I tried to kill off Winston last spring, but it proved harder than I thought. I hope that the second time works. Geoff Meeker has prompted a discussion that (while at once depressing and interesting) gives me a good opportunity to downsize Orwellian News and lay off its entire staff.
This blog was born in frustration with the Telegram, so it's only fitting that it dies in frustration with the Telegram. I have already had my say about the relationship between newspapers and blogs, so there's nothing to be gained by making that argument again. And reading professional journalists pour gas on flame wars, and then haughtily slag bloggers when they object, is just too much to stomach when you're writing for free. As I wrote today in an email to another blogger, I have said most of the things I wanted to say, so it's time for Winston to take a walk in the snow (or a long walk on a short wharf, depending on your metaphorical inclination). I see that Peter Jackson has already pounced on Geoff's blog; he wasn't funny last summer, and he's still not funny, but that's what passes for wit in the newsroom, I suppose.
The point I made on Geoff Meeker's blog is the same one I'd like to end on: there is a reason why the blogs critical of the Williams regime are so much better than the pro-government commentary.
Showing posts with label Lame reporting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lame reporting. Show all posts
Monday, November 9, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Of Horses and Newspapers
From today's front-page news:
'He still hopes to make the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project a reality before leaving office. "I'm definitely going to hang around to see if I can get it done," said the premier. But Williams said he's not going to stick around forever "to beat a dead horse" if a deal cannot be sealed, nor will he sign a bad deal for the sake of getting one done while in office.'
Look at the front page of today's Telegram (you may need to re-focus your eyes to take in all of the photo), and tell me that's it not all about him. Try and stomach the tired references to his business life and his accomplishments and, if you can, read and reflect on the last line of the article. Makes you wonder just who is beating a dead horse.
'He still hopes to make the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project a reality before leaving office. "I'm definitely going to hang around to see if I can get it done," said the premier. But Williams said he's not going to stick around forever "to beat a dead horse" if a deal cannot be sealed, nor will he sign a bad deal for the sake of getting one done while in office.'
Look at the front page of today's Telegram (you may need to re-focus your eyes to take in all of the photo), and tell me that's it not all about him. Try and stomach the tired references to his business life and his accomplishments and, if you can, read and reflect on the last line of the article. Makes you wonder just who is beating a dead horse.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Polled
VODW reports how NL got polled:
Williams Government Still Riding High
March 11, 2009
The Presidente of Corporate Research Associates says the level of go forward enjoyed by Williams is a very, very determined testament to the leadership of the polls. Don Mills says Danny Williams' personal satisfaction is at levels of over 80 per cent and is the envy of any leader of the free world. Mills says Williams draws support from all polls in the province, regardless of the party voters may think in their worst dreams about ever voting for if they know what's good for them. Dr. Alex Marland of Memorial's Pollyanna Department says the strength in support of Williams also reflects the weakness of the polling, since Williams is still under 100% and so someone must have lied to CRA. Marland says any headway made by the Liberals or the NDP is tempered by this province's history of one party polls.
For the full story, see http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=34772
Technology Update
There are unconfirmed reports that DW plans to use a cutting-edge American technology to build The Dunnel, the underground link between Labrador and Newfoundland, which will rival its Ango-French counterpart.
Here is a news link to a story on this new technology, which will propel DW's stimulus plan far ahead of anything being done in old-economy Canada:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/experts_agree_giant_razor_clawed?utm_source=a-section
Williams Government Still Riding High
March 11, 2009
The Presidente of Corporate Research Associates says the level of go forward enjoyed by Williams is a very, very determined testament to the leadership of the polls. Don Mills says Danny Williams' personal satisfaction is at levels of over 80 per cent and is the envy of any leader of the free world. Mills says Williams draws support from all polls in the province, regardless of the party voters may think in their worst dreams about ever voting for if they know what's good for them. Dr. Alex Marland of Memorial's Pollyanna Department says the strength in support of Williams also reflects the weakness of the polling, since Williams is still under 100% and so someone must have lied to CRA. Marland says any headway made by the Liberals or the NDP is tempered by this province's history of one party polls.
For the full story, see http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=34772
Technology Update
There are unconfirmed reports that DW plans to use a cutting-edge American technology to build The Dunnel, the underground link between Labrador and Newfoundland, which will rival its Ango-French counterpart.
Here is a news link to a story on this new technology, which will propel DW's stimulus plan far ahead of anything being done in old-economy Canada:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/experts_agree_giant_razor_clawed?utm_source=a-section
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Tely Trouble IV
I don't see much difference between Wangersky's logic and the VOCM callers who, before daring to voice anything beyond the party line, always preface their comments with an obligatory genuflection towards DW.
Wangersky's assumption about the causal link between personal gain and corruption is not his only faulty premise. He seems to assume that DW is endowed with special, super abilities -- hence the vapid Hockey Phenom metaphor -- ergo, DW should have been able to use those amazing abilities to break with the errors of his inferior, corruption-loving predecessors. Just because DW was a wealthy lawyer/businessman does not mean that he was on the verge of being a successful premier in 2003.
It's like assuming that a wealthy plumber would be a great psychiatrist. Governing in a democracy is, in important respects, radically different from ruling a law office. And those differences may very well lie at the heart of the "disappointment" that seems to perplex Wangersky.
It's a sign of how far down the rabbit hole we've gone that poor old Lord Acton has been turned on his head. In this dystopian world, the maxim seems to be that power corrupts but absolute power does not.
And, for the record, none of DW's less-wealthy, more poll-challenged predecessors got rich from corruption during their premiership. Moores and Tobin may be the exceptions, but their wealth came from contacts after they left office.
Wangersky's assumption about the causal link between personal gain and corruption is not his only faulty premise. He seems to assume that DW is endowed with special, super abilities -- hence the vapid Hockey Phenom metaphor -- ergo, DW should have been able to use those amazing abilities to break with the errors of his inferior, corruption-loving predecessors. Just because DW was a wealthy lawyer/businessman does not mean that he was on the verge of being a successful premier in 2003.
It's like assuming that a wealthy plumber would be a great psychiatrist. Governing in a democracy is, in important respects, radically different from ruling a law office. And those differences may very well lie at the heart of the "disappointment" that seems to perplex Wangersky.
It's a sign of how far down the rabbit hole we've gone that poor old Lord Acton has been turned on his head. In this dystopian world, the maxim seems to be that power corrupts but absolute power does not.
And, for the record, none of DW's less-wealthy, more poll-challenged predecessors got rich from corruption during their premiership. Moores and Tobin may be the exceptions, but their wealth came from contacts after they left office.
Tely Trouble II
Well, here's the start of the column, in case you missed it: "There's nothing quite as discouraging as watching someone squander an opportunity. You know the feeling: watching someone have all the tools, and decide to waste the chance.The hockey phenom who could take his skills all the way to the NHL, but who never grasps the concept that even the very, very good have to work very, very hard to be at the top of their game.The kid who has all the skills needed to make his way through grad school, but focuses on recreational drugs instead.The politician who has enough credibility to clean up the shop, but decides to let his minions dive face-first into the porkbarrel instead.And that's why, to me, Danny Williams has been something of a disappointment."
Why a disappointment? The answer:"Unlike so many former politicians in this province, he has nothing to gain or fear from his party. He is the main driving force of their popularity - leaving aside the lame presence of an opposition clearly unequipped for power - and the Tories could no more oust Williams than they could single-handedly bring back the cod fishery.He's wildly fiscally independent, and will never need a sinecure to keep the financial wolf from the door.In other words, he will never need to call on favours, so he should be able to break the chain of governments filling seats with friends, family and acquaintances."
What is Wangersky arguing here, if not that the fact that DW's wealth is a principal reason why he is a veritable hockey phenom who had an amazing opportunity because he was wealthier than previous premiers? Yes, Wangersky then goes on to explain his "disappointment," but I reject the premise on which he bases this disappointment. Most former premiers rode a wave of popularity into office and had little to fear from their caucus or the electorate, at least in their first term.
Wangersky's thesis is that DW is special and somehow less inherently prone to corruption than his pedecessors because he's rich, popular, and has a weak cabinet. You can believe this if you want to, but I think it's based on faulty reasoning. The fact that DW has "nothing to gain or fear from his party" does not, in itself, mean that he is less prone to be corrupt. One could argue that the lack of an opposing power base in the PC Party actually mitigates the checks against corruption.
DW is no more of a "phenom" than Peckford or Tobin were in their prime. Wangersky qualifies his argument by saying that DW has been merely "something of a disappointment," so perhaps he's holding out hope that the true "hockey phenom" will somehow show his inner virtue after all. Where is the evidence that DW has somehow tried "to clean up the system," beyond blasting away at the Liberals when he was in opposition?And, as for the conclusion to the column, in case you also misread this part, too:"Premier Williams is powerful enough not to have to worry about that - powerful enough to say that the system ends here.Instead, the chain of patronage stuffing goes on - and if anything, it's gotten worse.It's an opportunity lost."
Interesting use of the passive voice, as if corruption is something that just happens and that not stopping it is a lost opportunity. If DW is so uniquely powerful, wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that he is either actively or passively engaged in patronage, especially since he's now into his second term? Why is it that absolute power, in this instance, is supposed to act as a check against corruption? Is this another instance of NL's exceptionalism?
Why a disappointment? The answer:"Unlike so many former politicians in this province, he has nothing to gain or fear from his party. He is the main driving force of their popularity - leaving aside the lame presence of an opposition clearly unequipped for power - and the Tories could no more oust Williams than they could single-handedly bring back the cod fishery.He's wildly fiscally independent, and will never need a sinecure to keep the financial wolf from the door.In other words, he will never need to call on favours, so he should be able to break the chain of governments filling seats with friends, family and acquaintances."
What is Wangersky arguing here, if not that the fact that DW's wealth is a principal reason why he is a veritable hockey phenom who had an amazing opportunity because he was wealthier than previous premiers? Yes, Wangersky then goes on to explain his "disappointment," but I reject the premise on which he bases this disappointment. Most former premiers rode a wave of popularity into office and had little to fear from their caucus or the electorate, at least in their first term.
Wangersky's thesis is that DW is special and somehow less inherently prone to corruption than his pedecessors because he's rich, popular, and has a weak cabinet. You can believe this if you want to, but I think it's based on faulty reasoning. The fact that DW has "nothing to gain or fear from his party" does not, in itself, mean that he is less prone to be corrupt. One could argue that the lack of an opposing power base in the PC Party actually mitigates the checks against corruption.
DW is no more of a "phenom" than Peckford or Tobin were in their prime. Wangersky qualifies his argument by saying that DW has been merely "something of a disappointment," so perhaps he's holding out hope that the true "hockey phenom" will somehow show his inner virtue after all. Where is the evidence that DW has somehow tried "to clean up the system," beyond blasting away at the Liberals when he was in opposition?And, as for the conclusion to the column, in case you also misread this part, too:"Premier Williams is powerful enough not to have to worry about that - powerful enough to say that the system ends here.Instead, the chain of patronage stuffing goes on - and if anything, it's gotten worse.It's an opportunity lost."
Interesting use of the passive voice, as if corruption is something that just happens and that not stopping it is a lost opportunity. If DW is so uniquely powerful, wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that he is either actively or passively engaged in patronage, especially since he's now into his second term? Why is it that absolute power, in this instance, is supposed to act as a check against corruption? Is this another instance of NL's exceptionalism?
Tely Trouble I
As for the root cause of the Danvirus, don't look to the Telegram for answers. Wangersky's column in today's paper is a depressing statement of how the media have bought the Dangovt brand every bit as much as the corrupt bagmen whom they blame for everything.:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=215406&sc=86
By arguing that DW's wealth makes him immune from corruption, Wangersky shows an almost comic lack of analytical insight or knowledge of how political power actually operates. Whether DW is personally wealthy does not, for a second, mean that he is less liable to engage in corruption than a premier with a smaller bank account. Numerous academic studies, which can be read in popular books by Malcolm Gladwell and others, shows precisely the opposite: when given the opportunity, wealthy people will steal and cheat just as much (and, in some studies, even more) than poorer people. The reasons are unclear -- some scholars specular that it's part of a mentality of entitlement (and there is no lack of stories from corporate America to illustrate this) -- but the underlying cause is beside the point.
The point is that Wangersky, et al., need to rid themselves of the false notion that DW is somehow special because he is rich, that he is somehow less inclined to be corrupt because he doesn't need the money. One could, in fact, argue directly the oppposite: DW's wealth and sense of privilege make him less sensitive to democratic niceties, such as freedom of information legislation or a functioning legislative assembly. And, finally, someone tell Wagernsky that corruption in politics is as much about enriching your friends as about getting rich yourself. Wealth is, in the end, all about status, and there is no better way to enhance your status than taking care of your buddies.
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=215406&sc=86
By arguing that DW's wealth makes him immune from corruption, Wangersky shows an almost comic lack of analytical insight or knowledge of how political power actually operates. Whether DW is personally wealthy does not, for a second, mean that he is less liable to engage in corruption than a premier with a smaller bank account. Numerous academic studies, which can be read in popular books by Malcolm Gladwell and others, shows precisely the opposite: when given the opportunity, wealthy people will steal and cheat just as much (and, in some studies, even more) than poorer people. The reasons are unclear -- some scholars specular that it's part of a mentality of entitlement (and there is no lack of stories from corporate America to illustrate this) -- but the underlying cause is beside the point.
The point is that Wangersky, et al., need to rid themselves of the false notion that DW is somehow special because he is rich, that he is somehow less inclined to be corrupt because he doesn't need the money. One could, in fact, argue directly the oppposite: DW's wealth and sense of privilege make him less sensitive to democratic niceties, such as freedom of information legislation or a functioning legislative assembly. And, finally, someone tell Wagernsky that corruption in politics is as much about enriching your friends as about getting rich yourself. Wealth is, in the end, all about status, and there is no better way to enhance your status than taking care of your buddies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
