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 Media Coverage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Coverage. 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, June 18, 2009
Picture worth a thousand words?
I missed it the first time. Perhaps you caught it but, if not, take another look at the front-page photo from yesterday's Telegram: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=261552&sc=79
Look at the background. Is that a giant NO behind the shot of Williams?
Surely this was just a coincidence?
Perhaps, but the Telegram's photographers do have a penchant for interesting angles when they shoot the Premier: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/01/halo-effect.html
Look at the background. Is that a giant NO behind the shot of Williams?
Surely this was just a coincidence?
Perhaps, but the Telegram's photographers do have a penchant for interesting angles when they shoot the Premier: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/01/halo-effect.html
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Tide of Public Discourse
If there is a dominant trend at the Telegram these days (aside from the proliferation of emotive, human-interest stories on the front page), it's the reaction against criticism of the Williams regime.
Like Russell Wangersky, Peter Jackson wants to play "devil's advocate" and chide those who blow problems "out of proportion."
Jackson starts with an overstatement: "Here's a thought. Is it possible Ross Wiseman is not the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history? The idea goes against the overwhelming tide of public discourse lately."
Exaggerating the opposite position (i.e., setting up the proverbial straw man) draws on one of the most common logical fallacies.
In Jackson's case, he caricatures the debate over Wiseman's tenure by opening with two extreme assertions that misrepresent the public debate, giving the false impression that,
A) People critical of Wiseman believe that he is "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history."
B) Belief in A is part of an "overwhelming tide of public disourse lately."
With his straw man neatly set up, Jackson chides the reader to "give the man his due," since Wiseman is not causing the problems at Health, which is not really in a state of crisis anyways but rather "still chugging along, wheels intact." "Cancer tests notwithstanding," Jackson claims, "most of the problems in health care boil down to a perpetual lack of funds."
It's hard to know where to start. First, if the extensive reporting by the CBC has demonstrated anything, it's that the problems are not all due to a lack of funds. Ineffective management -- including poor communication and inept leadership -- has led to poor morale among physicians. If anything, the media's focus on the Cameron Inquiry has obscured the larger problems beyond oncology. The recent exodus of specialists in a number of critical areas is, pace Jackson, evidence of systemic crisis in the system. Ask the NLMA, and they will tell you that it's not all about money.
Second, the only person I know who is publicly stating that Wiseman is the "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history" is Jackson. In an earlier post, I called Wiseman the "most incompetent member of cabinet," and other blogs have made similar claims. I suspect that Wiseman is trying his best, and chances are that he's a nice enough fellow who is out of his depth; but that's not good enough for the Health portfolio. I'm not sure what hospital Jackson has been visiting lately, but anyone who has a loved one needing heart surgery can tell you just how bad things are.
Third, just where is this "overwhelming tide of public discourse"? Where is the avalanche of public criticism of the Williams government? Where are the marchers and the protesters? Where are the devastating debates in the House of Assembly? Where is the large Official Opposition waiting to take power? Where are the newspaper columnists rallying public opinion against the provincial government? Where are even the low poll numbers?
Most of the sustained criticism of Williams has been restricted to a handful of blogs and the online comments sections of the CBC. Hardly an overwhelming tide. The latest CRAPoll showed that Williams still enjoys strong popular support. The House of Assembly, which sits as infrequently as possible, is now closed.
If Jackson wants to be an apologist for Danny Williams and Ross Wiseman, so be it. But he should be honest about his agenda and not hide behind some phamtom tide of public discourse.
When journalists believe that Danny Williams, of all people, needs protection from public criticism, you know that we're living through strange days indeed. Joey Smallwood faced Ray Guy. Brian Peckford faced the Sunday Express. Danny Williams faces...well, I leave that for you to determine. For those of you who like to blame everything on the internet, check this out in today's Slate.
And for those of you who, like Jackson, believe that the problems at Eastern Health are, "the price we pay for universal health care," keep in mind that the U.S. pays far more per capita on health care than we do, yet tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and the U.S. has a lower life expectancy rate than Canada. If money were the only probem, then the US would have the world's best health care system.
Definitely Not Ray Guy Update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=261187&sc=86
Like Russell Wangersky, Peter Jackson wants to play "devil's advocate" and chide those who blow problems "out of proportion."
Jackson starts with an overstatement: "Here's a thought. Is it possible Ross Wiseman is not the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history? The idea goes against the overwhelming tide of public discourse lately."
Exaggerating the opposite position (i.e., setting up the proverbial straw man) draws on one of the most common logical fallacies.
In Jackson's case, he caricatures the debate over Wiseman's tenure by opening with two extreme assertions that misrepresent the public debate, giving the false impression that,
A) People critical of Wiseman believe that he is "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history."
B) Belief in A is part of an "overwhelming tide of public disourse lately."
With his straw man neatly set up, Jackson chides the reader to "give the man his due," since Wiseman is not causing the problems at Health, which is not really in a state of crisis anyways but rather "still chugging along, wheels intact." "Cancer tests notwithstanding," Jackson claims, "most of the problems in health care boil down to a perpetual lack of funds."
It's hard to know where to start. First, if the extensive reporting by the CBC has demonstrated anything, it's that the problems are not all due to a lack of funds. Ineffective management -- including poor communication and inept leadership -- has led to poor morale among physicians. If anything, the media's focus on the Cameron Inquiry has obscured the larger problems beyond oncology. The recent exodus of specialists in a number of critical areas is, pace Jackson, evidence of systemic crisis in the system. Ask the NLMA, and they will tell you that it's not all about money.
Second, the only person I know who is publicly stating that Wiseman is the "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history" is Jackson. In an earlier post, I called Wiseman the "most incompetent member of cabinet," and other blogs have made similar claims. I suspect that Wiseman is trying his best, and chances are that he's a nice enough fellow who is out of his depth; but that's not good enough for the Health portfolio. I'm not sure what hospital Jackson has been visiting lately, but anyone who has a loved one needing heart surgery can tell you just how bad things are.
Third, just where is this "overwhelming tide of public discourse"? Where is the avalanche of public criticism of the Williams government? Where are the marchers and the protesters? Where are the devastating debates in the House of Assembly? Where is the large Official Opposition waiting to take power? Where are the newspaper columnists rallying public opinion against the provincial government? Where are even the low poll numbers?
Most of the sustained criticism of Williams has been restricted to a handful of blogs and the online comments sections of the CBC. Hardly an overwhelming tide. The latest CRAPoll showed that Williams still enjoys strong popular support. The House of Assembly, which sits as infrequently as possible, is now closed.
If Jackson wants to be an apologist for Danny Williams and Ross Wiseman, so be it. But he should be honest about his agenda and not hide behind some phamtom tide of public discourse.
When journalists believe that Danny Williams, of all people, needs protection from public criticism, you know that we're living through strange days indeed. Joey Smallwood faced Ray Guy. Brian Peckford faced the Sunday Express. Danny Williams faces...well, I leave that for you to determine. For those of you who like to blame everything on the internet, check this out in today's Slate.
And for those of you who, like Jackson, believe that the problems at Eastern Health are, "the price we pay for universal health care," keep in mind that the U.S. pays far more per capita on health care than we do, yet tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and the U.S. has a lower life expectancy rate than Canada. If money were the only probem, then the US would have the world's best health care system.
Definitely Not Ray Guy Update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=261187&sc=86
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Trouble with "Balanced" Journalism, II
Russell Wangersky is at it again this morning, offering another excuse for Danny Williams.
After discussing his own penchant for jokes and then moving to the Raitt scandal, Wangersky raises the "public vs. private" binary and says this about Williams:
"Premier Danny Williams recently said in public that people at Eastern Health "should be shot" for putting out a press release on cancer testing errors late on a Friday afternoon, and without making anyone available to comment on the information in the news release.
Williams used a pretty common colloquial expression - but it wasn't so much the language he used, as it was where he decided to use it.
And he's worn it ever since - even though it's something plenty of other people have said, and that plenty of other people will say again."
Don't forget, it's hard to have a perfect public face." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=260535&sc=86
As I said at the time, the problems with Williams' hyperbolic language is not just its offensiveness but rather the fact that he let himself off the hook: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/politics-of-hyperbole.html
Far from having "worn it ever since," Williams received fairly light criticism, with the bulk of negative commentary restricted to bloggers.
I wish Wangersky would stop trying to justify Williams' bullying, but he seems determined to impose a balanced interpretation on imbalanced actions. There are, of course, always two sides to a story -- the proverbial "he said, she said" -- but that does not mean that both sides are equally correct or equally justifiable. Trying to find a balanced explanation for why Williams said health care officials should be shot only serves to justify his verbal bullying and public scapegoating of civil servants.
The problem is not, as Wangersky would have us believe, a question of where Williams made his remarks. This incident cannot be written off as an accident of geography.
It was the deadly serious way he uttered the threat: this was not meant to be funny and no one laughed.
It was the deadly serious subject -- cancer testing -- and the highly emotional environment in which he spoke publicly before the cameras.
It was the important issue of responsibility, and the effort to deny that the provincial government should shoulder any blame. As I noted at the time, Williams insisted on calling Eastern Health "them," while he freely uses "us" for other analagous agencies: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/political-teflon.html
It cannot be written off as a common local colloquialism, either. The phrase "someone should be shot" is not as common as Williams' defenders like to pretend. It cannot be excused as a facet of some unique local dialect, used frequently in the East End. I spent most of my life in St. John's, and I cannot think of a single time (other than out hunting with my father), when I heard someone say that something should be shot. The phrase is no more common -- and is no more acceptable -- than on the Mainland.
It cannot be excused as a simple slip-up, something that we should overlook because no one can be expected to be perfect in public. If this was simple mix-up -- if Williams' misspoke, as it were -- then all he needed to do was say that he misspoke. A simple explanation that he misspoke in the heat of the moment would mitigate the seriousness of the incident. Politicians slip up verbally all the time and apologize all the time when they do. We don't expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to own up to their mistakes.
When weighing the type of neat public/private formula that Wangersky lays out, we need to keep a couple of things in mind.
First, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the target and think about how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of such a verbal threat.
Second, we should think about the effects: what did the verbal shooting incident accomplish? It focused attention towards Williams and his anger and away from the actual chain of responsibility.
It was only after tenacious investigative reporting by CBC that the truth began to come out, months after Williams insisted that Eastern Health alone was entirely to blame: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/02/eastern-health-memos-602.html
In the meantime, the problems with cancer testing continue: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/11/missed-cancer-tests-611.html
Finally, we need to address the question of identity. Wangersky makes it seem that it's just a question of public versus private, not one of who is doing the talking. This may hold water when we're talking about private citizens, but it does not apply when we're dealing with elected officials, particularly the premier when he is speaking as leader of the provincial government.
No one expects perfection. We expect and deserve accountability.
After discussing his own penchant for jokes and then moving to the Raitt scandal, Wangersky raises the "public vs. private" binary and says this about Williams:
"Premier Danny Williams recently said in public that people at Eastern Health "should be shot" for putting out a press release on cancer testing errors late on a Friday afternoon, and without making anyone available to comment on the information in the news release.
Williams used a pretty common colloquial expression - but it wasn't so much the language he used, as it was where he decided to use it.
And he's worn it ever since - even though it's something plenty of other people have said, and that plenty of other people will say again."
Don't forget, it's hard to have a perfect public face." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=260535&sc=86
As I said at the time, the problems with Williams' hyperbolic language is not just its offensiveness but rather the fact that he let himself off the hook: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/politics-of-hyperbole.html
Far from having "worn it ever since," Williams received fairly light criticism, with the bulk of negative commentary restricted to bloggers.
I wish Wangersky would stop trying to justify Williams' bullying, but he seems determined to impose a balanced interpretation on imbalanced actions. There are, of course, always two sides to a story -- the proverbial "he said, she said" -- but that does not mean that both sides are equally correct or equally justifiable. Trying to find a balanced explanation for why Williams said health care officials should be shot only serves to justify his verbal bullying and public scapegoating of civil servants.
The problem is not, as Wangersky would have us believe, a question of where Williams made his remarks. This incident cannot be written off as an accident of geography.
It was the deadly serious way he uttered the threat: this was not meant to be funny and no one laughed.
It was the deadly serious subject -- cancer testing -- and the highly emotional environment in which he spoke publicly before the cameras.
It was the important issue of responsibility, and the effort to deny that the provincial government should shoulder any blame. As I noted at the time, Williams insisted on calling Eastern Health "them," while he freely uses "us" for other analagous agencies: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/political-teflon.html
It cannot be written off as a common local colloquialism, either. The phrase "someone should be shot" is not as common as Williams' defenders like to pretend. It cannot be excused as a facet of some unique local dialect, used frequently in the East End. I spent most of my life in St. John's, and I cannot think of a single time (other than out hunting with my father), when I heard someone say that something should be shot. The phrase is no more common -- and is no more acceptable -- than on the Mainland.
It cannot be excused as a simple slip-up, something that we should overlook because no one can be expected to be perfect in public. If this was simple mix-up -- if Williams' misspoke, as it were -- then all he needed to do was say that he misspoke. A simple explanation that he misspoke in the heat of the moment would mitigate the seriousness of the incident. Politicians slip up verbally all the time and apologize all the time when they do. We don't expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to own up to their mistakes.
When weighing the type of neat public/private formula that Wangersky lays out, we need to keep a couple of things in mind.
First, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the target and think about how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of such a verbal threat.
Second, we should think about the effects: what did the verbal shooting incident accomplish? It focused attention towards Williams and his anger and away from the actual chain of responsibility.
It was only after tenacious investigative reporting by CBC that the truth began to come out, months after Williams insisted that Eastern Health alone was entirely to blame: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/02/eastern-health-memos-602.html
In the meantime, the problems with cancer testing continue: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/11/missed-cancer-tests-611.html
Finally, we need to address the question of identity. Wangersky makes it seem that it's just a question of public versus private, not one of who is doing the talking. This may hold water when we're talking about private citizens, but it does not apply when we're dealing with elected officials, particularly the premier when he is speaking as leader of the provincial government.
No one expects perfection. We expect and deserve accountability.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Issue of Anonymity
Here is the link to a guest commentary I wrote for Geoff Meeker's blog:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=259473&sc=88
I have never met Geoff in person, but I respect the way he has tried to foster public debate. One issue that I forgot to raise in my commentary is my response to journalists' complaints about name-calling and personal slurs. When we're weighing this problem, it's important to keep in mind that many other professionals also have to cope with unfair criticism and nasty personal attacks from anonymous sources on the internet. As any doctor, teacher, or professor can attest, the proliferation of popular web sites such as ratemyteacher, ratemymd, and ratemyprofessor has affected their personal and professional lives. Some of these forums even encourage the public to comment on the sexual attractiveness of the targetted professionals. So journalists should remember that they are not unique and at least they have the opportunity to hit back in print.
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=259473&sc=88
I have never met Geoff in person, but I respect the way he has tried to foster public debate. One issue that I forgot to raise in my commentary is my response to journalists' complaints about name-calling and personal slurs. When we're weighing this problem, it's important to keep in mind that many other professionals also have to cope with unfair criticism and nasty personal attacks from anonymous sources on the internet. As any doctor, teacher, or professor can attest, the proliferation of popular web sites such as ratemyteacher, ratemymd, and ratemyprofessor has affected their personal and professional lives. Some of these forums even encourage the public to comment on the sexual attractiveness of the targetted professionals. So journalists should remember that they are not unique and at least they have the opportunity to hit back in print.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Neocolonialism
Switch Newfoundland for Turks and Caicos Islands, and this story sounds strangely like 1934 all over again. What's particularly eerie is the fact that the return to direct rule is receiving support from supposedly ardent defenders of liberal democracy.
Who said that British colonialism is dead? As is so often the case with Globe editorials, they are paternalistically supporting something in another jurisdiction that they would never support in Ontario. Notice how they move so immediately and so silently from an atypical situation (in this case extreme corruption) to a gross over-generalization (colonialism is good). It looks like the learned editors skipped their logic classes at Upper Canada College: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html
Some suggestions for the neoimperialist editors: perhaps the concerns of people actually living in a region (in this case the Caribbean Community) should not be so quickly dismissed. Perhaps there are other, less regressive ways to deal with corruption than imposing direct rule from London. Perhaps you should be extremely careful when generalizing about what's good for other people living in another country. Perhaps people in other countries deserve the same rights and freedoms as you do.
"From Saturday's Globe and Mail
April 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM EDT
The Caribbean Community, an organization of island nations, has expressed concern that colonialism is being reimposed on the Turks and Caicos Islands, a overseas territory administered by the British government. But if it is colonialism, then the people of other developing countries may want a part of it.
After the island's British-appointed Governor raised the alarm, the Queen sent in a judge recently to undertake an investigation into “possible corruption or other serious dishonesty” in relation to the conduct of island politicians. In an interim report, Lord Justice Sir Robin Auld cited “political amorality and immaturity,” and “chronic ills collectively amounting to a national emergency.” The British government is acting on the recommendation, urgently suspending parts of the territorial constitution, imposing direct rule from London, and dispatching an emergency state-building team of bureaucrats and advisers to oversee “a root-and-branch overhaul” of the government. The Caribbean Community might not like it, but this is very good news for the 32,000 people of the Turks and Caicos.
After the investigation found “clear signs of corruption,” Michael Misick, the premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, resigned. Mr. Misick denied the allegations and defended his US$288,000 salary, which is more than is earned by the British prime minister, telling the inquiry: “I have done more for the Turks and Caicos than Gordon Brown has done for England.” Whatever the merits of the massive sell-off of Crown land and the accompanying development frenzy that has occurred over the past six years, one of the leading beneficiaries appears to be Mr. Misick himself.
It is reported the premier had a modest $50,000 in assets in 2003. This ballooned into a multi-million-dollar fortune during his term as premier. He flew in a private jet, wore designer suits and lived in a $8-million mansion. Unlike the kleptocracies in Africa and elsewhere, which are looted bare by corrupt leaders and officials who are rarely held to account, the residents of the Turks and Caicos islands have been spared from apparent serious misconduct at the highest levels of the territory's government, and have seen precious Crown assets protected. If this is colonialism, then it has had a bad rap."
Give me a freakin' break!
Look for yourself. I'm not making it up:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090411.weTurks11/BNStory/specialComment/home
P.S. And while you're reading newspapers online, check out the front page to today's Tely. What's missing? Not only is there no oversized photo of DW. Not only is there no story on DW. Not only is there no story based on a Dangovt news release. Not only is the Opposition actually discussed. But, unless I missed something, DW doesn't get a single quote, beyond a generic reference to the infamous death threat he made last week. Instead, we're treated to a thoughtful editorial and a fine column by Pam Frampton. My favourite part was reading Steve Bartlett explain to readers why Jones had to raise her voice in the House last week. If the Tely keeps this up, I'll have to eat some crow.
Who said that British colonialism is dead? As is so often the case with Globe editorials, they are paternalistically supporting something in another jurisdiction that they would never support in Ontario. Notice how they move so immediately and so silently from an atypical situation (in this case extreme corruption) to a gross over-generalization (colonialism is good). It looks like the learned editors skipped their logic classes at Upper Canada College: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html
Some suggestions for the neoimperialist editors: perhaps the concerns of people actually living in a region (in this case the Caribbean Community) should not be so quickly dismissed. Perhaps there are other, less regressive ways to deal with corruption than imposing direct rule from London. Perhaps you should be extremely careful when generalizing about what's good for other people living in another country. Perhaps people in other countries deserve the same rights and freedoms as you do.
"From Saturday's Globe and Mail
April 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM EDT
The Caribbean Community, an organization of island nations, has expressed concern that colonialism is being reimposed on the Turks and Caicos Islands, a overseas territory administered by the British government. But if it is colonialism, then the people of other developing countries may want a part of it.
After the island's British-appointed Governor raised the alarm, the Queen sent in a judge recently to undertake an investigation into “possible corruption or other serious dishonesty” in relation to the conduct of island politicians. In an interim report, Lord Justice Sir Robin Auld cited “political amorality and immaturity,” and “chronic ills collectively amounting to a national emergency.” The British government is acting on the recommendation, urgently suspending parts of the territorial constitution, imposing direct rule from London, and dispatching an emergency state-building team of bureaucrats and advisers to oversee “a root-and-branch overhaul” of the government. The Caribbean Community might not like it, but this is very good news for the 32,000 people of the Turks and Caicos.
After the investigation found “clear signs of corruption,” Michael Misick, the premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, resigned. Mr. Misick denied the allegations and defended his US$288,000 salary, which is more than is earned by the British prime minister, telling the inquiry: “I have done more for the Turks and Caicos than Gordon Brown has done for England.” Whatever the merits of the massive sell-off of Crown land and the accompanying development frenzy that has occurred over the past six years, one of the leading beneficiaries appears to be Mr. Misick himself.
It is reported the premier had a modest $50,000 in assets in 2003. This ballooned into a multi-million-dollar fortune during his term as premier. He flew in a private jet, wore designer suits and lived in a $8-million mansion. Unlike the kleptocracies in Africa and elsewhere, which are looted bare by corrupt leaders and officials who are rarely held to account, the residents of the Turks and Caicos islands have been spared from apparent serious misconduct at the highest levels of the territory's government, and have seen precious Crown assets protected. If this is colonialism, then it has had a bad rap."
Give me a freakin' break!
Look for yourself. I'm not making it up:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090411.weTurks11/BNStory/specialComment/home
P.S. And while you're reading newspapers online, check out the front page to today's Tely. What's missing? Not only is there no oversized photo of DW. Not only is there no story on DW. Not only is there no story based on a Dangovt news release. Not only is the Opposition actually discussed. But, unless I missed something, DW doesn't get a single quote, beyond a generic reference to the infamous death threat he made last week. Instead, we're treated to a thoughtful editorial and a fine column by Pam Frampton. My favourite part was reading Steve Bartlett explain to readers why Jones had to raise her voice in the House last week. If the Tely keeps this up, I'll have to eat some crow.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Newspapers & Blogs
As I've mentioned in previous posts, the days of the Sunday Express are over and they ain't coming back. The question now is how far the decline of newspapers will go, not whether there is a decline underway. The politically motivated attempt by the Harper junta to undermine the CBC will only further damage the ability of the local press to cover the Williams regime.
As with so much else, events in NL are taking place in a much larger international context. The decline of newspapers in St. John's from two dailies and one weekly to one daily newspaper mirrors trends across North American. Like the decline in the newsprint industry more generally, Newfoundland's case is not exceptional.
So where does this leave things? According to Russell Wangersky, newspapers remain indispensable because they provide the raw material on which everyone else relies for public discourse; most blogs and internet news outlets are little more than parasites feeding off the news meat created by print journalism. Why is this the case?
"That's because they don't make anything: they're not covering stories or providing opinion, they're simply redistributing news that someone else had to pay people to collect. They repackage, handing around someone else's work and collecting ad revenues for their efforts.
Bloggers do it, too - many provide valuable insight and points of view, and some provide new material that they've dug up independent of the traditional media. But most bloggers don't have the time to actually attend the scores of events they produce blogposts on - in their own way, a large portion of their output is refining and repackaging the shoeleather being invested by others."
Wangersky asks, "If they don't even have the basic tools, how exactly will the media of the future build the news?"
But the answer is not as straightforward as it may seem. Part of the problem lies in the fact that newspapers themselves rely fairly heavily on wire services (CP, AP, Reuters, et al.) to fill their pages, while budget cuts have mitigated their ability to undertake costly investigative reporting. In addition, most columns, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and other types of opinion pieces do not draw on original local reporting based on investigative journalism.
Another complication is the fact that the relationship between newspapers and the internet is not one-way; newspapers also use internet reporting and blogs can influence press coverage, though they are rarely given credit. While most blogs, including this one, provide links whenever they discuss a source or quote anyone, the online edition of the Telegram (with the notable exception of Geoff Meeker's blog) does not provide links to online sources, even those cited specifically in a story or editorial.
In addition, there is the question of the relationship between democracy and an independent press. I think most people, myself certainly included, assume that a vibrant newspaper press is essential for building and sustaining a vibrant liberal democracy. An independent press is, in other words, a necessary condition for democracy.
It wasn't always this way. The modern newspaper press grew out of the coarse world of partisan politics. Far from being paragons of objectivity, they were up to their eyeballs in brass-knuckle politics. Like many bloggers today, newspapers used anonymous sources and pseudonyms were common. Jill Lepore's lively article in the New Yorker (still the best magazine in the world, by the way) is well worth reading.
Also worth reading is James Surowiecki's short piece on the economics of newspapers, which places their recent troubles in their larger context. Surowiecki concludes, "For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime—intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on—and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can’t last. Soon enough, we’re going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is."
Sounds logical to me. If you don't pay for it, you don't get it. And if you don't get independent newspapers, you don't get a healthy democracy.
But the debate does not end there. Far from it. Slate, which has been going through its own decline of late, recently ran a provocative article by Jack Shafer, "Democracy's Cheat Sheet? It's time to kill the idea that newspapers are essential for democracy."
Here's Shafer's conclusion:
"On those occasions that newspapers do produce the sort of work that the worshippers of democracy crave, only rarely does the population flex its democratic might. How else to explain the ongoing political corruption in Illinois, which its press has covered admirably? Maybe an academic at Champaign-Urbana can prove that newspaper investigations of political corruption "damage" democracy by increasing the public's cynicism. Or that stellar newspaper coverage that increases participation in the political process stymies democracy by recruiting too many knuckleheads. Or that bad (but well-meaning) journalism—of which there is too much—cripples the democratic impulse.
The insistence on coupling newspapering to democracy irritates me not just because it overstates the quality and urgency of most of the work done by newspapers but because it inflates the capacity of newspapers to make us better citizens, wiser voters, and more enlightened taxpayers. I love news on newsprint, believe me, I do. But I hate seeing newspapers reduced to a compulsory cheat sheet for democracy. All this lovey-dovey about how essential newspapers are to civic life and the political process makes me nostalgic for the days, not all that long ago, when everybody hated them."
While I don't agree with the cheat sheet analogy, I think he's right about not treating newspapers as sacred cows. We also need to re-think the assumption that there is a one-way relationship between the press and the internet.
Democracy is about dialogue. If nothing else, the internet has provided a forum for dialogue. It's not always neat, polite, or ordered; it often serves as a forum for worst instincts and lowest common denominators; and it's not exactly a bastion of elegent writing and sophisticated expression. But it's vibrant, full of different voices, and engaged.
It's no accident that newspapers' online comment sections are often so active and full of divergent opinions. The online forum gives citizens an opportunity to speak back to the press beyond the confines of the edited letter to the editor. This means that newspapers are less a one-way conversation, which can only be a good thing for democracy.
It's also important not to overstate the commercialization of the internet. For every corporation that's looking for another way to squeeze a dollar out of the internet, there is an amateur contributing for free. The vast majority of bloggers are doing it without any financial compensation. They earn nothing, and in the case of anonymous blogs, the bloggers themselves don't even get personal credit.
To be sure, we usually get what we pay for, but that's only part of the story in the evolution of media and democracy. The other part of the story is that we can also get what we do ourselves.
Professional journalism is, without question, essential for a vibrant democracy, but so too is civic engagement. If this engagement takes place online rather than in bowling alleys, then perhaps it offers a solution to the problems raised by Robert Putnam.
And if it erodes the professionals' monopoly over political commentary, then perhaps it's not all bad after all.
As with so much else, events in NL are taking place in a much larger international context. The decline of newspapers in St. John's from two dailies and one weekly to one daily newspaper mirrors trends across North American. Like the decline in the newsprint industry more generally, Newfoundland's case is not exceptional.
So where does this leave things? According to Russell Wangersky, newspapers remain indispensable because they provide the raw material on which everyone else relies for public discourse; most blogs and internet news outlets are little more than parasites feeding off the news meat created by print journalism. Why is this the case?
"That's because they don't make anything: they're not covering stories or providing opinion, they're simply redistributing news that someone else had to pay people to collect. They repackage, handing around someone else's work and collecting ad revenues for their efforts.
Bloggers do it, too - many provide valuable insight and points of view, and some provide new material that they've dug up independent of the traditional media. But most bloggers don't have the time to actually attend the scores of events they produce blogposts on - in their own way, a large portion of their output is refining and repackaging the shoeleather being invested by others."
Wangersky asks, "If they don't even have the basic tools, how exactly will the media of the future build the news?"
But the answer is not as straightforward as it may seem. Part of the problem lies in the fact that newspapers themselves rely fairly heavily on wire services (CP, AP, Reuters, et al.) to fill their pages, while budget cuts have mitigated their ability to undertake costly investigative reporting. In addition, most columns, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and other types of opinion pieces do not draw on original local reporting based on investigative journalism.
Another complication is the fact that the relationship between newspapers and the internet is not one-way; newspapers also use internet reporting and blogs can influence press coverage, though they are rarely given credit. While most blogs, including this one, provide links whenever they discuss a source or quote anyone, the online edition of the Telegram (with the notable exception of Geoff Meeker's blog) does not provide links to online sources, even those cited specifically in a story or editorial.
In addition, there is the question of the relationship between democracy and an independent press. I think most people, myself certainly included, assume that a vibrant newspaper press is essential for building and sustaining a vibrant liberal democracy. An independent press is, in other words, a necessary condition for democracy.
It wasn't always this way. The modern newspaper press grew out of the coarse world of partisan politics. Far from being paragons of objectivity, they were up to their eyeballs in brass-knuckle politics. Like many bloggers today, newspapers used anonymous sources and pseudonyms were common. Jill Lepore's lively article in the New Yorker (still the best magazine in the world, by the way) is well worth reading.
Also worth reading is James Surowiecki's short piece on the economics of newspapers, which places their recent troubles in their larger context. Surowiecki concludes, "For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime—intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on—and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can’t last. Soon enough, we’re going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is."
Sounds logical to me. If you don't pay for it, you don't get it. And if you don't get independent newspapers, you don't get a healthy democracy.
But the debate does not end there. Far from it. Slate, which has been going through its own decline of late, recently ran a provocative article by Jack Shafer, "Democracy's Cheat Sheet? It's time to kill the idea that newspapers are essential for democracy."
Here's Shafer's conclusion:
"On those occasions that newspapers do produce the sort of work that the worshippers of democracy crave, only rarely does the population flex its democratic might. How else to explain the ongoing political corruption in Illinois, which its press has covered admirably? Maybe an academic at Champaign-Urbana can prove that newspaper investigations of political corruption "damage" democracy by increasing the public's cynicism. Or that stellar newspaper coverage that increases participation in the political process stymies democracy by recruiting too many knuckleheads. Or that bad (but well-meaning) journalism—of which there is too much—cripples the democratic impulse.
The insistence on coupling newspapering to democracy irritates me not just because it overstates the quality and urgency of most of the work done by newspapers but because it inflates the capacity of newspapers to make us better citizens, wiser voters, and more enlightened taxpayers. I love news on newsprint, believe me, I do. But I hate seeing newspapers reduced to a compulsory cheat sheet for democracy. All this lovey-dovey about how essential newspapers are to civic life and the political process makes me nostalgic for the days, not all that long ago, when everybody hated them."
While I don't agree with the cheat sheet analogy, I think he's right about not treating newspapers as sacred cows. We also need to re-think the assumption that there is a one-way relationship between the press and the internet.
Democracy is about dialogue. If nothing else, the internet has provided a forum for dialogue. It's not always neat, polite, or ordered; it often serves as a forum for worst instincts and lowest common denominators; and it's not exactly a bastion of elegent writing and sophisticated expression. But it's vibrant, full of different voices, and engaged.
It's no accident that newspapers' online comment sections are often so active and full of divergent opinions. The online forum gives citizens an opportunity to speak back to the press beyond the confines of the edited letter to the editor. This means that newspapers are less a one-way conversation, which can only be a good thing for democracy.
It's also important not to overstate the commercialization of the internet. For every corporation that's looking for another way to squeeze a dollar out of the internet, there is an amateur contributing for free. The vast majority of bloggers are doing it without any financial compensation. They earn nothing, and in the case of anonymous blogs, the bloggers themselves don't even get personal credit.
To be sure, we usually get what we pay for, but that's only part of the story in the evolution of media and democracy. The other part of the story is that we can also get what we do ourselves.
Professional journalism is, without question, essential for a vibrant democracy, but so too is civic engagement. If this engagement takes place online rather than in bowling alleys, then perhaps it offers a solution to the problems raised by Robert Putnam.
And if it erodes the professionals' monopoly over political commentary, then perhaps it's not all bad after all.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Rex Lapham
Everyone, myself included, is prone to an outbreak of Laphamism from time to time.
http://www.slate.com/id/2177912/
Which is why it's important not to take yourself too seriously or your topics too dismissively. While Murphy tends to adopt a stern seriousness when he writes about Newfoundland, he dips into pop culture and US politics for purely comic relief. This may be because he knows the former better than the latter (note to Rex: the Aniston bit is getting tired), and he often shows a weak grasp of American politics.
In today's Globe, Murphy tries, and fails, to stick it to Jon Stewart, Barack Obama, and just about everyone else in American public life:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090320.wcomurphy21/BNStory/specialComment/home
Yes, Rex, it's all an elaborate march of folly over the cliff of civilization. But it's also an important, complicated march that needs to be analyzed seriously and discretely. If Cramer was too easy a target for Stewart, then surely the Stewart-Cramer "take-down" is too easy a target for the learned, augustan Murphy.
Murphy is not only wrong on important points (Stewart's rage was genuine, not faux), but he gives the false impression that Stewart focused solely on Cramer. Cramer's appearance on the show came after Stewart had already done a wide-ranging, trenchant (and, of course, funny) piece on the politics of business media:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip148232
Dripping with condescension, Murphy asks, "Amid the trillions of dollars currently gushing from Congress - in appropriations so large and so quickly passed that no one, not even those authorizing them, is reading the damn things - why take the fly swatter to the most insignificant bug in the room?"
Why? Well, you have to start somewhere, don't you? And Cramer and CNBC were not exactly fleas on the financial dog; in fact, they spent millions (and made millions) feeding the dog junk food. Without all that media junk food, it's uncertain whether the financial dog would have become so fat and greedy over the past decade.
Just because there are trillions gushing out of the Treasury does not mean that CNBC should get a pass. As I've mentioned earlier, there are good economic analyses out there to be read:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/economic-postmodernism-goes-bust.html
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/essential-reading.html
Frontline has a good piece as well:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/
And, if nothing else, Stewart's "take-down" has done a public service by generating a genuine (as opposed to a dismissive) discussion of whether Cramer and his ilk are "too easy" a target:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/story/2009/03/cramer-v-stewart.html
Townie Bastard has weighed in as well:
http://towniebastard.blogspot.com/2009/03/stewart-blow-back.html
Muphy being Murphy, he's not content to pour scorn on Stewart. He tries (and again fails) to link the Stewart-Cramer story to the furor over AIG. And then, in a rhetorical flourish, he concludes that the American presidency has become a "four-year celebrity guest spot."
To be sure, we are witnessing an incredibly target rich environment for satirists, humourists, and Laphamites. But Murphy has to make up his mind whether he wants his column to be wryly funny or sternly serious. Without humour or sincerity, he's left with disingenuity.
http://www.slate.com/id/2177912/
Which is why it's important not to take yourself too seriously or your topics too dismissively. While Murphy tends to adopt a stern seriousness when he writes about Newfoundland, he dips into pop culture and US politics for purely comic relief. This may be because he knows the former better than the latter (note to Rex: the Aniston bit is getting tired), and he often shows a weak grasp of American politics.
In today's Globe, Murphy tries, and fails, to stick it to Jon Stewart, Barack Obama, and just about everyone else in American public life:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090320.wcomurphy21/BNStory/specialComment/home
Yes, Rex, it's all an elaborate march of folly over the cliff of civilization. But it's also an important, complicated march that needs to be analyzed seriously and discretely. If Cramer was too easy a target for Stewart, then surely the Stewart-Cramer "take-down" is too easy a target for the learned, augustan Murphy.
Murphy is not only wrong on important points (Stewart's rage was genuine, not faux), but he gives the false impression that Stewart focused solely on Cramer. Cramer's appearance on the show came after Stewart had already done a wide-ranging, trenchant (and, of course, funny) piece on the politics of business media:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip148232
Dripping with condescension, Murphy asks, "Amid the trillions of dollars currently gushing from Congress - in appropriations so large and so quickly passed that no one, not even those authorizing them, is reading the damn things - why take the fly swatter to the most insignificant bug in the room?"
Why? Well, you have to start somewhere, don't you? And Cramer and CNBC were not exactly fleas on the financial dog; in fact, they spent millions (and made millions) feeding the dog junk food. Without all that media junk food, it's uncertain whether the financial dog would have become so fat and greedy over the past decade.
Just because there are trillions gushing out of the Treasury does not mean that CNBC should get a pass. As I've mentioned earlier, there are good economic analyses out there to be read:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/economic-postmodernism-goes-bust.html
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/essential-reading.html
Frontline has a good piece as well:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/
And, if nothing else, Stewart's "take-down" has done a public service by generating a genuine (as opposed to a dismissive) discussion of whether Cramer and his ilk are "too easy" a target:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/story/2009/03/cramer-v-stewart.html
Townie Bastard has weighed in as well:
http://towniebastard.blogspot.com/2009/03/stewart-blow-back.html
Muphy being Murphy, he's not content to pour scorn on Stewart. He tries (and again fails) to link the Stewart-Cramer story to the furor over AIG. And then, in a rhetorical flourish, he concludes that the American presidency has become a "four-year celebrity guest spot."
To be sure, we are witnessing an incredibly target rich environment for satirists, humourists, and Laphamites. But Murphy has to make up his mind whether he wants his column to be wryly funny or sternly serious. Without humour or sincerity, he's left with disingenuity.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
More Unreported Stories
In addition to the 10 under-reported stories I cited earlier, two more came to mind today as I followed the news here and elsewhere:
1) The decline of sectarianism since 1997. Since we're in the midst of the Paddy's Day uber-Weekend, we should stop for a moment and appreciate the fact that we're not, despite what many want to believe, just like Ireland. As the recent murders and rioting in Ulster demonstrate, the Troubles are not completely over, more than a decade after the Good Friday Agreement:http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/14/northern.ireland.violence.arrests/index.html?pc=no_id
So if you hear a rebel song at one of the pubs tonight, and you sing along about the exploits of the IRA, remember that you can sing so freely and so loudly because it's their history, not ours. With few exceptions, we have been mercifully free of violent sectarianism and, since 1997, finally free of denominational eduation. Brian Tobin has entered a black hole in NL's public memory, but let's not forget that the referendum that ended denominational education was held while he was premier. That's not an accomplishment that DW can claim. Whatever you want to say about Tobin (and there's lot to say, no doubt), he gave one of the best speeches in NL political history: "I believe it's time to allow all of our children, of every denomination, to sit in the same classroom, in the same schools, to ride the same bus, to play on the same sports teams, to live and to learn, together in the same community." No one seems to take Tobin seriously anymore, perhaps for good reason, but that does not detract from the importance of this speech. It was not a populist speech against Ottawa or some other designated enemy but, rather, a genuine call for a more united NL. Unlike the cant and chimera of the ABC feuds, this referendum marked a moment of real, tangible progress -- something which everyone now takes for granted. Here's the link to the speech: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/speeches/1997/exec/JULY31.HTM
2) The persistence of "Townie versus Bayman." While the past decade has witnessed a remarkable decline in the tensions and distance between Catholics and Protestants, the same cannot be said for the perennial rural-urban divide. The gap between Town and Bay is arguably as wide as ever, as St. John's has morphed into a Superbubble while the rest of the province continues to suffer high unemployment, outmigration, and underdevelopment.
NL has come to resemble a Dickensian tale of two worlds -- one affluent and optimistic, the other struggling and fearful -- but this is one of the dirty little secrets that politicians would prefer to keep out of the press. The prejudice runs both ways, as Baymen view Townies as effeminate, ersatz Newfoundlanders who are little different from Mainlanders. It's only when you travel outside NL that you realize that this stark cultural binary does not exist elsewhere. But in NL, it's the unspoken reality that you confront whenever you're talking to someone from another place. "Where are you from?" often means, are you one of them? Perhaps not surprisingly, while the mainstream media has looked the other way, it has been left to singers, writers, and artists to tackle this last public taboo. Colleen Power should have received a Juno for her New Townie Man video, which packs more punch than a whole stack of CD's from Great Big Sea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QlQkw2FCek
And, by the way, what's one thing that JRS and DW have in common? They are the only provincial premiers raised in St. John's. (Thanks to a reader for correcting me).
1) The decline of sectarianism since 1997. Since we're in the midst of the Paddy's Day uber-Weekend, we should stop for a moment and appreciate the fact that we're not, despite what many want to believe, just like Ireland. As the recent murders and rioting in Ulster demonstrate, the Troubles are not completely over, more than a decade after the Good Friday Agreement:http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/14/northern.ireland.violence.arrests/index.html?pc=no_id
So if you hear a rebel song at one of the pubs tonight, and you sing along about the exploits of the IRA, remember that you can sing so freely and so loudly because it's their history, not ours. With few exceptions, we have been mercifully free of violent sectarianism and, since 1997, finally free of denominational eduation. Brian Tobin has entered a black hole in NL's public memory, but let's not forget that the referendum that ended denominational education was held while he was premier. That's not an accomplishment that DW can claim. Whatever you want to say about Tobin (and there's lot to say, no doubt), he gave one of the best speeches in NL political history: "I believe it's time to allow all of our children, of every denomination, to sit in the same classroom, in the same schools, to ride the same bus, to play on the same sports teams, to live and to learn, together in the same community." No one seems to take Tobin seriously anymore, perhaps for good reason, but that does not detract from the importance of this speech. It was not a populist speech against Ottawa or some other designated enemy but, rather, a genuine call for a more united NL. Unlike the cant and chimera of the ABC feuds, this referendum marked a moment of real, tangible progress -- something which everyone now takes for granted. Here's the link to the speech: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/speeches/1997/exec/JULY31.HTM
2) The persistence of "Townie versus Bayman." While the past decade has witnessed a remarkable decline in the tensions and distance between Catholics and Protestants, the same cannot be said for the perennial rural-urban divide. The gap between Town and Bay is arguably as wide as ever, as St. John's has morphed into a Superbubble while the rest of the province continues to suffer high unemployment, outmigration, and underdevelopment.
NL has come to resemble a Dickensian tale of two worlds -- one affluent and optimistic, the other struggling and fearful -- but this is one of the dirty little secrets that politicians would prefer to keep out of the press. The prejudice runs both ways, as Baymen view Townies as effeminate, ersatz Newfoundlanders who are little different from Mainlanders. It's only when you travel outside NL that you realize that this stark cultural binary does not exist elsewhere. But in NL, it's the unspoken reality that you confront whenever you're talking to someone from another place. "Where are you from?" often means, are you one of them? Perhaps not surprisingly, while the mainstream media has looked the other way, it has been left to singers, writers, and artists to tackle this last public taboo. Colleen Power should have received a Juno for her New Townie Man video, which packs more punch than a whole stack of CD's from Great Big Sea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QlQkw2FCek
And, by the way, what's one thing that JRS and DW have in common? They are the only provincial premiers raised in St. John's. (Thanks to a reader for correcting me).
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Toronto Globe-Stalkers
Okay, now it's just getting weird:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090310.weArchive11/BNStory/specialComment/home
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090308.weArchive09/BNStory/specialComment/home
Two archived editorials in three days?
I tried to deal with the Globe's editorial treatment of NL in an earlier post:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/dogs-of-war.html
But the problem seems to be more psychological than political. There are pills for this sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder. (Perhaps I missed something...is the Globe running some sort of accelerated NL premiers series like CPAC?).
Such heavy national-media rains are likely to produce a bumper crop of Dandelion this spring:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-biology.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090310.weArchive11/BNStory/specialComment/home
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090308.weArchive09/BNStory/specialComment/home
Two archived editorials in three days?
I tried to deal with the Globe's editorial treatment of NL in an earlier post:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/dogs-of-war.html
But the problem seems to be more psychological than political. There are pills for this sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder. (Perhaps I missed something...is the Globe running some sort of accelerated NL premiers series like CPAC?).
Such heavy national-media rains are likely to produce a bumper crop of Dandelion this spring:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-biology.html
Top Ten Unreported Stories
Thinking about press coverage of NL (both past and present) brought to mind important stories that have gone unreported or underreported.
I realize that with the ongoing cutbacks in the newspaper industry and CBC, journalists simply do not have the resources that they once had to do in-depth investigative reporting. The days of the Sunday Express are over and they ain't coming back.
Yet Rob Antle's piece in today's Tely shows how much can be done with a quick back-check of government media advisories and a couple of short interviews, for example: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=230533&sc=79. And as Labradore and Bond Papers have demonstrated in their reporting of issues such as the NALCO transmission line, an awful lot of material is readily available online.
For what it's worth, here is my Top Ten list, along with fictional headlines:
1) "In the Wilderness." An examination of the decline and fall of the provincial Liberal party from the civil war following Grimes's convention victory through to the ascendancy of DW and his attempts to undermine the opposition in any and every possible way. This hypothetical article would look at how the Liberals lost their grip on power so completely and where they stand today. The fact that they have so few MHA's is often taken as false evidence that the entire Party is dead. It may be recovering from a heart-attack, but it's no more dead than the Tories were during the Liberals' heyday.
2) "Alberta Rebound." We know that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are returning to NL from Alberta. But we don't know much about the identies and experiences of these people. We don't know much about what they are bringing back to their communities, or what their return will mean for NL. There are plenty of rumours about rampant drug use and other problems, but they are exactly that -- rumours. How will rural communities fare without the remittances on which some towns have relied? How did their experiences in Alberta change these people? And is this a short- or a long-term phenomenon?
3) "The Many-Headed Hydro." NALCO has a nifty web site and plenty of press releases to its credit, but we don't know much about its actual operation, how it fits into the political and economic structure of NL, or who is really running the show. We know little about how it fits with the Eighth Floor, and whether (and how far) it is removed from in-line Departments. Is it, in fact, a Crown corporation or some other beast? And what role is it really expected to play in the Churchill Falls saga?
4) "The Other Bubble." St. John's residents have long known about the sewage bubble in the Harbour, but they seem less aware of the real-estate bubble. The massive rise in housing prices has had a tremendous impact -- from greedy house-flippers to the home renovation craze -- but less attention has been paid to the social effects on affordable housing, property taxes, and the increasing rural-urban divide in NL. The rise in housing prices has been ascribed to the "Williams Effect," but is this effect sustainable?
5) "The Other 'Secret Nation'." While Newfoundland nationalism has been covered exhaustively, relatively little attention has been paid to Labrador. How do Labradorians themselves feel about the rise of DW-inspired nationalism? What do they think about the reckless threats to separate from Canada, or the constant war with Ottawa. How do they view DW? While DW rants about neglect at the hands of Ottawa, there is a real question of Newfoundland's neglect of Labrador.
6) "Boom, Bust, and Retire." How is demography affecting NL? Much has been made about the recent rise in the birth-rate, but what are the long-term trends? What will these trends mean for the social capital of NL and the cost of health care? How do these trends compare with other provinces and jurisdictions? St. John's, in particular, is experiencing a massive wave of retirements, as a whole generation of fifty-somethings is now free to shop at Scavenger Drive anytime of the day. How has this changed civic culture?
7) "The Icelandic Lesson." The dramatic fall of Iceland has received editorial coverage, but there is a need for a more in-depth analysis of how this happened and what it means for NL. There is also a need for a clearer understanding of how Iceland has been held up as a model for NL development by the provincial government, business interests, and even prominent members of the arts community. How did they all get it so utterly wrong?
8) "Folk Branding." There have been studies of various tourism campaigns, but we need a more in-depth analysis of the much larger and pervasive re-branding that has taken place since 2003. From licence plates to an endless stream of TV ads that have carpet-bombed every station imaginable (including the Weather Network in winter!), DW has launched an unprecedented campaign to attract attention and tourists. How much has this cost? Is it working? Does it matter if the ads are not an accurate portrayal of NL?
9) "School's out." There has been an alaming increase in the number of school closures in NL due to mould and other health problems. While this has been reported on a case-by-case basis, no one has looked at the larger problem of education infrastructure. We know relatively little about how the end of denominational education affected the organization of the school system. Are the province's schools a looming health-care crisis?
10) "The People in your Neighbourhood." When the NL media consider events or trends outside NL, it focuses almost exclusively on the anglophone provinces and especially Ottawa. Federalism is often presented as a bilaterial, Ottawa-St. John's, process. As a result, people in NL know remarkably little about their francophone neighbours. As the controversy over the Romaine River project demonstrated, there are strong opinions about the Labrador boundary, for example, but those opinions are not well informed. And while the negotiations concerning the Lower Churchill remain a focal point for provincial politics, we know remarkably little about Quebec-Hydro, which has been (and will continue to be) a major player in these negotiations.
I'm sure that some of these hypothetical stories have already received ample coverage that I have missed. You can email me any suggestions you may have. I offer the list not as a criticism of local reporters, who are doing the best they can with what they have.
Instead, as we endure another news-cycle about how DW "soars" above us, I offer it as an alternative to the daily grind of having the news determined by public opinion polls, official media-advisories, and the omnipresent DW personality cult.
Tely Update:
Looks like someone at the Tely is reading Orwellianspin:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=231828&sc=80
Wangersky even cites the same quotation from the same New Yorker article that I used for my two earlier posts on Iceland:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=231834&sc=86
I realize that with the ongoing cutbacks in the newspaper industry and CBC, journalists simply do not have the resources that they once had to do in-depth investigative reporting. The days of the Sunday Express are over and they ain't coming back.
Yet Rob Antle's piece in today's Tely shows how much can be done with a quick back-check of government media advisories and a couple of short interviews, for example: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=230533&sc=79. And as Labradore and Bond Papers have demonstrated in their reporting of issues such as the NALCO transmission line, an awful lot of material is readily available online.
For what it's worth, here is my Top Ten list, along with fictional headlines:
1) "In the Wilderness." An examination of the decline and fall of the provincial Liberal party from the civil war following Grimes's convention victory through to the ascendancy of DW and his attempts to undermine the opposition in any and every possible way. This hypothetical article would look at how the Liberals lost their grip on power so completely and where they stand today. The fact that they have so few MHA's is often taken as false evidence that the entire Party is dead. It may be recovering from a heart-attack, but it's no more dead than the Tories were during the Liberals' heyday.
2) "Alberta Rebound." We know that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are returning to NL from Alberta. But we don't know much about the identies and experiences of these people. We don't know much about what they are bringing back to their communities, or what their return will mean for NL. There are plenty of rumours about rampant drug use and other problems, but they are exactly that -- rumours. How will rural communities fare without the remittances on which some towns have relied? How did their experiences in Alberta change these people? And is this a short- or a long-term phenomenon?
3) "The Many-Headed Hydro." NALCO has a nifty web site and plenty of press releases to its credit, but we don't know much about its actual operation, how it fits into the political and economic structure of NL, or who is really running the show. We know little about how it fits with the Eighth Floor, and whether (and how far) it is removed from in-line Departments. Is it, in fact, a Crown corporation or some other beast? And what role is it really expected to play in the Churchill Falls saga?
4) "The Other Bubble." St. John's residents have long known about the sewage bubble in the Harbour, but they seem less aware of the real-estate bubble. The massive rise in housing prices has had a tremendous impact -- from greedy house-flippers to the home renovation craze -- but less attention has been paid to the social effects on affordable housing, property taxes, and the increasing rural-urban divide in NL. The rise in housing prices has been ascribed to the "Williams Effect," but is this effect sustainable?
5) "The Other 'Secret Nation'." While Newfoundland nationalism has been covered exhaustively, relatively little attention has been paid to Labrador. How do Labradorians themselves feel about the rise of DW-inspired nationalism? What do they think about the reckless threats to separate from Canada, or the constant war with Ottawa. How do they view DW? While DW rants about neglect at the hands of Ottawa, there is a real question of Newfoundland's neglect of Labrador.
6) "Boom, Bust, and Retire." How is demography affecting NL? Much has been made about the recent rise in the birth-rate, but what are the long-term trends? What will these trends mean for the social capital of NL and the cost of health care? How do these trends compare with other provinces and jurisdictions? St. John's, in particular, is experiencing a massive wave of retirements, as a whole generation of fifty-somethings is now free to shop at Scavenger Drive anytime of the day. How has this changed civic culture?
7) "The Icelandic Lesson." The dramatic fall of Iceland has received editorial coverage, but there is a need for a more in-depth analysis of how this happened and what it means for NL. There is also a need for a clearer understanding of how Iceland has been held up as a model for NL development by the provincial government, business interests, and even prominent members of the arts community. How did they all get it so utterly wrong?
8) "Folk Branding." There have been studies of various tourism campaigns, but we need a more in-depth analysis of the much larger and pervasive re-branding that has taken place since 2003. From licence plates to an endless stream of TV ads that have carpet-bombed every station imaginable (including the Weather Network in winter!), DW has launched an unprecedented campaign to attract attention and tourists. How much has this cost? Is it working? Does it matter if the ads are not an accurate portrayal of NL?
9) "School's out." There has been an alaming increase in the number of school closures in NL due to mould and other health problems. While this has been reported on a case-by-case basis, no one has looked at the larger problem of education infrastructure. We know relatively little about how the end of denominational education affected the organization of the school system. Are the province's schools a looming health-care crisis?
10) "The People in your Neighbourhood." When the NL media consider events or trends outside NL, it focuses almost exclusively on the anglophone provinces and especially Ottawa. Federalism is often presented as a bilaterial, Ottawa-St. John's, process. As a result, people in NL know remarkably little about their francophone neighbours. As the controversy over the Romaine River project demonstrated, there are strong opinions about the Labrador boundary, for example, but those opinions are not well informed. And while the negotiations concerning the Lower Churchill remain a focal point for provincial politics, we know remarkably little about Quebec-Hydro, which has been (and will continue to be) a major player in these negotiations.
I'm sure that some of these hypothetical stories have already received ample coverage that I have missed. You can email me any suggestions you may have. I offer the list not as a criticism of local reporters, who are doing the best they can with what they have.
Instead, as we endure another news-cycle about how DW "soars" above us, I offer it as an alternative to the daily grind of having the news determined by public opinion polls, official media-advisories, and the omnipresent DW personality cult.
Tely Update:
Looks like someone at the Tely is reading Orwellianspin:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=231828&sc=80
Wangersky even cites the same quotation from the same New Yorker article that I used for my two earlier posts on Iceland:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=231834&sc=86
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Slumming it East of Canada
Bond Papers makes an important point this morning about a curious trend with Mainland reporting: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/03/god-save-us.html
Leger is, of course, far from alone. Roy MacGregor's fawning profile of DW in the Globe set a standard that has been unmatched in a national newspaper:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wwilliams0207/BNStory/politics/home
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity or professionalism of either Leger or MacGregor. I think they are writing it as they see it, without deliberately trying to offer a political slant.
And yet, despite the evident sincerity, their articles not only get NL politics wrong; they end up presenting a superhero caricature that is just as false as the evil menace caricature presented by Margaret Wente or the Globe's editorial horde. Though we should need no reminder of this fallacy, two wrongs do not make a right: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html
There are a few reasons, I think, why some well-meaning reporters and commentators get so far off the mark.
First, they tend to have a romantic view of NL. Like the happy-peasant advertisements that feature only blond- and red-haired Newfoundlanders prancing authentically around the landwash, they view NL as some sort of innocent Celtic frontier where the passionate yet unsophisticated peasants need the strong hand of a paternal leader to guide them in their noble quest to finally shake Ottawa's yoke.
Second, they tend to see NL politics only through the prism of national politics. They consider NL premiers only insofar as they play on the national stage. They make a quick visit, sink a pint at the Ship Inn, attend a Des Walsh poetry reading, listen to some music at O'Reilly's, and declare their research done. They interview the same old hacks, the self-appointed keepers of the culture and leaders of the tribe. They get some sound bites from Crosbie, Mary Walsh and a Dobbin, and then they're good to go. Nothin' to it.
They don't bother to talk to local people in local places doing local things (most of which don't take place anywhere near the landwash these days). They don't read the local newspapers or blogs. They pay little or no attention to the most important local issues, such as health care, and they overlook scandals in education or the treatment of nurses' unions. They simply have neither the time nor inclination for that sort of quotidian drudgery. And besides, that stuff doesn't sell very well.
They end up projecting their anxieties and ambitions onto their subject, so, in the case of DW, he becomes the hero for standing up to someone that no one (not even his fellow Tories) likes. Since Joey's day, the storyline has been David versus Goliath. If the provincial David can win against the federal Goliath, then all will be magically fixed, the sun will shine, and have not will be no more. Funny how all the many complexities of governing an entire province can get collapsed into such a one-dimensional story.
But just as two wrongs don't make a right, it's indeed possible to have two politicians who are both a few fries short of a happy meal. Just because Harper is malevolent does not, for a minute, make DW infallable. Just because Harper is a control freak who drinks way too much Pepsi does not mean that DW is a paragon of democratic governance. Just because Margaret Wente got it so wrong does not mean that Roy MacGregor got it right. Getting it right is hard. It's rare because it's not only hard but time-consuming and complicated. But that doesn't make it any less important.
I suspect that one of the reasons why DW so often gets a free pass from Mainland writers is because they don't have to live under Dangovt. They don't have to worry about the state of health care in NL, a nurses strike, a scandal at MUN, or anything else that affects the daily life of democracy. They can blare the trumpet of democratic authoritarianism in the comfort of knowing that they won't have to listen to it in their own province (though it's okay for other people).
If you think such hackneyed reporting is restricted to the national media, think again:
http://www.madelainedrohan.com/writing/a_place_apart_11.10.07.pdf
If you think that only Wente can be patronizing, think again. If you pay attention, you'll realize that these hackneyed redemption stories perpetuate stereotypes that are just as negative and harmful in the long run. Read the very last line of Drohan's story. And think about what it says about you.
Heard the one about lousy journalism?
Cross-Country Checkup Needed Update:
http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/03/rex-gets-it-wrong.html
Breathless Non-News News Story:
Stop the presses, unplug the blogs -- this just in: DW is still soaring far above us, up in the stratosphere, up where the oxygen is depleted:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=230284&sc=79
This poll-story story (whatever happened to investigative stories?) concedes that "not much has changed." But what's that when placed next to a really super headline?
Blog Reality Check Update:
I.P. Freely...there when we need it most:
http://ipfreelynl.blogspot.com/2009/03/thats-just-unacceptable.html
Leger is, of course, far from alone. Roy MacGregor's fawning profile of DW in the Globe set a standard that has been unmatched in a national newspaper:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wwilliams0207/BNStory/politics/home
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity or professionalism of either Leger or MacGregor. I think they are writing it as they see it, without deliberately trying to offer a political slant.
And yet, despite the evident sincerity, their articles not only get NL politics wrong; they end up presenting a superhero caricature that is just as false as the evil menace caricature presented by Margaret Wente or the Globe's editorial horde. Though we should need no reminder of this fallacy, two wrongs do not make a right: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html
There are a few reasons, I think, why some well-meaning reporters and commentators get so far off the mark.
First, they tend to have a romantic view of NL. Like the happy-peasant advertisements that feature only blond- and red-haired Newfoundlanders prancing authentically around the landwash, they view NL as some sort of innocent Celtic frontier where the passionate yet unsophisticated peasants need the strong hand of a paternal leader to guide them in their noble quest to finally shake Ottawa's yoke.
Second, they tend to see NL politics only through the prism of national politics. They consider NL premiers only insofar as they play on the national stage. They make a quick visit, sink a pint at the Ship Inn, attend a Des Walsh poetry reading, listen to some music at O'Reilly's, and declare their research done. They interview the same old hacks, the self-appointed keepers of the culture and leaders of the tribe. They get some sound bites from Crosbie, Mary Walsh and a Dobbin, and then they're good to go. Nothin' to it.
They don't bother to talk to local people in local places doing local things (most of which don't take place anywhere near the landwash these days). They don't read the local newspapers or blogs. They pay little or no attention to the most important local issues, such as health care, and they overlook scandals in education or the treatment of nurses' unions. They simply have neither the time nor inclination for that sort of quotidian drudgery. And besides, that stuff doesn't sell very well.
They end up projecting their anxieties and ambitions onto their subject, so, in the case of DW, he becomes the hero for standing up to someone that no one (not even his fellow Tories) likes. Since Joey's day, the storyline has been David versus Goliath. If the provincial David can win against the federal Goliath, then all will be magically fixed, the sun will shine, and have not will be no more. Funny how all the many complexities of governing an entire province can get collapsed into such a one-dimensional story.
But just as two wrongs don't make a right, it's indeed possible to have two politicians who are both a few fries short of a happy meal. Just because Harper is malevolent does not, for a minute, make DW infallable. Just because Harper is a control freak who drinks way too much Pepsi does not mean that DW is a paragon of democratic governance. Just because Margaret Wente got it so wrong does not mean that Roy MacGregor got it right. Getting it right is hard. It's rare because it's not only hard but time-consuming and complicated. But that doesn't make it any less important.
I suspect that one of the reasons why DW so often gets a free pass from Mainland writers is because they don't have to live under Dangovt. They don't have to worry about the state of health care in NL, a nurses strike, a scandal at MUN, or anything else that affects the daily life of democracy. They can blare the trumpet of democratic authoritarianism in the comfort of knowing that they won't have to listen to it in their own province (though it's okay for other people).
If you think such hackneyed reporting is restricted to the national media, think again:
http://www.madelainedrohan.com/writing/a_place_apart_11.10.07.pdf
If you think that only Wente can be patronizing, think again. If you pay attention, you'll realize that these hackneyed redemption stories perpetuate stereotypes that are just as negative and harmful in the long run. Read the very last line of Drohan's story. And think about what it says about you.
Heard the one about lousy journalism?
Cross-Country Checkup Needed Update:
http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/03/rex-gets-it-wrong.html
Breathless Non-News News Story:
Stop the presses, unplug the blogs -- this just in: DW is still soaring far above us, up in the stratosphere, up where the oxygen is depleted:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=230284&sc=79
This poll-story story (whatever happened to investigative stories?) concedes that "not much has changed." But what's that when placed next to a really super headline?
Blog Reality Check Update:
I.P. Freely...there when we need it most:
http://ipfreelynl.blogspot.com/2009/03/thats-just-unacceptable.html
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Dogs of War
For a week that started with bitter pills for DW and the Sunshine Band, it's ending with a generous helping of gâteau.
One doesn't need a ouija board to figure out what this will provoke:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090305.weBaker06/BNStory/specialComment/home/
As is so often the case with the Globe, the problem lies not with the facts but with the tone. Solving the case of Curious George's missing brain is best left to the humourists, bloggers, and Newfoundlanders themselves, who know full well how to respond to such selfish, foolish, and reckless antics.
In their typical, condescending way, the Globe's editorial board seems to be trying, evidently, to turn The Curious Circus into the Saga of the Persecuted Patriot. Their habitual over-reliance on terse declarative sentences (actually, a sentence fragment in this case) gives readers the impression of a verdict by the Court of King's Bench: "Not good enough."
No, it's not. But the good Editors should think twice before telling Newfoundlanders what's in their own best interests: "Nor would Newfoundland be well served by a regional rump party that, unlike the Bloc Québécois, could not conceivably have enough seats to wield major influence in Parliament." No, the Bloc NL wouldn't be very effective, but pointing this out hardly helps matters and, in fact, will be used by Wingnut Nation as yet another cause for separatism.
The best outcome would be for Curious George to have his day in the media spotlight, revel in all the attention, and then be forced to confront the bitter cold of an Ottawa winter. The best outcome would be for Newfoundlanders themselves to tell Mr. Curious where to go and leave it at that.
When you get a spectacle as ugly and shameless as this one, the last thing you need is a gallon of gasoline poured on the bonfire of the vanities. Or, to use another analogy, the last thing we need is another national media pork chop tossed to this dog of a story.
"Mr. Baker should be repudiated, not indulged," the Globe concludes. Yes, in an ideal world, the Curious Circus would meet a quick end in Parliament itself.
But, you see, old chap, Parliament in particular, and federalism in general, is going through a rough patch. As readers of this blog know, I'm no fan of Iggy; however, in this instance, he needs to be cut some slack. Trying to enact some sort of federalist repudiation sounds too much like a regional purge, and it couldn't come at a worse time for Iggy or a better time for DW.
If I remember Grade 10 English, "Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war," is followed by, "That this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial."
Local Editors Do Better Update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=228928&sc=80
As I said, local commentators know how to deal with Curious George better than Glib editors.
Belated Credit Update:
And if I criticize Wangersky when he gets it wrong, it's only fair to give credit when he gets it right:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=226973&sc=86
Local bloggers do it better Update:
Glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks that the Curious Circus merits a PG-13 Rating:
http://ipfreelynl.blogspot.com/2009/03/caucus-discipline.html
Mainland Commentators do it worse (again) Update:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1110364.html
One doesn't need a ouija board to figure out what this will provoke:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090305.weBaker06/BNStory/specialComment/home/
As is so often the case with the Globe, the problem lies not with the facts but with the tone. Solving the case of Curious George's missing brain is best left to the humourists, bloggers, and Newfoundlanders themselves, who know full well how to respond to such selfish, foolish, and reckless antics.
In their typical, condescending way, the Globe's editorial board seems to be trying, evidently, to turn The Curious Circus into the Saga of the Persecuted Patriot. Their habitual over-reliance on terse declarative sentences (actually, a sentence fragment in this case) gives readers the impression of a verdict by the Court of King's Bench: "Not good enough."
No, it's not. But the good Editors should think twice before telling Newfoundlanders what's in their own best interests: "Nor would Newfoundland be well served by a regional rump party that, unlike the Bloc Québécois, could not conceivably have enough seats to wield major influence in Parliament." No, the Bloc NL wouldn't be very effective, but pointing this out hardly helps matters and, in fact, will be used by Wingnut Nation as yet another cause for separatism.
The best outcome would be for Curious George to have his day in the media spotlight, revel in all the attention, and then be forced to confront the bitter cold of an Ottawa winter. The best outcome would be for Newfoundlanders themselves to tell Mr. Curious where to go and leave it at that.
When you get a spectacle as ugly and shameless as this one, the last thing you need is a gallon of gasoline poured on the bonfire of the vanities. Or, to use another analogy, the last thing we need is another national media pork chop tossed to this dog of a story.
"Mr. Baker should be repudiated, not indulged," the Globe concludes. Yes, in an ideal world, the Curious Circus would meet a quick end in Parliament itself.
But, you see, old chap, Parliament in particular, and federalism in general, is going through a rough patch. As readers of this blog know, I'm no fan of Iggy; however, in this instance, he needs to be cut some slack. Trying to enact some sort of federalist repudiation sounds too much like a regional purge, and it couldn't come at a worse time for Iggy or a better time for DW.
If I remember Grade 10 English, "Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war," is followed by, "That this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial."
Local Editors Do Better Update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=228928&sc=80
As I said, local commentators know how to deal with Curious George better than Glib editors.
Belated Credit Update:
And if I criticize Wangersky when he gets it wrong, it's only fair to give credit when he gets it right:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=226973&sc=86
Local bloggers do it better Update:
Glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks that the Curious Circus merits a PG-13 Rating:
http://ipfreelynl.blogspot.com/2009/03/caucus-discipline.html
Mainland Commentators do it worse (again) Update:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1110364.html
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
War Mentalities
Interesting piece in the Globe this morning about how the war mentality towards terrorism erodes human rights.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20090225.TERROR25/TPStory/National/
The same can be said, I think, about the effects of DW's war mentality.
The effects of DW's thuggery -- whether it's his constant invocation of war, hockey fighting, treason, or betrayal -- go much further than simply name-calling.
As Steven Pinker argues in The Stuff of Thought, "There is nothing mere about semantics!" http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/stuff/index.html
With DW's latest personal attack (this time it's against a citizen who dared to speak out on the expropriation of AbitibiBowater’s hydro assets), the descent of discourse in NL has taken yet another step.
Nottawa has an excellent post on this topic:
http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2009/02/speaking-of-dictators.html
Perhaps Geoff Meeker will revisit this issue, since things have deteriorated significantly since he blogged about it last fall:
http://thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=179161&sc=88
Fortuitous Update:
To Meeker's credit, he has revisted the issue, and the results are quite illuminating:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=226680&sc=88
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20090225.TERROR25/TPStory/National/
The same can be said, I think, about the effects of DW's war mentality.
The effects of DW's thuggery -- whether it's his constant invocation of war, hockey fighting, treason, or betrayal -- go much further than simply name-calling.
As Steven Pinker argues in The Stuff of Thought, "There is nothing mere about semantics!" http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/stuff/index.html
With DW's latest personal attack (this time it's against a citizen who dared to speak out on the expropriation of AbitibiBowater’s hydro assets), the descent of discourse in NL has taken yet another step.
Nottawa has an excellent post on this topic:
http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2009/02/speaking-of-dictators.html
Perhaps Geoff Meeker will revisit this issue, since things have deteriorated significantly since he blogged about it last fall:
http://thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=179161&sc=88
Fortuitous Update:
To Meeker's credit, he has revisted the issue, and the results are quite illuminating:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=226680&sc=88
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Non-Story Story
It looks like the Glib's original article may have got the story wrong and the Romaine question may end up generating no more local controversy than a caesar salad. But the tsunami of 428 comments on the Glib's site, which is now closed to further commentary (would have been interesting to see how far the discussion would have gone), shows that the Labrador boundary question stirred up a hornets nest of nationalism: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090211.wrivers11/CommentStory/National/home
However, the Glib's follow-up story today ends with this assertion, which surely is worthy of local scrutiny: "But if Newfoundland can stall the Romaine project, maybe, just maybe, Mr. Williams' lower Churchill dream stands a fighting chance. A slim one, but one more than none."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090211.wyakabuski0212/BNStory/energy/home
The lack of commentary in the local media, including the bloggosphere, is curious. Either Seguin and Yakabuski both got the story wrong and sensationalized a rather quiet issue, or there is something here that will have political traction, sooner or later. If it's the former rather than the latter, one would expect that such misleading reporting would attract analysis.
Meanwhile, it's certainly not escaping attention in Quebec:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/national/200902/11/01-826178-la-romaine-terre-neuve-conteste-le-droit-dhydro-quebec.php
If it's such a dead issue, then why did Seguin get to lead the story with "Power play pits Quebec against Newfoundland?" Jason Churchill, who has done research on Churchill Falls (I guess surnames do influence what we do), wrote to correct "misinformation" but called the piece "otherwise excellent":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090212.COLETTS12-9/TPStory/TPComment/Atlantic/
The non-story story may not have got the people to the barricades, but it got the wingnuts to their laptops. And I still believe that the road to Newfoundland nationalism will continue to run through Labrador.
While the media continues to focus, almost to the point of obsession, on the departure of Campbell, it doesn't seem to realize that Dangovt couldn't care less about the MUN file and, supported by its own Danpolling, knows that Prezgate is not as serious a threat as the St. John's media would like it to be.
In the meantime, it looks like the non-story story of Romaine will get passed over. This may turn out to be the boundary battle that never happened, but I bet you a caesar salad that we haven't heard the last of the border question.
However, the Glib's follow-up story today ends with this assertion, which surely is worthy of local scrutiny: "But if Newfoundland can stall the Romaine project, maybe, just maybe, Mr. Williams' lower Churchill dream stands a fighting chance. A slim one, but one more than none."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090211.wyakabuski0212/BNStory/energy/home
The lack of commentary in the local media, including the bloggosphere, is curious. Either Seguin and Yakabuski both got the story wrong and sensationalized a rather quiet issue, or there is something here that will have political traction, sooner or later. If it's the former rather than the latter, one would expect that such misleading reporting would attract analysis.
Meanwhile, it's certainly not escaping attention in Quebec:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/national/200902/11/01-826178-la-romaine-terre-neuve-conteste-le-droit-dhydro-quebec.php
If it's such a dead issue, then why did Seguin get to lead the story with "Power play pits Quebec against Newfoundland?" Jason Churchill, who has done research on Churchill Falls (I guess surnames do influence what we do), wrote to correct "misinformation" but called the piece "otherwise excellent":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090212.COLETTS12-9/TPStory/TPComment/Atlantic/
The non-story story may not have got the people to the barricades, but it got the wingnuts to their laptops. And I still believe that the road to Newfoundland nationalism will continue to run through Labrador.
While the media continues to focus, almost to the point of obsession, on the departure of Campbell, it doesn't seem to realize that Dangovt couldn't care less about the MUN file and, supported by its own Danpolling, knows that Prezgate is not as serious a threat as the St. John's media would like it to be.
In the meantime, it looks like the non-story story of Romaine will get passed over. This may turn out to be the boundary battle that never happened, but I bet you a caesar salad that we haven't heard the last of the border question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
