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

You can’t blame Kory for being Kory

It was fitting that it was on Twitter that news of Kory Teneycke’s resignation from Quebecor and Sun TV spread like wildfire Wednesday morning, and that the deletion/suspension of his Twitter account was the early-warning signal that something was amis. Say what you well about Kory, he certainly embraced social media with gusto, and it played no small part in his downfall.

His departure was fairly cryptic, except for the statement of the obvious: for various reasons, he had becoming a lightning-rod for criticism that was distracting from what the company was trying to accomplish. True enough, certainly.

However, I’m not going to blame Kory for being Kory. He is now what he was before: a fierce C/conservative partisan attack dog. Like many partisans in any camp, he is eager to run a strong offence and go hard after anyone that speaks or causes ill to his side. Quebecor Kory was the same as PMO Kory, and no one should have legitimately expected otherwise.

Really, while more details of the Avaaz petition and Kory's possible involvement may be still to come, I don’t place fault with Kory. If I question anyone’s judgement, it’s that of Pierre Karl Peladeau and Quebecor. Kory was a known-quantity when they hired him to lead their Sun TV venture. They had to know what they were getting. If he became a liability that had to be cut loose (and he had), it speaks as much, if not more, to their judgement than it does to his.

Perhaps they felt they would get a kinder, gentler Kory. Perhaps they felt his connections in government would outweigh the hard edge of his public relations style. In the end, clearly they gambled wrong. His abrasiveness did make him a lighting rod for criticism – some of it fair, much of it not. And while stirring the pot is useful to a point (certainly he earned them tons of free media), pass the point and it just becomes bad for business. And at the end of the day, this is about business.

And Kory’s departure will, I believe, be good for business. But don’t expect a change in ideology from the new venture – the rightward bent is a business decision that didn’t begin and end with Kory. And with a former Brian Mulroney confidante as his replacement in Luc Lavoie, certainly the network’s C/conservative pedigree isn’t in doubt. But Kory’s departure will be hailed as a victory by the left. It will deflate much of the energy and the anger, and the issue will fade from consciousness. Lavoie won’t be getting into Twitter wars with Margaret Atwood.

But he will be quietly and impressively lobbying in the corridors of power, ensuring Sun TV gets the license it needs, brings more talent on board (should be easier with the fires died down) and comes to the airwaves on schedule. Sun TV is coming to your televisions, and nothing will change that.

And perhaps, in the end, Sun TV will be judged by the quality of its on-air product and talent, and not by the abrasiveness of an over-eager executive. And that’s how it should be.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sun distorts Rae's position on Quebec arena funding

It wasn't particularly surprising, but I was relieved to learn that Sun Media distorted Bob Rae's position on the possibility of the federal government spending $175 million to help build a professional hockey arena in Quebec City with the goal of bringing the NHL's Nordiques back to the city.

The headline in the Sun chain yesterday, "Hoo-Rae for funding" certainly gave me pause. The article was reporting on a speech Rae gave to a fundraiser on Friday in Montreal, and the lede seemed to report his position quite unequivocally:

Bob Rae has told Liberal party members he backs federal funding for a new arena in Quebec City as long as it’s not the only initiative in the country.

If you read my last post, you'll know that I strongly disagree with that position. And I was surprised, and disappointed, in Bob's apparent position. My curiosity-meter was tweaked though when I went on to read the rest of the Sun story, and found no direct quotes that seemed to support that lede and headline.

The curiosity meter red-lined when I read CTV's story on that same fundraising speech which, surprise surprise, had a much different interpretation of Rae's comments:

Rae also said the Tories should be cautious in considering requests to devote millions of dollars in federal funding to a new hockey arena in Quebec City.

"Mr. Harper's got to understand that this is not just a one off thing that one can do for one city or one franchise. If you're going to have a policy, it's got to be a consistent policy right across the country," Rae said.

Now this position sounds more sensible. While I'd have preferred if he had added "and that's why we can't go funding pro-sports stadiums and arenas, not when we have a deficit and many other more important priorities" perhaps it was felt to be blindingly obvious. And he's absolutely right that you can't play favourites here. If you fund one, you need to fund them all. And how in the heck could we possibly afford that?

Still, the differing Sun and CTV reports raise the question, does Rae support funding the Quebec arena or not? If Sun has it right, why does CTV not mention that certaintly newsworthy fact at all?

Curious to clear this up, I sent Bob a message on Facebook and asked him, did you support funding the Quebec arena as the Sun reported, or urge caution as CTV reported? He replied quite quickly to clear things up:

I urged caution. I never spoke to Sun media. I said Harper needed to understand that this is not a "one off" decision. You can't just dole out money to a commercial arena in Quebec without understanding the implications for the rest of the country.

So it would seem the Sun completely distorted Rae's position, and he did not say let's fund all of them. He said you need to be cautious setting that kind of precedent.

Why torque his comments? Well, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the driving force behind bringing the Nordiques back to Quebec, the fellow who would be the biggest beneficiary of a taxpayer-funded Quebec City arena, also happens to own Sun Media, right? Surely they would have mentioned such a conflict in their coverage if it existed, right?

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