Bob Tarantino delivers a well deserved reality slap to Paul Wells.
If I can be so bold as to identify a new iron-clad rule for Canadian political coverage: there is nothing the Liberals can do which is so substantively grievous that its importance cannot be outweighed by minor tactical dithering by the Conservatives.
Mr. Wells – as much as most of us like you, Tarantino has properly nailed you on this one.
Blogger or not, those in professional media have a responsibility to keep their eye on the ball when events of this magnitude occur. Deflecting readers from the core issue – the threat to our democracy, and possible criminality suggested by the content of the tapes – with petty criticisms of the opposition is not responsible journalism.
A signficant number of those in media visit this site. I really want to know – what is your explanation for what is happening? Editorial firewalls? Laziness? Denial? You can use the comments anonymously, or send me an email privately.
What irony there is in the disclosure of the identity of Deep Throat against this backdrop. Contrast the general level of professionalism and quality of commentary in the Canadian mainstream over the mounting scandals of this government, with the dogged pursuit of Richard Nixon by two rookie reporters at the Washington Post – and tell me why Canadians shouldn’t be utterly disgusted with you.
There has to be a logical explanation as to why so many of you are flushing your journalistic integrity down the toilet to provide cover for this government.
Mr. Wells – I enjoy reading you. In fact, you often make my day with your wit and often unique way to make quotable salient points.
I agree – the Gomery/AdScam has captured lots of press – many of the the editorial writers do capture facts and report in a balanced fashion.
Then , along come the headline writers: For example – there may be an extremely damaging allegation made within the story and the headline will read instead “Paul Martin denies…”
Knowing that the masses are primarily headline readers that is often where the bias exists.
Do you agree?
Paul,
You seem to be confusing quantity with quality. Consider the number of stories about Gomery where the subject/focus/headline, wasn’t on the significance of the Liberal impropriety, but on Harper, how he’s too “angry”, parroting of Liberal talking points, stating the Liberal defence while belittling what the Liberals are defending against. The list goes on and on.
As for those folks you mentioned who broke the story – that’s great, good for them. Where was the rest of the media? Why were they not all over this, digging into the facts, asking for answers. It took Shiela Frasure and a whole lot of opposition pressure for this to even come to the forefront.
The real hero for even getting a Gomery type inquiry was Gilles Duceppe.
26 times in the house he demanded an inquiry after Martin shut down the public accounts committee.
THEN, Martin called an election before Gomery. THEN we find out Gomery cannot name names or assign blame.
Where are the media headlines on this bait and switch scam.
And. PS: Martin said on National TV during his Infomercial that the first thing HE did as PM was to cancel the Sponsorship program.
WHERE are the headlines after Goodale revealed at Gomery that HE in fact cancelled the SP under Chretien.
Nop accountability – allowed to lie with impunity and the media turns a blind eye to all of this.
Allison’s post goes a long way toward explaining why I’ll go back to my day job now and leave you all to your endeavours.
(1) Duceppe couldn’t ask for a Gomery-type inquiry after Martin shut down the public accounts committee because Gomery was appointed on the same day the question was referred to the committee: Feb. 10, 2004, the day Fraser’s (not Frasure; sorry Jeff) report was made public. Duceppe did raise dozens of questions about sponsorship activities in 2001 and 2002. Almost every single time, he was asking about articles in the morning’s Globe or La Presse or the previous evening’s Radio-Canada national news.
(2) The first thing Martin did as PM was to cancel the sponsorship program. Well, I suppose he had dinner and breakfast first: the program was cancelled during a cabinet meeting the day after Martin became PM, so Dec. 13, 2003, if my memory about dates is accurate. Goodale testified what has been widely known, was reported in dozens of newspapers at the time (2002) and is, in fact, posted on the Public Works website: that he *froze* the program *before later reinstating it after substantial administrative reform*.
You could look it up.
So Allison sprays unadulterated bullshit in every direction, then demands that “the media” comfort her wildly inaccurate version of the facts. I’m going to finish my column now. Cheers.
I defer Paul to your handle on the absolute facts. I don’t ever mean to spread manure where the ground would not be fertile or where only unwanted weeds would grow.
I certainly don’t ever mean to mislead. However, might you admit that the public is being “somewhat” insulated from the whole scope of what our federal government has become?
And, that this insulation may be in part because of various powerful media?
We, also meaning me, only get our facts from the media for the most part. If I am misinformed then so perhaps are millions of other Canadians.
So if Allison can’t tell shit from shinola, it’s “the media’s” fault. Why, CTV was so eager to hide the truth about Goodale’s activities that it broadcast this story on the national news and maintains it, three years later, on its website ��how sneaky can you get?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1024857783742_20266983/
Dear Mr Wells,
Why cannot the media focus on the simple fact that, whatever Mr Grewal may have done, he is only an opposition MP with no institutional power? Although perhaps the transitory possibility of preferment and very temporary “power” to help save the government.
Those talking to him, and clearly promising–however coded–place for action, were representatives of the state (one a minister, one the PM’s headman) with authority to fulfil (barely implicit) offers with long-term substance. Equating the two sides is simply nonsense.
Mark
Ottawa
Agree Paul – I don’t have the benefit of all of the sources at my fingertips. I may be one of those “headline readers” in many cases.
I believed Paul martin on his infomercial that it was only he who shut down the Sponsorship program.
Then, after Goodale testified that it was in fact he and Chretien there was a perceived misconception.
Do I apoligize for A: being uninformed or B: being wrongly informed.
The reason I read your column is because I want to be C: honestly informed.
There just seems to be too little of that around these days.
Dear Mr Wells,
To put it at its simplest: which should be the greater concern:
a) a potentially corrupt opposition MP? or
b) a potentially corrupt government?
Discuss why the media, for the most part, fail to point out the difference.
Mark
Ottawa
For one tiny example of why so many of us on the right are increasingly frustrated with the not so subtle partisan slant in the Canadian media, this post from over a year ago should provide some insight;
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/000037.html
Also, in the matter of the Sponsorship freeze debate, why wasn’t this front page news in the wake of Ralph Goodale’s testimony a few days ago?
http://705blue.blogspot.com/2005/05/goodale-gave-groupaction-million.html
“Goodale Gave Groupaction Million Dollar Contract for Defence Ads After “Sponsorship Freeze”
“For well over a decade, Duranty’s influential reports from Moscow described a Soviet Union run by a tough, but dedicated, elite, who could, he conceded, be cruel, but only in the cause of improving the lives of the people. As the Times man liked to say, “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”
To Duranty, Stalin (“the greatest living statesman”) represented progress and the chance of a better future for the once benighted masses. In one typical passage he gushed that, “Stalin and his associates have carried with them the strongest and most intelligent elements of the Russian people, and have created a national unity and enthusiasm which the Tsarist Empire never knew. They have learnt by their own errors and pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, and the nation has followed them.” It was, he wrote, “a heroic chapter in the life of humanity.”
That this “heroic chapter” was to prove fatal for large numbers of that same humanity did not seem to trouble Duranty too much. “I’m a reporter,” he explained, “not a humanitarian.” In fact, he was neither, something that can be seen most clearly from his treatment of the Ukrainian famine of 1932-3. This man-made famine, a deliberate attempt to break the Ukrainian peasantry, is one of history’s most terrible episodes (In his Harvest of Sorrow Robert Conquest estimates the death toll in the Ukraine and neighboring regions at seven million). Walter Duranty of the New York Times, however, did what he could to cover it up.”
By Andrew Stuttaford- NRO.
More at:
http://www.ukar.org/putin/putin28.html
“The greatest liar of any journalist I have ever met.” – Malcolm Muggeridge describing Walter Duranty, Special Correspondent of the New York Times.
Here’s some perspective on reporting:
Why would there be any attention/scrutiny on the fact that the Conservatives/Harper are critical or otherwise outraged by the Liberals’ conduct.
If the CPC is taken to task in the media for aggressively responding to the worst incidence of corruption in Canadian political history, aren’t the media effectively saying that there is no scenario in which the opposition can hold the government to account?
The scrutiny should be on the ruling party at the best of times, let alone when they are awash in corruption.
The media’s role in a healthy democracy is to act as a factual and informational watchdog. Their job is to inform the electorate.
We don’t have a healthy democracy and we don’t have an impartial media willing to hold the government to account. The two are directly related.
One of the main weapons in the hands of the active section of the population is, of course, propaganda, from which one cannot escape wherever one may go. In the train one reads in large letters: �Let us reply to the furious arming of the capitalists by carrying out the Five-Years Plan in four years. Across the streets large red and white banners are stretched upon which are inscribed: �The capitalist of the West are preparing war on the Soviet Union,� or �Let us destroy illiteracy.� Sitting in any co-operative restaurant one sees on all sides pictures of Lenin, Stalin and Kalinin, and such appeals as: �On May 1st remember the oppressed workers of the capitalist countries.� In a factory, besides excellent posters on health and accidents, there are such notices as: �God and the drunkard are the enemies of the Five-Years Plan,� or �All, all all, come to a meeting on August 1 to hear a report of a comrade of the Third International who has come from Germany and other countries.� Outside the Tretyakovskaya Art Gallery in Moscow the following slogan strikes the visitor: �Art is a weapon of class warfare.� Upon the House of Soviets the following words are written upon a banner: �To Capitalism, the international revolutionary movement brings not peace but the sword.� Finally, upon the china in the Hotel Metropole, mainly frequented by foreigners, are the words, �Workers of the world, unite.�
Besides posters, there are other more effective propaganda methods. The theatre is an implement for the socialisation of the country. The film industry, of whose success the U.S.S.R. is justly proud, has as its aim the spreading of Communism. The museums, which are artistically arranged and admirably kept, all teach one lesson, the evil of Capitalism and the glories of the revolution. Even such a minor institution as a shooting range must have its political use; thus the targets are the Tsar, a priest, a kulak (a peasant owning more than three cows), a Chinaman, and a drunkard.
###########################
The above by a contemporary of Walter Duranty:
Gareth Jones, a Welshman; in the Soviet Union at the same time as the above.
Gareth Jones’s articles here:
http://www.rapp.org/url/?EVAU3UKD
I characterize the media as including a number of elements:
There is one group, which I loosely characterize as reporters, who will re-write press releases or transcribe some announcement. One can hardly blame this group for the purported failings of the MSM.
Another group, which I loosely characterize as commentators, typically have a regular feature column which is largely opinion-based analysis of various facts of the day. These individuals, among whom I include Mr. Coyne and Mr. Wells, generally provide thoughtful and insightful commentary, but by their nature commentators will typically lag “breaking news” by a day or more.
A third group, which I loosely characterize as journalists, who dig into a story to report the underlying facts and who avoid injecting personal opinions into their analysis. These in-depth activities can often take weeks or months of investigation before ink meets newsprint.
It’s a fourth group, which I loosely characterize as analysts, who try some days to be commentators and other days to be reporters, and with whom I am most disappointed. When it comes to asking the tough questions, some choose the oddest opportunity to become mere “reporters” and so seem to display a bias: they come across as being very selective on whom to attack. Few will challenge the spinmasters; few have a deep enough grasp of the details relevant to the issue at hand to approach their job with authority.
IMHO, the better analysts will become specialists and rise up to become commentators; others may be reassigned as mere reporters. But in that analytical proving ground one finds many flaws. It is in their seeming inconsistency that I find frustration.
[Disclaimer: The names I’ve ascribed to these groups aren’t formal, and others would be correct to suggest that they are inaccurate at best.]
What did Grewal do that was ‘corrupt’? He played hardball, and worldy media pundits normally applaud such moxy.The Liberals still tried to buy him off, and yet he is the object of a coordinated character assassination?
I can sympathize with some of what Mr. Wells is saying. There are good journalists with the requisite curiosity and critical thinking skills, and it’s unfair to tarnish them with generalizations.
But saying that, I don’t think it’s in dispute that the media are less eager to sink their teeth into a party that largely shares their values, than they would be if, say, it was Mr. Harper holding office.
Blogs like Kate’s reflect the increased recognition that there is no such thing as an objective media. This phenomenon is having a profound influence on the media south of the border, and it’s probably only a matter of time before it does here as well.
I realize there are people here who are trying vainly (and unsuccessfully) to kowtow to a certain Mr. Wells, and who seem to live in abject fear of offending his tender, yet massive ego-driven sensibilities. To each and every one of you, I apologize in advance for what I am about to say.
With respect to the spread of “unadulterated bullshit”, I submit that Mr. Wells is a past master at spreading same. Poor Allison was simply trying to solicit an earnest response to her very reasonable question. What did she get for her troubles? An earful of nasty and inappropriate Wellsian crapola.
What we need to remember is that Well is a bought-and-paid-for-member-in-good-standing of the hyper-cynical Ottawa media corps, and I would respectfully suggest that his pompous boast of having covered “30 new governments” automatically disqualifies him from objective comment. News flash: Wells is not capable of commenting fairly on the system because HE IS PART OF THE SYSTEM.
Politics is all a game to little Paulsy. Governments come, they go, who really cares what they stand for? There will be another on on the way soon. Who’s buying at the bar?
Cynical to the core, people like Wells happily disparage anyone with principle. The truth is, they simply don’t understand it.
Much too easy to make fun of all concerned, isn’t it?
I’ll close with one last thought. The only reason Wells and his cohort frequent blogs like this is that they desperately need to have the feedback. Never underestimate their desire to be liked/respected/loved/admired/INFLUENTIAL. They need to believe their opinions matter, and they are not so confident of them that they wish to operate in a vacuum.
People: they need us far more than we need them. Remember that, and don’t back down when challenged. Your opinion matters just as much or more than his.
What cohort? Who else frequents blogs like this, among my “MSM” “cohort”? If doing that makes me a loser, clear, I’m allllll alone. With you. Something I’m entirely willing to believe is possible. Kiss me, baby; it’ll be legal soon.
Meanwhile: Is it that “governments come, and governments go, and they’re all the same”? Or is it that I’m a bought-and-paid-for accessory to *this* government? Or did I just make your head explode by asking a logical question?
When you ask the logical question, Paul, I’ll be glad to answer it.
By the way, don’t play at being the reluctant virgin –it doesn’t suit you. You know as well as I that many of your colleagues and employers are recognizing (and fearing) the power of the blogosphere as a powerful, alternate communications medium.
The monopoly’s over, baby. Get used to it.
PS: don’t be too sure of the legality of our belated kiss, my friend.
There’s many a slip between the cup and the lip.
Mr. Wells, methinks you are living in a rose-colored world. You think Canadians are too stupid to think for themselves and must depend on the writings of jounalists such as yourself. The fact that you are trolling the blogs illustrates that your columns mean less and less. You and your colleagues are on the endangered species list. You’ve been usurped by far more intelligent, politically objective, ethical, and most importantly, unpaid citizens.
Come now, Old Mother. I’d hardly call anyone reading Small Dead Animals “objective.” And you seriously overstate the effects of Canada’s fledgling conservative blogging scene. When one of the Canadian conservative movement’s most popular bloggers can’t even put together a single post without glaring spelling and punctuation errors (yes, Mr. Staples, I’m looking at you), you know you’ve got a *long* way to go before you have a hope in hell of challenging the MSM.
As for the rest of you, let’s be honest: the CPC’s ability to spin and sell policy and everyday events in their favour is horrendous. Harper’s inner circle has utterly failed to address a problem that is costing us votes every day – we SUCK at EVERYTHING. The CPC is getting outspun, outthought, and outsmarted. Paul Wells calls them on it, and they deserve it. And if we, as conservatives, continue to refuse to acknowledge that the CPC is being run by amateurs, we’re not doing ourselves or the party any favours at all.
Continuing to blame the party, the electorate, and the media for problems that are of our own making will only ensure one thing: another decade in the wilderness. While I agree that there is media bias in certain corners (CBC, TorStar and G&M especially), it’s a fact of life. Suck it up. If we haven’t learnt how to deal with it now, we never will.
We’ve identified some problems here. Now who’s going to man up and think of some solutions?
Must be nice to be a journalist and have the last word eh Paul. Apparently, that your position is the subject of criticism, must mean that you are failing in getting your message out.
Your responses to these criticisms seems to indicate that you are an angry white man.
The fact that you dissemble and ignore some of the key points brought to your attention must mean you have a hidden agenda.
Hope you’re not recording any of this.
Apologies for lack of CP style in this post
Ok. just a real quick and it would seem to me blatantly stupid question. Why the hell would Gurmant Grewal knowingly tape himself, negotiating a deal with Liberal party members if it was not a sting? Also why the hell would he be fishing so damn hard, dangling the bait and wiggling it just so, in the hopes that one or more of his adversaries in the cat and mouse game would actually bite down on the sucker hard enough and long enough to set the hook?; if it was not a sting operation. Clearly it seems to my ears having just listened to the tapes my self that that is exactly what he was doing. In fact I would not be surprized to hear that Mr. Grewal had been coached somewhat by the RCMP about how to go about this. Regarding the possibility that Mr. Grewal had approached the Liberals, imagine A possibility with me for a moment. I am Mr Grewal and a bit ago I just heard about how one of my pals had been approached by an indiscrete member of the Liberals about crossing the floor for rewards. Inky Marks to jog your memories, I know that the frickin teflon slimy eels have effectively gotten away with it by spinning the media into a he said he said scenario; which the lazy ass boobs will graciously lap up off the liberal boot heel. So I am mad as hell about it, I know I have a mutual friend of a Liberal MP so I even call him to have a BBQ, tea or whatever, and in the ensueing conversation he gets an idea in his head that maybe I’m upset. This conversation of course would not be recorded because I’m not yet certain of the loyalties of my friend. I later learn just exactly where my “friend’s” loyalties lie and more particularly where he thinks my loyalties lie; ie pure power for power’s own sake. So I begin to record conversations with my friend and cautiously watch where it goes. The rest my friends is on the tapes.
Or is this just to implausible to be any where near reality.
Daryl who should have been a cop, considering all the stuff people tell me.
Useful Idiot
by Mark Y. Herring
Stalin’s apologist : Walter Duranty, the New York Times man in Moscow,
by S.J. Taylor, (New York : Oxford University Press, 1990)
Reporters have gained a reputation almost as opprobrious as that of lawyers. For irascibility and truth telling, reporters, like lawyers, rank high on the one and low on the other. Among the respective parties, however, reporters and lawyers mutually assure the adoration of their peers, what we might call MAA – Mutually Assured Adoration. Reporters, to hear them tell it, are kind, considerate, only concerned with the truth of an issue, and could not be bought off for all the money Midas could make.
Those of us living in the post-Woodward and Bernstein world find this attitudinizing laughable. Reporters are, however, by virtue of controlling the communication media, still able to pull a fast one on the public (Bill Clinton comes to mind, for example). Even with the public’s collective bad attitude against them, they keep repeating the same lies; and sure enough, someone other than a reporter begins to believe in them.
Such is the case with Walter Duranty, long held in high esteem as the consummate reporter – a reporter’s reporter, if you will. So it is with some amusement that, once in a while, we are allowed to see a liberal icon bite the dust with such crashing force and noise, that the subsequent deafening sound and pother leaves us with some feeling of exhilaration. This should not be misconstrued as so much schadenfreude; rather, just the warm, almost alpenglow of happiness that we were right all along.
Duranty was a chain-smoking, Scotch drinking vulgar sort of man who made no apologies for his admiration of Stalin. He was held in awe by other journalists, especially young female journalists. He did not fail to use the awe to his advantage, or rather their disadvantage. As Fascism rose in Europe, and Japanese jingoism emerged in the East, Duranty wrote glowing accounts of Stalin’s Five-Year Plan. Almost single-handedly did Duranty aid and abet one of the world’s most prolific mass murderers, knowing all the while what was going on, but refraining from saying precisely what he knew to be true. He had swallowed the ends-justifies-the-means-argument hook, line and sinker. Duranty loved to repeat, when Stalin’s atrocities were brought to light, “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.” Those “eggs” were the heads of men, women and children, and those “few” were merely tens of millions.
http://www.ukemonde.com/news/usefulidiots.html
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
MAA – Who me?
Useful idiot? Who me?
A reporter’s reporter? Who? Walter Duranty?
Schadenfreude? What in h is that? Who me?
Then there was the reporter who when he looked into his bathroom mirror every morning, said to himself, “One of you is a liar.”
Bloggers look into their terminal; the liars are challenged immediately; they retreat to their lairs, those liars. (lairs, liars; what a difference a diphthong makes)
The hegemony of the MSM is shattered; a shift has happened; we all can be citizen reporters.
On with the blogging.
The task before bloggers in Canada:
Destroy the hegemony of the Liberal regime.
Go; go! We do not need wells of ink to do this; nor do we need ink from wells.
Paul Wells, if you come into a blog with guns a-blazing, don’t be surprised if people shoot back.
I, for one, would be more interested in reading your stuff if you left the hyper ventilating and and tuquoque at home.
Otherwise, you just re-enforce their world view. But maybe you just wanted to do that.
I’ll give Wells (and Kinsella) credit for playing on my turf – unlike others like Spector and Zerbisias who take their shots from behind an editors skirts.
Re: lack of objectivity
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Lack of pretense about objectivity is a defining feature of the blogosphere. But what I would like to see is an overt declaration by editorial boards and columnists about their own.
I’d also challenge major media outlets to conduct internal polls of the reporters, editors, columnists on staff who identify themselves as Liberal, Conservative, NDP, “other” supporters, and publish the percentages represented.
Addendum – re: cohorts
There are a tremendous number of visits from government computers (federal and provincial) at SDA and a steady rate from media addresses. (thestar.com, cbc.ca) Of course, it’s not (usually) possible to identify the actual people doing the surfing unless they choose to identify themselves in other ways.
When I ask for feedback, it’s not a tongue in cheek request. I want to hear from you people, anonymously if you prefer.
In most industries, they call this customer service. That’s who we are, after all – the people you are selling your product to. So many of you forget that.
Only in the media are dissatisfied constomers treated with such dismissive arrogance and distain.
I have to say – Justin has it right – the CPC has to start playing this game better. Whatever they are doing isn’t working and it has to change.
Paul Wells was not wrong – and the CPC should be looking hard at why they aren’t changing attitudes in Ontario. Duceppe is gaining ground every day and the CPC are stagnant.
Don’t shoot the messenger – for once get the message and do something with it.
I agree MSM isn’t making it easy for the CPC – but I haven’t seen Harper and the gang doing a whole lot either.
All that being said, at this point it really doesn’t matter too much to me. I’m hoping Ralph get replaced with Ted Morton (as the Firewall etc. will be the moderate position in AB – as opposed to separatism) and then we will see some real change, and maybe then MSM will finally get the picture out here.
We’re not gonna take it …
Exactly, Kate.
No one here has said they were purely objective. Most of us try to be, reading whatever we can on both sides in an effort to find the “truth”. But we cannot avoid passing information through our own intellectual and emotional filters, and that is where we lose clinical objectivity.
That’s OK, though, as you say. As long as we are aware of any writer’s acknowledged bias we can put his or her comments in perspective. However it is laughable when reporters such as Mr. Wells attempt to declare that they are simply neutral observers and refuse to admit their obvious bias.
That is nothing more than an insult to our intelligence.
Paul Wells responds: “One assumes my critics, especially the ones who have a hard time spelling, won’t change their minds soon, and that’s fine.”
Ouuuhhh..check the sticky elitism dripping from that barb. You forgot t’ menshun us’ns bad spellurs is dumb, nukel-draggin’ rasists, homofobes and westurn hey ceed hickz. We’uns izn’t fit t’ share t’ same langwage with the feeloserfer-kingz o’ the saintlee 4th eztate 😉
Thank you Paul for confirming the ignoble hubris and clannish elitism that is quickly making the GTA MSM irrelevant to a whole generation of Canadian news watchers. We make a vast distinction between being properly informed as opposed to being preached to or chided for dissenting opinion.
And no, I don’t see any reason to change my opinion soon as you so succinctly demonstrate.
Allison, nice going.
Wells is a really great speller admiited , but he has lost the fight in him against corruption and weak lieberal thinking since his move from the National Post to the last page of Macleans.
So proper spelling is key here to remaining objective and the insulting use of profanity obviously bolsters that.
Good for him to at least defend, I wish that Liberal Party Advisor Mike Duffy would get a pair.
SHEILA:
“I agree MSM isn’t making it easy for the CPC – but I haven’t seen Harper and the gang doing a whole lot either.”
It is difficult if not impossible for any political party to get its message out with any clarity if the regional and national media outlets refuse to allow it or colour the remarks in a way they know will damage or undercut their cause. Conversely, it is very easy for a political party in bed with the media to have their positives sung from the rooftops and their negatives ignored or hidden from view.
I’m afraid there is not much any of us, particularly Harper and Co., can do about that.
WLYON:
“Thank you Paul for confirming the ignoble hubris and clannish elitism that is quickly making the GTA MSM irrelevant to a whole generation of Canadian news watchers. ”
Thanks for saving me the trouble of calling Mr. Wells on his arrogant claims of grammatical (and therefore intellectual) superiority.
The intrinsic value of the ideas expressed herein and on countless other blogs have little or nothing to do with punctuation. To suggest otherwise is merely a cheap (and nasty)attempt to avoid addressing the issues at hand.
Come play in the arena of ideas, Paul! We won’t bite, and it’s OK if you leave your grammar books at home.
clear:
“However it is laughable when reporters such as Mr. Wells attempt to declare that they are simply neutral observers and refuse to admit their obvious bias.
“That is nothing more than an insult to our intelligence.”
When have I claimed to be a neutral observer? I’ve been paid for my opinions, by a succession of employers, for 8 years. It’s *really funny* to claim your intelligence is being insulted by somebody who’s never said what you find so insulting. Oh, am I being elitist again? I can never tell.
capt. joe: I’m delighted when people fire back. But as for whose guns started a-blazin’ first, you might want to look at the title of the post that kicked off this comment thread for a refresher. Kate asked that I wake up. I obliged. I have no intention of seeking the last word; I’m quite aware that’s impossible on a comment board. It’s one of the form’s charms.
Mr. Wells:
” Any facts in my journalism got there by mistake and will be quickly eliminated as a matter of policy.”
I stand corrected on your editorial position. It is certainly possible to be paid for one’s opinion — I should know, as my clients have paid quite handsomely for mine for over 25 years now.
One’s opinion, in order to be relevant, is necessarily based on careful interpretation of the facts at hand. And that must be preceded, of course, by a diligent effort to uncover any and all facts pertinent to the issue.
The point I have been trying to make is that you, and most of your colleagues, have shown yourselves to be too deeply ensconced in the corrupt and surreal Ottawa nutocracy to rationally observe and provide meaningful comment. By becoming both monolithic and myopic, the media is now in danger of making itself irrelevant.
I suppose jaded insider jokes and clever wordplay can substitute for journalism in a pinch, and over time you might even convince yourself that you’re making a difference. What I’m telling you in no uncertain terms is that many Canadian citizens are tired of your cynicism and relativism. Quite frankly, we’re tired of rolling around in the muck with you. We expect and hope for something better — more pure, more principled and certainly less patronizing.
In the fullness of time, people and organizations will step up and provide that for us. Thankfully, Andrew Coyne (another “opinion giver” ) is already blazing a path in that direction. I have no doubt that more will follow.
Your choice is crystal clear, my friend: either start calling a spade a spade or find yourself unceremoniously demoted to a jazz aficionado and wannabe critic whose readers visit solely for the purpose of finding out about the grooviest Sonny Rollins CD.
Maybe that’s all you care about anyway. That’s fine, too. But if you just learned the difference between wise and wise-ass, you’d be capable of so much more.
Mr. Wells:
” Any facts in my journalism got there by mistake and will be quickly eliminated as a matter of policy.”
You are right, I apologize and I stand corrected on your stated editorial position. It is certainly possible to be paid for one’s opinion — I should know, as my clients have paid quite handsomely for mine for over 25 years now.
However, one’s opinion — in order to be relevant on any level — must necessarily be based on careful interpretation of the facts at hand. And that must be preceded, of course, by a diligent effort to uncover any and all facts pertinent to the issue.
The point I have been trying to make is that you, and most of your colleagues, have shown yourselves to be too deeply ensconced in the corrupt and surreal Ottawa nutocracy to rationally observe, uncover the facts, and provide meaningful comment. By becoming both monolithic and myopic, the media in Canada (and the US) is now in danger of making itself irrelevant.
I suppose jaded insider jokes and clever wordplay can substitute for journalism in a pinch, and over time you might even convince yourself that you’re making a difference. What I’m telling you in no uncertain terms is that many Canadian citizens are tired of the collective cynicism and relativism. Quite frankly, we’re tired of rolling around in the muck with you and your media buddies. I know this may be hard to belive, but we expect and truly hope for something better — more pure, more principled and certainly less patronizing.
In the fullness of time, people and organizations will step up and provide that for us. Thankfully, Andrew Coyne (another “opinion giver” ) is already blazing a path in that direction. I have no doubt that more will follow.
Meantime, your choice is crystal clear, my friend: either start calling a spade a spade or find yourself unceremoniously demoted to a well meaning jazz aficionado and part-time critic whose readers visit solely for the purpose of finding out about the grooviest Sonny Rollins CD.
Maybe that’s all you care about anyway. That’s fine, too. But if you and the mainstream media just learned the difference between wise and wise-ass, you’d be capable of so much more.
Apologies for the double post, Kate.
The first time I pressed “post” a response window appeared indicating a time delay was in place and instructing me to post again later. I did so, but perhaps the first one was already in the system…
Paul Wells,
I for one understand the subtext of your earlier message when you mentioned how your colleagues were getting fired for criticizing Paul Martin. You made the *choice* not to end up like them, and suppressing whatever integrity you might have, you decided to write your opinion columns in ways that favour the Martinites.
So, hey all, we should cut Mr. Wells et al some slack, afterall, they’re just behaving this way or they’ll lose their jobs. And Christie Blatchford said Grewal should make people feel like having a shower…..
Everything I have read here just confirms the statement I made at the top of this blog. It appears to me that Mr. Wells thinks truth is not as important as the money.
Free Medicare or FREEDOM (pick 1)
A man with a gun is a citizen
A man without a gun is a subject.
CANREV:
I guess it’s always important to know what side your bread’s buttered on…
Mind you, if I want pre-cooked, half-baked, or even warmed over versions of Liberal talking points I can go directly to their site. I don’t need to pay good money or waste precious time receiving the partially digested version spewed out in great lumps by our fine Canadian journalists and opinion leaders.
Kate, love your blog, and I really enjoyed this string of commentary. Paul, appreciate your participating, shows that this medium, while it has I agree some growing up to do, is in fact becoming an important source of “News” for many. As for Kates original premise, that we lack serious journalists in this country, and that the MSM is a paid political supporter of the Liberals, I believe that your (funny by the way) posting of the next 4 or 5 days headlines of the Globe aptly demonstrates that you largely agree with her.
Kate,
If they lose the Mantra that Canada is morally superior to the US what theme would the Canadian MSM then have to inform their commentary?
The Libranos MUST BE SUPERIOR to those US cowboys; or We’re not.
Has anyone read Lorne Gunter’s latest blog – quite apropos.
foods that increase sperm count increase sperm count http://fraerok.gopstop.ddns.co.kr/7/count_low_man_sperm_vitamin.html build count sperm improving sperm count http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/count_motility_sperm.html and …. sperm count procedure count in low man sperm http://fraerok.gopstop.ddns.co.kr/7/sperm_count_average.html low sperm count causes sperm count marijuana http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/improving_low_sperm_count.html count low remedy sperm sperm count test http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/vitamin_to_increase_sperm_count.html.Thanks.
count low man sperm vitamin count kit sperm http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/improve_sperm_count.html build count sperm marijuana low sperm count http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/count_herbal_low_remedy_sperm.html and …. check count sperm low sperm count http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/count_sperm_vitamin.html count higher sperm increase naturally sperm http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/how_to_increase_sperm.html count dew mountain sperm how to increase sperm motility http://fraerok.gopstop.ddns.co.kr/7/male_sperm_count.html.Thanks.
how to raise sperm count count male sperm http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/count_pregnancy_sperm.html count increase male sperm count low sign sperm http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/alcohol_sperm_count.html and …. sperm count marijuana what causes low sperm count http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/count_low_man_sperm_vitamin.html no sperm count low sperm count infertility http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/increasing_sperm_count.html count infertility low sperm what lower sperm count http://fraerok.gopstop.ddns.co.kr/7/count_sperm_vitamin.html.Thanks.
low sperm count pregnancy iui sperm count http://fraerok.gopstop.ddns.co.kr/7/improving_low_sperm_count.html count high sperm improving low sperm count http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/increase_sperm.html and …. low sperm count count increase pregnancy sperm http://vlad-pidor-i-gorlum-blya.dynam.ac/7/sperm_count_test.html boost count sperm increasing sperm count http://fraerok.gopstop.ddns.co.kr/7/improve_sperm_count.html yellow 5 sperm count iui low sperm count http://fraerok.gopstop.ddns.co.kr/7/count_improving_low_sperm.html.Thanks.