softballs.

It was rather amusing to watch. Who is more emasculated? You are! No, you are! Nuh uhh, you are!

A few points.

One: You're all emasculated and slightly pathetic, so maybe work on that before you call out others for faults you share. You all doth protest too muchly.

Two: You wonder why Canadians are generally tuned-out of the political debate? Because you've rendered yourselves irrelevant with dumb-ass debates like this instead of doing your respective jobs.

Both sides in this debate are right. And both sides are lame.

UPDATED TO ADD: While both sides are right in that the other side is emasculated and lame, they should also each acknowledge that it's not as easy as they'd like to us to think it is for the other side. On the politico side, there's the risk of triggering an election to factor in. And the party whip. On the media side, the risk is loss of access and being "beaten" by competition that don't take a moral stand. Not that these are excuses we should accept. It's just not as black and white as each likes to think it is for the other side.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Media obsess over stupid shit, Canadians tune out, Harper smiles

If in 50 years, a Canadian political science professor is lecturing his or her freshmen about the decline of political journalism in Canada, this morning’s spectacle at Rideau Hall in Ottawa would provide an interesting case study.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had a rare press availability this morning, on the occasion of a minor cabinet shuffle. This was a notable for a number of reasons. One, Steve doesn’t talk to the media that much. He knows the risks of over-exposure, so he always leaves them wanting more. He also hasn’t been seen for some time while a number of controversial issues have swirled, such as more G-20 fallout, the census brouhaha, air attacks from the Soviet Union, an alarming rise in unreported crime, and some minor drama that 15 people will see in Toronto.

I was working so, sadly, I couldn’t watch the drama live. Thankfully, Twitter was on duty, and my hack/flack/journo column in Tweetdeck went wild with more cat-fighting than the last time Paris and Lindsay ended-up crossing paths at the same club in Hollywood.

The Globe’s Steven Chase does the synopsis well enough. But first, some helpful background. Our media long-ago caved to the Harper PMO’s desire for media control by agreeing to put their names on a list at press conferences, which allows the PMO to pick which journos to let ask a question. OK, go read Chase and come back.

First of all, let me say I think both David Akin and Craig Oliver’s questions were both pretty dumb. I prefer the two the pack came up with, although not by much. I have no problem though with letting them ask whatever the heck they want to, and I’m not upset at all they wanted to stray from the pack. I encourage it. I just wish they’d stray with questions that have a little more relevance to things Canadians actually care about.

Because I find this entire situation sadly laughable, and think everyone comes off looking pretty ridiculous.

First of all, there’s too much of a pack mentality in the Parliamentary Press Gallery as it is, and huddling to decide on your questions doesn’t help. And then getting huffy when Harper strays from the protocol he has put in place to control you by taking it one step further? I laughed. The problem isn’t that Harper strayed from the list; the problem is that you agreed to the dammed list in the first place! You’ve already surrendered, and now you’re complaining about the quality of the gruel in the prison camp? See the forest for the trees guys, really.

That’s what is at the root of this: Harper’s continual beating down of the national media, and the media’s unwavering willingness to stand there and take it. If the media just once said no, we’re not going to cover your photo-op, if they said if you insist on a list, and will only take four questions, then we’re not coming; he’d cave. Instead, too afraid in the 24-hour news cycle of losing one story, one “scoop” no matter how minor, they’ve given in.

I don’t blame Harper or the PMO one little bit. While as a democrat I bemoan the strategy, the fact is it’s working for them so why on Earth would they change anything? By limiting the opportunity and the questions, they limit the risk, and rather than lashing-out the media have tamely complied, rarely asking tough questions even when they get the opportunity. He’s playing them like a fiddle. Sure, they’ll grumble on Twitter. But then they’ll file the stories he was hoping for.

And don’t tell me the opposition leaders haven’t been watching this phenomenon carefully. Now obviously, opposition leaders need more media exposure, so they need to put themselves out there. Still, put yourself out there and take every question and you’ll either step on your crank or let the media finally hit on a negative story or one that you don’t want; it’s inevitable. Limit it, and they’re forced to parrot your message.

It’s rewarding bad behaviour and like a dog, with repeated reinforcement even a politician will learn eventually. By buying into Harper’s system, the media are perpetuating the behaviour they claim to dislike. Let’s say the Liberals win an election at some point (stick with me here), why would they do anything different than Harper on this? It clearly hasn’t hurt Harper at all.

The other problem is, when they do get a political leader in front of them, the questions the media ask usually have no relevance to what Canadians (their supposed audience) actually care about. This is true any time I see Harper, Ignatieff or Jack Layton taking questions. They inevitably ask about polls. Election speculation. Gamesmanship and the horserace. And their audience tunes-out, because outside the Ottawa bubble we could care less about that nonesense.

I’ve written about this before, but it’s instructive to look at what Canadians ask when they get a chance to question the leaders directly. Health care, foreign affairs, democratic institutions, drug policy, climate change, child care, post-secondary education. These are the sorts of things Canadians actually care about, yet they’re the things our media, supposedly our proxy to our political leadership, never ask about.

There are many challenges for the mainstream media at large to face in today’s media climate. But for our political media specifically, the solutions are clear: reconnect with what your audience actually cares about and act as their proxy, like you’re supposed to. And find where you left your stones.

After that, the rest will take care of itself.

P.S. Actually, there is one more thing the media needs to do. Not be afraid to call bullshit. And I don't mean this as a partisan thing, because all sides of the political spectrum put lots of bullshit out there. And, sadly, media see balance as letting each side have their say, no matter how full of bullshit they are. What they need to do instead is say no, actually the sky isn't blue and Canada isn't being invaded by unreported Communist unicorns.

Anyway, whenever I get too upset about any of this stuff, I'm comforted by reminding myself that hardly anyone is watching this crap anyway. Were I in the gallery though, I'd find that less comforting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Some thoughts on “Fox News North”

I did an interview last night with Rob Breakenridge of Calgary’s AM770 on Quebecor/Sun Media’s new “Fox News North” television network, so I thought I’d share my thoughts on the subject here as well.

You know, if having a national news network run by Stephen Harper’s former communications director means I never have to ever listen to another Conservative drag out the tired canard of the so-called “Liberal media” then I think this whole Fox News North thing might just be worth it. Frankly, I thought they’d give up that sad persecution complex when they sent Mike Duffy to patronage heaven to become the most partisan shill the Senate has seen in years, but I underestimated their lack of bashfulness at making ridiculous arguments that fly in the face of all logic (my mistake, really).

But seriously, say what you will about Quebecor and Sun Media, but they’re businesspeople and they're not dumb. Launching a new news network requires a significant investment in infrastructure, resources and talent and I’m sure they’ve done their homework. They must have done the research and come to the conclusion there’s a sound business case here.

I’ll admit, I’m sceptical though. This would be the third national news network for Canada (sorry ROBTV, you don’t count) after CBC Newsworld and CTV Newsnet. I think all those networks have changed their names, but I don’t really watch them often enough to keep up. The CBC couldn’t afford chairs for awhile, I do remember that. Peter Mansbridge isn’t getting any younger, guys.

We’re not the United States though, which is able to (barely, I think) support CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. Canada has a fraction of the population and the advertising revenue to support three networks and there are only so many Alpacas to be farmed, and only so many times Patrick can take out life insurance.

I also don’t believe we’re as conservative a country as the U.S., so I wonder how much of an audience this network will hold once the novelty wears off. And, frankly, setting out to design a network with a particular bias seems silly to me. I have to wonder, just how interesting would it be?

If you like having your worldview constantly reinforced, if you never want your opinions or assumptions to be challenged, then conservatives may enjoy such a network. Fox South certainly has an audience; it’s an undeniable business success. But for me, I certainly can’t speak for all Liberals, but I’d find it boring never being challenged in my beliefs. I like a little intellectual stimulation; it’s good for the soul, and for my beliefs. And I don’t think echo chambers make for particularly compelling television either.

I also reject the premise this network seems founded on, that a liberal media bias permeates the rest of the press. I’ve been a journalist for over 10 years now (not covering politics obviously, but the IT industry) and I can say with some authority the only thing most journalists are biased towards is a good story. Bad for Liberals, Conservatives, Natural Law, they don’t care if it will get the ratings.

I get pissed off at the media all the time for alleged conservative bias. Often the same media my conservative friends complain about being liberally biased. Which either means those media outlets are just giving it to all as deserved and we're both wrong, or they're just really, really crappy and we're both right.

But as a journalist, I’m perhaps not as hostile to this new network as some of my progressive brethren may be. The media is hurting in this country; the profession of journalism is hurting. So if Quebecor wants to invest millions of dollars to hire journalists and build a new media organization, I view that as a positive. Jobs for journalist = good.

I think designing it with a bias is silly, but whatever happens on the op/ed side of the network, if they keep hiring respected professionals like David Akin on the journalism side of the house – and give them the freedom to do what they do well -- then I’m confident some real journalism will be happening there, and we do need more real journalism in Canada. I think that opinion/news wall will be the thing to watch going forward though.

So I say welcome our new Conservative television overlords. And at the end of the day, in the best of conservative theory and dogma, the market will decide the value of Fox News North. Either it will prove a viable business model, or it won’t, so I say let the market decide. And unlike Conrad Black, I don’t think Pierre Karl Péladeau is a fan of losing money for ideological reasons. If there’s no market, this new network will become Keith Olbermanized pretty quickly.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

John Baird, buffoonery, and journalism

John Baird made a fool of himself and threw a temper-tantrum in a House of Commons committee today. CBC has the audio, you should give it a listen.

This evening, Maclean's honoured Baird as Parliamentarian of the Year. I hope their journalists at least wept a little.

Speaking of journalism, here's how Don Newman -- he was a journalist -- dealt with buffoons like John Baird:

Balanced journalism isn't letting one side spout its bullshit, and then letting the other side spout its bullshit, and patting yourself on the back for being so balanced. Journalism means when someone spouts bullshit, you say no, that's bullshit, so please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

We seem to have forgotten that.

Instead of our media calling bullshit, they're now giving awards to the worst offenders.

But hey, Maclean's dead-tree redesign does look pretty though.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The thing about MP attendance

I think Member of Parliament attendance records should be public. I also think their expense information should be public and audited by the auditor general, and that not getting out in front and leading on that issue was a significant missed opportunity by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. But I’m digressing.

Attendance records seem to potentially be the next media hobby-horse. I always find it interesting what they choose to care about. I’ll agree with them though that the records should be made public, but with one big caveat: the media needs to report on the information accurately, and in context.

If politicians are balking at releasing attendance information, I’m willing to bet there’s one big reason why: the inevitable short-sighted, ill-informed media coverage that will result decrying lazy MPs taking long vacations on the public dime, when nothing could (in most cases) be further from the truth.

The fact is, there is a lot more to being a Member of Parliament than sitting in your seat in the House of Commons chamber. There are many hours of committee work, office and constituency work both in Ottawa and back in the riding, and many public events. It’s far from a Monday to Friday, nine to five job.

Yet to many media organizations, if they can’t see you in your seat from their perch in the gallery, you must not be doing your job. It’s like the misguided bosses who believe in management by seeing you at your desk, not what you're doing. And it leads to stories of missing leaders when, rather than taking part in the empty spectacle of question period, they’re actually out meeting actual Canadians.

Whenever I see dismissive comments by pundits about all the “vacation time” MPs get I cringe, because, besides from the fact they’re not “vacationing” when the House isn’t sitting but instead are doing constituency work, research, or many other things, such ill-informed commentary only serves to further undermine public confidence in institutions already sorely lacking it.

So sure, release MP attendance information. There’s absolutely no reason for it to be secret. But I hope the media will resist the urge to just tally the numbers for easy headlines, and will instead look at the why behind the numbers, and put them into context.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Politicians and the people, minus the media

Certainly there are issues to be raised with many of the answers Stephen Harper gave when his YouTube video "conservation with Canadians" last night. I'm sure others will raise those issues; perhaps I will too later.

One thing that occurred to me though, as I read the Harper interview transcript, and reflect back on the online town halls that Michael Ignatieff did with Canadians earlier this year, and that's the one glaring thing that was missing from all of them.

What we got in each of those forums were questions from Canadians on a wide-range of policy issues. Foreign affairs, the role of parliament and prorogation, drug policy, climate change, child care, post secondary education, the list goes on.

What didn't we get? Questions on the horse race. On polling. On electoral gamesmanship. No "will you force an election" or political "whose is bigger" questions. To judge by nearly every press conference I've seen with Harper and Ignatieff, with nearly every pundit panel on the political talk shows, with most analysis pieces from the columnists, you'd think electoral chicken and the horse race is the issue of most concern to Canadians.

When Canadians get the chance to question their political leaders directly though, that's not what we get. We get questions on issues of policy that are important to them for a rainbow of reasons.

Both the Facebook townhall and the YouTube Q&A formats are obviously imperfect. No opportunity for follow-up, to follow a line of questioning, to really question an answer. Obviously such experiments, while well intentioned and useful, are never going to replace the role of the traditional media.

The media would be wise, though, to take a lesson from the questions that Canadians put to the leaders in these forums. After all, the Canadians asking those questions are their readers, viewers and listeners as well. And they should be just as interested in what they're concerned about as the leaders are.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On Adam Giambrone, morality vs. privacy, and the media as gatekeeper

Reading the Toronto Star’s stunning tabloidesque story this morning that may doom Adam Giambrone’s Toronto mayoral bid in its infancy, a number of thoughts come to mind around just how much we have a right to know about the private lives of politicians, whether such considerations should be relevant to our voting decisions, and the powerful role the media plays in deciding what is “newsworthy” and what isn’t.

Myself, I wasn’t going to vote for Giambrone anyways, so these revelations don’t change that. His political experience, and inexperience, were enough for me to make that decision. Frankly, I’ve been underwhelmed, if not very disappointed, by what I’ve seen from all the mayoral candidates so far.

Still, academically-speaking, are the revelations in the Diebel story relevant, do we have a right to know? That’s a tough one. I think politicians are entitled to a private life. As long as it doesn’t impact or interfere with their jobs, as long as it’s between consenting adults and doesn’t break laws, then it’s not relevant.

Maxime Bernier and Julie Couillard was relevant because of a) her potential ties to organized crime, and b) he left confidential documents at his apartment. Elliott Spitzer was relevant because prostitution is illegal. Mark Sanford was relevant because he traveled on government funds, was absent from his job, and his staff lied to the media.

At first blush, the Giambrone story does appear to pass this relevancy test, if only barely: he shared confidential information with his mistress, Kristen Lucas, about the upcoming TTC fare hike. Absent that one minor breach (that we know about), I’d say this affair concerns only Giambrone and the two women involved, Lucas and his partner, Sarah McQuarrie.

The other question that speaks to relevancy is honesty. We have two very divergent descriptions of the relationship from Lucas and Giambrone. We’ll see in the fullness of time which one is being more honest here. But for Giambrone, full disclosure and honesty up front is the only way to get through this (if he even can). Get caught short later and it’s definitely over. But the two accounts do strain credulity. Lucas alleges a sexual affair. Giambrone alleges the relationship was only “text messages and conversations in public places only.” If that’s really the case, one wonders just what he’s apologizing for.

Whether such revelations are relevant or not though, and whether or not they should have gone public in the first place, the fact is voters will decide for themselves what they consider relevant, and what they will base their voting decision on. While I’d question whether we truly should know these sorts of things about politicians, the fact is once known they absolutely will impact my voting decision. It speaks to character and integrity. I don’t expect politicians to be perfect. But if someone is dishonest or duplicitous in their personal lives, it does make me question their fitness to make good decisions in the public interest.

Which brings me to the media. Despite the rising prominence of new media and blogging, by and large it’s still the mainstream media that act as gatekeepers, deciding what they feel we have a right to know about the public lives of politicians, and what we don’t.

And make no mistake, they are making these calls regularly. There’s one major affair in Ottawa that, although it’s widely known in political and media circles, the media has made a conscious decision not to report. It could well be career-ending but, although there could be incidents of the matter crossing into the job performance area, the media collectively have decided it’s a private matter that just isn’t news, so it goes unreported.

So when I read stories like the Giambrone one it makes me wonder just what criteria the media use to make these decisions to report or not. Is it better to just have everything out there and let the chips fall where they may, letting the people decide relevancy for themselves instead of the media? Or should we trust the media to continue making these calls on our behalf?

Certainty, the media has been trending more and more towards publish it all over the years. There was a time when private was decidedly private. The obvious example was the lack of coverage of John F. Kennedy’s many affairs back in the day. The media regularly turned a blind eye to that sort of thing here too for many years. Gradually, that began to change. I think the emergence of a less chummy, more professional relationship between the media and those they cover was one factor. The shortened news cycle probably another.

Myself, I think such stories often aren’t news and I don’t really need to know, as long as it doesn’t impact job performance, involve illegality or use of public resources. But I also don’t like the media picking and choosing what it thinks I should know about, and what I shouldn’t. Especially when its done without transparency, seemingly by arbitrary or unknown standards.

While such coverage may be tabloidesque, marginally relevant and have no bearing on my voting intention, frankly, I think I’d rather make that decision for myself.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Day 1 in Bucharest for #wbf2009, the opening

When I began my Google and Wikipedia research on Bucharest and Romania in preparation for the World Blogging Forum this week, I was very interested to read about some of the history of the venue for the conference, The Palace of Parliament.

Commissioned at great cost toward the end of Nicolae Ceauşescu’s Communist regime to house the parliamentary and presidential facilities, it’s the world’s largest civil administrative structure and is second only in size to the Pentagon. In person, though, it’s quite the sight. We saw it first at night glowing from blocks away, and as we pulled up to it this morning for day one of the conference it was even more impressive.

There are big chandeliers, high ceilings, large reception halls, paintings, sculptures, and lots of marble everywhere. Not uncommon in Europe, but it’s kind of striking to see a relatively new building constructed in this style. Anyway, cool place for a blogging conference but enough architecture, on to the blogging.

After we settled into the Human Rights Hall of the Palace of Parliament, the first big item on the agenda was a speech from the President of Romania, Traian Basescu. Was pretty good to see the head of state come out for the conference and, even better, he didn’t deliver a boiler-plate welcome and thanks for coming speech, but actually had some substantive thoughts to share on the topic of the conference.

Basescu, who you can follow on Twitter (@tbasescu), said as an Internet user he believes the Internet is the freest means of communications yet invented because promotes pluralism and enables dialogue on a global basis, bringing the freedom to communicate at a global level. People aren’t along on the Web, they’re part of a community where they can find support.

In Romania, Basescu said blogs are relatively new but they’re becoming well established and consolidated. And he said he finds the political analysis is better in the Romanian blogs than it is in the traditional press in Romania, because bloggers are less dependent on economic and political interests. The media here, he said, aside from the state channels are dominated by private press with business interests that influence their coverage and seek to influence policy with their coverage to advance business interests. Many journalists, he said, are seeking refuge in blogging as a way to escape those shackles and report freely.

I thought Basescu made a really good point when he said that, with the freedom of communication and expression of the Internet and blogging, there must also be accountability and responsibility taken by bloggers for the information they publish. When one has freedom, one has responsibility

While Basescu doesn’t believe there’s a place for government regulation here, he does want to see bloggers step-in themselves with self-regulation, agreeing amongst their selves globally on common-sense rules of practice.

Another interesting speaker from the morning opening was Loic Le Meur, the founder and CEO of Seesmic (A Twitter/social media viewer) and host of the LeWeb conferences in Paris.

Le Meur made an interesting point that while advances such as the printing press, the telephone and telegraph, cinema and television were all momentous, the Internet was truly ground-breaking as a communications breakthrough because while the others were good at either mass (one-way) communication or just a one-on-one conversation, the Internet is the first to bring both aspects, mass communication and interactivity, together natively.

I parted ways with Le Meur when he said professional media will never be the main source of information because they’re outnumbered by users, because twitter is so immediate, and so on. I don’t buy it. Le Meur talked about learning about an earthquake in China on Twitter six hours before it hit CNN. He also talked about how, with the US Army clamping-down on information access after the Fort Hood shootings, on Twitter individual soldiers were putting information out there uncensored.

Le Meur added that traditional broadcasters jumped on the soldier’s tweets, reporting them, only later to learn much of the information was incorrect. The annoying “twitterization” of the MSM aside (balloon boy coverage comes to mind), this example seems to me to illustrate why twittering won’t replace the MSM: I don’t know if I can trust what I read from random twitter guy.

What I think needs to happen, and is slowly happening (Le Meur agreed) is that traditional media needs to adapt to social media. What we need is a marriage of the best of traditional media (research, fact-checking, ethical and moral standards, etc.) with the best of social media (immediacy, interactivity, multiple platforms of content delivery). There will always be lots of information on the blogs and on forums such as Twitter, but the signal-to-noise ratio is high. It’s the trusted names that will rise above, and the brands of the MSM in that regard as they enter the new field are strong, I feel.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

No TV is fine, but what’s the price of milk?

It was amusing last week to watch the broadcast media jump all over Stephen Harper’s admission that he doesn’t watch Canadian news. They’ll gloss over stories such as mixed-messages on our post Afghanistan military presence or the government’s penchant for secrecy, but suggest that the PM doesn’t idolize Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson and they’re on it like a dog with a bone.

The fact is, and I rarely say this, but I’m actually with Harper on this one. I don’t watch Canadian news that much either. Rarely will I tune in to CBC’s The National, and I’ve never really watched CTV’s flagship broadcast. Every once and awhile I’ll flip on the local supper-hour news on CFTO, but usually it’s as background white noise as I do something else. And I’ve long since, with rare exception, foresworn the assorted political nerdfest shows (although for curiosity’s sake I’ll need to check out Evan Solomon’s new one). Party hacks shouting talking points (we’ll leave the irony unsaid) just doesn’t do it for me, being neither entertaining nor particularly informative.

That’s not to say I’m not informed on what’s going on in the land. I get a daily clippings package of stories of national and political interest, which I cull even further before reading. And with the Web, with Twitter and Facebook, I’m pointed to the stories that are of interest to me, saving me from having to sift through the stories I don’t want.

This is actually the news dissemination model of the future, and it’s a model mainstream media has had difficulty adjusting to: hyper-personal. People are still consuming news. But they’re consuming it differently, and through different sources. They’re getting it through aggregates and readers that just give them the news they’re interested in. The mainstream media is still the source, and that won’t change, but the way we access it has. Gone is the one-size fits all, here’s everything model. Media companies need to figure-out how to market that hyper-personal market to advertisers. The potential is there, and it is attractive for advertisers to be able to target specific groups, ie. political nerds, or Nascar fans. They just need to adjust their sales strategies.

Back to me and Harper, however. There is one rather serious drawback to this new model of news consumption that we’re engaging in (I’m assuming he is still getting Canadian news through some source or another, fingers crossed). By only getting the news we’re specifically interested in we’re missing out on quite a lot that, were we exposed to it, we would be interested in. We risk creation a generation of less informed, broadly-interested people.

Pick up the newspaper and skim the headlines and, while you won’t read it all, you’re bound to find a few stories that you wouldn’t have normally read but that you find enlightening and fascinating, exposing you to ideas and viewpoints you wouldn’t have otherwise considered. Flying back from New York last week, having already watched the three episodes of How I Met Your Mother on Air Canada’s video on demand system, I watched a compilation of documentary reports from CBC’s The National. One was a day in the life of the Chief of Defence Staff, the other a piece on diamond mining in Zimbabwe. Both were very interesting, and both wouldn’t have hit my radar normally.

So, there are drawbacks to the fact Harper and I don’t watch much Canadian news. And while for me its an interesting philosophical conundrum, I’m a bit more concerned about what it means for the Prime Minister of Canada. For someone who has made so much about the fact Michael Ignatieff spent much of his professional career overseas, I wonder what his viewing habits say about Harper’s connection to what’s happening out there in Canada. For a PM particularly, your exposure to everyday life is minimal. The PMO is another bubble within the Ottawa bubble. You need to make a conscious effort to peer outside it.

So while the Canadian news is tedious, maybe giving a little time to Mansbridge every now and again would be a good idea for both of us. Perhaps the broadcast media could meet us half-way, and try to focus less on superficiality and pap. And no, making Peter deliver the news standing doesn’t help.

On a side note, it was disturbing that Harper said he watches American news instead. That seems to indicate his issue isn’t necessarily with broadcast news, but with the news of Canada. Hardly an encouraging attitude for a Prime Minister and it doesn’t speak well to his perspective and view of the country.

However, it may explain his unending focus on crime policy. If I watched no news but that out of Buffalo, I’d be scared for my life as well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Thanks for all the broooadcasts, Don

Even as a fairly nerdy politico, at times I just tune-out some of the political coverage we have on television in Canada. The MPs talking over each other with their talking-points, the screeching party strategists putting out spin that defies all logic, it could become like nails on a chalkboard. The reduction of what should be a serious and weighty thing, the debate over the best governance of our country, to something akin to professional wresting.

But the rare beacon of sanity, the rare bastion of journalism, in that sea of mediocrity was always CBC's Politics, and its venerable host Don Newman. While he'd still have the mandatory panels, he'd keep them in line and he'd make sure that, as the tag line went, the spin stops here.

But it went beyond that. While many hosts would just let the hacks or flacks spout their often ridiculous talking-points unchallenged, Newman always remembered it was the role of the journalist not to give a platform for propaganda, but to challenge, to question, so as to inform Canadians. And that he did, a velvet-glove concealing a steal fist as he challenged countless guests on their spin. Liberal, Conservative, NDP, it didn't matter, Don would call you on it if you tried to sneak one by him. That's all too rare in journalism these days.

And it wasn't just about the day-to-day melodrama of Parliament Hill on Politics. He'd tackle substantive issues, bringing-in experts to discuss an upcoming NATO conference, or trade policy, bringing substance to the often overlooked but very important stories that can impact our lives in a much greater way than who's hot and who's not this week, or what Laureen Harper's cat got up to last week.

Don Newman was a journalist, and I think that's the highest compliment that can be paid him. Thanks for all the broadcasts Don, and so long for now. You'll be missed.

(Here's some highlights from Don's last show:)



(And here's one of my favourite Newman clips, where he relentlessly grills a hapless John Baird during last winter's coalition/prorogation drama. The spin really did stop there that day:)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael talking policy in Vancouver, and media narratives

I’ve written about this before, but once the media collectively decide on a narrative it’s very hard to knock them off it, and they’ll work very hard to ignore anything that counters it. And the collective media narrative on Michael Ignatieff, and we saw this during their reportage from the convention, is that he’s refusing to talk policy.

Never mind the fact no other opposition party is going into detail on their platforms either. And ignore the fact the Conservative policy seems to be ignore the seriousness of the downturn and sling mud at the Liberals. Ignore the fact it’s silly and counter-productive for any party to unveil detailed policy initiatives at this point, before an election. The narrative is Ignatieff isn’t talking policy, and the media are sticking to it.

That’s why, as I donned my blogger hat and sat on the media riser live-blogging Michael’s acceptance speech last weekend, I was pleasantly surprised when he got to the following passage in what was a pretty good speech:

To unite our people, to treat everyone fairly while this crisis lasts, we need a common national standard of eligibility for Employment Insurance.

But that’s just the beginning.

A strategy for recovery must be a strategy for learning.

Investing in Canadians to create the jobs of tomorrow.

Government cannot predict where the economic opportunities of the future will emerge.

But government can prepare our people to seize those opportunities when they arise.

We must create a society where learning is a way of life and learning is life-long.

A knowledge society—where what counts is what you know, not who you know.

A knowledge society – where learning creates hope and opportunity.

A knowledge society—where every child gets an equal start with world-class early learning and childcare.

Where women get equal pay for work of equal value.

Where every student who gets the grades gets to go—to the best higher education in the world.

That means every Aboriginal child gets a world-class, not a second-class education.

And no Canadian struggles with the burden of illiteracy.

And no disabled Canadian faces obstacles that prevent them from giving their best.

A Canada where every unemployed person can get the training they need.

A Canada where every new Canadian has the chance to work hard and achieve their goals, like my father did.

A Canada where our researchers and scientists know that their governing is supporting them, not undermining them.

A Canada where every creator, artist and filmmaker knows that their federal government will do everything to help them succeed on the international stage.

A Canada where hope and opportunity take root again in our farming communities, our small towns, our northern and remote regions.

The way out of this slump is hard, but the direction is clear.

In the union hall, in the lecture hall, in the concert hall, wherever one Canadian is teaching another to do something they never thought possible, far-sighted government must be there to provide the resources to help everyone realize their full potential.

As I listened to myself I had a number of thoughts. One, was that this was a very traditional Liberal, centre-left policy vision that, besides being one I fully agree with, will be sure to confound those that falsely persist on painting Ignatieff into some sort of neo-Con box.

But I also thought to myself Yes! Good! Here is some specific policy vision, the broad strokes of the areas Ignatieff wants to focus on in a coming election campaign, and where he would take a future Liberal government as Prime Minister.

This is about as far as you can go in outlining a policy vision pre-election. Education, research, First Nations, culture, agriculture. A knowledge economy. It’s not a policy platform, but it points clearly to his priorities and provides a framework that can be filled in over time, as we get into a campaign.

Surely, I thought, this will satisfy the media critics crying for policy vision from Ignatieff.

Oh, how silly I was. Before he was even finished speaking, some of the media observers had already posted their stories online lamenting the lack of policy vision. I really wondered if we were in the same room, listening to the same speech or not. They have their narrative, I suppose, and they’re sticking to it.

As a Liberal, however, I’m satisfied with the policy outlines that Ignatieff has put forward, in this speech and others. I thought the style and delivery was fine. He’s getting less professorial in his delivery, and he needs to keep working on that. A little more emotion would be good too.

Delivery aside though, I liked the substance. This was a speech to two audiences: Liberals and the Canadian public. Both audiences wanted similar things: his vision for Canada, his priorities for governing, and for leading Canada forward. And for Liberals, particularly those that may still have had questions about his leadership, and his Liberal credentials, they wanted to hear that he shares their Liberal values.

And I think this speech did that. As I said, this was a traditionally classic Liberal agenda he laid-out: economic growth with a social conscience. I think the biggest cheer from the audience was for his mention of early childhood learning and childcare. I’m one of you too, was the message I got.

It was also a speech that draws very clear distinctions between the visions of the Ignatieff Liberals and the Harper Conservatives, which was also an important thing to do here. People aren’t going to vote for us because we’re not Harper; we need to provide a clear and substantive alternative.

So, mission accomplished in my estimation. Despite what my media friends say.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why I'll miss Don Newman ...

... and why I suspect John Baird won't: Kick-ass journalism like this:



CBC will have a tough time finding a journalist as tough, fair, and willing to cut through the political BS as Don. He was all too rare a talent in the sea of mediocrity that is political news shows on both sides of the border.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephane Dion can be a Liberal elder statesman

Speaking with several Liberal friends from Quebec over the course of the convention, I've been hearing that it's very likely Stephane Dion will run for re-election in his St. Laurent-Cartierville riding. It's not official yet, but I'm told nominations are slated to be opened in Quebec shortly, and Dion is more likely than not to opt to stay around.

I was asked to keep this low-key until official, but since La Presse seems to have reported it, it would seem the cat is out of the bag.

I really hope Stephane does run again. The LPC needs him, his voice and his concious. We actually gained seats in Quebec in the last election, showing Stephane is more of an asset there than many would care to admit. He was one of our strongest cabinet ministers under both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. And, should the Liberals be lucky enough to form the next government, I know he would be a real asset in a Michael Ignatieff cabinet. Who better to lead he charge on cap and trade as Mi's environment minister then the man so respected in the domestic and global environmental community?

And let me just take this moment to observe that Jane Taber is completly full of crap on so many levels its a wonder she manages to walk upright. This section today in her gossip column or whatever the heck she calls it, really pisses me off, and shows just how out of touch with reality Jane is:

La Presse columnist Vincent Marissal is reporting today that former
Liberal leader Stéphane Dion will run again in the next election, creating
an interesting puzzle for new leader Michael Ignatieff. Whispers are that
there are some younger Liberals who had their eye on Mr. Dion's Montreal
riding; those quasi-safe Liberal ridings rarely open up. So there could be a
fight. As well, it's always awkward dealing with former leaders - what
job do you give them? How much influence should they have? And after Mr.
Dion's disastrous speech last night at the convention, there doesn't seem to
be a lot of goodwill around for him. Still, former Conservative prime
minister Joe Clark and former Alliance leader Stockwell Day have both
demonstrated how former leaders can make valuable contributions to a caucus
and federal cabinet.

First of all, Jane, I'm confident that Stephane's riding meets the minimums set out for incumbents to avoid a nomination race, so if Stephane wants to run again, there will be no nomination race. And besides, even if there were, Stephane's personal popularity in that riding is very high. And no one would be stupid enough to try to unseat him. Even Jean Lapierre was quickly warned off when he contemplated it as Paul Martin's Quebec organizer. And just how safe the seat would be without Stephane is debatable.

Second, I'm sure Michael will have no problem finding a key position for Stephane on the team. Michael is a smart man, who knows what an asset Dion is and the strengths he brings to the team. That's not an issue.

Third, your statement that there isn't much goodwill for Stephane in the LPC and that his speech was "disastrous" is complete horseshit, and evidence you should really stick to writing about Laureen Harper's cats. I don't know what you could see from your snarky perch on media row, but down on the floor, where the Liberals were, I saw a lot of emotion, respect and much goodwill for Stephane.

Yes, we Liberals may be disappointed with his term as leader. Ok, strike the may be. We are. But don't dare for a second mistake that for a lack of respect, and affection, for the man, and for what he has done for Canada and for the Liberal Party. While he didn't have the royal jelly to be leader, Stephane is an honourable, intelligent, decent man who has fought, sweat and bled for his party and his country all his political career. There was a lot of love for Stephane in that hall, and there's a lot of love and respect for Stephane in the Liberal Party.

On that, Jane Taber couldn't possibly be more wrong. Next convention I hope the Globe sends an actual journalist.

Anyway, rant done. I'm at YVR, having a few glasses of wine in the lounge (thanks to a pass from generous former blogger Bob the Red) before taking the red-eye back to YYZ. And once home, I plan to sleep much of Monday. After that, though, I'll be back with some convention big picture thoughts, and some commentary about the constitutional plenary, including OMOV and more.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mr Ignatieff goes to Washington: The media filter in action

If you think the media can't tweak a story, you're crazy. Take Michael Ignatieff's trip down to Washington, DC this week, where he's been invited to take part in a high-level foreign-policy think-tank and meet with several Obama administration heavy-hitters.

The following two stories both cover that same trip, but couldn't be more different in tone.

First, from the Toronto Star:

Ignatieff downplays ties to Washington
The Toronto Star
Friday, April 24, 2009
Page: A15
Section: News
Byline: Mitch Potter

It's great to have friends in high places.

But Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff admits his Washington connections won't give Canada special advantages in the event that he one day becomes prime minister.

"As for my contacts, let's not overdo this. Relationships between Canada and the United States are relationships between states," Ignatieff told Canadian journalists last night in a roundtable interview after a day of meetings in the American capital.

"I very emphatically do not want to oversell my personal relationships. They're great and I use them, as one would. But I'm under no illusions this gives me some special advantage.

And now from Canwest:

Ignatieff flaunts political clout with White House; Liberal leader vies for Obama's attention
Edmonton Journal
Friday, April 24, 2009
Page: A5
Section: News
Byline: Sheldon Alberts
Dateline: WASHINGTON
Source: Canwest News Service

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on Thursday sought to demonstrate his personal clout with members of Obama's inner circle, huddling privately in Washington with the U.S. president's senior economic adviser and offering advice alongside the White House's special envoy for Afghanistan at an invite-only conference of foreign policy elites.

Ignatieff's whirlwind two-day visit to the U.S. capital -- which included a dinner with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command -- came sharp on the heels of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's declaration this week that he considers himself a "conservative defender" of the liberal Obama on foreign policy.

The developments may signal the beginnings of a pre-election competition between Ignatieff and Harper to show Canadian voters their access to -- and influence with -- a U.S. president who scores higher approval ratings in Canada than either of them.

"I'm grateful for the access that I have, but I'm the leader of the Opposition, and I expect when I'm in government my access will improve even further," Ignatieff said following a 45-minute meeting at the White House with Lawrence Summers, director of Obama's National Economic Council.

Now, can you guess which news organization is currently lobbying hard for a government bailout?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bless you, David Akin

Hey, Joan Bryden! Go read David Akin. Right now.

The rest of you probably should too.

You're welcome.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers