Megalomedia - Wake up to your news

Parting is such sweet sorrow

2006-03-08T20:40:00.000-05:00

Well, we all knew this time would come. It's time for this little blog to spread its wings and fly. But fear not, this is more beginning than end. Megalomedia has moved to its new home. And the Canadian Society for a Responsible Press is born. The site is still under development but keep checking back in the coming weeks as more content is rolled out. And of course, the Megalomedializing rage will continue at the shiny new address. So update your bookmarks, Megalomedia has moved on. Thanks Blogger, it's been a slice. I'll never forget my roots.

You know what I like? Context.

2006-03-08T10:49:00.000-05:00

By now I'm sure you've heard about the ethics commissioner wanting to investigate Prime Minister Harper (still getting used to that) and Harper's reluctance to participate. If you haven't, catch yourself up here. The matter is being debated a fair bit in the mainstream papers. For an example, check out this editorial in the Globe, which ran across from this opinion piece. What hasn't been discussed, at least not as far as I've seen, is what Harper said about the Office of the Ethics Commissioner during the election campaign. According to the highly-touted Federal Accountability Act, Prime Minsiter Steve wants to strengthen the Office, not weaken it. Allow me to quote, at length, from the section entitled "Strengthen the Role of the Ethics Commissioner:"

In 1993, Paul Martin and the Liberals promised the appointment of an independent Ethics Commissioner. For over ten years, Paul Martin and the Liberals failed to fulfill that promise, and Martin voted against his own Red Book words in the House of Commons. Finally, under the pressure of the Sponsorship Scandal, the Liberals partially fulfilled their promise. But many problems remain with the role of the Ethics Commissioner, including the special exemptions Paul Martin created for his own business dealings. The plan Stephen Harper will:
Give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators.
Prevent the Prime Minister from overruling the Ethics Commissioner on whether the Prime Minister, a minister, or an official is in violation of the Conflict of Interest Code.
Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law.
Close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests.
End “venetian blind” trusts that allow ministers to remain informed about their business interests, and require all ministerial assets to be placed in truly blind trusts.
Allow members of the public – not just politicians – to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner.
Make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the Ethics Code.

Now, there are legitimate reasons to question Bernard Shapiro himself, but the fact remains that his appointment was ratified by Parliament as a whole - a chief request of the then-opposition Tories. I'm in no way suggesting the media is giving Harper a free ride on this one, I just think people might be interested in knowing what Harper has said about the role of the Ethics Commissioner. After all, the accountability act is his biggest priority.

If it's libellous to paste the Olsen twins' heads on porn star bodies, we're all in trouble

2006-03-02T12:29:00.000-05:00

An interesting story popped up on CBC Ottawa's website today.

A landlord is threatening to evict a Kingston woman from her apartment for criticizing him on her blog, raising questions about how libel laws apply to the internet. ... Dawe argues the landlord has no right to evict her since there's no existing law preventing her from posting negative comments online. ... Art Cockfield, a law professor at Queen's University, cautions that while libel laws don't specifically mention blogs, people must be careful about what they post. "There's some legal uncertainty about whether [Ontario's] Libel and Slander Act applies to internet defamation," said Cockfield. "But having said that, the common libel law would apply and you've got to be careful."

While I don't think eviction is the right course of action I'm glad to see that we might finally get a test of Canada's libel laws vis-a-vis the Internet. A whole slew of people and media outlets libelled the shit out of Wayne and Janet Gretzky not too long ago, and while I can't imagine the Great One taking the time and energy to sue someone over it, having a precedent I can turn to when I'm bitching about it online would be stellar. The whole article is here. Update - I just re-read the article while checking the link in this post and it's also a great example of how to write a libel-related article without repeating the libel. They resist the temptation to quote the blog or the site and they don't link to it or give the URL. Nicely done, anonymous CBC News scribe.

Scene here first

2006-02-27T21:30:00.000-05:00

Every day I open my mailbox, hoping to be invited the next music reporters convention when they decide where the next "scene" is going to be. Every day I am disappointed. Yesterday's New York Times Magazine uses a profile of Broken Social Scene to describe how Toronto is North America's newest "scene." To wit: Musically, you could say that Toronto has become a nicer but less aesthetically coherent version of Seattle in the early days of grunge. Broken Social Scene is Toronto's Nirvana, without Â so far Â the troubled-rock-star antics or the anomie and with a social agenda that puts collective music making above individual success. The second album, "You Forgot It in People," is dedicated to "friends, families and loves." Really? Seattle? I mean, I agree with that Toronto's music scene is lacking "troubled-rock-star antics or the anomie" but the music coming out of that city is also lacking any resemblance to grunge music. Last year, the NYT pissed off Montrealers by "outing" their scene to the world (thereby killing the scene, according to idiot scenesters). Now they've moved on to Toronto. In reality, this isn't a terribly important story. But it kind of gets to me because 1) Broken Social Scene has been making music for years, has been noticed for years and therefore isn't news and 2) nothing is new is happening in Toronto's music scene. Music reporters love music. So when they hear two good bands from one city, they buy a first-class ticket, a suite in a downtown penthouse and pretentiously pencil in the news. There's good music being made everywhere, independently of a recognized scene. Write about the music. Ditch the crap about the scene. I mean, what's the next "scene" going to be? Calgary? Update: Apparently the Globe and Mail read my comments and wishes to correct my last sentence. The next scene is actually going to be in Edmonton.

You can lead a scribe to water. . .

2006-02-23T18:00:00.000-05:00

Alternative title: Why Joe won't get accreditation for the next budget lockup I wrote about this for the MediaScout earlier this week but it continues to frustrate me, so all you Megalomedialites get to read about it now. As many of you likely know, Stephen Harper replaced his director of communications on Monday. You can read about it here, or if you prefer a knob-pollishingly ass kissing recap, read this. That in and of itself isn't big news, though it did prompt some analysis about the less-than-ideal job security in the PMO. What IS news, at least in my opinion, is that new director of communications Sandra Buckler is a former lobbyist. Harper et al. didn't try to hide that fact; it was apparently included in the press release (though I can't find a copy of it. Hey, who writes a press release to announce a new director of communications? Weird). But for some reason, nobody did much digging into her background, save for a couple of journos who took the time to list some of her former clients. Odd. I seem to remember a lot of coverage of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's lobbying history. In fact, wasn't a crack down on the Liberal lobby culture a major part of Harper's campaign? Granted, there's nothing illegal about lobbying, nor is there anything illegal about hiring a lobbyist to be your communications director. But when you've made a crack down on the lobby culture a major theme of your campaign, shouldn't someone take the time to run a few Google searches just to see what the aforementioned lobbyist was up to between stints with the Conservative party? Here's a good place to start. Or, if that gives you an error message, go here and enter Sandra Buckler's name. Now, does everyone have their list of Buckler's clients? Good, let's start Googling! Of course, before we engage in this little exercise, let me make it perfectly clear that I am NOT connecting Buckler to any kind of wrongdoing. She registered her lobbying activities and deregistered (unregistered?) before going to work on the Tory campaign. Now that we've cleared that up, let's have a looksy at that client list. Royal LePage Relocation Services. If that name doesn't ring a bell, you probably didn't work as a media monitor on a DND contract. There were some concerns raised a few years ago that Royal LePage acted less than scrupilously in their dealings with the government. Since everyone else gets to hide behind Parliamentary privilege, I will too. Check out this Hansard entry and Google more yourself if you want. Canadian Payday Loans Association. This is the association that represents, obviously, the payday loans companies. MoneyMart and the like. Recently there were concerns raised about the levels of interest charged by these companies. There was talk of federal legislation but to my memory, nothing came of it. I stand to be corrected on that. CCFDA. What the heck is the CCFDA? Oh, the Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access! Well, digital copyright issues and the recordable media levy haven't been in the news or anything. Once again, let me reiterate - there's no reason to believe Buckler did anything wrong. She registered properly and deregistered before working (officially at least) with the Tories. That said, she lobbied on behalf of companies/groups that do work with the government. In the last two cases listed above, she was working with groups with a vested (in the case of CCFDA, stated) interested in changing or affecting legislation. Now she has the ear of the PM. Is it illegal? No. Is it unethical? Maybe. Is it slightly hypocritical on Harper's part? I think so. Is it worth coverage in the mainstream press? Abso-fuckin-lutely.

Why the new look?

2006-02-16T14:08:00.000-05:00

I hate when people change for the sake of change, so I suppose it's time for some self loathing. Actually, I'd had a few people tell me the greenish-grey on green writing was hard to read sometimes, especially on laptop screens. Plus, it' s coming up on the first anniversary of Megalomedia (I believe the traditional gift is a tin of Green Giant corn) and what better way to ring in a New Year of media seethe? Lemme know what you think.

Memo to journalists

2006-02-14T09:04:00.000-05:00

The gambling ring will only be a question for Gretzky in Turin if you ask questions. Please stop pretending it's not something you have total control over.

It's a good news, bad news kind of thing

2006-02-09T09:05:00.000-05:00

So, it appears CBC has decided to keep their "Reality Check" segment. I suppose that's a 'yay,' though I reiterate my belief that reality checks should be part of every story. There is a 'boo' here, however. Check out this "Reality Check" on Gordon O'Connor's sketchy history as a lobbyist. Silly me, I though the "Reality Check" was where the CBC got beyond the sound bites and spin and tried to shed light in an objective way. This, to me, seems more like an opinion piece or a somewhat biased analysis piece. There's any number of excerpts from this piece that strike me as decidely un-reality-checkesque, but this one is especially good:

But asking the right questions in a parliamentary committee is not the same as making the final judgment on multimillion or multibillion-dollar contracts that are being sold by former colleagues and, one assumes, friends.

One assumes, does one? See, this one would have assumed that assumptions don't belong in a "Reality Check." But this one would also have assumed that the irony of having one of Paul Martin's biographers write a piece examing conflict of interest in Martin's rival's government would send warning signs to the CBC crew. Shows what I know. Post Script: In the interest of shameless self promotion and providing convenient links to coverage, check out my MediaScout post on O'Connor.

Libelled by an anonymous source - it's a Megalomedia wetdream

2006-02-07T22:32:00.000-05:00

By now I'm sure most Megalomedia readers (at least those in Canada) have read about the charges facing Rick Tocchet. He responded to the charges, and in so doing, consented to potentially libelous statements, so I can say here that he has been named in an investigation into an illegal gambling ring in the US. What I won't repeat here is the name of the other people identified in the stories as being involved. For one, they haven't been interviewed and therefore, haven't had the chance to respond. Futhermore, they weren't even named in the formal press briefing. Almost every Canadian article on this story cites an Associated Press article that cites an anonymous source. Let's put aside the libel question for now, it's been discussed on this site before and undoubtedly will again. Let's instead focus on the anonymous source element. Using an anonymous source is (in theory at least) a last resort decision made by an editor. Such sources should be used only when there's a pressing need to do so and when the editor has every confidence in their source. In this case, there is no way each media outlet could have checked this source. They're running libelous speculation based on someone else's anonymous source. That's a risky fucking decision and an absolutely irresponsible one.

NY Times vs Globe and Mail

2006-02-07T17:27:00.000-05:00

It's not a battle you see often. The New York Times' single Canadian correspondent, versus the Globe and Mail's army of bureau reporters scattered around this country. Plus, the Globe and Mail is a Canadian paper, so it knows more about Canada than those Yankees, right? Wrong. Yesterday, the British Columbia government pledged to protect 5 million acres of coastal rain forest in a complete reversal of previous policy. It's a wonderful step forward and you would expect the Globe to send a reporter to the actual forest to report. It's not far for the Vancouver bureau. Instead, the paper opted for a CP wire story from Vancouver, complete with a press conference quote and what I assume is a phone interview with a Sierra Club spokesperson. The NYT, on the other hand, sent Clifford Kraus to Hartley Bay, British Columbia, to report on the announcement. In fact, Kraus was able to report on the announcement in today's paper, while the Globe will have to wait until tomorrow, as the CP story came out after the announcement. The Globe wire copy just covers the news. The NYT story gives background on Native logging rights, logging in British Columbia and how the new deal breaks new ground in how governments are balancing the rights of Native Canadians, logging companies and the preservation of nature. The Globe story simply doesn't. It's one thing to use wire copy for an international story. But to not report on events in your own country as well as a paper from the United States is shameful.

David Emerson is a whore

2006-02-07T12:12:00.000-05:00

I figured I would be the first to post an "Emerson is a whore" headline because I'm sure the press will jump all over the defection of a former Liberal MP to the Conservative Cabinet. I mean, last year, when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor before a crucial budget vote, the press was outraged (except the CBC story I just linked, which was kind of criticized). Most columnists aren't available online anymore, but their opinions ranged from this to this and a whole lot worse. Emerson, it turns out, isn't such a big deal. Sure, pundits, like Don Martin on Global last night (not available online) were mad, but the language of the Stronach defection was far gone. In fact, if you Google "Belinda Stronach defection" and "David Emerson defection," the results don't even compare. This is all a bit troubling. Pundits and columnists refuse to use the crude language they used in the Stronach party-swap when commenting on Emerson's. Though I don't usualy make political judgments on this site, I think it's time for one. If the press isn't going to go by the same standards, then I sure will - David Emerson is a whore.

The troubles with Mr. Dick

2006-02-04T18:43:00.000-05:00

Here’s a lovely story and correction that I was alerted about recently. The story was called “Life After Losing” and it was written in the Ottawa Citizen on January 29 on page A8 by Deirdre McMurdy. The story dealt with what former cabinet ministers and MPs have done in the past after losing elections. One notable example that was highlighted in the lead was a fellow by the name of Paul Dick. Several paragraphs down the reporter says what happened to poor Mr. Dick. And I quote… “For example, fellow Tory Paul Dick, who served as minister of supply and services in the governments of Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell, hit hard times after his 1993 defeat at age 53. After suffering personal bankruptcy and divorce, Mr. Dick ended up taking an entry-level job at a brokerage firm. That, despite his previous experience as a lawyer, assistant Crown attorney and minister of a $6-billion department that underwent a merger and a complete re-engineering under his watch.” And now let’s check out the correction, sorry, apology that was written on February 3. “An article published on Sunday, January 29 entitled "Life After Losing" contained erroneous information about former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Paul Dick. Mr. Dick has never been bankrupt and his divorce occurred prior to his election defeat in 1993. The Citizen apologizes to Mr. Dick.” How do these things actually happen???

No pictures, please

2006-02-03T17:54:00.000-05:00

Can I make a suggestion of the press? Could you please stop publishing photos like this one of our politicians: I mean, I don't like all of our country's politicians. But I do believe that they are all doing the country a pretty valuable service and they are all reaosnably smart people. What is the CBC's justification for running a photo of Allan Rock looking like he's trying to crap out a watermelon?

Much ado about something

2006-02-03T10:37:00.000-05:00

It's amazing to watch how quickly newspapers will rally to the defence of any perceived slight against a free press, especially when so many are so silent on other rights abuses. I remember reading many editorials throughout the ongoing security-certificate debate that asserted that there are natural limits on every freedom. A fair point, even if I don't agree that it applies in this case. Which is why I'm a little dumbfounded by the uproar over the cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper back in September. Not by the uproar in the Muslim world, but in the seeminly-universal opinion among editorialists in the Western world that the papers had every right to print the cartoons and damn the Muslims who got upset. Did they have the right to print them? Sure they did. Do the Muslims have the right to be pissed? Of course they do. I don't think they should be threatening the lives of European citizens but to pretend they don't have a legitimate grievance is disingenuous, to say the least. When the first paper decided to print those cartoons, they had a decision to make. Was it worth offending thousands (millions?) of people to make their editorial point? (Speaking of which, what was their editorial point? That seems to have been lost in the coverage of the whole thing). Sure they had the right to print the cartoons, but there needs to be a balance. The freedom of the press is something I hold very dear but I also recognize that with that freedom comes a sense of responsibility. What you have a right to do and what you have a responsiblity to do are two very different things. Anyway, reading back over this post I don't think I've made my points as lucidly as I'd hoped. But check out this web-exclusive comment from the Globe, written by an editorial cartoonist. He says what I'm trying to say in a much better way:

As a cartoonist, I understand and support the editor of the Jyllands-Posten and his action in promoting the fundamental importance of free speech. Democracy has always been a messy business and mistakes in judgment are a constant risk. If there was any error in judgment, perhaps it lies in the fact that the artists were asked to comment on the validity of a specific religion's taboos. Under the rules of a free press, it's fair game - but to what end?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Haiti!

2006-02-01T09:29:00.000-05:00

As much as I dig it, I don't read the Toronto Star too often (save for MediaScout days, of course) anymore, so I missed Antonia Zerbisias' column on Haiti yesterday. Luckily, in a shameless but welcome act of self-promotion, she built on it on her blog yesterday. To azerb (as she is apparently called in blogoland), I say, welcome to the good fight. For my take on the situation, read this or this or this or this or this or this or this . Or better yet, just read this - one of my finer rants to date. See? I can play self-promoter too! In all seriousness though, the lack of coverage of this story is an embarassment.

Repetition = fact

2006-01-31T10:52:00.000-05:00

Further to my post about the Globe's Gomery Report coverage (and tying in nicely with JK's CBC sources CBC post), check out the Globe's online "news" article about the report's release. This time, rather than an unflagged analysis piece, they've run an actual news story. Aside from the public record info (media lockup, quotes from the first report etc.) the only source is . . . the Globe and Mail's report on Monday. Oddly, while they attribute one round of speculation to that report, they also engage in some of their own unattributed, unflagged analysis:

The report is expected to call for better protection for whistle-blowers and tougher sanctions against federal officials who run afoul of the rules.

Nicely done. For the record, I'm also not sure about this argument:

The scandal ultimately triggered a confidence vote in the House of Commons. . .

But hey, let's focus on one thing at a time.

Megalomedia wins award, says Megalomedia

2006-01-30T13:21:00.000-05:00

Check out this bizarre post from CBC News:

A top Liberal won't be running for the leadership of the federal party.
Frank McKenna, who resigned as Canadian ambassador to Washington last week, will not seek to replace Paul Martin, says CBC News.

Now before you go criticizing the CBC for using anonymous sources, I have to tell you that later in the story they attribute this bit of news to CBC reporter Jennifer Ditchburn. That's right. Ditchburn says her "best guess" is that McKenna isn't running because of personal reasons.

Can I suggest to CBC that they stop using themselves as sources for their stories? That's not journalism. That's making stuff up.

News v. Analysis

2006-01-30T10:14:00.000-05:00

The Globe's top story today is a preview of the second Gomery report, due to be released to the government this week (when it will be properly released remains to be seen; does anyone remember the stink raised by Harper when Martin got a few hours' headstart on the first report?). My concern about the Globe article is that there is absolutely no attribution for what the report is "expected" to contain. There are quotes from Justice Gomery (taken from the hearings), quotes from the first report and recycled quotes/promises from the Tories. The only new quotes are from an inquiry spokesman who declines to give details and just says that the recommendations are very precise. I accept that an informed journalist can look at Gomery's first report, look at the testimony and extrapolate what will be in the second report. As a matter of fact, I've essentially done the same thing at work, where I've been so fortunate as to read about 90 per cent of the testimony and the entire first report myself. But I labelled my report "analysis" because that's what it is. The Globe should have done the same thing. This isn't news, Daniel Leblanc hasn't read the second report (or if he has, he should say so), this is analysis. It should be flagged as such.

The Privatization of Stephen Harper

2006-01-27T17:52:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure what to make of this bizarre Canadian Press story (that link is to the Globe and Mail version). It's a story about how some outlets got "the Harper story" - that is, his hospital visit last night - wrong. Some papers reported Harper had an athsma attack last night. He didn't. He's got a chest cold. Now, this isn't an issue of national importance, but it is the same syndrome the U.S. press was showing earlier this year. Better get it right than get it first. But instead of having that apologetic, correctional tone you would expect a "we got it wrong" story to have - the piece seems to blame Harper's staff for the mistake:

If Canadians are still getting used to the idea of Harper as prime minister following Monday's federal election, the intense media interest in this non-emergency hospital visit is likely a wake-up call for the designated leader himself. A local Ottawa Citizen reporter at the hospital on Thursday evening was told by Mr. Harper's staff: "This is a private matter. You shouldn't be here." By the next morning, Mr. Harper's team was more forthcoming. "I understand there have to be questions about the prime minister-designate that normally we would say: 'It's none of your business,"' said Ms. Stewart Olsen.

Say what? I mean, if your comment from Harper's staff at the hospital is "This is a private matter" and you take that to mean "Harper had an athsma attack" then you're the idiot, not the spokesperson you talked to. Furthermore, the second half of the story seems to be justification for getting the facts wrong in the first place. Why must we know how reportage on the private health matters of Canadian prime ministers differs from U.S. presidents? You were wrong. Admit you were wrong. Blame yourself. And move on. I know I have.

Big Brother v2.0

2006-01-27T15:47:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure what's more troubling. This, or the fact that I'm not at all surprised.

Also...

2006-01-27T11:57:00.000-05:00

This isn't precisely relevant to our mission, but after all the media attention that was spent on the infamous LIBERAL MOLE, it would amuse this humble correspondent greatly if Stephen Taylor's statement is true: that much of the damage was done by a Conservative staffer sitting and listening in the Starbucks outside Liberal HQ in Ottawa.

Seig Steve? WTF?

2006-01-27T11:40:00.000-05:00

I feel more or less obliged to comment on the outrage that is percolating through some of Canada's right-wing blogosphere as a result of a little mix-up by the CBC on The National the other night. From the National Post:

The CBC has apologized to a viewer who complained that a news graphic appeared to juxtapose the name of the prime minister-designate with the German word "heil" -- a salute usually associated with Adolf Hitler. The graphic was flashed during Tuesday night's edition of The National. It appeared beneath a shot of a Stephen Harper election sign. In an e-mail to the viewer, the executive producer of The National explained the graphic was a freeze frame of typing intended to promote the show's "campaign confidential" segment. An editor chose to capture part of the word "their" for the graphic and with a cursor before the "r", it seemed to spell heil. "We sincerely apologize for that," the e-mail said.

The video itself is visible at the following link, although with commentary at both ends that's slightly partisan: click here. Now. This was a dumb, dumb, dumb mistake. The CBC should have caught it, and they didn't, and now they've got substantial egg on their face. But even if some random producer at the CBC had an anti-harper agenda (possible) and was willing to abuse his or her position to carry it out (much less likely), I find it unlikely in the extreme that this was intentional. But browse around the blogosphere and you'll find people willing to say just that. Critical thinking applies to the audience too. You call them on it, they apologize, and there's unfortunately not much else you can do. In my own experience, I once referred to Gloria Steinem as 'Gloria Steinman' in a piece I was editing. I messed up, the irony was enormous, but even the local feminist organization forgave me. To bastardizee Freud, sometimes a mistake is just a mistake.

We're all going to be rich!

2006-01-24T17:30:00.000-05:00

To give everyone a little break from election coverage, check out this story. It's a Vancouver Sun story headlined "Mysterious diamond causes excitement in B.C." And boy, are people excited. You see, a clear 0.8mm diamond (yes, the Sun decides that diamonds are now measured in millimetres, not carats) was found in a rock sample from Northern B.C. This is pretty exciting stuff because formerly all of Canada's diamonds (14 per cent of world supply, currently) are in the northern territories. But now, with diamonds in northern B.C. the economy is going to go through the roof! People will all flock to the province to mine the little jewels that are so obviously trapped in the...what's that Vancouver Sun? You SEVENTH paragraph has just informed me that the diamond from the rock sample is actually more likely from screen used to process a previous sample? Huh? That's right:

The report authors, a team of provincial, federal and University of B.C. researchers, speculate that the small, colourless stone may have been lodged in a rock screen during processing of a previous sample -- including samples belonging to a previous client of the processing lab.

The story does continue, with more muted excitement, that at least some of the other samples had "indicator minerals," usually present when diamonds are around. But, er, diamonds? Not so much. Oh, and as far as my headline for this post goes, we are all going to remain poor. Just thought you should know.

Making the call

2006-01-24T01:27:00.000-05:00

I'm sure other people will have more on this soon, and I'm equally sure they'll be making valid points about responsibility and the fascination with getting stuff first as opposed to right, so i want to thank the good people at Global National for not jumping the gun. They waited approximately eight seconds before predicting a Conservative government, and their careful deliberations are, as always, a beacon for us all.

I'm not going to lie, I don't get it

2006-01-19T17:48:00.000-05:00

So when the Globe (I can't find a link quickly) and CBC both dubbed their reality check segments "reality check," I chuckled. Sure two national media outlets had chosen the same name for a feature, but it's a pretty obvious one (as witnessed by the fact that the Conservatives use the same term). But seriously, can't we do better than this? Not only is the Globe stealing the idea of the issue-based vote selector (hardly a novel idea) but they're taking the "Voter Toolkit" name too? Here, since we're tossing links around, here's one for the Globe to try.

The Globe's Opinion - Front and Centre

2006-01-19T17:47:00.000-05:00

Last week's Globe and Mail weekend edition led with a story I was pretty interested in. It was headlined "Who Is Stephen Harper" and I was pretty excited to read a profile piece of the Conservative leader. I read the first two paragraphs and then - BAM! - the third paragraph slapped me in the face:

Some time in early February, unless the plurality of you who now support him change your mind, Stephen Harper, at the age of 46, will become the 22nd prime minister of Canada.

Whaaaaaaa? I asked aloud. This doesn't sound like an objective piece of journalism at all. So I went back to the top of the story and checked out the byline: John Ibbitson. Now, of course, this all makes sense. John Ibbitson is a Globe columnist and he's not required to write objective pieces of journalism. But the reason I incorrectly assumed this was a news profile was because it was formatted like a straight news piece (I don't have a pic of the front page, but if someone does, please post it). No typical JI photo, nothing. Online, however, you see Ibbitson's mug at the top with a link to his "latest columns." So, if it's a column, why isn't it formatted like a column. And if it's a news piece, why does it say "Stephen Harper, at the age of 46, will become the 22nd prime minister of Canada?"

In Summation

2006-01-19T17:34:00.000-05:00

Alan Bass, Chair of Journalism at Thompson Rivers University, nicely summarizes all of our election-coverage gripes in this commentary. He complains about polling, "Reality Checks" and CBC's anonymous source. He also offers solutions. It's a great read.

The appearance of conflict etc. etc. etc.

2006-01-17T08:41:00.000-05:00

There's an oft-ignored rule in journalism that the appearance of conflict of interest is just as important (and potentially damaging) as actual conflict of interest. As most readers probably know, the Globe endorsed the Tories in an editorial that ran on Saturday. I've never liked newspapers endorsing candidates or parties; I think it skewers any hope for objective coverage, but it's one of those things that just seems to happen. Well, Marcus Gee, the editorial page editor, appeared on one of the Globe's interactive discussions yesterday - apparently I'm not the only one with concerns about what this means for objectivity. What gets me, however, is that the only defence for endorsing someone at all is that ""You will find that all the major papers will endorse one party or another in this campaign, as they do in every one. There's a long tradition of this, going right back to our founder, George Brown, in the 1800s." He goes on to say that the reporters strive to provide objective, unbiased coverage, but the fact is there are a lot more factors that demonstrate a newspaper's bias than just the reportage itself. Story selection, story placement, photo selection. . . all of these things can demonstrate bias and all of these things are decided by editorial staff. I've never liked endorsements in newspapers. Marcus Gee does little to change my mind.

Free Speech Suspended January 23

2006-01-13T17:04:00.000-05:00

The CBC is reporting that the Canadian press will not be permitted to announce poll results in areas where polls remain open. This means that the press will not be allowed to announce Atlantic Canada's poll results across the country until the polls close in British Columbia. The press is also banned from reporting on poll results on the internet or on national television or radio until polls are closed across the country. The press took it upon themselves to take the publication ban to the Supreme Court, but they were shot down today. Personally, I don't see why it would be a problem to announce election results as they come in across the country. People get to see polls every day - why not let them see the big one? I feel a debate thread coming on...

Election Libel Watch

2006-01-13T16:04:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail has reported that an NDP candidate has filed a complaint with Elections Canada against a Liberal candidate. The story is available on the front page of the Globe's Decision 2006 page. Now, a complaint with Elections Canada is apparently not public information. The Globe quotes a spokesperson in the story as saying that EC never confirms if it has a complaint. The Globe did get a copy of the complaint and quotes it extensively. You will notice that I have not described the allegation in the complaint. Nor have I linked to the story. KOB is our resident media law expert, and I'll let him look over the story before I link to anything libelous. Needless to say, the Globe better be sure the accusations are correct - the Liberal candidate has yet to be charged (the Globe actually points out that EC investigations sometimes take years). Look out for how different media cover this story and how extensively they quote the NDP candidate's letter. I'll link to what I can, when I can. Watch for updates. Update - 17:10 EST The CBC is reporting on the front page of their Canada Votes section that the Liberal Party has axed the Liberal candidate named in the NDP complaint. Their story quotes from the EC complaint letter, written by the NDP candidate as well. I'm still not linking to stories unless KOB reads them and finds they are not libelous. To the best of my knowledge, both these stories contain libel. Update - 17:20 EST Canada.com is also reporting that the Liberal candidate has been asked not to campaign as a Liberal any more and will be not be permitted to sit as part of the Liberal caucus if he wins his riding. The story is safer - not quoting directly from the EC complaint letter (perhaps CanWest doesn't have a copy) but it still paraphrases accusations from the NDP candidate. Update - 17:55 EST The Liberal Party press release is libel-proof (not surprisingly). It's as much information as this site can offer right now, but I am linking to publicly availably sources and not to the article itself, so I'm sure this won't be news to any of you.

Statement from the Liberal Party of Canada January 13, 2006 Ottawa - It came to our attention today through media reports that the NDP candidate in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Jeffery Hansen-Carlson had signed a sworn affidavit in respect of the conduct of the Liberal candidate in Abbotsford, David Oliver.
Subsequent to consultations with the National Campaign, Prime Minister Martin decided that it was in the best interests of the party that Mr. Oliver cease campaigning as a Liberal candidate and that he not sit in the Liberal Caucus should he be elected.
The Prime Minister has directed that the Liberal Party of Canada refund to Elections Canada any funds that will accrue to the Party under Elections Canada's $1.75 per vote party financing system as a result of any votes garnered by Mr. Oliver on January 23rd.
The National Liberal campaign will also recalculate its campaign spending on the basis of 307 candidates. In the interest of fairness, the Prime Minister has asked Mr. Oliver to no longer publicly identify himself as the Liberal candidate.
Finally, he has directed the British Columbia Liberal campaign to re-possess any Liberal party promotional material bearing Mr. Oliver's name.

Sorry Globe, you're due

2006-01-12T18:03:00.000-05:00

Well, we've tossed out mad props to the Globe on more than one occasion on this blog for their election coverage. It's time to take them down a few pegs. Like many media outlets, the Globe has been running a series of "reality check" articles during the election campaign (the CBC even uses the same name for theirs). They're interesting features that take a second look at campaign promises and stump speech claims (why such reportage can't be included in the hard news coverage is beyond me, I guess context is a special, election-only feature). Today's reality check, however, falls flat. Check it out here. Rather than refute or support the claims in the Liberal advertisements, they simply offer up the Tory rebuttal to each. Now, back in journalism school, oh so many moons ago, we were taught to cover all possible sides to every story. So why weren't the Tory rebuttals included in the original story? Were the Liberal claims presented unchallenged? Furthermore, how does offering the Tory spin constitute a reality check of any sort? Shouldn't a reality check consist of, I don't know, reality? Facts? Granted, many of these claims are subjective - there's no clear answer or conclusion - so then why label this a "reality" check. Election campaign allegations are often he-said, she-said affairs. It'd be nice if reportage elevated itself to a higher plain, but at the very least, call a spade a spade. This isn't a reality check, it's the spin cycle redux.

Global Attack

2006-01-12T12:25:00.000-05:00

In early December, residents of Richmond, British Columbia, began receiving pamphlets in their mail from Conservative candidate Rob Anders. This shouldn't have been newsworthy, except that Rob Anders is not the Conservative candidate in Richmond, B.C. In fact, he's the candidate for Calgary North West. The CTV election blog covered the beginning of that story here. Two days ago, Global News in Calgary found the story (even though it's a month old) and went to Anders' campaign office. He wasn't there, so the reporter asked a volunteer if he was in British Columbia. "British Columbia?" she questioned. "He's not in British Columbia." Global, better late than never, wondered where Anders was. They called the Conservative Party and found out he was in B.C. helping out with a fellow Conservative candidate's campaign (hopefully not Derek Zeisman's). So they went back to his campaign office and asked the same volunteer if she had any more news about the candidate's whereabouts. "He's in B.C." she gleefully proclaimed. The reporter was stunned. It's too bad Global jumped on this story so late, but I like the aggressiveness with which they are pursuing it. There is no news about this on the Global site, or the Calgary Herald site, that I could find and a "Rob Anders" search on Canada.com gets me nothing. If anyone finds a clip of this Global story, please let me know. Global also had a story about a public health forum held in Calgary to which representatives of all parties were invited. Rob Anders was replaced by one of those plastic bird toys that rocks back and forth until it gains enough momentum to take a sip of water from a cup placed in front of it and then goes back to rocking back and forth until it gets enough momentum to...well, you get the picture. Global should be commended for holding Anders accountable, especially in Calgary. Conservatives hold all of Calgary's seats and the other parties have pretty much given up (the Liberal candidate don't even have signs made, as I mentioned earlier). But the electorate should know who cares about them and who is off parading around in British Columbia. In a culture of resignation, it's great to see Global standing up for Calgarians.

Soldiers with guns? In our cities? D'oh.

2006-01-11T18:31:00.000-05:00

Well apparently all it really took was a Mike Duffy hissy fit and the Liberal forehead-smacking has begun. That's right, the man who during Pierre Trudeau's funeral reminded Margaret Trudeau it was the day of her dead son's birthday sending her into a fit of tears, has raised his Blackberry in the air and called for journalists of the world to unite. With that said I would agree with KOB, that Duffy did the right thing and continued to hammer the issue - it's definitly nice to see on occasion. The story now is out there and will most likely be until the end of the election - the veterans are pissed and Lord knows they can really get their fist-shaking heard in the media. However, sadly this is probably the most front page coverage any defence issue will likely receive. Before this, the top coverage of defence in the election has been Harper's policy, which grabbed a front on New Year's Eve in the Citizen, a brief spate about arctic sovereignty and that's about it, with nay a mention in the debates. However, outside of the election sphere there certainly are some issues in this field that could get some attention: 1.) Afghanistan: We are sending 2,000 soldiers to the region in a couple months without any electoral debate. For the last several months the only stories about this region were about how dangerous a mission this will be. However, British papers are reporting that the British officials are unsure of continuing their presence. Likewise with Denmark and Australia, and the Americans are pulling troops out and moving them to Iraq. On top of that Chief of Defence Staff Hillier, of "murderers and scumbags" fame, has led a buying spree for said mission, thus far speeding up the process to spend $234 million on new equipment. Does anyone really know what our politicians are saying about any of this? 2.) The replacement of the Hercules aircraft which is supposed to start at the end of January. What's important about this? The plan is valued at $4.6 billion and it's rumoured the contract specs have been written so specific to only allow one plane to enter competition. David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen has done a nice job here, Michael Den Tandt in the Globe as well, oh and check out Frank Magazine too. The list goes on. But I guess what I'm saying is that rather than reporters simply focussing on whether politician A would have sent troops to Iraq three years ago or are enlisting martial law, perhaps it's time to look beyond this and talk about what the Canadian military is currently doing and what should be changed.

Vive la Revolution 5 - Dekes

2006-01-11T16:44:00.000-05:00

Hello hello, Well I've been in fact hiding in a bunker up until now, mainly because I am intimidated by Joe. However, despite this fear I have now decided to throw my hat into the fray that has become Megalomedia. Thank you Joe for this opportunity As far as background is concerned, I currently reside in Ottawa and I am also a journalism graduate at Carleton. I have a taste for politics, especially those south of the border, as well as a taste for Canadian military rations. On top of that, I'm an on-again off-again media monitor and also a senior writer for an independent Canadian military magazine. Cheers.

Suspension of belief

2006-01-11T06:44:00.000-05:00

One of the most common deflecting tactics used by interviewees when trying to deflect attention away from something they don't want to talk about is expressing disbelief that journalists are talking about W when X, Y and Z are SO much more important, and why don't we talk about what people want to hear about, hmm? Sometimes they might have a point - particularly in elections, journalists can focus on some odd issues (take a bow, Jack Layton's moustache) that seem divergent from the central issues of the day. But it's unfortunate, in principle, for journalists to be scorned for doing their jobs - in this case, asking questions about things people would rather not discuss. Which is whyI was glad I was watching Countdown after the French-language debates, when host Mike Duffy laid into Liberal spokesman John Duffy for trying to deflect questions over a Liberal ad accusing the Tories of wanting to put Canadian soldiers "with guns" into the streets of Canadian cities. The ad in question has been pulled from the Liberal site, but is featured in a link on the right side here. (Look for the 'Liberal attack ad about Harper and military presence'; can't lnik directly to Javascript) And here is the Duffy v. Duffy clip: here. You can draw your own conclusions about the ad and the commentary. But a tip of KOB's hat to Mike Duffy for refusing to back down. *tip*

Rumours of the Liberals' Demise are Greatly Unattributed

2006-01-10T15:13:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail reported this morning that many Liberal candidates have already conceded defeat and that staffers are feeling out new jobs even before the election comes to a close. The story, titled: "Liberals quietly consider the possibility of defeat," is available here. The story quotes a litany of anonymous sources, only one of which actually confirms the story's headline ("The national campaign is not doing anything for us"). For a contest, guess in which paragraph the first attributed source appears. If you guessed 21, you win! (There are 28 paragraphs in the online story). This story should not have any unattributed quotes, or quotes attributed to "senior Liberal officials." Both writers (Jane Taber and Bill Curry) are senior political writers for the Globe and should know better than to allow Liberal candidates to comment anonymously on the campaign. In my mind, there are two reasons why a Liberal candidate would talk in such low regard of their own campaign. The first is they are honestly disappointed with a poorly-run campaign. The second is, they may be in ridings the Liberals have no hope in winning and have offered no logistical support to (the Liberal candidate in my Calgary riding doesn't even have campaign signs - he rents those big neon-lettered signs you see advertising minor league hockey registration). A less-likely reason may be that the candidates are not Paul Martin's fans and want to sandbag the campaign in order to oust Martin as leader and replace him with someone they support. I don't know if these "senior Liberals" have dishonest motives. But unless we are told who these sources are, readers can't make that judgment. If this story is going to make the Liberal campaign suffer, perhaps we should know why.

Fun With the Sun

2006-01-09T16:44:00.000-05:00

I confess, I haven't been reading the Sun too much for election coverage. It seems, however, that Calgary Sun editors have had one poll too many...

Press Play

2006-01-09T14:08:00.000-05:00

It has been said on this site before, but I think it must be said again: The Globe and Mail is really leading the press pack in terms of election coverage. At 10 a.m. EST, on their website, they are offering up their reporters for live interviews with Globe readers. The Washington Post also has live discussions every day with reporters, though the New York Times, despite its transparency issues, has yet to join the fray. The CanWest chain of newspapers is also behind in this regard. I want to point out something Jane Taber, a senior Globe and Mail political writer had to say in this morning's discussion. I have quoted the question and answer below. The emphasis is mine.

Cherolyn Knapp, Ottawa: In a couple of recent CBC Radio One news stories, I have noticed that the coverage of Harper was much more sympathetic than usual. The reporters commented on the fact that while he was reading to school children and serving coffee at Tim Horton's on campaign stops, he appeared much more comfortable and at ease with people. Has there really been a shift in Harper's interpersonal comfort level or is the media just being more kind to him? Does Harper have the personality of a leader? I am not a Conservative supporter, but I was interested in the effect these news stories have on the public perception of Harper as more of a human being (and therefore a potentially stronger leader). Jane Taber: Ms. Knapp: Good observation. I think that Mr. Harper is more comfortable, especially now that the Conservatives have well-formed policies. In the last election, the PC party and Alliance had just merged, and had no policies. This was a huge problem for the new party because Canadians were suspicious to a certain extent and had no idea what this new party stood for. Mr. Harper is a policy wonk, and loves to talk about issues. In this election, he's been able to do all that, and very well, I would argue. The Tories have grabbed the agenda by making daily policy announcements early in the morning when the Liberals, it seems, are still getting out of bed. The media's perception has shifted as well, I would argue. I think that watching Mr. Harper and his troops in action for the past year, as well as covering the Conservatives policy conference last March in Montreal, have given reporters something to write about rather than simply focusing on personality and conflict. And there is now a comfort level, similar to that the Liberals have always enjoyed with the media, with the Conservatives. The Harper Tories were forever accusing the media of bias, now the Liberals are accusing us of that. You can't win! I don't know what effect the news stories have on the campaign. I think, though, that it's important for Canadians to know not only the policies of a leader but the personalities of the leader.

The italicized portion of Taber's remarks is interesting. First, she says "The Tories have grabbed the agenda (I think she means headlines...) by making policy announcements early in the morning." Certainly, making policy announcements early in the day will garner more media attention because the story will play out over a longer press cycle than a story released in the afternoon. Also, if one party releases a policy statement in the morning, and another party issues a policy announcement on the same topic in the afternoon, the second party will be "on their heels," and "responding to" the first party's policy even if it's just a matter of scheduling. It is odd, however, to see a senior writer acknowledge this so openly. Perhaps the press should focus more on analyzing and reporting on issues, rather than their timing, or how other parties "respond" to these announcements. Further, she says the Conservatives are enjoying a "level of comfort" with the media. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I don't necessarily think a political party should have a "level of comfort" with the press. Nor do I think the press should be adversarial. Just objective, or as close to that as possible. This brings us back to the question of the "back story" of a campaign the press seems to want to cling to. Perhaps the press should focus on the parties issues, not on how well they play the media.

A Megalomedia first!

2006-01-07T00:06:00.000-05:00

See, all good media should state up front when they make errors, and post these in a noticeable place. It's just the rigth thing to do. The fact that this error belongs to Jacques in no way is a reason for me to correct it publicly. The piece he was referring to below was written by Chris Dornan, not Chris Waddell. Anyhow, the piece follows, and then a few thoughts.

Globe & Mail, A9 Dec. 23, 2005 by CHRISTOPHER DORNAN How far would you go to get people to vote? How far would you go to get people to pay attention to your election coverage? Actually paying them, remember, is illegal in the first instance and bad business practice in the second.
For example, would you be any more interested in this column if you didn't know who wrote it? What if the little mug shot of me in the upper left-hand corner had a black band across the eyes with a byline crediting a "mystery" contributor? Would that make it more alluring than the dull truth of knowing it's just me, some guy you don't know from Adam? CBC's The National is running a regular feature, "Campaign Confidential," in which the identity of the commentator is artfully shrouded. This person could be a former party strategist, a former cabinet minister, or indeed more than one person. A skilled actor you only hear and never see reads the column in the gravelly voice of someone who's seen it all. The identity of the mystery columnist, we are promised, will be revealed to us on election night.

I dare say that won't be the most important thing revealed to us on election night, but so what? There's nothing wrong with trying everything you can think of to get folks mulling over the important business of how they want to be governed. Messy as it is, democracy is pretty simple. It means the people get to choose. If the people elect not to choose -- if they sit at home on their hands on election night, not even motivated enough to register a protest vote -- what then? On a good day, you can convince yourself that a lack of interest in federal politics is a backhanded compliment, a sign of complacency.

Sure, whatever party happens to be in power is infuriating, but the public judges (correctly) that the country works well enough -- better than almost anywhere else -- so what difference does it make who's in charge? But if you care at all about Canadian democracy, election day is not a good day to trot out that rationalization. The fact that fewer and fewer percentages of people vote is troublesome because, bottom line, the thing that makes Canada work so well is the number of people who believe in it.

So, it is not simply incumbent upon the media to cover the election conscientiously, it is their civic duty to encourage interest in the coverage of the election. In their own way, all of the media outlets do so. You don't think the staff members at Dose, the youth daily, aren't thinking hard about how to cover this campaign in a way that will get their supposedly uninterested readers interested while at the same time getting more readers? Let's be honest. It costs the news media a lot of money to cover an election and they have no choice about it. For once, their financial interests are perfectly coincident with their public responsibility: They need to get you interested so that you watch their newscast or buy their newspaper.

So let's cut them some slack if they resort to a gimmick or two.

The National, for instance, is gimmick central. They have their "Campaign Confidential" mystery contributor. They have a bit called "Taxi Chat," in which they put someone running for office behind the wheel of a cab and record the exchange between pol and passengers.

(I notice they haven't tried this late at night, when the bars empty and the people in the back seat are groping one another.) They're also trying comedy -- or what passes for "comedy" in the upper boardrooms of the CBC news division. A Winnipeg outfit called the Content Factory has had a run at animating portraits of former prime ministers bickering with one another about the campaign. Chuckle quotient? Not so much.

Speaking of ideas that would have been best left on the cutting-room floor, lately they've wheeled out comic Sean Cullen in a segment called "I'm glad you asked," in which he answers -- or, rather, makes fun of -- viewers' election queries. Sean Cullen has many talents as a performer. This, unfortunately, is not one of them.

But hey, at least the CBC is trying. You can't fault them for it. If we had an electorate that didn't need a cattle prod to go to the polls, none of the media would have to try so hard.

Christopher Dornan is the director of the Carleton University school of journalism and communication.

Is it the media's duty to encourage people to vote? I really don't know. But Campaign Confidential is the wrong way to go about engaging interest. By describing this person as something of an election expert, the CBC is basically telling you that this person's insights are useful and valuable. And these reports aren't exactly politically neutral. The last one, on western alienation, was rather noticeably anti-Liberal, which would be acceptable if the audience knew who was speaking and this person's general political affiliations. In short, if they had the context in which to place them. Pretend CC is one of Preston Manning, Joe Clark, Shiela Copps, or Warren Kinsella. Which of the four would you trust the most? I'll bet a lot of people have a lot of different answers. And if one of them was telling me something, I'd bloody well want to know which one it was before I decided how much to trust what they had to say. If CC was merely reporting verifiable facts, anonymously, then that would be one thing. But opinions on the campaign and how it's playing out? While the CBC should try to make the campaign interesting to its viewers, broadcasting unvarnished opinion without attribution could do more than encourage them to vote, despite the pooh-poohing Mr. Dornan offers. It could sway the way a person votes. And that is not under any circumstances what the media is supposed to do.

Can you keep a secret?

2006-01-06T12:56:00.000-05:00

Reporting on the backstory of a campaign can be interesting for readers, but, as Joe has said below, it becomes troublesome when the periphery of a campaign takes over from the issues. Fundamentally, it is the job of the press to perform a public service. In the case of election coverage, it is up to journalists to provide the public with the information they need to make an informed decision on January 23. Hence the problem with covering the campaign as opposed to covering the issues. Despite CBC offering mostly exceptional coverage of policy issues during this election campaign, the national broadcaster falls alarmingly short in one important aspect. It's called Campaign Confidential and it's totally against professional standards of journalism. Here is how the CBC describes Campaign Confidential:

Campaign Confidential is a diary, really, by a writer who is no stranger to political campaigns in this country. For now, the author will remain anonymous, but rest assured she or he is a political pro, a veteran of more than a quarter-century of elections, leadership races and conventions. We've asked for a brief twice-weekly note of insider perspective. After you've seen a few editions of Campaign Confidential, you may want to take a guess at who our diarist is. Be patient; there's a long way to go before election night, when you'll find out for sure who it is.

If you haven't heard of Campaign Confidential, here's how it works. Twice weekly, the anonymous writer posts to this site. On The National, the CBC's nightly newscast, a reporter reads the email to the viewing audience, protecting the anonymity of the source. Reporters should rarely use anonymous sources. They allow individuals to speak on an issue without being held accountable to their actions. If a source asks a reporter to be anonymous, the reporter should be certain that the request for anonymity is valid. For example, a source should be granted anonymity if they are providing facts in the public interest and disclosure of the source of those facts could be of great personal detriment to the source. If a source knows that a politician has ties to organized crime, and reveals this information, the criminal organization could seek retribution by causing bodily harm to the source. The source should remain anonymous. But allowing sources to speak opinion of any kind behind the curtain of anonymity does not serve the public. CBC is allowing an anonymous source to comment on the election and, perhaps, influence voters without revealing their identity. The source could be Scott Reid, a senior political advisor to Paul Martin. It could be Warren Kinsella, a writer, political pundit and former aide to Jean Chretien. Or, it could just be a CBC reporter going undercover. Regardless, the CBC is allowing a political insider to opine on the election without revealing any potential bias. Of course, the CBC says they will reveal the source on election night, but by then the damage could have already been done. More on CBC's Campaign Confidential Carleton University journalism professor Chris Waddell (and a good friend of mine), wrote about the Campaign Confidential in a Globe and Mail Media Watch column a few weeks ago, but sadly, it's not available online any more. If anyone can find a PDF of that Globe article, please email me.

Update

Chris Dornan actually wrote the Media Watch piece on CBC's Campaign Confidential. King of Bastards has posted it above. More sources on this can be found at Antonia Zerbisias' TorStar blog, or on Fine Young Journalist.

This just in: Layton likes his moustache

2006-01-06T08:48:00.000-05:00

I've been tempted many times over the past few weeks to talk about election coverage. In my mind, there is no better opportunity for the media, as the Guardians of Democracy(TM), to step up to the plate and do a real public service. Every day, there is a myriad of policy announcements and spending promises made by party leaders. On a more regional level, each and every candidate tries to position themselves as the best choice for the voters. It's damn near impossible for one person to sort their way through the tsunami of information (it's been more than a year, we can use that again, right?) and people turn to the media to help make sense of it all. Which is why this story angers me. Now, to be fair, I feel sort of bad picking on the Globe here, because by and large, I think they do a pretty good job of campaign coverage - particularly on their website (the CBC also does fairly well). But since the Globe is the only paper that appears on my doorstep in the morning (full disclosure of bias alert), here we are. This is the Globe's lead "Liberal" story (their lead "Tory" story is here; to see how they placed the two, click here). Of all the things Martin said yesterday, the best nugget they mine is that he's happy with his campaign. Stop the presses. Does the average voter really care how Martin feels about his campaign? Is it important information to have when deciding how to cast a vote? What about his education policy, can we get more information on that? How does he skirt jurisdiction issues with the provinces? What's the justification for selecting only the first and fourth years of a degree program? Does this discriminate against three-year degree students? Why does Quebec have a separate arrangement? There are a lot of "interesting" things that happen during a campaign. But few if any of them really matter in the grand scheme of things. What matters is policy. As the Tories and Liberals drift closer to each other ideologically, Canadians have to dig deeper into their policy announcements to find out what differences actually exist (ps. there are differences, and pretty significant ones, but they aren't necessarily easy to spot). The media are supposed to represent the average citizen's interests. They are supposed to be our eyes, ears and filters and equip us with the tools we need to make decisions. Too often, they act as part of the system instead, giving interesting insider looks at the campaign but not delivering any real substance. The Globe article is not the only example of this, nor is it the best. But it's something we all need to be aware of.

Media Dig Themselves Out of a Hole

2006-01-05T11:05:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you've all heard about a little mistake almost all media outlets made on Tuesday when they announced 12 miners trapped in a Virginia mine were found alive. Instead, only one survived. Today, the media has come out in full force to defend themselves. This isn't a Canadian-centric story and doesn't deserve much play on this site, but I thought I should link some sources for those of you who want to find out more about the media covering themselves. CBS news has a typical "seriously, it wasn't our fault" article. There are countless like this one, but this example has a great photo at the top, so I included it. The New York Times has a good article about how other media outlets dealt with an erroneous story. Apparently, the correct story broke after most papers went to print. Note: This story does a poor job of mentioning that the New York Times did not stop the presses (unlike the LA Times and the New York Post) and instead ran with the incorrect, positive story, delivering it in print, on the web and in electronic newsletters. The story was made right early yesterday morning on the web, but readers were not alerted to it until this morning's paper and electronic newsletters. Jay Rosen has some good commentary on the PressThink blog (he doesn't have permalink, so you may have to scroll down if he's posted again.) Update: As Jay Rosen himself has posted in these comments, I'm a moron and didn't scroll down far enough when I tried to find a permalink. Click here for his commentary (sorry Jay!). Regret the Error has a good timeline on how this story developed. The site also links to an Editor and Publisher blog, but I'll let you find that from the RTE site. More than anything, this story shows how different outlets deal with making a mistake. The NYT/NYP example shows that even in the same city, one paper managed to find their mistake and correct it (at great expense - they had to get the delivery crews to replace 43,000 already-delivered papers, according to the NYT). Other papers, especially the NYT, really dropped the ball. But, then again, it's been kind of a bad week for the NYT... Update This is the best Canadian angle I could find on this story. The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National post all ran with the second, incorrect AP wire story. Another drawback to continually allowing wire copy to replace actual reporting, though I'm not sure it would have helped in this case. The CBC did send a reporter (or hired freelance, I'm not sure) to Virginia, and had accurate information on CBC Radio and Newsworld.

A-Polling

2006-01-04T12:17:00.000-05:00

In previous posts, this site has been very critical of polls conducted on behalf of major news organizations. They offer an easy way out of actual reportage - media outlets just ask some people what they think and publish the results. During an election, polling is inescapable - people want to know what the next government could look like before the vote. These polls document opinion where opinion should be documented (lack of context and other previously noted problems aside). But today's National Post takes polling to a new level. Instead of trying to document opinion, the Post asks Ipsos Reid to ask Torontonians to explain an increase in gun violence. Seventy-six per cent of them think it's because judges are too lenient with sentencing. Well, is it true? Do those who commit offenses with firearms receive unreasonably light offenses? What's the length of the average sentence for a gun crime? When these people are released from prison, what is the re-offend rate? What is the current rate of gun crime in Canada? Why doesn't this story answer any of these questions? More troubling is this quote:

Eighty-nine per cent of Toronto residents polled blamed gangs for the shootings that have made gun crime a top issue in the federal election campaign while 78% cited drugs and drug trafficking. In contrast, far fewer respondents pointed to social issues as the cause of increased violence. Less than half said poverty was a major cause of gun crime, while 31% blamed a lack of affordable housing, 45% cited inadequate funding for recreation programs and 49% listed youth unemployment.

Well? What percentage of gun crimes in Toronto were gang-related? What percentage involved drugs and drug trafficking? Is there someone out there - I don't know, a criminal sociologist of some kind - who could speak to the second half of the above quote? This story is troubling because it proports to explain gun violence in Toronto through the opinions of people obviously still shaken from the Boxing Day shooting that took the life of 15-year-old Jane Creba. Perhaps the Post could have actually reported on this issue instead of outsourcing their job to Ispos Reid. More About Polling This story shows how detrimental polling can be to journalism. It is certainly the media outlets who are to blame, not the polling companies. A former employee of a prominent polling company spoke to a journalism class at Carleton University last year (I will not name the employee, polling company or class because the event was an informal conversation) told students that he found the media's obsession with polls to be amazing. His company, he said, once released a poll that discovered that a majority of Canadians believed Elvis was still alive. A major newspaper, the identity of which would reveal the source, published the story on the front page. The former employee laughed about how easy it was to get his polling company's name on the front page of the newspaper. In my communications position, I also receive solicitations from polling companies. The latest was a survey a polling company would conduct on co-educational schools compared to single-sex schools. The promotional materials (which included a poll the school had to submit to its constituents) promised the results to be released in the spring, combined with a public relations campaign (implemented by a partner PR firm associated with the polling company) to guarantee media coverage during the admissions season of independent and private schools across the country. Pay attention to news stories in March. You will see stories that suggest, based on a poll conducted by a major polling firm, that co-educational schools out-perform single-sex schools. And my bosses will rejoice.

Viva la Revolution 4 - Shotgun

2006-01-04T10:29:00.000-05:00

First of all, I'd like to thank God for giving me the opportunity to post on Joe's blog. I mean, I'd like to thank God for having Joe invite me to post on his blog. Thanks, God/Joe. You guys are great. To disclose what is needed to be disclosed: I'm a journalism graduate of Carleton University in Ottawa currently working in communications at a private school in Calgary, Alta. It's about as fun as it sounds. I'm also slowly getting motivated to start freelancing, so perhaps you'll see my byline around if you live out west. Unlike the King of Bastards, I will disclose my name. Noble, perhaps, but foolish. -Jacques Krzepkowski

Vive la Revolution 3 - Rise of the Bastard

2006-01-03T19:47:00.000-05:00

'Sup all. Most of you who recognize the name will know me already, but for those of you who don't, let me tell you a little about myself. I'm a science and politics geek, work in the generic 'media' field and probably am or will be the resident "expert" on idiocy in science and health coverage, in addition to my occasional forays into more generic idiocy. Some day I may lose my job or work for someone who is cool with my expressing opinions on the media, but until then you won't get my name and I'm sure the people who know it won't divulge it (looking at you, Runs-With-Bees).

Viva la Revolution 2 - Expansion Day

2006-01-03T19:26:00.000-05:00

Salut mes amis, Just a quick note to let you know that I've invited a few more bloggers to work on this site while we work at setting up responsiblepress.org. Hopefully over the next few days you'll see introductory posts from them, then the blogging can begin. Thanks for hanging around, things will pick up soon, I promise.

Viva la Revolution

2005-12-28T18:25:00.000-05:00

Ladies and gentlemen, puppies and peers, I am so stoked it's not funny. Not only am I the proud parent of a perky puppy, I am in the midst of launching the Canadian Society for a Responsible Press - a non-profit association tasked with promoting the very values I've preached about on this blog. A big part of the project will be Megalomedia v2.0 - this very blog staffed by a team of dedicated volunteers of a like mind. Having more than one mediaskeptic manning the keyboard will ensure regular updates and a variety of voices, so yay for that. The ActionLine will be reborn again too, along with some other fun toys. If you want to get in on any of this action, drop me an email. Otherwise, tune in to responsiblepress.org in the next few weeks as this bad boy comes to life.

I tire of the wire

2005-11-24T18:24:00.000-05:00

So here's something I wrote about for MediaScout this week, but I really want to mention it here. It's part of a trend in the mainstream press that really irks me. This article appeared in both the Citizen (who ran pretty much the same article) and the Globe (who ran a much, much shorter version). To be honest, the story barely registered with me when I read the Globe. I jotted a note reminding myself to look back at it if I couldn't find something else to Scout about, but I really didn't pay it much attention (mostly because it was devoid of context). But when I saw the Citizen article I decided to look into it more. I'd never heard of the 1996 "World Food Summit," but knowing that Canada tends to be down with such summits, I popped "world food summit" and "canada" into google, just to see what I got. Try it yourself, this should be your first result. Voila, a Canadian angle to the story. If you don't follow politics at all, the "Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Agriculture" named as working on Canada's contribution to the summit, is now the Minister of Finance. He who spends the money (or does for the next few days). Sadly, neither the Globe nor the Citizen bothered to Canadianize this story. They copied and pasted from the wire and called it a day. I understand that wires have become an indispensible part of the mainstream newsroom. When there's an international story of interest, they can provide Canadians with news they otherwise wouldn't get since foreign bureaus went the way of the dodo or the Carolina Hurricane fan. But this wasn't a late breaking news story from a far-off land. It was a report issued by a UN agency. These things don't come out of the blue; something tells me there was time for a reporter to scrum Mr. Goodale, or at least call his office (or the Agriculture Minsiter's , or CIDA. . . ). Is it just me, or is this lazy journalism?

Quick Hit

2005-11-22T14:42:00.000-05:00

Go read this. Then weep.

Digging a credibility hole

2005-11-16T12:26:00.000-05:00

Here's a lunch-time update on yesterday's post. Not content with just selling their front page to the highest bidder, Metro also made it a story in today's edition. If you can't read the image above, allow me to pull out my favourite quote for you: “Needless to say, both Metro and Rogers are very excited to showcase this Canadian first that exemplifies Metro’s standout advertising offerings,” said Metro Ottawa Publisher Dara Mottahed. That's right, friends, Metro is pleased to whore out their advertising offerings in this, the editorial section. Anyone wanna place a bet on how long it will take before a cash-strapped major daily (I'm looking at you, National Post) follows suit?

The race to sell out

2005-11-15T20:45:00.000-05:00

Well, National Post, it looks as though someone's got some competition. Several people pointed me to today's Ottawa edition of Metro (I'm not sure if the other Metro papers ran the same ad). You might be able to tell why: If that wasn't enough, they had an extra (semi-transparent) wrap on the cover to give the ad a multi-layered effect. I don't know what I can add to what I've already said about this sort of thing. It just makes me sick. At what point is your integrity worth more than advertising dollars? In the interest of ending on a positive note, I gotta preach to the awesomeness of George Strombolopolpoloplus's "The Hour" on CBC. I know, I know, I'm late on this, but I didn't have cable at all last year and then the CBC employees were locked out. I haven't had a chance to really get into it before, but wow, attaboy George.

Remember me?

2005-10-27T19:48:00.000-05:00

I know, I know. I have been a bad little blogger. I gotta say, I'm really enjoying the new job, but without reading seven newspapers a day before 7 a.m., I'm left wanting for blogging time / inspiration. But, every now and again I'll be suitably enraged by something and I'll make sure to tell you about it here. For this installment, I have two reasons to seethe. Reason the First: The Dingwall Affair I assume most readers of this humble site are familiar with Dingwallgate; for those who aren't, I'll let CBC (welcome back, team) tell you all about it. I really hope he follows through and sues a few people - the mainstream press included. I don't know if he'll win, or if he does, if he'll get anything for his troubles, but I really want to see a few journalists called before a judge somewhere and have to explain why they went ahead and took Brian Pallister's word instead of doing their own research. The way they bought into the whole "pack of gum" stroyline was disgusting, and now that THAT charge has been cleared up, I'm blown away by the fact that the Press Gallery can pretend it never happened. Dingwall did some stupid shit (what lobbying rules?) and his arrogance throughout the controversy has been grating, but at the end of the day, Pallister and (by extension) Canada's national newspapers misrepresented the truth and falsely accused someone of illegal / unethical behaviour. That warrants an appology - or at least some sort of recognition of your error. At the very least, I hope they've learned their lesson. Somehow, though, I have my doubts. More on adveritising (Hi Ryan!) I don't know how many of you have been following Antonia Zerbisias' blog on the Toronto Star site, but she posted something incredibly interesting today. Sadly, in going to collect the link for this post, I found that she cut out parts of an email from National Post publisher Gordon Fisher to the entire Post team. Sadly, they were the parts I wanted to write about. Le Sigh. In any event, I'll paraphrase and you'll just have to trust me. There were two related points he made in an email that, from what I can gather, went to both editorial and advertising staff. First, he bragged about the financial recovery the paper has seen as of late, and attributed to their willingness to bring in new advertising conventions. He actually said he was proud of building the reputation as the ad buyer that won't say no. So, does that mean if an advertiser wants to buy editorial coverage, they won't say no? Secondly, he praised his editorial staff for being mindful of revenues as well as top-notch journalism. Really, is that what we want? Journalists who are wary of their advertisers and operating budget? This is why I'm bothered by the very fact that the email went to both advertising and editorial staff. Those two areas should be utterly distinct. Though publishers have to be concerned about both, they should have very different things to say to the people working below them. Thank your advertising department for being innovative; thank your reporters for being professional, but don't mix your messages. We all understand that reportage doesn't happen in a vaccum. That doesn't mean you have to brag about their knowledge of advertising.

Megalomedia stumbles into the 21st

2005-09-15T21:59:00.000-05:00

Well, I've been promising this for awhile. And here it is. The very first Megalomedia podcast. Okay, it's just a test run, and it's pretty boring. But you can hear the funky-ass intro music and stuff. So here it is. Oh, and if you're somewhat podcast illiterate, go here and you can listen to it off the site.

More ad-creep to discuss

2005-09-07T07:01:00.000-05:00

Imagine my surprise when I opened my Globe and Mail this morning and saw this on the centre spread. When we last discussed innovative ways to place ads on newspapers, the discussion got rather heated - both here and over at adsthatsuck. This is slightly different, but in many ways, equally offensive (or at the very least, confusing). If you can't tell what this is (it's surprisingly hard to take a picture of a newspaper spread), it's basically a full two-page spread ad, but with a story laid out in the middle / top. The story essentially amounts to a half page, but oddly centred. My big problem is that they decided to keep their page flag (the page number and issue information) on the page, but move them in. Much like my arguments about the masthead on A1, I don't like the idea of moving these. Normally on full page ads, they'd eliminate the information entirely. On any page with content, the ads are below the flag line (see today's A20). It's that simple. Oh wait, I just saw their A2. It's set up more like the spread. Hmm. Oh well, I think my point still stands. A2 is a strange beast in any newspaper and regular rules of layout don't seem to apply. But as a rule, any page with content has a flag line across the whole top. To me, this gives the impression that at the Globe, they are willing to change the basic format of their newspaper to accomodate advertisments. And that bothers me. Perhaps it's paranoia, but in my mind at least, that leads me to wonder what else they'd be willing to do to accomodate an ad? If you don't agree with my paranoid ramblings, I think we can all agree this is confusing. I had to stare at this page for a few minutes to figure out what was going on. The story is completely surrounded by ads and at first I thought it was an advertiser copying an old article that applied to their campaign. I was stunned when I realized this was a new story. Anyway, the A2 thing has taken some of the wind out of my sails, but I'm still really bothered by this. Anyone else?

Megalomedia getting ready to relaunch

2005-09-01T20:04:00.000-05:00

What is up Megalomedia readers? I just wanted to post and tell you all that I'm settling in to the new apartment quite well and I intend to relaunch the site very soon. The new Megalomedia is going to be a little different; there won't be daily posts dissecting short term coverage. Instead, there'll be longer, more analytical posts a few times a week and hopefully a weekly podcast for you technophiles. So stay tuned, folks, and get your comments and witty observations ready. I'll post very soon with an official relaunch date. Expect it to be sometimes mid month. Cheers! Joe

Wow.

2005-08-17T07:49:00.000-05:00

So anyone read this story yet? Go read it, then come back. Enraged yet? Yea me too. So why is the media outlet that's locked out its employees the only one to pick up this story (that I can find, though in fairness, I no longer have the easy search access that I used to)? Honestly, this is fucking insane. Now the cops won't comment because of the investigation? The investigation sure as hell didn't stop them from lying to clear their name when this story first broke. It's pretty bloody convenient now, isn't it? Fuckers. I hope someone staples this story to Peter Worthington's face. Yay look Peter, not only did they shoot the brown man, but they knocked him out of his seat too! Well he should have known better. Brown man riding the subway, what's next, the vote?

Quick hit

2005-08-15T18:32:00.000-05:00

Who thinks this story is going to be ignored in the U.S.?

Aww, I missed you too

2005-08-15T07:08:00.000-05:00

Hi folks, Long time no seethe, eh? I gotta say, this 9-5'in' it isn't all bad, but it has thrown a wrinkle into my Megalomedia ways. Here's the slightly-more concrete plan. I'm moving in a little less than two weeks, at which point I'm going to get a subscription to the Globe and hopefully also the Toronto Star (though you have to go through an intermediary company for that, so I have to see how that works), and I've even considered getting the Citizen too. Once that happens, I'll have a lot more to say here. Until then, however, you'll have to make do with these sporadic updates. I just wanted to mark the start of the CBC lockout. My alarm went off at 7 a.m. today (oh, so much nicer than when it went off at 3:30 a.m.) and I was treated to the sound of a voice I didn't recognize reading me the news. I am not going to pretend to know the ins-and-outs of the dispute, but I will say a few things: - they're talking about contingency plans for NHL broadcasts, which doesn't make me confident that this will end soon - as a rule, I am wary of anyone who wants to hire more contract workers. Contract workers in industries where there's clearly a need for long-term employees smacks of cost-cutting bullshit. It's a way to have employees without paying them benefits or pensions, and it takes a toll on the worker who has no job security (conflict of interest alert, I just switched to salaried employee status after three years of being a contract worker. I much prefer salary). - I have a lot of friends who work at the CBC and this can't be good for them. Hang in there guys. - I have a few friends whose jobs rely on the CBC being aired. Also hang in there guys. - This will make tomorrow's MediaScout interesting (I'm doing it, you see). What happens to the Big Six when The National is in lockout mode?

New World Order

2005-08-02T16:38:00.000-05:00

Or possibly something less dramatic. So the big news that I talked about before the long weekend was that I have a new job. I'm now part of the corporate 9-5 machine, and frankly, I'm pretty content there. Sure, I'll miss raging against the machine, but the machine doesn't make me wake up at 3:30 a.m. Plus I have an office. But rest assured, fair readers, this site will not be allowed to wither and die. Instead, it will become more like other popular weblogs (like adsthatsuck, for example) and be updated when events warrant and time allows. I'm hoping for two-to-three times a week. And I still intend to introduce a podcast in the fall. So keep checking the site, kids. It may take me a few weeks to get used to the 9-5 grind and find time to rant thoroughly, but I promise not to leave you hanging in the meantime. Cheers! jb

The times, they are a-somethin'

2005-07-28T06:47:00.000-05:00

Hey all. Just a quick update today to say that there are going to be some major changes in my life coming up that are going to have an impact on this site. I'll post more details when I get a clearer picture of what it all means to Megalomedia. So no criticisms today? Well, okay, maybe a couple. Remember when Uzbekistan was all the rage? Those protesters got shot, a bunch fled to Kyrgyzstan . . . any of this ring a bell? Well, Canada has agreed to take 50 of those protesters as refugees. But unless you read the Globe, Star or Gazette, you wouldn't know that. And I still don't understand why the Post isn't covering the Arar Inquiry. CanWest has a great reporter there in Neco Cockburn, who is providing the most thorough coverage of the whole thing. Yet despite controversial testimony such as this, the Post remains silent. Sorry it's short and sweet folks, but mosey on over to adsthatsuck.blogspot.com and take part in the debate over the Post's wrap ad. It's good times.

Plethora of problematic pieces

2005-07-27T06:32:00.000-05:00

Ok, before we get going here, I want everyone to repeat after me: They were undercover cops. They were undercover cops. This is the one fact that a lot of people are omitting from their reports and commentaries on the shooting of an unarmed, innocent man in the London subway. Despite what Peter Worthington and his letter-writing supporters would have you believe, the brown guy had no way to know that the angry mob of gun-toting white men chasing him and yelling for him to stop were cops. Cops that shot him seven times in the head. Okay, on to today's coverage. Continuing the fight for freedom I am really concerned about the resurgence in "us vs. them" thinking lately. I thought we'd finally accepted that "terror" is a complex entity comprised of many different elements, but lately, we've slid back into this reactionary, polarizing discourse on the nature of the threat. Here's a few examples. First, Marcus Gee in today's Globe cites the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, and notes that the killer was a relatively-affluent, Dutch-raised Muslim who was motivated by antiquated notions of Islamic fundamentalism. No argument here. But then he some how extends this argument to apply to each and every jihadist, and dismisses suggestions that some terrorist cells are motivated by aggressive Western foreign policies. Apply that thinking to the other side. Would anyone dare suggest that each and every American soldier is driven by the same motivation? No, of course not. Some soldiers enlist because of a sense of patriotic duty. Some do it because they're poor and it gets them a free education. I assume some do it because they like to kill. There are myriad reasons that U.S. soldiers enlist, and it's unrealistic to try and pretend that the situation is different with jihadists. Another example: Bruce Garvey's column in the Post's Issues and Ideas section today deals with Canada's complacent approach to terrorism. I can't link to the piece because the Post blocks access to it and Google News can't seem to find it, but Garvey makes a few lovely arguments. Allow me to post and refute: He dismisses concerns about racial profiling by saying "to my recollection, the vast majority of the terrorist evil-doers who've struck struck the West traced their roots to the Middle East or South Asia. (The notable exceptions: a Jamaican-born British bomber, the executed Timothy McVeigh and, if we're going to count failed attempts, Richard Reid)." That's quite the recollection, good sir. Impressive that you've already managed to forget that the four failed London bombers were from Somalia and Eritrea, which are in Africa. Garvey then goes on to complain that "the liberal cause celebre" is the shooting of the Brazilain man in London. I won't repeat myself, just know that Garvey, like so many others, fails to note that the cops were undercover. There's more, but it would take too much time to post everything. Just digest this little conclusion: "The civil libertarians would do well to recall that during the last great war the British fought six decades ago, censorship and restrictions would have prohibited any of these events from even being reported." I'm encouraged to see that four years into this great war on terrorism, the U.S. is finally starting to recognize that terrorism isn't a clearly-defined enemy (story is here, but it was also in the CanWest papers and a few others). I hope the chattering classes get the memo and start contributing something worthwhile to the national debate. Whaddya mean they're related? All this talk about Hans Island has people wondering about Canada's ability to patrol the arctic. The Montreal Gazette and Toronto Star both ran editorials today underlining the seriousness of the issue. They both stressed that Canada needs to be able to protect its Arctic sovereignty. Odd then that they both passed on this CP story. I don't understand how papers can editorialize on issues as though they exist in a vaccum. It happens all the time. Some outlet will bemoan Canada's weak borders and pass on a wire story about a major drug seizure at the border. In this case it's even more surprising because it would have added to their point. It's just really frustrating. Parting shots First of all, hooray for Jeffrey Simpson. He takes the premiers to task for asking for dedicated education money from the feds after lobbying for years for lump sum transfer payments. Anyone who's heard me rant knows this topic is near and dear to my heart. So Simpson gets a big hooray. Oh, and guess who's going to be supplying and servicing (no, not like that, perverts) our troops in Afghanistan? If you said Canada's homegrown war profiteerers SNC-Lavalin, you'd be wrong! It's Halliburton! Read all about it here and pay special attention to the fact that they spelled Halliburton wrong.

The Post takes selling out to a whole new level

2005-07-26T05:31:00.000-05:00

It finally happened. When I was the editor-in-chief of Carleton University's independent weekly newspaper the Charlatan, I was approached on more than one occasion by our advertising department with requests from adveritisers to put ads on our cover. The requests ranged from simple banner ads (the likes of which appear at the bottom of most major daily papers) to one extreme request to wrap the paper in an ad. It appears the Post had less restraint than us. This is not the front page of the paper, despite what you might think. The paper is actually wrapped with a Mazda ad, which covers the entire back page and half of the front. Here's the kicker though, they actually ran the left half of their masthead on the ad page. So you pick up the paper, and the masthead runs seamlessly across the front page, but the left half runs over an ad, while the right half runs over the exposed part of their A1. Unreal. It's probably hard to visualize, so I'll try to find a way to get a picture of it up here as soon as I can. UPDATE: Here it is: But my favourite part of the whole debacle is that above the masthead on the ad half, they tried to further the illusion by including their standard teaser - to a story about Mars developing chocolate-flavoured candy with a photo of a Mars bar accompanying it. At least Mazada paid for their ad. Your news, brought to you by Mazda and Mars. Peter Worthington doesn't know when to shut up After his callous "in Britain, police now shoot suspects. Good," line yesterday, Worthington skipped his chance to move on somewhat gracefully by penning this piece of shit. He suggests that police in London had no choice, given that the guy was wearing a heavy coat and ran from police. Uh Peter, you forgot to point out that they were undercover cops. That's a pretty substantial fact to ignore. Imagine you're a brown person in a city gripped with xenophobia after a spate of bombings. You're in a subway station when suddenly a group of gun-toting white men in plain clothes starts screaming at you and running at you. I don't have the time (I'm doing the MediaScout again today) or energy to disect all of Worthington's points, you'll have to wade through his alarmist, racist diatribe yourself. My personal favourite part is where he blames Muslims for the policy that led to the shooting of an innocent man. Is it all bad? Thankfully, no. Fifth Estate and Globe and Mail veteran Ron Haggart penned a Megalomedia-esque piece on the coverage of the shooting in today's Globe. Read it and love it, right here. Okay, that's good for today. Don't forget to check out the Scout for more sparkling insight.

The rage returns

2005-07-25T06:57:00.000-05:00

It happened this morning. After weeks of relative optimism, I found myself trembling with rage at work again. After being at war with "terror" for almost four years, it seemed a few weeks ago like we had advanced somewhat in our international discourse on the matter. Sure, there were those who clung to the belief that Georgie's war on the evil doers was directly responsible for elections in Lebanon and the like, but on the whole, rational debate was up and fear-based rhetoric was down. We were even talking about famine and AIDS in Africa, of all things. Then London was bombed. And it all went to shit. We're backsliding at an alarming rate. I'd like to call attention to a few specific pieces that painfully illustrate this fact. First, a Peter Worthington column. When last I checked, it hadn't been uploaded to the Sun's website yet, but I'll check later in the day and post a link if I can find it. UPDATE: It's right here now. To give you an idea of the tone, it's called "This is war - so pick sides." He starts out by criticizing the CBC (and by extension, BBC, Reuters and many other respected outlets) for not using the word "terrorist" in their coverage: "It is difficult to imagine a more foolish and silly dictum -- as if 'taking sides' is the greatest sin in journalism. It's like right and wrong. Some things are just plain wrong -- and suicide bombers blowing up buses and subway trains is one of them." Well, thank goodness that we have Worthington to serve as humanity's arbiter of right and wrong. He follows that gem of a paragraph with this bizarre statement: "In Britain, police now shoot suspects. Good." Then returns to his anti-CBC diatribe, followed by criticisms of Canada's inability to deport the entire Khadr family and Hassan Almrei. Congratulations Mr. Worthington, for reviving the intolerant "us vs. them" mentality that I naively thought we'd moved beyond. For a much more rational take on the CBC terminology edict, check out Norman Spector's column today. You said pieces, as in plural Yes I did. Worthington's rant is the best example, but for those with subscriber access to the National Post, have a look at George Jonas' column today, he provides context for the war vs. evil by explaining that this war on "terror" is simply the latest in the "clash of civilizations" that dates back 1,400 years. Jonas also pops up in the Citizen, with an anti-CBC offering that makes me wonder if he and Worthington compared notes. That one's not online at all, but it's on the editorial page of the hard copy if you have access. Shoot to Kill! When I fled Ottawa for the serenity of a weekend in the woods, British police had just killed someone in the London tube. At the time, it was widely reported that the killing was - in the words of London police commissioner Ian Blair - "directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation." I snidely remarked to my incredibly patient girlfriend that it was good to see that the bombings hadn't changed life in London, just like Tony Blair said, but I had no idea the extent of the insanity of the story. I thought it was bad enough that they killed an unarmed suspect in a subway station, but I assumed they at least had reason to believe he was "directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation." It turns out that "link" was that he was brown. And he had the nerve to wear a coat on a warm day. That is enough to justify jumping on him, pinning him to the ground (according to some reports, anyway), then firing five shots into his head, point blank. I was encouraged to see that this story got a lot of play in our papers. As Anne McLellan said, we need a national debate on the terrorist threat, and people have to be aware that granting extraordinary powers can have tragic, lethal and unacceptable consequences. I fear, however, that some outlets (Ahem, Citizen) may be missing the point, especially when I read the following headline and subhead on A1: Elite officers had no choice: They must shoot to kill Instant death is the only way to stop a suicide bomber Please note that the absence of quotation marks or attribution. It doesn't say "Elite officers had no choice: Police" or "Elite officers 'had no choice.'" It is presented as fact. And in case you may think it was simply an oversight, check out this lead:

LONDON - The most elite members of London's finest call it "the shot of excellence."

It's a single gunshot through the mouth that snaps the spinal cord and instantly kills a suspected suicide bomber. And it is the essence of Scotland Yard's controversial shoot-to-kill policy, known as Operation Kratos, so-named for the Greek god of strength.

It's as though Mike Blanchfield wishes he could be the one pulling the trigger in the name of good vs. evil. Read the article in its entirety here. Parting shots Okay, there was some more stuff I wanted to talk about today, but this is running long already, so I'll just toss up some links and save some analysis for another day. First, the Star picked up an opinion piece by Aaron Mate, a journalist who actually goes to Haiti to report on it. Novel idea. It does a good job of highlighting how dismal Canada's performance has been in the country since we backed the overthrow of a democractically-elected president. Read it here. Second, I didn't get to see the CBC documentary on the U.S. right-wing media when it aired, but I was just told I could find it online. From what I hear, it's like Outfoxed, but without the hypocritical use of gimmicky presentation that frustrated me so. I intend to curl up on the couch and watch it (yay iBook portability) later today, you should too. It's here. Okay, that's enough for now, I have to go seethe.

Okay, so I lied

2005-07-21T04:39:00.000-05:00

I had to post this. From today's Toronto Star: Racism not factor in killing by Peter Edwards The inquiry into the shooting death of Anthony (Dudley) George shouldn't be allowed access to records on OPP discipline of officers who made racist remarks, and lied on the witness stand, a lawyer for the province contends.

Kim Twohig also argued yesterday there's no evidence that racism played a role in the killing of the native activist.

Twohig made the comments as she supported a move by the OPP and its officers' union to block the inquiry from seeing force disciplinary records regarding the police operation at Ipperwash Provincial Park a decade ago.

Her comments were criticized by native elder Clifford George. . Those involved in the probe "might as well give up if they're not going to give us the whole record," he said. He and others contend it's wrong to block release of disciplinary records of officers who made racist comments on tape and other force members who made souvenirs commemorating the standoff.

Twohig told the inquiry that questions of racism were not a factor in the trial of Acting-Sergeant Kenneth Deane, who was found guilty in 1997 of criminal negligence causing death.

But, George family lawyer Murray Klippenstein said questions about racism have lingered since his shooting Sept. 6, 1995, when OPP officers marched on the park, occupied by natives.

The lawyer noted OPP officers were captured on tape the day before the shooting, when one called a native Canadian a "great big fat f--- Indian." "We were thinking if we could get five or six cases of Labatt 50 we could bait them," one officer says. A colleague replies, "It works in the south with watermelon."

Why isn't anyone else covering this story?

Allegedly, reportedly and other things that don't cover your ass

2005-07-20T06:56:00.000-05:00

Wow. It seems the media have moved beyond the irresonsible, subtle and somewhat understandable libelling of yesterday to the outwardly contemptable libelling that makes people hate the press. I present Exhibit A, which was actually a supplemental piece to another libelous story. Or if you prefer your news CanWestified, here's Exhibit B and Exhibit C. These stories move beyond libellously reporting that the husband was charged in the death of the wife to acting on the assumption that he did it. I honestly don't know what to say. There's no excuse for this kind of thing. I hate that papers report charges in the way they did yesterday, but I can almost understand it. It's a thin line of distinction between "John Doe was charged with murder. Jane Doe's body was found in a ravine," and "John Doe was charged with murder after Jane Doe's body was found in a ravine." Today's examples though are inexcusable and make me angry. They've convicted this guy. The media need a good kick in the ass. I'm doing the MediaScout tomorrow, and I plan on going off on this subject a little bit. Given that their subscriber list is a lot longer and more diverse than mine, maybe someone will take notice. That's all you have? Yea, sorry. I was actually seriously thinking of taking some time off this site for awhile, before this Edmonton case broke. I think I need to recharge my batteries a bit, because I haven't been giving you guys the kind of material I was churning out even just a few weeks ago. To that end, I'm not going to update the site tomorrow. I've been asked to the do the Scout again, and I really want to focus on that, cause I plan to go guns blazing on the libel thing. I'll be back Monday after a weekend of CFL football and camping. I'll be regenerated and reinvigorated and ready to take on the press once more. So have a good weekend. And check out tomorrow's Scout. Barring something unexpected, it should be good. Oh, and check out the comments from yesterday's post, there was an interesting back and forth on all things libelous.

Megalomedia: Libel free since 2003

2005-07-19T06:15:00.000-05:00

Granted, the site didn't exist until 2005, but 2003 rhymed better. But wow, let's talk libel. As I've explained on this site before, Canada has some pretty strict rules on libel. You can not link someone to a crime, no matter what the police or anyone else says. You can report that someone has been charged with something, and you can report the details of a police investigation, but you can't link the two yourself. It seems silly, as any logical person would probably make the connection, but in Canadian law, that's their problem, not yours. In the interest of not libeling the poor man myself, I will simply link to the stories. I have no idea where that puts me legally, but I'm pretty sure nobody's coming after me. Globe and Mail. They libel him right in the lead. See if you can spot it. National Post. This one isn't as cut and dry, but there's some serious inneundo going on there. CBC. It's right in the headline. I'm not going to profess to know everything about media law, I'll leave that to TKOB in the comments section, but I know these reports are irresponsible. The guy has not been convicted. In the eyes of the Canadian legal system he is innocent. And in the eyes of Canadian libel law, these media reports, specifically the Globe and CBC, are libelous. Canada needs a good, high-profile libel suit to take the media down a few pegs. The problem is that the press has created a really powerful environment wherein any attack on a journalist is an attack on the freedom of the press. People don't want to take them on, and I can't really blame them. But the situation is getting out of hand. Why use 500 words when 200 will almost suffice? So the Globe ran an interesting little piece today, have a look-see here. It left me with a few questions, namely: 1) What sort of information, exactly? 2) Are Canadians returning the favour? 3) Why was this reported on by the U.S.-based Associated Press? 4) Why didn't a single Canadian outlet bother assigning a reporter to this? Seriously, they say that names will be provided. Will there be any context, or will this lead to more cases of mistaken identity that ground flights or prevent travellers from flying? What system does Canada have in place anyway? Last I heard the whole thing was in a bit of a flux. I guess the Globe deserves some credit for reporting it at all, but I really want to know more. And I don't think I'm alone. Given the concerns about information-sharing agreements these days, Canadians deserve a bit more context. And as a fun little kicker. . . I have to say that I read this and nearly shit my pants. Pay special attention to the headline and paragraph seven (as though I had to point that out). Apparently the Toronto Sun's editorial page is now reserved for transcripts from chat rooms. Stay tuned for tomorrow's hard-hitting ANY 16/F WANNA CHAT??? expose.

Did I mention I hate mondays?

2005-07-18T08:01:00.000-05:00

Wow, things didn't go well at the ol' government gig this morning. Let's just say my frantic MediaScout writing was interrupted by a return trip to the office. Oh yea, I'm doing the Scout today too, so this will be a quickie. In the "things that warrant coverage" file. . . Only the Gazette picked this story up from the New York Times. Given Canada's commitment to the U.S.-led spread of democracy, shouldn't it have received bigger play? Stupid story, serious point I read this and thought, man, what a brutally sensationalized story. Seven other papers, including the Citizen ran the story, each in a ridiculously sensational manner. That's an obvious problem, but not what makes it Megalomedia worthy. No, what gets me is that it was a CP Wire story. And it was updated later, as several other papers (notably the Toronto Star) reported. Clearly a few editors went looking for something light and stupid to fill a hole in their paper and picked this one off, then forgot about it and went to press. In this instance, it's not a big deal. Only Guelph residents were ever threatened by this FLESH EATING LIZARD, and the CP wire copy was taken right from the Guelph paper. They were kept informed. But it's indicative of the over-reliance on wire copy and the lack of attention to updated stories. Anyone who took part in my trial run of the Actionline remembers what happened when the Post didn't do their legwork. It's a stupid story. But it's also shoddy and irresponsible journalism. And that's not cool. yargh, I'll do better tomorrow folks, I promise. For now, check out the Scout for more media analysis fun.

Lawrence Martin: Honorary Megalomediac

2005-07-14T07:54:00.000-05:00

Oh man, I can't say enough good things about Lawrence Martin's column today. Seriously, click here and let the magic of Google News take you past the pesky registration screen. Do it now. I've never agreed with a column more. I was actually going to post my thoughts on the latest terrorism coverage, but I can't put it any better than he does (at least not without using the term "douche bag" once or twice). Read it. Read it now. I can't stay mad at you Damn it. I want to be pissed at the NHL. I really do. But seeing Ron and Don on The National last night. . . I can't wait for the season to start. I want to be critical of the media for assuming they know what's in the deal before it's released, but sports reporters are all about cushy relationships with sources. I'm pretty sure they know what's in there. So let's get on with it. Bring back the Jets, bring back the Nords and let the Coyotes and Hurricanes die a natural death. Wow Joe, you're overly optimistic today Yea, this post really lacks the scorn of most, doesn't it? Well, I'm doing the MediaScout again today, so I have to make this quick, but most of what I saw today has been commented on before: Ipperwash: There's a great little spat going on at the Inquiry between the OPP superintendent who was on the scene (the one that accused the Harris government of being trigger happy) and government lawyers who say he's overselling the whole thing. Since the Globe and the Star are the only papers that seem to care, allow me to throw this link up so you can read more for yourself. Africa: Remember Live 8? Me too. I was all optimistic that the papers would actually start to care about Africa. Then London happened. Read more in today's Scout. Philippines: In a country where the last president (and at least one before him) was overthrown in a popular revolution, a large and growing protest calling for the president to resign barely makes a ripple. Explain that. That's all for today. But have I mentioned you should read Lawrence Martin?

Almost there. . .

2005-07-13T06:23:00.000-05:00

Man do I need a weekend. Renegades at home against the Stamps, band has a gig. . . it should be a good one. Those cheese-eating surrender monkeys are on to something There's an opinion piece by Daniel Pipes in the Post today that really made my head hurt. The Post didn't put it online, but you can read it here. It starts out logically enough, saying that Britain has been too leniant on terrorists compared to France. Fair enough. He cites several sources to back up his point and offers concrete examples. Then he moves onto his praise for France's draconian anti-terror laws, which permit interrogation without a lawyer, lengthy pre-trial incarcerations, and evidence acquired under dubious circumstance. I wouldn't call those good things, given that they run contrary to accepted standards of justice and the rule of law, but he's welcome to that opinion. Where it really goes off the rails is when he cites the French hijab ban as proof that France is harder on terrorism. Rather than cite examples and sources to back up his conclusions (as he did earlier in the piece), Pipes adopts the mind-boggling tactic of listing examples of how the French hijab ban pissed off Islamic fundamentalists, yet then argues that France is less vulnerable to terrorism. His conclusion: "The British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage while the French hold on to theirs: As the British ban fox hunting, the French ban hijabs. The former embrace multiculturalism, the latter retain a pride in their historic culture. This contrast in matters of identity makes Britain the Western country most vulnerable to the ravages of radical Islam whereas France, for all its political failings, has held on to a sense of self that may yet see it through." So, he's saying that multi-culturalism and a sense of tolerance makes you more vulnerable? I don't see how that follows. And since he doesn't bother to explain the link, I'll just have to assume he's full of crap. It's worth noting that Pipes gets a lot of play in right-wing papers around the world. He's not just some schmuck. According to his website, he's an expert on radical Islam. Makes me wish he could formulate an argument a little better. That's it? Pretty much. It was a damn slow news day and I'm still not feeling so great. Lack of sleep and extreme heat don't make for an insightful Joe. Before I go though, I want to direct you all to the Star's Carol Goar today. She weighs in on the debate we had on Megalomedia earlier this week about mankind's capacity to care. The Star requires a subscription, but if you click here, Google News will get you around that. I'm on the MediaScout tomorrow, but I'll try to save a few delicious insights for you here. And I have to post this link again. Scott McClellan is such a weasel.

It's not the heat. . .

2005-07-12T07:59:00.000-05:00

Actually, yes it is. It's the heat. And it's the humidity. I live in a basement apartment, I have a fan running full speed, I keep the curtains drawn and the lights off, and I still break a sweat sitting behind my trusty iBook typing for you nice people. Bloody hell. I didn't sleep well last night (see above diatribe on the heat) and I've been working on MediaScout all morning, and I just lost the post I'd written thanks to a blogger glitch. Argh. I don't have it in me. I'll try again tomorrow, sorry people. But the Scout is good today, go read that. OH! And read this. Better yet, click on the "video" link and watch, starting at about two minutes in. It's freakin' hilarious. Apparently the White House press corps got their balls back.

The times, they are a'changin

2005-07-11T06:06:00.000-05:00

Ah yes, changes are a-foot for Megalomedia. As I mentioned briefly last week, this site is now 100% ad-free, thanks to an inadvertent violation of Google's ad policy. Also, after becoming mildly obsessed with the Al Franken Show podcast, I've started planning for Megalomedia: On The Go. The project is in its infacy, but I've figured out the technical aspects of it (I think) and will be posting a test run in the next few days/weeks. As for the actual show, I'm not entirely sure what it will contain, but I'm thinking of a weekly show of about 10-15 minutes going over the major issues of the week. If you have any ideas or suggestions, lemme know at megalomedia.actionline@gmail.com. Woot. Terror! Most of the papers are still talking about the bombings that killed as many as 50 people who were on their way to work. Oh wait, did you think I was talking about London? No no, over the weekend as many as 50 people were killed by suicide bombers in Iraq. This started to bug me pretty quickly after the bombings in London. Don't get me wrong, the bombings in London were appaling, tragic and terrifying, frankly. That a country so dedicated to national security could be bombed so sensationally is horrifying. But why is it worth so much more coverage than the almost-daily bombings in Iraq? I know the answers, of course. Iraq is old news. Iraq is populated with brown people. Iraq isn't expected to be secure. But it's really hard to believe that we in the western world value every human life equally when the bombings in Iraq are relegated to briefs in the world section while London is still making A1 today. Is it the media's responsibility to make people care? Or are they justified in playing to what people want? Really, I'm not sure. But it would be an interesting experiment: Place stories in the paper by body count, regardless of colour, gender or celebrity status. I wonder what people would say? More on the terror I'm also really sick of world leaders telling us that the London bombings are proof that we must remain vigilant and increase security. Why isn't anyone asking questions like: "How have our foreign policies contributed to this tragedy?" or "Is there a lesson to be learned?" or "Could it be that we are not infallible?" Yes, the people who carried out this attack are sick, sick bastards. But hearing George W. Bush talk about the evilness of those who are willing to kill innocent people to further their cause so soon after U.S. planes killed 17 Afghan civilians kinda makes my stomach turn. As does watching a pack of reporters frantically reproducing his quotes without thinking to point out the hypocrisy. The argument could be made that it's not the right time to ask these questions. The victims are still being identified, let's just let people mourn. But the problem is that was the attitude in the U.S. after September 11, 2001. And as we approach the four-year anniversary of those attacks, we're still not asking the right questions. The Globe and Mail, brought to you by Esso This is just a little thing, but it really caught my eye and stuck with me. The Globe's A1 teaser above the headline today is for a story about Imperial Oil's headquarter's move to Alberta. They typically put the tease over a coloured background and run a photo at one end. This time the "photo" is an Esso logo on a white background, and there's no real connection to the teaser. I dunno, maybe a frame around the whole thing would've helped, but it really looks to me like the Globe is sponsored by Esso today. Am I the only one who sees that? Check out the page here. and finally. . . I haven't really talked much about the U.S. reporter getting jailed for the CIA leak story, mostly because I don't know all the details and it seems pretty complex. However, I see some parallels with the whole Homlka press freedom affair, and the knee-jerk opposition to any perceived infringement on freedom of the press, no matter what the case. I want to make clear that I don't know enough about the U.S. case to formulate an opinion, but a David Ignatius column that was picked up in the Citizen caught my eye. It's an interesting read and you can find a copy of it here.

And so ends the capitalist experiment

2005-07-07T16:34:00.000-05:00

Apparently my Google Ad account has been revoked. Clicking on your own links is a violation of their agreement (which is strange, what if I was genuinely interested in the services offered?). So enjoy ad-free Megalomedia, just like the old days before Joe sold out.

What to say

2005-07-07T06:09:00.000-05:00

I hope readers will forgive me, but I'm not going to talk about the media today. See, my great-grandmother passed away last weekend, and she's being laid to rest this afternoon. I hate that I'm not at the funeral, but it just wasn't feasible to get up to Dryden on such short notice and on my limited budget. So I am going to pay my respects here. Nan was an amazing woman who certainly helped foster the love of reading that undoubtedly led me down the career path I'm following. She was the best story teller I knew, and I considered it a treat to have her read me a story when I was younger. As I got older, I used to love watching her read to my younger cousins, and truth be told, I was kind of jealous of them sitting under her arm listening to her read. I suppose I am lucky, as few people ever get to know their great grandmother, let alone have them around until they're 25. Though she was "old" for as long as I knew her, she remained sharp and coherent right up until the last few months of her life. I remember discussing politics with her just a few years ago, one of the few really grown-up discussions I remember having with her. I'll miss you, Nan. Thanks for everything.

Bias (n): 2(a) A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment

2005-07-06T06:44:00.000-05:00

Oh Rachel Marsden. You're quickly becoming my new favourite target. Sadly, the Post doesn't make today's Marsden column available online. It's a real doozy. Basically, she's trumpeting the values of FOX News (she's a regular contributor, though to her credit, she mentions that in her column) by saying people like the in-your-face, opinionated approach. The column is headlined "Everybody likes a smackdown," which tells you something about her opinion. It's a telling piece because it really underlines the fundamental gulf between people like her and people like me when it comes to objectivity and bias. She writes: "The old news media's problems can be summed up in two words: biased and boring." Oddly enough, she describes FOX News a few lines later as "openly opinion-heavy."So when she says "biased and boring," her problem is more with the "boring." She explains that the "snooze-inducing perma-grinners" that read the news on the other networks have a bias too, but try to mask it. "In a competitive 24-hour news cycle, branding and publicity matter. A recent poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that more people (40%) recognize Fox's Bill O'Reilly as a journalist than recognize reporter Bob Woodward (30%) of Watergate fame as one, with top-rated conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh (27%) coming in right behind and right-wing political columnist George Will trailing with a mere 7% recognition." The problem, Ms. Marsden, is that Woodward was a reporter. O'Reilly is not. He is a fiercly-partisan talk show host. But that's the problem with FOX. There's no real attempt to distinguish news from opinion. In her mind, that's okay. In mine, it's not. Sure every reporter has a bias, they're human. But the idea is that they should be aware of that bias and work to overcome it, not to embrace it and let it slant their reportage. I don't think reporters should strive for recognition, if a story is well-written, it shouldn't matter who wrote it. I would never argue that the mainstream press does a good job of maintaining objectivity, if I believed that this site wouldn't exist. But to argue that journalists may as well toss it to the wind and embrace a combattive, right-vs-left "smackdown" approach is a much, much worse idea. Conversing with Christie Blatchford I did write to Ms. Blatchford, and to her credit, she responded prompty and in depth. She made some interesting points, but I still take issue with her columns. She argues that the subject of her columns (the letters and her release) are newsworthy items, and I'd agree, but in my mind, that doesn't necessarily mean they're worth columns as well. News reports and columns are different things, and by dedicating so much space to them, I think she IS contributing tot he media circus. But I appreciate her candid response and the fact that it came so quickly. I'll post both e-mails below. Dear Ms. Blatchford, I read with great interest your column of June 25, when you declared that you had "Karla fatigue" and you no longer cared "what she eats, wears, says, does or, God forbid, believes — unless and until she breaks the law." I too was convinced that the media had gone above and beyond their role as guardians of the public good and instead become overly obsessed with trivial details about her life behind bars and pending release. You can imagine, then, how surprised I was to see you dedicate two subsequent A1 columns to Ms. Homolka since. I am left to ask, were you assinged to these pieces by an overzealous editor with no regard for your personal conviction? Or have you overcome your self-diagnosed bout of fatigue? I agree that the public deserves to know about Ms. Homolka's life outside of prison as it relates to the possibility of her re-offending. But I hardly see how an amateur analysis of her letters and handwriting (especially when the related story about handwriting analysis essentially debunks the practice in the closing paragraphs) contributes anything to the public good. The media has a great responsibility to society, one that was upheld by the court rulings in the media's favour. The worst they can do now is piss away that credibility by become hyper-obsessed about every step Ms. Homolka takes. Thanks for reading, Best Regards, Joe Boughner -- the answer to your question, joe, is neither. i certainly said i was weary of homolka, and i am. i also said, i believe in the final paragraph, that i intended to cover her only when there was a genuine news event -- as indeed there was when we had access to her never-before published letters and again yesterday, with her lawyers in court in montreal, which is where i was, and her surprise TV interview afterwards. like it or not, and i like it no more than you, this is a big story. it was particularly so yesterday, when virtually every newspaper in the country put the story on the front page. my personal convictions are that i will not write about her gratuituously or to no end, but that when it is warranted -- and in my business that means when she makes news. i will not stalk her. i will not wait outside a prison for her, and i did not. i will not ever publish her address or anything that might put her in jeopardy (though frankly, i don't believe she is in jeopardy). i am, unfortunately, very well-informed about homolka and this case. i covered the original disappearance of kristen french; i covered homolka's plea bargain, and i spent three months of my life in 1995 covering bernardo's trial. i know it inside out. that makes me a valuable resource on the subject. and yes, i am sometimes asked by my bosses to write about her. i was, last week, when the press vigil outside the prison began. i didn't go. i was asked again today to write about her, and i did, because i believe i have something to say. i am not the slightest bit obsessed with her -- 10 of my last 75 or 76 columns have been about her, each time tied to a news angle. in the previous decade, once she was away in jail, i bet i didn't write twice in all that time. and i would be happy as a clam if i never have to do so again. but i have to say i consider rape and murder important matters, not trivial. they are also inherently sensational, but what is sensational is the awfulness of what was done, not the reporting of it. the press does indeed owe the public responsibility. i believe i have kept my end of that bargain, and i intend to keep on doing it. cheers cb Homolkafest Day II I won't dwell on this, but I want to point out that both "national" newspapers had stories on the effect of Homolka saying she wanted a Tim Hortons iced cappuccino on the company. The Post actually ran it on A1. Way to uphold the public good. No word yet if Timmy Ho's is going to take my colleague Steve's advice and introduce a Homolka-ccino. Parting shots Okay, this is getting too long, but I wanted to toss in a few stories here. The Citizen offers up a really interesting, in-depth look at the problems facing Nigeria as part of the whole G8-related focus on Africa. This is damn good reportage and the sort of thing I've clamoured for both here and in the MediaScout. Sadly, they also devote their prime space on A1, above the fold, to teasing to their own article, as though they realize such contextual reporting is a rarity worth celebrating. Oh how I long for the day that going in-depth on the issues of the day isn't itself newsworthy. The biggest article is here, and you can see the front page photo of the special section by clicking here. Remember that bit I said earlier about reporters identifying their bias and trying to work around it? Yea, that's not happening here. I wonder what Steven Edwards thinks of the UN? And check out this site. It got some coverage in today's paper, and rightly so. It's kickass.

I know where Karla Homolka lives

2005-07-05T06:48:00.000-05:00

No I don't. The title of this post was a blatant attempt to bring in new readers. If you've been duped into clicking your way here, welcome. Wait, Karla Homolka was released? Guess what today's big story is? If you said the killing of 18 Afghan civilians in a U.S. airstrike, you'd be wrong. That wasn't big at all. Nope, the big story was that Karla Homolka, aka "the Devil" aka "the Schoolgirl Killer," was released from prison. The media, fresh off another rebuked attempt at limiting coverage, latched on to the translated transcript of the only interview she gave (to Radio-Canada, en francais) and began the arduous task of deciding whether or not she was truly repentant. Ironically, water-cooler-gossip about the nature of her rehabilitation aside, the coverage was fairly legit and justifiable. After weeks of speculative bullshit and senstationalistic tripe, Karla's first day outside prison was met with reasonable coverage - and it was Karla that thew them the bone. Had she laid low and began her life in the shadows, I'm sure things would have been even more tabloidesque than they were. Given that she's not planning to talk to the press anymore, I guess that means the Karla-Cam starts tomorrow. Christie Blatchford is moving to the Star Okay, so I don't know that for sure. But what other option does she have? Clearly she's being forced to write more about Karla against her will. How else can you explain the second A1 column on her since her "I'm tired of Karla" piece last week? Obviously some overzealous assignment editor is forcing her to add to the media onslaught. I have no doubt that Ms. Blatchford is drafting her letter or resignation now, much like she did when she fled CanWest for the perceived safety of the Globe. For those that are new to the story, allow me to recap: "I'm tired of her. I have Karla fatigue. . . I don't care, any more, what she eats, wears, says, does or, God forbid, believes - unless and until she breaks the law." - Christie Blatchford, June 25, Globe and Mail, A15 "Are you as fed up with Karla as I am?" "But Ms. Homolka's letters, even on their own and necessarily somewhat out of context, are nonetheless instructive." - Christie Blatchford, June 30, Globe and Mail, A1 "She gives as good as she gets - again" "Here, for after all she was talking about her life now, not those she helped end, Ms. Homolka's voice cracked a tad, and she was a little verklempt . It was akin to the child who slaughters her parents and then throws herself upon the mercy of the court as a pitiful orphan." - Christie Blatchford, July 5, Globe and Mail, A1 "No silence from this lamb" Read those last two quotes again. No, better yet, click here and allow Google News to get you past the subscriber-only firewall and find these columns yourself. Does that sound like the musing of someone who doesn't care, "what she eats, wears, says, does or, God forbid, believes?" Or does it sound like a hypocrite milking a story for all its worth even if it means pissing away her credibility? I think I'm going to send her an e-mail later today, asking what gives. I'll let you all know if I get a response. and the Megalammy goes to. . . the Winnipeg Free Press for being the only major daily not to run Karla on A1! And in other news CanWest saved the day! Read all about it in this CanWest publication. I wonder if they ever dislocate their shoulders patting their own backs?

Of penguins and prisoner abuse

2005-07-04T07:05:00.000-05:00

In a break from tradition, I'm doing the MediaScout on a Monday, so I'll have to keep this entry fairly brief. It's for the best though, it was sort of a slow news day. They grow up so fast It seems like just yesterday we were giving them their first guns and tasers, now look at those Iraqi security forces. All grow'sd up and abusing prisoners, Daddy would be so proud. Yet only the Toronto Star saw fit to report on it. The story, which was available on both Reuters and Associated Press (though I can't find a linkable copy online), noted that Iraqi government officials said they'd crack down on the abuse, just like Georgie! I suppose an argument could be made that it doesn't really affect Canada, but remember, we're helping to train Iraqi police forces. Were any of them involved? Hard to say, given that nobody reported on it with a Canadian reporter. But it's the sort of thing we should know, no? Peter Worthington slips off the edge of sanity, embraces senility SunMedia's Peter Worthington is a cantankerous old bastard who rarely warrants mention on this site. He writes about two topics, the military and an animal sanctuary in Picton that seems to be his secondary cause celebre. However, today he goes off on a bizzare tangent that begins like an elementary school report and somehow devolves into a quasi-homophobic tirade against same-sex marraige. Read it here, it's one of the more baffling columns I've encountered and makes a strong case in favour of mandatory retirement. Ok, I was going to go off on a little G8 tangent, but it would just end up repeating much of what I said in the MediaScout, so you can all just read it there (huzzah cross promotion). That's enough for today, I've got to wrap up this Scout and get it to the masses. Cheers!

A reading from the book of Cross

2005-06-30T07:06:00.000-05:00

Most people who know me know that I'm a big fan of the stand-up comedy of David Cross. Allow me to share with you one of his more sparkling insights. As he tells it, he was sitting through an episode of Paris Hilton's "The Simple Life," watching a commercial for electric scissors, when he realizes that the terrorists might be on to something, hating our freedom. "You know what," he muses. "I hate our freedom. That's all we've done with it? We're fucking assholes, man." Which leads me to the coverage of Karla Homolka. Evidently "THE SCHOOLGIRL KILLER" reads the papers, cause she's starting to worry (quite rightly, I figure) that her life might be in danger when she gets out of jail. So she asked the courts to bring down the big top on the media circus outside the jail and give her some privacy. The judge dismissed it. Predictably, the papers heralded this news in many an editorial celebrating press freedom. I'll let them have that. I don't like when papers cover themselves, let alone editorialize on themselves, but I want to believe that the media - concerned about the public good as they are - would exercise restraint and take their court victory as an affirmation of the believe in the role of the media in a just society. Sure, some lesser publications may go over the top, but at least the papers of high esteem would take the road of the same description, yes? No. Globe and Mail, A1. Columnist (for lack of better word) Christie Blatchford analyzes the letters Homolka exchanged with various love interests during her time in prison. Complete with a copy of one of the letters, full colour above the fold. The article about the court ruling is wedged into the corner, as though to say, "see, this bullshit is justified." If you don't have a Globe handy, have a look at their A1 here. I'm not sure what is more astonishing. That Blatchford has the nerve to mock Karla's "junvenile" language (Ms. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle) or the fact that it comes five days after writing a column entitled "Are you as fed up with Karla as I am?" in which she writes "I don't care, any more, what she eats, wears, says, does or, God forbid, believes - unless and until she breaks the law." You fucking hypocrite. For the record, she also wrote about Homolka three days after writing that column. The Globe wasn't done there, sadly. On A9 they report on the results of handwriting analysis they commissioned on Karla's letters. They sent it to two analysts, one of whom "got a certificate after completing a mail-order course from Handwriting University." Amazingly, they even debunk their own story, by ending it with "apart from forensic expertise used to verify document authorship, courts take a dim view of personality experts such as handwriting analysts. However, scores of such people around North America try to sell their services to customers looking to, say, gauge the suitability of a mate or hire the right employee." As they say in their editorial, "no court or government body should tell people (or the media which reflect their interests) what they have the right to know about Ms. Homolka." Do you feel your interests reflected yet? Globe, I'm ashamed of you. Why on earth did the Post skip this? Read this story from the Globe's A1 (they were kind enough to limit Karla to half a page). Terrifying isn't it? It essentially says that in the face of a large-scale tragedy, the people in charge of our security panicked and threw out all the safeguards in place to protect Canadians' privacy. Umm, what? This is the sort of panic-induced bullshit I can understand when Ozark yokels arm themselves to the tits in the face of certain Armageddon, but from the RCMP? Shouldn't they have more . . . what's the word? . . . restraint? professionalism? sanity? This is, quite likely, the most terrifying bit of testimony to come from the Arar Inquiry (and does a fair bit to discredit all of Anne McLellan's assurances of privacy protection under the new integrated security regime we're now part of). CanWest's Neco Cockburn (a man I know and respect a great deal) is covering the inquiry and his report is in the Citizen and Gazette, among others. Yet the Post takes a pass. What gives? Is their blind adherence to the security-above-all mantra so strong that they don't want to report on anything that questions the post-9/11 security regime? And finally, Ipsos vindicates Megalomedia Yesterday, in the midst of my anti-Marsden diatribe, I highlighted the blatant hypocrisy of criticizing skewed polls while skewing polls later in the same column. Evidently I was too kind, as John Wright, Senior Vice-President at Ipsos-Reid points out in a letter to the Post. She didn't just skew the poll results on the same-sex marriage thing, she actually skewed the results of the poll she accused of skewing! The Post hides their letters behind their subscriber-only wall, but since it's fairly short and entirely poignant, I will copy and paste below. (National Post, June 30)

In her column of June 29, "Blue Martin Puts On A Pink Dress," Rachel Marsden states: "According to an Ipsos-Reid poll from last November, 51% of Canadians agreed with the statement that decriminalization of pot is 'a sound idea as many people will no longer have to suffer a criminal record for a relatively minor offence.' Notice the torque? If they're going to load a poll question like that, they may as well just say that if pot isn't decriminalized, Baby Jesus will bawl his eyes out."

In fact, Ms. Marsden has cherry-picked only part of the actual poll question -- thus applying her own torque to an issue she obviously feels strongly about.

In the survey in question, respondents were read a factual introductory statement that indicated as follows: "The Canadian government is considering legislation that would not legalize marijuana but would make possession of small quantities not a criminal offence so a person would not have a criminal record but may have to pay a fine instead."

Next, respondents were asked whether they thought "this is a sound idea as many people will no longer have to suffer a criminal record for a relatively minor offence and the Canadian government should go ahead with its proposals"; or if they thought "this is a bad idea as marijuana is a gateway drug that can only lead to harder drugs and threatens the war on drugs wherever it's being fought so the Canadian government should stop these changes right now"; or if they "really don't care about this change." It makes little sense to criticize the pro-decriminalization option as "torqued" when the anti-marijuana one provides countervailing language.

The survey results indicated that half of Canadians (51%) agree this potential legislation would be a "sound idea"; 33% agree this potential legislation would be a "bad idea"; 15% say they "don't really care about this change"; and 1% said they "don't know."

The idea that this poll somehow distorts the attitudes of Canadians is demonstrably false. Indeed, the level of support for marijuana decriminalization reported by respondents has actually been higher in various other polls going back several years. In a 2000 National Post poll, for instance, fully two-thirds of respondents indicated their belief that "possession of marijuana should not be a criminal offence."

We don't think there's anything loaded or divine in our polling on this issue -- merely a true reflection of what Canadians think when they have a bowl full of cherries, not just one or two plucked by a columnist who is obviously out on a limb.

Couldn't have said it better myself, John.

Hey look, the sky didn't fall at all

2005-06-29T06:11:00.000-05:00

Before I get to the media analysis today, I want to take the opportunity to have my say on the issue of the day. Forgive my self-indulgence. A strange thing happened to me this morning. I was listening to CBC Radio on my way to my morning media analysis job as the hourly news came on, and the first item was (no surprise) the results of the same-sex marriage vote. And as I listented to the roar of applause from the gallery that accompanied the yes votes, I felt a surge of pride. My normally jaded and cynical heart (at least for all things Parliamentary) withered and I actually teared up a little bit. Despite the best efforts of fear-mongering Conservatives, and despite the bungling and missteps of an ineffective minority government, Canada became only the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriages. Fucking 'eh. I don't know if I buy into the whole "It's the charter, stupid" argument. To me, this is more about saying gays are people too. It's about saying what happens between two consenting adults who love and treasure each other is of fuck all business to anyone else. If two guys want a state-sanctioned certificate that says they love each other, who are we to say they can't have it? It's about saying to the world, in Canada, you can be who you want. I'm not one for melodrama and grandoise declarations of nationalistic pride, but today, I am honestly really fucking proud to be Canadian. I'm glad that despite the best (and worst) efforts of many, this morning any two loving adults in Canada can march into a civic office and say "marry us." I'll say more about the coverage of this in a second, but I think Globe columnist John Ibbitson summed it up the best. "After the certain, swift passage by the Senate, and royal assent, it will become the law of all the land. And Canada, once again, will have stumbled to the front of the pack of civilized nations. ... So, enjoy the summer while it lasts. And congratulate yourself. You are part of the most diverse, tolerant and open-minded place on Earth." The debate was ugly, the performance of many MPs sub-par. But at the end of the day, it got done. I'm going to go crank up the Dead Milkmen's "Stuart" and celebrate the fact that, at least on this issue, Canada got it right. On to the analysis Okay, back to business. The coverage of the vote was, for the most part, predictable. The Globe tended to focus on the need to move on from the sourness of the debate, while the Toronto Star celebrated the vote in an editorial. The surprise was the acceptance, begruding as it was, of the vote by the National Post. Their front page contains a point-counterpoint wherein Andrew Coyne actually argues that the vote was a good thing and it's time to move on to protecting religious freedoms. It's as close to a pro-same-sex argument as you'll get from the Post. Beyond that, there was little in the way of commentary on the matter at all, save for a "let's move on" editorial that argues that few Canadians will actually be affected by the vote (interesting, given their opposition to it in the past, but whatever, we'll let them turn tail with some dignity). The general consensus is that the whole debate was messy, nobody performed particularly well, and at the end of the day, it's probably best that it's over. Not really the triumphant dawn of a new era that you might expect it to be, but it's all very Canadian. So if the Post wasn't gay-hating. . . Don't worry, they were still proudly displaying their right-wing prejudices in their comment section. I want to discuss three of their columns today: Barbara Kay's name-dropping praise of her cottage in Maine (she lives near George Bush Sr., let's all be impressed), George Jonas' patronizing take on the Trudeau/Almrei affair and Rachel Marsden's attack on Paul Martin, which the Post was kind enough to make available online. It's here. I'll save Marsden for the last, because there's a lot to say. These are three great examples of types of columns that piss me off. Kay's piece is basically a self-indulgent rant about how great her cottage in Maine is, how close she lives to the Bush family retreat and how she can totally see why Bush likes it. What's your point? Yay, you can afford to holiday in Maine, who really cares? Jonas offers up a variation on the "kids today with their rock-and-roll music" theme so beloved by himself, SunMedia's Peter Worthington and the like. He criticizes Alexandre Trudeau, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein's support for security-certificate victim Hassan Almrei (read more in the Globe article here) by dismissing them as well-intentioned but misguided kids who don't realize how dangerous terror is. He even recounts meeting Trudeau and Lewis as kids, as though he needed to reinforce the patronizingly parental nature of his column. At least the Post's editorial on the same subject comes right out and calls them all "terrorist-huggers." It's one thing to criticize their actions, but it's even more condescending to pretend they're just misguided kids who would do differently if they knew better. And Marsden. Oh Rachel Marsden. Canada's Anne Coulter. Rebel of the Right. If you didn't read the column, do so here. I'm going to pick this bad boy apart pretty liberally, so you'd do well to read it first. Okay. Line One. Yes, Martin used to be Chretien's "right-leaning counterpart" and now he's gone more socialist. But there's another explanation. He used to be finance minister, now he's PM. See, the finance minister is in charge of finances, and therefore must be the "right-leaning counterpart" to other elements of cabinet. That's why Ralph Goodale said he opposed the NDP budget amendments. It's the finance minister's job to scrutinize spending. The PM, however, is supposed to lead the country. Opinion poll after opinion poll said that Canadians rank healthcare, education and the environment ahead of tax cuts. The government now has money to spend (thanks to Martin's work as finance minister) and Martin is spending it. To suggest that he is "indulging in political cross-dressing with his new socialist comrades" ignores that fact that the Liberals, Bloc and NDP MPs together outnumber the Conservatives. In our great parlimentary system, a majority of votes reflects the will of the nation. Flawed as the system may be, that's the way it works. If those MPs agree to vote on spending initiatives, then theoretically, Canadians do too. Don't get me wrong, there are reasons to criticize how Martin has spent the money. But to suggest that it's all "a desperate power grab" is disengenuous. On to your assertion that "we didn't actually elect [Mr. Layton] to govern." You're right, Rachel, but I don't see where Layton said we did. What he said was "when you elect New Democrats, you get better government." Which is his right to say. Canada did elect more NDP MPs last election than the election previous. "Hand these socialists 16% of the popular vote, and they'll take the crushing defeat as a mandate to run the place," you say? Well, that 16 per cent is more than they got before, how is that a "crushing defeat?" The Conservatives were glad to use the NDP to suit their agenda when they tried to topple the government, why can't the Liberals use them to support it? Coalition governments are in power all over Europe and have been for some time. But we're not allowed to cite European examples are we, no, you'd be happier with a U.S.-style two-party system. On to the same-sex thing. Ipsos-Reid president Darrell Bricker pointed out that "only about a quarter of Canadians thing that same-sex marriage is a great idea," did he? If I know polls, there are usually more options. How many Canadians thought it was a good idea? Or didn't have strong feelings one way or another? It seems to me that if the numbers still added up to a majority of Canadians being opposed to same-sex marriage, you would've presented it that way. Now let's compare that to what you argue a few paragraphs later, that a recent poll that showed Canadians supported decriminalizing pot was "torqued," or misleading. Yes Rachel, it IS disenguous to present misleading poll results isn't it. Okay, this post is already getting too long, so I'll stop there. Needless to say, I don't much care for Ms. Marsden. But don't let that ruin your day. It's a great day. A gay day. Go revel in it. Pump your fist, raise your glass and bask in the homosexual glory of it all. Somewhere, Stephen Harper is crying.

Happy Same-Sex Marriage Day

2005-06-28T05:23:00.000-05:00

God willing (or not, depending on your take), the House will finally pass the same-sex marriage bill and the media can move on. But leave it to Stephen Harper to underline his blatant hypocrisy one last time before they do. Saying the Bloc's support robs the bill of its credibility? What does that do to your (failed) attempts to bring down the goverment with Bloc support, Mr. Harper? CTV News actually beats the rest? I'm doing the MediaScout today, so I was forced to watch CTV News last night, but for once, I'm glad I did. They were the only people to report on one of the more troubling elements of the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico integration (sorry, co-operation) deal - the fact that Canada will start accepting FDA drug trials rather than conducting independent ones. Uh, what? I'm going to go on about this at length in the Scout, so go there for some troubling background info on the FDA, but for the purposes of Megalomedia, let me just say that the media has a tough job when dissecting these sorts of agreements. There are hundreds of measures - some new, some re-announced - in this agreement, and it'd be impossible to cover them all the first day. I just hope for the sake of national debate that someone else gets on this story in the next few days and makes Canadians aware of this shit. I'd link to this story, but I really can't find it anywhere online yet. Conflict of whatnow? Okay, check out this story from the Globe, it was repeated fairly extensively in other papers too. Does anyone else see a problem with journalists offering to post bail? Granted, the term is extended fairly loosly here, Avi & Naomi, Alexandre Trudeau and Heather Mallick aren't really hard-nosed news reporters, but if you were the Globe and Mail, par example, wouldn't you have a problem with Ms. Mallick getting so involved? Oh, and national security certificates are an insult to Canada and everything Canadians (theoretically) stand for. SHARK ATTACK! Why are we covering the shark attacks in the U.S. so extensively? You want to stop shark attacks? Stop swimming in shark-infested waters. Okay, that's going to have to do it for today, kids. I'm off to the happy land of MediaScout, where I shall ruminate on FDA approvals in Canada, Harper the Hypocrite, Pakistani rape victims and tsumani relief six months later. Cheers!

Megalomedia: Now with nougat!

2005-06-27T06:18:00.000-05:00

Before I get into today's post (and there's a lot to talk about), I want to send the proverbial "shout out" to Globe and Mail letterwriter Michael Warden, who writes: "If Christie Blatchford is as fed up with Karla Homolka as she claims (Are You As Fed Up With Karla As I Am? - June 25), why does she keep writing columns about her?" Amen, my brother. Replace "Christie Blatchford" with any Canadian columnist and "Karla Homolka" with an appropriate noun of choice and you have one of the biggest problems with Canadian pundits. They dwell, they dwell, then the complain about over-coverage of an issue. Preach on, Mr. Warden. Fill that ethical void with the creamy goodness of Caramilk Eight CanWest papers ran glorified press releases on behalf of Cadbury today, trumpeting the release of eight new chocolate bars and a rebranding of the entire line in Cadbury's trademark purple. Two papers (Saskatoon StarPhoenix and Windsor Star) saw the story as A1 material, while five (including the Ottawa Citizen and National Post) saw fit to toss in a photo. The Citizen and StarPhoenix actually ran photos of Cadbury's products for them. Only the Calgary Herald ran the story where it might be justifiable - in the business section. The papers tried to mask this as a news story by citing a StatsCan report on chocolate consumption, a marketing prof and a "nationally recognized candy commentator." But honestly, where's the news value here? I know that a few Megalomedia readers work in CanWest newsrooms, so if you're not bound by some sort of confidentialty agreement, please post a comment and explain how this story was brought up in the pitch meeting. 'Cause in my mind, there was a big box of free chocolate on the desk. I'd link the story, but all the papers seem to have buried it behind their subscriber-only wall of protection. We're here. We're Queer. Let's play up the stereotypes Wow, Rosie DiManno's A1 column in the Toronto Star on the Gay Pride parade in Toronto is an insult to anyone who favours gay rights - even us straight folk. I can't link to it because the website requires registration, but allow me to quote a few gems: "Pride Week in Toronto is a time when straight women can fill their eyes - if not their arms - with luscious, lip-licking, libidinous masculinity, running the entire gamut from he-man to girly-man variety.

"None of whom, alas, gives a toss about us.

"The old adage that the best-looking guys are all gay never feels truer than during this annual celebration of all things queer. Or, to be more formally inclusive and gender-permutated about it, all things LGBTTIQ lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex and queer. We don't know what intersex means, to be honest, but we like the sound of it."

She then went on to lament the fact that the parade has become more mainstream - as though the normalization of gay culture is a problem to her.

"If anything, yesterday's parade could have used a shade more rude, lewd and crude.

"Not to promote stereotypes, but Pride Parade - that's the correct term for it, nowadays, as we are reminded by a glossary of terms contained in the Office Pride Dictionary included in our media package - has grown up so much, become so mature, it is verging on the downright PG-rated conventional."

Actually Rosie, that's exactly what you're doing - promoting stereotypes. And if I were gay, I think I'd find it all rather patronizing. Hell, I'm straight and I find it patronizing.

The Post doesn't like the Globe? Who knew? The Post dedicates two columns/opinion pieces to their ongoing petty war with the Globetoday. The first, by George Jonas, attacks a recent Jan Wong column in which she spread wallets around the city to see if they'd be returned. The second, an opinion piece by a Ron Podonly, criticizes recent Globe coverage of the Middle East dispute.

Both pieces actually raise legit points, but they both discredit themselves in an attempt to tailor them to the newspaper war. Jonas focuses on Wong's decision to throw a wallet over the gate at one of Conrad Black's properties. Rather than attack her fabrication of news (something Wong does far too often, remember her "I snuck a knife onto a plane once, while travelling on a VIP ticket?) he goes after her for attacking Black - the Post's founder and friend of Jonas. Podonly singles out the Globe for inaccurate reporting to serve an agenda - and overlooks the fact that the Post was blasted for inserting the word "terrorist" into wire copy from the Middle East.

There are many reasons to attack Jan Wong. I may at some point soon dedicate an entire post to her. And there are many reasons to criticize media coverage of the Middle East. But to do so in a way that smears only the Globe just smacks of petty bickering and does nothing to advance their case.

And finally There's a whole flurry of torture-related stories flowing around the U.S. that have largely been ignored in the Canadian media. I'll toss a few links your way, they're worth checking out. First read this. Then compare and contrast with this. You have 30 minutes. Begin. Please double space.

Sleeping next to a terrified, hypocritical elephant

2005-06-23T06:08:00.000-05:00

So the U.S. is trying, once again, to ban flag burning. Read about it here. It's not the first time they've tried, but it's the first time there's been the necessary Republican control of both House and Senate, and the rampant patriotism to make it go. I doubt that I have to point out the blatant hypocrisy here - the freedom loving U.S. curtailing free expression, but I was surprised that so few papers picked up the story. AP put it on their wire, which in today's Canadian media climate makes it a choice candidate for the international sections. Yet neither the Globe nor the Post ran it. Oh well, for shits and giggles, check out this site. National Post News Services or Reuters Lite? The Post finally picked up on the allegations that China has spies in Canada monitoring Falun Gong practitioners. Sort of. They actually refer to Canada casually in the eighth paragraph or a story on the whistleblower's concerns that he could be sent back to China. Actually, for an article from "National Post News Services" it sure has an Australian focus. Almost as though it was a direct copy of a Reuters story, with a token paragraph on Canada tossed in for good measure. This is the first time the National Post reported on this story at all. Shouldn't they have provided a little more context? This is the latest example in a weird trend in the CanWest papers. You'll see a lot of stories attributed to the National Post News Service or CanWest News Service, but really, they're wire stories with a line changed. It's an attempt to disguise the fact that they do little to no actual international reportage, and it's misleading and dishonest. Agent Orange Update The Globe finally ran a story on Agent Orange, in advance of today's meeting at Gagetown. Well, CP ran a story and the Globe grabbed it. Still nothing from the Post, Star or Citizen. In defence of the wires This site dedicates a great deal of time to criticizing wire services. That's a bit unfair. Reuters, Agence France-Presse and AP/CP do a really good job of filling the gap in international reportage. Often, the actual wire stories are well researched and well written, and it's the individual papers that chop up the copy. So when I piss all over the wires, understand that it's the reliance on them I'm against, not the actual work they do. Today, I want to give some mad props to an AP story for a wonderful little dig at Condi Rice. Check out the story here. I love the fourth paragraph, it's a perfect little subtle jab at Rice. " Rice did not elaborate on how the war in Iraq might affect terror groups in other parts of the world." It seems almost like editorializing, but it's rooted in fact and answers a question that a reader would (or at least should) have after reading that quote. Well done, AP. Bushies love tossing out rhetoric like that, we need more reporters to start calling them on their shit. And finally. . . The Star fronted another Guantanmo story today, this even more troubling than the others, in my humble opinion. It turns out doctors who treat the prisoners (sorry, evil doers) are required / encouraged to pass on medical information to the interrogators. The Star article requires a subscription, but a similar report is here. Fuck doctor-patient privilege, we need to know if Mohammed al-Jihad over there has a bum knee we can lean on when we're "interviewing" him. I'm hoping that the Star was just the first off the blocks with this, and that the rest of the papers grab it tomorrow. This is a serious revelation, and the more play it gets, the better.

Like Lorne Gunter, but with a conscience

2005-06-22T06:15:00.000-05:00

I was looking for something on the National Post's website this morning and noticed that Lorne Gunter has a blog called "As I Please" - a suitably arrogant title for an arrogant prick like Lorne. I often wonder why columnists feel they also need blogs, as though their daily (or weekly, or whatever) soapbox doesn't give them enough time to impart their pearls of wisdom upon the masses. Oh well, heaven forbid they look out of touch. What does Ed the Sock have to do with sex? There's a story in the Citizen today about the importance of warm feet for good sex. Researchers at the University of Groningen (I've never been prouder to have visited that city) determined that people have better sex when their feet are warm. This was part of the same study that told us all yesterday that the section of a woman's brain that controls fear and anxiety shuts down when they have an orgasm. What a great study. This story is pretty easy to find online, but I chose this link for the headline. That's all well and good, it's an interesting enough story and sex sells, so what the hell, run it (the Citizen ran an above-the-banner tease to it on A1, of course). But what gets me is that the story ran with a photo of Ed the Sock. Umm, what? Granted, they couldn't very well run a picture of people gettin' all freaky with their socks on, but why Ed the Sock? Because he's a pop culture icon. It's part of a trend I've noticed recently where papers will run pop art to illustrate stories. The facing page in the Citizen has a story about a StatsCan study comparing rural and urban lifestyles and mindsets, underneath a giant picture of American Gothic. The Globe's article on the study is here, the Citizen is a subscription-only link. Yesterday's Citizen tease to the Saddam Hussein story had a photo of Doritos and Raisin Bran, while their article on the biology of romance on Monday had a huge picture of Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise. It is laziness? Or are they hoping to increase readership by including unrelated but easily recognizable images? Either way, it seems like bullshit pandering to me, use that space for something important. Post takes a pass? When I read a Citizen story about a CSIS report that said the war in Iraq is breeding more terrorists and that Canada is a likely target, I really expected it to be on A1 of the Post. TERROR THREAT TO CANADA, or AL-QAEDA EYES THE GREAT WHITE NORTH, or something. But no, it wasn't reported at all. Since the Montreal Gazette also had it, I assume they could've run it as part of their CanWest story sharing, but they didn't. That really surprised me. Why would the Post pass up such a great opportunity to fearmonger on their cover? "The CSIS characterization of Iraq as a source of future extremism contradicts the position of the United States government, which has always insisted military action there is advancing its 'war on terrorism.'" Oh right. That's the war the Post wanted Canada to fight too. We can't say anything bad about that. Agent Orange, Agent Smorange When I wrote the MediaScout last week, I noted that only CBC and the SunMedia chain had covered the Agent Orange and Agent Purple sprayings at CFB Gagetown. The post is here, the Gagetown stuff is at the bottom. I really thought that the rest of the papers were just waiting for an easier angle on the story before getting on board. Well, a Commons committee is hearing testimony about the matter, but still nobody else is on the story. It's here, courtesy the Sun's Stephanie Rubec. Is it just my DND coverage bias acting up? Does nobody else think this story deserves coverage? SunMedia's Greg Weston did all the legwork on this story, then CBC broke it open even further with some good ATI work, but nobody else wants to cover it, even when it's dished up in a nice, easy Commons committee. What gives? Seriously, am I out to lunch on this? Okay, that's enough for today. The Post and Sun both gave me some big-ass CFL previews to read, so I'm going to crawl into bed and find out how badly my 'Gades are going to do this year.

Back in the saddle

2005-06-21T08:08:00.000-05:00

Sorry again for yesterday, folks. Things at the office still aren't sorted out yet, but I was able to get through my papers at a comfortable pace and, low and behold, spotted a few things for you. Well, I guess it's a start Self-help guru Tony Robbins is suing the Vancouver Sun for libel. I've long argued that Canada needs a good ol' fashioned, high-profile libel suit to rein in the media in this country. It seems that editors across Canada think they're operating in the U.S., with all the ‘Mr. Doe allegedly killed three people' and things of that nature. Sadly, Robbins' suit seems a tad frivilous, and in a worst-case scenario, could strengthen the resolve of the Canadian press, but it's a start. Cambodia, that's where again? I'm going to comment on this at length in today's MediaScout, but it warrants mention here as well. Only the Globe reported on revelations that police on the scene of the school seizure in Cambodia last week may have fired the shot that killed the Canadian child. Why? Because other papers rely on U.S. and European news wire services that aren't following the case in detail. But don't worry, everyone reported that Saddam likes Doritos. I don't want to say that having freelancers working for you around the world is the best strategy, but given the penny-pinching state of the Canadian conglomerates, it's a damn sight better than anyone else is doing. Okay, I know it's a short post, and after yesterday, you all deserve better, but I have to get to work on MediaScout. Check it out though, it should be a doozy. Ripping into the US for selling weapons to Hussein, funding the Contras and overthrowing the government in Haiti. It's a leftie-rant-a-palooza. And I'll try to get this bad boy up to snuff tomorrow.

Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays

2005-06-20T07:24:00.000-05:00

Wow, Murphy had the run of my office this morning, let me tell you. Saving you the messy details, I'll just say that my usually-relaxing stroll through our nation's media became a frenzied search for stories for my client, and I didn't get a chance to turn a critical eye to things like story placement and neglect. I was taken aback by the prominent placement of a story on Dance Dance Revolution in the Ottawa Citizen (it can help kids with ADHD learn to read, let's run it on A3 above the fold with a big photo) and the massive photo of Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise (Tomcat, I'm told) on the back of the A section to illustrate a story about the biology of romance, but that's about all I have for you today. Tomorrow's a MediaScout day, but I'll try to have something more substantive for you here as well.

Quick hits

2005-06-16T08:12:00.000-05:00

Oh man, sorry this is such a late post. I got busy at work this morning and had to rush straight to the MediaScout. Just a few quick thoughts today anyway. The Post continued its on-again, off-again coverage of the Arar Inquiry with a Don Martin column attacking the former Canadian ambassador to Syria whose testimony was reported across the board yesterday. However, they elected not to coverage day two of his testimony, which could be even more damning than day one. Read the coverage that the Post skipped here. As a follow-up to the Uzbekistan story I linked to at the end of yesterday's Megalomedia post, I point you to the Globe's coverage today. You can probably guess what I have to say about this, but if not (or if you really enjoy reading my thoughts), check out today's MediaScout. Remember when I praised the Citizen and Star for outdigging the Globe on the new Canadian Forces ombudsman? It's here, if you forget. Well, the Citizen decided not to follow up. Turns out the Commons defence committee killed his nomination. The Star was the only paper to report on it. Okay, that's it for today. I'm off to a CFL preseason game tonight, man I've missed football. Go 'Gades, Go.

On the perils of misquoting

2005-06-15T06:05:00.000-05:00

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of media analysis, I want to go slightly off topic and talk about the military's first gay marriage (read about it here). I think the best part of this story is a quote from a Canadian Forces spokesperson in the CanWest story (you need a subscription, but it's here). The guy basically said the military doesn't much care whether their soldiers are gay, straight or otherwise, as long as they can do their job. I'm not going to suggest that's the attitude of the rank-and-file, as I don't know one way or another, but man, I long for the day when we can all look at gay rights issues that way. I understand that activists have to make their fight into a spectacle in order to have their voices heard, but I look forward to a time when it's no longer an issue. Live and let live, and all that. PAT MARTIN HATES AMERICA!!!! I got to the National Post before the rest of the CanWest papers today and read an interesting piece on Pat Martin and the Devils Lake drainage controversy. Now, the original Canadian Press article can be found here. Go read the lead at least, you'll need that to follow the rest of this post. Now, the Post took that story and ran it under the headline "Let Americans freeze in the dark, NDP MP says" with this lead: "Canada should be prepared to cut off energy supplies to the United States and "let the bastards freeze in the dark" if the George W. Bush administration allows the Devils Lake diversion to flow polluted water into Manitoba, NDP MP Pat Martin said yesterday. Interesting, that's not what the CP article said. The Post goes on to explain in the fourth paragraph that Martin was quoting Manitoba residents, but based on the headline and lead, you'd think we had another Carolyn Parrish incident on our hands. The Citizen and others make it even worse by cutting down the CanWest story and just running the lead and second graph. The fact that Martin was citing Manitobans is never explained. This is irresponsible and dangerous. Given that CanWest papers, primarily the Post so frequently decry the poor relationship beteen Canada and the U.S., you'd think they'd be wary of fanning the flames unnecessarily. But no, sloppy journalism wins again. A quick word on a shitty editorial The Post ran an editorial supporting Guantanamo Bay that made my stomach turn, but I have to highlight one particularly confusing passage. It's the last two sentences of the lead. They've just finished describing some of the interrogation techniques, then say: "We would not quite go along with those right-wing bloggers who say this sounds less like true torture than it does the plot for the long-awaited sequel to Animal House. But it certainly resembles the latter more than the former." Read that again. Did the Post just essentially say "we wouldn't agree with people who say this sounds more like Animal House than like torture, but it certainly looks more like Animal House than torture?" Do they realize that "sounds like" and "resembles" are not opposites so much as synonomys? And finally. . . I saw this and thought it was interesting. Try as I might, I couldn't find this story anywhere in the Canadian media.

Let's see, what was in the news today. . .

2005-06-14T05:23:00.000-05:00

Okay. I realize that these days, the media can’t provide context for all the major issues they report on. I don’t like it, and I don’t necessarily agree that it has to be this way, but the atmosphere right now doesn’t allow for it. That realization made, it’s indicative of the sorry state of the Canadian media that so much coverage was given to the whole Jackson case, especially today’s coverage of the verdict. Since I’m MediaScouting today, I was up watching The National and CTV News last night, and they set the tone for today’s print coverage. All told, CBC dedicated almost 15 minutes of their hour-long broadcast to Jackson coverage, while CTV gave seven minutes of their half-hour news show. I happened to listen also to the World At Six on CBC Radio, their flagship news program, where there was a six-minute report dedicated to the case, followed by more coverage during As It Happens. Then there was the print coverage: top story in every major daily; five separate bylines in the and GlobePost; six in the Citizen. . . even the usually-restrained Toronto Star had five bylines on the story. Now, why can’t we clear that much space for discussions on Haiti? Afghanistan? Bolivia? Lebanon? There are major developments happening right now in all of these countries, yet there’s fuck all to read about them in our papers. What about the StatsCan report on Native unemployment? The unemployment rate for off-reserve Natives is two-and-a-half times that of the non-Native population, yet only the Globe saw fit to report that. CBC News uncovered the use of Agent Purple - a herbicide more lethal than Agent Orange - at CFB Gagetown in the 1960s, but despite the Canadian Press putting out a wire story on it, only the Gazette really gave it any play (the Post ran a small brief). See my MediaScout post today for more on this story. The worst part about all of this is that I’m not even remotely surprised. The Canadian media can rally a small army of reporters and commentators to wax philosophic on what the acquittals will mean for MJ’s music career, but have to rely on wire stories from U.S. and European wire services to discuss Canada’s aid packages to Darfur. They’ll clear space for a timeline of Jacko’s creepiness, but not for more evidence of Canada’s shameful neglect of the Native population. The world will keep going on around us, and our media focus will shift from Karla, to Russell Crowe, to Michael Jackson. It’s a fucking disgrace. Oh, and to everyone who had to listen to me speculate on today’s coverage (Hi Amy!), I have to admit I was wrong. I guessed the Post and Sun would run the same headline, but I was totally off. The Sun had “He Beat It!” while the Post went with “Jackson Beats It.” Totally different.

Oh My Allah, Hamas is going to kill us all!

2005-06-13T06:05:00.000-05:00

I have to admit, even I was drawn in. "HAMAS VOWS TERROR" screamed the Post's A1 in bold, all-caps font. "'Big mistake' for Canada to ban group: spokesman" read the subhead. I was worried. Was a Hamas spokesperson vowing terrorist attacks on Canada because of the ban? Nope. Despite the implied link, those two statements are not related. Hamas vowed to continue its attacks on Israel and also criticized Canada, the U.S. and others for banning the group. This all becomes somewhat clear as you read the story. This isn't the first time I've criticized the Post's fear mongering headlines on A1 (see this post and this post, for example), and I'm afraid it won't be the last. Canada's other national newspaper is taking a real turn for the tabloid these days. As much as I dislike the paper, I think it's important to have many dissenting voices at the national level. It's a shame to see the closest thing the Globe has to competition pandering. Need more terror? The Post also printed edited, translated excerpts from an al-Qaeda Internet posting defending the death of innocent people in their campagin against the infidels. This is confusing for a few reasons. One, borrowed editorials (and I guess that's what this is supposed to be) are usually picked up to bolster the paper's editorial stance (the Star calls their borrowed editorials "Worth Repeating"). Does this mean the Post backs al-Qaeda? I doubt it. But opinion pieces and columnists that counter the paper's stance are identified somehow, this piece is just attributed to "al-Qaeda." There's no context or explanation. Forgetting all of that, though, let's assume it was printed to illustrate the evils of the al-Qaeda way (which is why I assume they printed it, feel free to debate me on that point. It is, after all, under the headline "Voices of Hatred"). Does anyone else notice how much it sounds like Bush, Rumsfeld and others who defend "collateral damage" in U.S. actions? The only difference is Bush and Rummy feign concern for the innocent lives lost, while this (edited and translated) al-Qaeda posting is a bit more callous . This seems to be the lastest thing for papers to do, print excerpts from speeches or online postings in their editorial pages with no real explanation or context. I guess it adds to the debate, but it just seems weird to me. Perhaps one of you can explain it to me. A few shouts-out Okay, I've been picking on the Post today, but they actually co-opted one of the points I was hoping to argue today. I've been really frustrated by the lack of coverage of the latest surge in violence in Afghanistan, especially since Canada is ready to expand operations there. Today, however, Matthew Fisher wrote a fairly solid piece on the dangers Canadian soldiers will face in Kandahar, AND it ran quite prominently on A3. Fisher concludes with his own little shot at the press, noting that Canadian papers have stopped covering Afghanistan because it's been awhile since any Canadians have been killed there. Well done, Mr. Fisher. Also, the Globe beat me to the punch on talking about the G8 plan for Africa. I've been wanting to comment on this homogenous view of "Africa" that much of the Canadian political establishment and media want to propogate. The fact is, Africa is made up of many different countries with many different problems and backgrounds. Yes, there are key themes that dominate the continent, but there is not one overarching solution for Africa. Doug Saunders does a good job illustrating this, read his story here. Okay, that about does it for today. As for the week ahead, I'm doing the MediaScout post twice this week, tomorrow and Thursday, so check those out. And of course, I'll be here spewing forth my thoughts through til Thursday, so keep coming back. Cheers!

Separation of church and whatnow?

2005-06-09T06:07:00.000-05:00

If I may, I'd like you all to indulge me in a wee scenario here. Say, for the sake of shits and giggles, that a long-standing U.S. ally - let's pick Saudi Arabia for fun - was in the process of appointing a new ambassador to the States. The two countries are fairly staunch allies, but there have been strains on the relationship as of late. Concerns about poor performance in the war on terror, fundamental differences in social policy. . . things of that nature. Now imagine that Saudi Arabia appointed an ambassador that had very little knowledge of the U.S. and claimed that Allah himself told him to take the post. You can just about imagine the uproar in the States. The media, the government and the population at large would be furious, no? Such religious zeal has no place in diplomacy, right? Okay, now replace Saudi Arabia with the U.S., the U.S. with Canada, and Allah with God. That's right, our new ambassador from the U.S. said God told him to take the job. His comments are here. Only the CanWest papers saw fit to report on this little development. Fuck you John Ivison The Post's John Ivison responded to a new poll that showed Tory support plummeting by saying that if Canadians elect another Liberal government it would be a failure of Canadian democracy. Uh, John? I think you need to bone up on your definition of democracy. See, a free vote? That's democracy. Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean it's not democracy. Arrogant piece of shit. I don't want to see another Liberal majority either, but if that's what Canadians want, that's what Canadians want. Look, we did journalism! The Citizen dedicated A1 above the fold and all of A3 to coverage of the re-opening of a New Brunswick murder case after evidence emerged that the man charged may not be guilty. Big news, to be sure, but what could possibly justify the two pages of coverage? Oh, it was a Citizen reporter who first broke the story of the possible wrong conviction. You can tell, because they ran a photo of the original story on A1. And they ran a separate article detailing how Gary Dimmock did journalism and broke the story on A3. Look, I'm thrilled that a possibly innocent man is getting a chance to clear his name, and I can see running the story on A1. But enough of the back-patting, own-horn-tooting. You're a journalist, you did some journalism. Some damn good journalism, for sure, but that shouldn't be the story. Let someone else brag for you. Read more of the good journalism here, the supplemental content is subscriber-only. I don't want to call it a coverup Pretty much everybody covered the latest report from the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations that suggested CSIS and the RCMP may unfairly target Muslims as part of security investigations. Everyone but the Post anyway. I'll let you decide if that shows a bias or not. And if you're a Post-only subscriber, here's what you missed.

It's a good day to be a cynic

2005-06-08T05:20:00.000-05:00

So the National Post and Montreal Gazette threw me a gem today. The Post reprinted an editorial that appeared in the Montreal Gazette yesterday criticizng papers for reporting on their own National Newspaper Awards victories. The editorial read: "We've won our share of these awards but not this year. Perhaps being shut out makes it easier for us to say this, but shouldn't all newspapers treat this annual competition more like a news story and less like a corporate press release?" Yes, yes they should. Which is why I'm baffled that two days before the Gazette printed that editorial, they ran a story called "Best in writing, design honoured at Gala, Five CanWest journalists win National Newspaper Awards," then cited their own newspaper in the criticism of newspapers praising themselves. The same story appeared in the Post yesterday. To clarify, both the Gazette and Post ran editorials criticizing papers for reporting on their own victories after reporting on their own victories. Just in case you missed that. Haiti The Globe's Jeffrey Simpson came as close as anyone to providing a good explanation of just how fucked up Haiti is. He doesn't go into Canada's role in the overthrow of the democractically-elected president, but at least says that it may be up to Canada to take a lead in revamping the UN mission there. I've already gone on at length about Haiti here, so I won't repeat it. I'm just glad somebody seems to be waking up to the story. Fun link My friend Steve from the Monday Morning Riseup on CKCU FM sent me this link you may be interested in. Apparently Amnesty International, who we can all agree is a fairly respected human rights group, called on foreign governments (read: Canadian government) to detain senior U.S. administration officials as war criminals. Nobody picked up the story that I can find. Watch the press conference here. Okay, I have to go write the MediaScout now, so the rest of my musings can be found there. It should be a good one, so please check it out. Cheers!

Update

2005-06-07T15:22:00.000-05:00

Apparently I worried a few people with the downer post this morning. To show that I'm fine, I'm posting a new link I discovered. Feel what it's like to be Karl Rove here.

Grumble grumble grumble

2005-06-07T05:43:00.000-05:00

Forgive me if today's post seems uninspired, but frankly, some days it's like Groundhog Day. The Gazette was the only paper to report on Haiti, though not particularly well. The Star was the only paper to report on the Ipperwash Inquiry, where it was revealed that OPP officials declared "We're going to war," just before marching on Ipperwash mere hours before unarmed Native protester Dudley George was shot. Michael Jackson's trial got more coverage than Darfur, Congo or Zimbabwe, despite the fact that nothing new happened and the jury is still deliberating. Russel Crowe's arrest for throwing a phone was covered by absolutely everyone, including the National Post and Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspapers. I just don't have it in me today, folks, and I'm sorry. Most days, doing this site is theraputic. I feel like in some small way, I'm raising awareness and making a difference. But today, I'm just bummed. There's nothing really new to comment on and far too many things I've commented on in the past. Better luck tomorrow.

See, we only peed on it

2005-06-06T05:42:00.000-05:00

There's a wonderful moment in The Fog of War, a terrific documentary detailing the life of former U.S. defence secretary Robert McNamara, where he admits that they used to love releasing bad news late on a Friday in the hopes of missing the major media news cycle. The fact that I watched the film Friday night, an hour after I read that the Pentagon admitted Guantanamo guards, kicked, soaked and pissed on Korans, was deliciously ironic. Or at least Morisette-ironic, I can never tell anymore. For those that missed the story, you're not alone. The Globe and Mail, National Post, Ottawa Citzen, Toronto Star, and a laundry list of other Canadian papers did too. It's not that they didn't have access to it, as the Canadian Press put the story out on the wire and it was picked up by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, Vancouver Province, Winnipeg Free Press, Montreal Gazette and others - they just chose not to run it. If you're interested, read it here. Interesting, especially when you go back over the things that those papers said about Newsweek's now famous article about Koran desecration. "The whole sorry incident shows just how eager many in the Western media are to smear the United States administration and undermine the moral foundations of the war on terror. Would Newsweek and others have been as outraged by a Bible burning or as ready to sympathize with people who took that burning as justification for running amok and killing scores of people? We doubt it." - "One bad story, 16 dead," National Post, May 17, 2005. "Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the Koran story, however, is that Newsweek's editors did not recognize the explosive nature of the material, or anticipate the international firestorm it would spark. Had they done so, they wouldn't have run the piece as a tiny brief, and would have verified their facts and sources more carefully." - "Newsweek's mistake," Ottawa Citizen, May 21, 2005 "Newsweek magazine made an error with fatal consequences when it reported this month on the alleged desecration of the Koran, the Islamic holy book, by United States military interrogators." -"Newsweek's stumble," Globe and Mail, May 18, 2005. Yup, you'd figure that given all that, these papers would want to report on the news that the Koran WAS desecrated by U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo. But no. For shits and gigles, let's do a quick rundown of the whole story, shall we? - Newsweek reports in a short brief that a U.S. Army Southern Command report on allegations of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo is expected to include allegations that the Koran was desecrated. - The story is out for a few days, nobody in the U.S. administration says anything. - The story is picked up by a few Arab outlets. - Riots break out across the Muslim world, some protesters are killed in the melee (16 was the last number I heard). - The Pentagon, Rumsfeld, Bush et al. scream at Newsweek, deny the story and call it irresponsible - Many media outlets pick up on the tone, decrying the irresponsible use of unnamed sources - Those same media outlets continue to use unnamed sources themselves, do not notice the hypocrisy - Newsweek retracts the story after their source recants - Newsweek apologizes for the violence caused by their story - FBI documents show that inmates did actually complain that their Korans were flushed down the toilet (see this post and the related comments) - Story goes mostly unreported - The Pentagon admits to several incidents of Koran desecration - Story goes mostly unreported What the hell has to happen before the mainstream press picks this up? More coverage was given to a semantic debate about whether or not Guantanamo is a gulag or not. It's unreal. Throw it into the water son, the ocean will take it away A few weeks ago, there was quite a bit of concern that the U.S. wanted to test-fire a rocket over the Atlantic. Apparently the booster rocket was going to splash down perilously close to some oil platforms. All went well, though, and the test went off without a hitch. Erm, except that the booster rocket's fuel tanks are filled with a potentially lethal combination of chemicals. Yea, the story is here. A few papers grabbed the CP story, but the Globe and Mail decided to edit out some fairly important information. Namely, the comments from Environment Canada about the nature of the threat. Now, I've already gone on a bit about cutting up wire stories recently, so I won't rehash that all now. Just read the CBC story I linked to above and decide if you think the EnvCan quotes are important. The Globe didn't.

A wee rant on Haiti

2005-06-02T06:06:00.000-05:00

Today's post is going to zero in a bit on one topic that I've talked about a few times before. Haiti. The National Post ran an update piece on the situation in Haiti, which included an interesting little factoid: "At least five kidnappings are reported every day, said police director Leon Charles. Three foreigners have been among the roughly 150 people abducted and then released for ransoms ranging from a few hundred dollars to more than US$1,000. Among the three foreigners was a Canadian, who was seized last week and later freed after his family reached a deal with the kidnappers." That was the 13th paragraph, and marked the first time I've read that a Canadian was abducted in Haiti last week. Does that strike anyone else as odd? I ran a little search and found out that the Canadian Press put the story out on the wire on May 27, in time for the May 28 papers. In fairness, quite a few papers got it, such as the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, Calgary Herald and Victoria Times Colonist, but the big boys took a pass altogether. Anyone want to venture a guess as to why? The Post hints at the reason just below the aforementioned kidnapping paragraph. "The violence stems from the continuing confrontation with supporters of Jean Bertrand Aristide, the former president who fled into exile last year under pressure from the United States, France and Canada." They chose to omit the phrase "democratically-elected" between "former" and "president" but you get the idea. This was a coup d'etat sanctioned by our government. A detail that was kind of overlooked at the time, and I get the feeling that the media might feel a touch bad about that. You can just about imagine the reaction of an average Canadian reader. "Wait, all this killing is related to the overthrow of a government? An overthrow that we supported? Why didn't I know that before?" So why did the Post run this story today? Let's see what's a little higher up in the piece, in the lead for example: "A year after the United Nations sent 6,000 troops and 1,400 police to Haiti in an effort to stem its relentless violence, the impoverished Caribbean country still wakes up every day to new reports of the dead and dying." Oh, so the UN is failing? Let's read on. "On Friday a spokesman for [interim President Boniface] Alexandre said the UN mission to the country had failed and that UN forces were 'reluctant to support Haitian police during operations against bandits, particularly in the capital.'" So the Post passes on this story for more than a year, then reports on it when the UN gets blamed. Unbelievable. Canada has soldiers and police officers in Haiti right now, but the only time the major papers want to report on the country is when they can do so in a way that suits their agenda. Today there was some coverage of an upcoming humanitarian mission led by Quebec Premier Jean Charest, but stories like that usually refer to the violence that followed the "massive popular uprising and the departure of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in February 2004," as the Gazette did today. Wake up, Canada. Our government helped overthrow a democratically-elected government in Haiti. The media let them off the hook for it. And now we've turned our eyes elsewhere while people continue to die. I'm fucking ashamed and you all should be too. Learn more: The Canadian government's version of events is here. The website for a U.S.-based pro-Haitian-democracy site is here (fairly partisan). An article about a documentary film that exposes the lack of media coverage is here.

An orgy of observations

2005-06-01T06:52:00.000-05:00

Whew, put a good night's sleep in this kid and he finds all kinds of stuff to write about. Let's start where everyone in Canada is starting today. The Grewal Tapes. First, the links you need: The transcripts and tapes are here. The Globe's coverage is pretty good, so check it out here. Okay, first of all, I just want to say that this whole thing is pretty sickening. While it's unclear if Paul Martin knew about any offers made to Grewal, it's pretty damn clear that his senior aide and a cabinet minister did. People wonder why "young people" are so cynical about politics? Look no further than this story. Now, as for coverage, both the Globe and Post bumped their lead columnists to A1 for this bad boy - always a sign of a big story. I have to say that John Ibbitson in the Globe hits it pretty much on the head. Nobody looks good in this. Counter that with Andrew Coyne in the Post, who paints it entirely as a Liberal scandal, and you see why people sometimes have a hard time taking the Post seriously. Sure, every paper is going to have an editorial bias, but to stick to the party line even in the face of this kind of blatant, self-interested political gamesmanship is pretty unreal. Priorities, priorities, priorities The Ottawa Citizen runs a hard-hitting expose on the anti-nipple sentiment that plagues society. From Desperate Housewives digitally airbrushing out Teri Hatcher's nipple to Victoria Secret's new nipple-hiding bra, why are we so obsessed with obfuscating our minor protrusions? It's a lovely story, right down to the gigantic picutre of Pamela Anderson that accompanies it. For the record, a second Doctors Without Borders official was arrested in Sudan for publishing a report that hightlighted the systemic rape of women in Darfur. You can read it here, but not here. The Citizen had more important things to report on. And speaking of priorities The Post didn't report on that Arar Inquiry today. That's hardly new, they only ran two articles on the inquiry in the month of May. The Citizen and Globe have passed that mark just this week. I wonder why the Post wouldn't want to cover an inquiry that uncovers more and more flaws in Canada's anti-terrorism legislation? What's worse, no coverage or shitty coverage? The on-again, off-again coverage of the Ipperwash Inquiry by the Globe is getting really frustrating. Yesterday, they reported that OPP tapes from the day Dudley George was shot accused the Native protesters of firing first. The story did a good job of noting that there has never been any evidence of Natives shooting unearthed at all, but it still led with the news of the day, that OPP tapes accusing the Natives of shooting first were played at the inquiry. Today, the news is that OPP officials admitted to circulating a false report about what led to the shooting. At the time, OPP officials said protesters threatened police vehicles with a baseball bat, something that was absolutely false. The man in charge of the entire OPP operation wasn't told it was made up until years later. Globe? Nothing. Hmm, if the OPP officers on scene were willing to lie about being threatened with bats, and no evidence exists that Native protesters ever fired a shot, doesn't that maybe call into question the allegations that the Natives opened fire first? At the very least, shouldn't all the details be reported on? Unlike the Gomery Inquiry, Ipperwash isn't being covered by a fleet of CanWest reporters, so it's hard to find really thorough, exhaustive coverage to point you all to. The Star requires registration for their site, but check out the inquiry's website for transcripts and the like. New Kid on the Block I was reading through a really right-wing piece in the Post's Issues and Ideas section this morning, wondering who the hell had written it. It was entitled "Don't call Guantanamo a gulag" and suggested, among other things, that the "terrorists" there should count themselves lucky because "under normal wartime practices, these enemy combatants would already have been lined up against the nearest wall and shot." It went on to declare that "while there may exist a few incidents of serious abuse, merely having people pose for pictures in undignified positions isn't a severe form of 'torture.'" Fair point, if that was the unflattering pictures were the only allegations. I'm more concerned about the sleep deprivation, forced homo-eroticism and the use of snarling dogs to terrify people. But whatever. I assumed I was reading some U.S. right-wing publication's editorial, as the Post often uses the I&I section to reprint things like that, but nope, this was the debut of the Post's newest columnist - Rachel Marsden. For fans of Fox News, Marsden is the Canadian correspondent on the O'Reilly Factor, that should tell you what you need to know. She's also been called Canada's Ann Coulter, if that helps. I'm really glad to see that a Canadian paper has adopted the U.S. tactic of having columnists push the Bush Administration's party line. But maybe I'm being too critical. Maybe it's just a coincidence that her column came out the same day as this story. And finally. . . Several CanWest papers run Tim Naumetz's story about opponents of same-sex marriage fax-jamming Liberal MPs with anti-gay-marriage messages - essentially tying up their fax lines. The MPs are upset and want the speaker to investigate, but Tory Jason Kenney says that Canadians have a right to political expression. Interesting. . . I don't have a fax machine myself, but any Megalomedia readers who do may want to consider sending Kenney a few hundred faxes thanking him for his support for political expression. His contact info is here.

This post brought to you by coffee

2005-05-31T04:40:00.000-05:00

Hooray, Parliament is back in session! And the first item of business on everyone's list? Arguing over a proposal to create a new logo for the House of Commons. That's democracy in action. The Tories and Bloc actually had the balls to call the debate a waste of time while still throwing out hilarious suggestions such as a snake eating its tail. Bar har har har. Oh, and 80 MPs took the day off. The Citizen says the House "was a wasteland of exhausted MPs" - poor babies, I guess having all of last week off wasn't enough for them. Get fit quick! I'm doing the MediaScout post this morning, so I was subjected to the evening broadcast news last night. CTV played up a McMaster University study that suggested six minutes of intense workout a week can do as much for a person's health as an hour-a-day fitness routine. It also went out on the CP Wire, and the Globe picked up the story. Both CTV and the Globe reported the study basically as truth, as health stories are often run. The key detail however, which CTV really buried, was that the people tested were in excellent shape and critics suggest the benefits could be limited to a small percentage of the population. There are also a number of risks with such intense training, which were buried quite a way down. This is sadly par for the course on health study reporting. CTV seems to love these kinds of stories, but I was surprised to see the Globe jump on it too. *Yawn* Darfur Hey, remember how we're sending a bunch of troops into Darfur? Apparently yesterday the head of the Doctors Without Borders contingent in the country was arrested because he published a report documenting rape in Darfur. He had the gall to (based on witness testimony) publish the report without checking with the Sudanese authorities first. Given that we're sending our troops in to work with this very same government, shouldn't this get some coverage? The Globe, Post, Citizen and Star were the only papers to report it, and each of them only gave it a brief. Hrm. I'm pretty sure I wanted to write more, but I'm bloody exhausted and can't really think of what. Check out today's MediaScout post for more of my thoughts on today's coverage.

Of whiskey shots and mainstream hits

2005-05-30T05:10:00.000-05:00

Much to my surprise, I returned from a night of bbq'ing and boozery in Montreal with the MediaScout crew to find that Megalomedia had more hits last Friday than on any previous day since I introduced the counter on May 18. Even more surprising, more than 30 hits came from the U.S. It turns out that the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz cited Megalomedia in his rundown of blog coverage of the FBI report on Koran abuse. The article is here. How Kurtz found me is a mystery, but I'm sure Google is partly responsible. Either way, it's cool to know that this puppy is reaching beyond my friends and family. It also generated the first bit of debate we've seen in the comment section in awhile, so scroll down to last Thursday's post and have a look, it's kind of interesting. Point / What'er-point? The Post's "Issues and Ideas" section leads with what appears to be a point / counterpoint on the racial profiling in policing study that was done in Kingston. Check out the CBC's coverage here for the background. Upon closer examination, however, the articles are actually quite similar. The first, written by a "writer and musician working in Toronto" says that police shouldn't be blamed for stopping more blacks than whites because, in Toronto at least, blacks are responsible for more of the crime. He goes on to blame the media for trying to hide that fact, despite noting that media reports about gangs being taken down in Toronto helped make him aware of the problem. You can read it here. The second piece, wrtten by the author of a study on race and hiring, notes that if racial discrimination were to blame, the ratio of stops-to-charges for blacks would be lower than for whites, which is not the case. He cites that as proof that the stops are legit. This one is only for Post subscribers, so I can't link to it. Contrary to what the Post would have you believe, this is not a clear-cut issue. The second piece doesn't address long-standing concerns about discrimination throughout the entire judicial system. Perhaps that there are more blacks convicted of crimes shows bias in the courts. I'm not saying it does, but it's disingenuous to ignore those concerns. The second piece is, however, much more balanced than the first. Wherein the second piece at least offers substance, the first seems to be really selective in the data used to back it up. It contradicts itself (see the media blame game cited above) and cites crime statistics to back up arrest rates in a mind-boggling display of circular logic. Police are justified in singling out blacks because blacks are so often arrested? Wow. There are reasons to be wary of race-based crime statistics, but to dismiss the Kingston study outright is pretty irresponsible, even by Post standards. And if you ARE going to dismiss it, at least get credible people with sound arguments to do it. Sea King Down! Every major daily, save for the National Post and Toronto Star, grabbed Dean Beeby's Canadian Press article on the dismal performance of a Sea King helicopter during a recent high-seas exercise. The Globe seems to have run it in its entirety, so you can check it out here. By my count, 21 papers ran the article, but of those, six (including the reasonably significant Calgary Herald and Montreal Gazette) decided to omit a rather important quote. See, while the Sea Kings have been justifiably attacked for their poor performance over the years, the man in charge of Sea King maintenance said this particular series of breakdowns was more about bad luck than bad aircraft. That's a pretty important bit of information. But because the "aged helicopters break down too much" narrative is fairly well known in Canada, those six papers figured it was okay to leave it out. Had this been a Coromorant, one of our shiny search-and-rescue helicopters, or one of the CF-18s, readers would want to know why they performed so badly. But because it was a Sea King, we don't need that info. This is just another example in a long line of reasons that I'd hate to work for CP. Their journalists tend to put out really well-written, balanced stories. However, papers get to edit them down to fit their needs, and far too often, that involves gutting some important details. I don't think the six papers axed the quote because of some anti-government, anti-Sea King agenda, but other times you have to wonder about details that are left out. Realistically, Beeby should have probably moved the quote in question up higher in the story, but I think the onus is on the papers to ensure that their edited versions of the story provide the same context and balance as the original. Hrm, this post is getting long. I wanted to comment on a few other things, but I think I'll cut it off here. Oh, but I will toss in this link. The New York Times did a report on preserving the trust of readers. Among the findings were concerns about biased language in balanced reportage and distinguising between columns and news stories. I haven't read it all yet, but it's worth checking out. Let's hope the Canadian papers think so too.

STOP THE PRESSES!

2005-05-26T05:19:00.000-05:00

Why is it whenever international media mentions Canada, the Canadian press pops a massive erection and starts pumping out coverage and spewing it all over A1? The New York Times "Canadian correspondent" wrote a column/analysis that suggested maybe, just maybe, Canada isn't as virtuous and wonderful as we like to think it is. He cited the sponsorship scandal, some lacklustre environmental performances, the monopolistic dairy marketing board, our poor treatment of Native peoples and the Euro-centric nature of our business world. Citizen A1: "N.Y. Times lampoons 'righteous' Canada" Toronto Sun Page 3: "NY TIMES BEFOULS OUR VIRTURE" The National Post at least goes with the slightly-more accurate "New York Times takes swipe at Martin's professed commitment to Canadian values" over a much shorter story buried on A6. Do yourself a favour, go to Google News, search for "New York Times Canada" and read the first bit of the article (Google gives you a nice back door around the subscription-based news sites). Does that seem like the befoulment of our virtue? A lampooning of our righteous nature? No, it seems like a reasonably well-sourced assesment of the Liberal image of Canada as a beacon of justice for the world. The Canadian media has to stop perpetuating this Canadian insecurity. To this day the "Mr. Dithers" moniker is tossed about, all because The Economist used it in February. When that same magazine called Canada cool, it was front page news for weeks. Who cares? That a U.S. newspaper ran an analysis of Canadian values should not be front page news. Not when there are far more important things to discuss. Is it interesting? Sure, it makes for a good read. Maybe some papers should have picked it up in syndication and ran it in their comment pages. But to make a news story out of it? Grow up. I hate to say 'I told you so,' but . . . Yesterday Justice Gomery said he didn't have the evidence to back up claims made in the media about the amount of money funnelled into Liberal coffers, despite suggestions that the forensic study backed up Brault's claims. Now where have I read that before? CBC Radio yesterday indicated that Gomery took a shot at the media for overplaying the forensic report, but that little barb didn't make it into today's coverage. The Star led with Mr. Gomery's general comments about a lack of evidence, while the Globe and Post buried the contradiction to their own coverage deep under yesterday's other testimony. So the average Canadian will probably go on believing that the forensic report (not an audit, it's important to recognize) backed Brault's claims, despite the report's authors saying they didn't have enough evidence to go on and despite Mr. Gomery correcting the media and playing down the impact of the report. That's some fine responsibility. We're waiting for your appology, Mr. Rumsfeld So. The FBI has reports dating back to 2002 of allegations of desecration of the Koran by U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. They were just declassified. Now, who remembers when the Pentagon said there were "no credible and specific allegations" of Koran desecration? I do! I do! Let's give the Pentagon and Mr. Rumsfeld the ultimate benefit of the doubt and say they didn't know the FBI had these allegations. Fine. But in the light of this recent evidence, shouldn't they retract their statement? And as for all the Canadian papers who latched on to the White House spin, shouldn't they maybe "pull a Newsweek" and retract their comments too? The coverage today goes on to say that federal officials have denied these allegations in the past. Okay fair. But all Newsweek did was say that U.S. officials had uncovered allegations of Koran desecration. And they did.

Unintended consequences of hilarity

2005-05-25T06:44:00.000-05:00

When I decided to start running ads on this site I had no idea of the hiliarity that would ensue, but Google's intelligent ad generator is picking up some gems. Megalomedia, your source for Canadian media analysis and sponsored links to paranoid left-wing websites. If a Liberal wins in Labrador, does it make a sound? I gotta say, I was a little surprised that the Globe and Post didn't run the Labrador by-election on A1. After weeks of fronting Chuck Cadman's every bowel movement, they took a pass on an actual story about the balance of power in Parliament. With one more MP, even losing Cadman's support on the next confidence vote could leave the two sides tied with the tie-breaker going to the Liberal speaker. But instead the Post runs a sensational but ultimately resolutionless story about the Bre-X (remember that?) scandal and the Globe leads with a slightly-misleading headline about the sponsorship audit (more on that in a sec). While the outcome of the by-election wasn't a shock, it certainly wasn't a given either. While the papers did offer fairly thorough coverage, I have a hard time believing that whether or not the geologist behind the Bre-X scandal is dead is bigger news. "Oh man, I'm gettin' an Audi!" "Forensic study backs allegations from Brault," screams the front page of the Globe. "Forensic sleuths bolster Brault's credibility," says Christie Blatchford on A5. "Inquiry unearths Groupaction cash," adds the National Post. Gee, with all of those headlines you'd assume the forensic auditing team looking into the sponsorship books had come back with some cold, hard evidence clearly illustrating the money trail. What's that Toronto Star? "Audit team turns up no smoking gun." Hmm, how peculiar. As all the stories evenutally explain, the auditors said the Liberals may have received more than $2.5 million from ad firms that got $1.4 billion in sponsorship and advertising contracts, but they can't be sure. and they also can't rule on whether or not the alleged $2.5 million was ill begotten or not. Let's extrapolate the Globe's headline for a second. Brault said he funnelled more than $1 million to Liberal organizers in return for more than $66 million in sponsorship contracts. Those are the "allegations from Brault" that the Globe led with. The forensic report said in a footnote that the $1.76 million estimate they listed was "per allegation by Mr. J. Brault, the actual amount paid to the Liberal party is unknown." All the stories do a fairly good job of putting it all in context, but the need for context extends to headlines too. The forensic report did not back Brault's allegations, it merely refered to them and emphasized that the amount of money is not known. Call it a nitpicky detail, but it's a pretty damn substantial detail to me. Did Joe just praise the Citizen? I try to give credit where credit is due, and today, the Citizen and Star both kick the Globe's ass with their coverage of the nomination of Yves Cote for the Canadian Forces ombudsman. This is one of those times when it's easiest just to present the information and let it speak for itself. DND news release: M. Côté would bring to the Office almost thirty years of experience with the Government of Canada. He started his career as a Legal Officer with the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Department of National Defence in 1977. He left the Regular Force four years later and has since occupied various legal positions within the government, including General Counsel in the Human Rights Section of Justice Canada, Government Coordinator for the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia and, most recently, Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council. Globe story: Mr. Côté has spent almost 30 years as a government lawyer, including a stint in the 1970s as a legal officer with the military Judge Advocate General's office. Most recently, he was counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council. Citizen story: A news release announcing Mr. Cote's nomination cited his term as a military lawyer with the Office of the Judge Advocate General beginning in 1977, when he served as a prosecutor and defender, but the statement did not mention the two years he spent as the Canadian Forces legal adviser from 1998 to 2000. So he was the legal adviser as recently as five years ago eh? I wonder why the department would neglect to include that little fact. Citizen? "A spokesman for Mr. Graham, Steve Jurgutis, disclosed Mr. Cote's term as legal adviser, but said he could not say whether Mr. Cote advised the Canadian Forces about cases under investigation by the ombudsman." Oh, possible conflict of interest, I see. Hrm, I wanted to talk a bit about coverage of Africa, but I'm running long. I'll try to work it in again soon. For now, I'm off to nappy-land.

Long weekend, lame news cycle

2005-05-24T05:28:00.000-05:00

Nothing like a long weekend before a week off in Parliament to keep the news down. I'm also doing the Media Scout today, so expect this post to be a short one. Lebanon update The Globe and Mail was the only paper to report that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan confirmed the Syrian pullout from Lebanon. Remember? The thing that Bush said he was waiting for before he believed that Syria was committed to the withdrawal? Oh come on, Lebanon is so last month, we've moved on. Moving on All weekend, Afghan president Hamid Karzai was in the news. There were reports that U.S. soldiers were abusing and in one case killing Afghan detainees, and Karzai was pissed. He was going to walk into Bush's office and give him what for. I guess Mr. Bush must have given Karzai quite the dressing down, 'cause it was a humble, cowed Afghan president who stood by and watched Bush reject each and every one of his requests. The story was missed entirely by the Globe and given only wire service coverage in CanWest papers. I'm going to talk about this in great detail in the Media Scout post today, so please read it there. Two columnists raise Joe's ire David Frum uses his National Post soapbox to say that the recent electoral troubles facing France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder are well deserved, given their war-hatin', U.S. mistrustin', EU lovin' ways. He actually criticizes them for political opportunism. This is the same David Frum who worked as a speech writer for George W. Bush. He is responsible for the phrase "axis of evil." Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. And Peter Worthington uses his column space to spew hate and disdain for Romeo Dallaire, a general with a much more honourable war record than his own. The Sun papers are kind enough to post their columns freely, so for fun, we're going to play a rousing game of "Megalomedia: The Home Edition." Check out Worthington's uneducated, poorly-reasoned waste of space here, then post your own analysis for all the world to see. The best rant gets some sort of prize, though not likely a good one. Okay, I have to get back to the Scout, but I look forward to reading your entries this afternoon. Happy rantin'!