Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Oh, for heaven's sake, this is not Wafergate-gate II.

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, August 5, 2009 7:19am - 106 Comments

If you read Duffy’s speech — which, by a remarkable coincidence, showed up virtually simultaneously on two of the most widely-read Conservative blogs, each ostensibly independently of the other — it is clear that, at the very least, it was a mildly partisan address. Who, after all, is the “we” to whom the good senator repeatedly refers as being responsible for the avalanche of spending in the province? What party is currently in power, and “moving heaven and earth” to protect Canadians?

There’s nothing remotely wrong with a senator delivering a partisan speech, notwithstanding the response it incites in certain PEI Liberals. That said, there is also nothing wrong with the Guardian having described it as such, no matter how vociferously the senator in question might dispute that interpretation. What is, frankly, ridiculous is to suggest that this is in any way similar to what may or may not have gone on behind the scenes at the Telegraph Journal, which, as far as ITQ can see, is a rather shameless attempt to feed the “biased media” meme that launched a thousand Finley-penned fundraising letters — not that there’s anything particularly wrong with that, either. Heck, ride the wave of outrage — who knows how long it will last this time? Just don’t expect ITQ to sign on to find the real culprits, since, as far as she’s concerned, this is, as the Speaker might put it, a matter for debate.

Tags: island politics, remarkable coincidences, senator mike duffy

More by kadyomalley

Max

Consider the source, Mike Duffy.

'nuf said!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Wascally_Wabbit Wascally_Wabbit

Nice of Humpty Duffy to give Stephen Taylor the teleprompter version – didn't have to check for delivery – did he!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Harbles Harbles

Methinks they doth protest too much.
Anon

Hey, Kady, your (as in the collective Press Gallery) friend, Carolyn S-O, is leaving the PMO. Going to the Senate from NB, perhaps, or as Flanagan suggests in the G&M piece, going as far away from TheStrategist as she can?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Wafergate-gateGate?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

"Wafergate-gateGate" has a certain zing, but when you say it out loud people can't tell if you're stuttering or being recursive.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

"Wafergate-gateGate" has a certain zing, but when you say it out loud, people can't tell if you're stuttering or being recursive.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Or doing the cha-cha.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

No wafers here, just good ol' biased left-wing media getting the facts wrong (I kid, I kid, I KID).

Anyway, the answer's simple: Wafergate-lessGate: Now with substantially fewer wafers".

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

If the "Dynamic Duo" are posting on the story simultaneously, colour me skeptical it was a coincidence they did so.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

If the "Dynamic Duo" are blog-posting on the story simultaneously, colour me skeptical it was a coincidence they did so.

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

It was a set up. Both posts from the Dynamic Duds and Krazy Kate showed up at roughly the same time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

Duffy's got a point. All his speech did was outline accomplishments for PEI (the fact that accomplishments are measured by the amount of pork distributed to an area disgusts me as a conservative, but I digress…). He did not mention Harper. He did not mention the Liberals. It was just a political speech. The suggestion that his speech "hints at an election" is the most partisan thing about the whole thing. There is absolutely no basis in fact for that assertion.

The media have been in non stop election speculation mode for months. Everything is a sign of an upcoming election. Even today's news that Stewart Olsen is leaving is being spun as an "election is in the air" story. Based on what?!?!?

Sorry Kady, I call BS on this one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

Yes, and every time Ignatieff — or Layton, or Duceppe, or the prime minister, or anyone else — says something, we interpret *that* based on what it bodes for a potential election. Welcome to the permanent campaign. Also, I'm not sure if we disagree on the speech itself — one doesn't have to go on the attack for one's remarks to be partisan. It's not a dirty word. (And I recall that, back during those heady days of majority governments, going out on the road to trumpet the government's accomplishments was considered to be 'campaign-style' speechifying as well, so it's not like this only applies to this particular government.)

http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

But that's my point. Who is making this "the Permanent Campaign"? It's you guys. You are the ones endlessly promoting that a fall election is coming, based solely it seems on wishful thinking and wild overinterpretation of everyday political events. At this point, Duffy ordering a hamburger at McDonalds would be interpreted as a sign of an upcoming election. It's ridiculous and it's narrative journalism at its worst.

If I'm Ignatieff, the message from the media is clear. "We want an election. We're going to build it up all summer. And if you don't come through for us, we're going to paint you as the second coming of Stephane Dion." Doesn't give the guy much choice, does it?

Charles

"Who is making this "the Permanent Campaign"? It's you guys."

I dunno; the constant stream of 10-percenters that I receive suggests that it's not just the media that's interested in being in permanent campaign mode.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Give me a break about 10%'ers. They have been going on for years. If you don't like them throw them out. That's what I do when I consistently get mail from Jack Layton in my Conservatively held riding.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

I fully agree with your post. In fact I just posted a similar comment b4 reading yours. It is the media who is driving this election talk. Why do they not take the time and report on issues and things that matter to ordinary Canadians. Instead they focus on the "simple" stuff and invent stories so that they can meet their deadlines and collect a pay cheque. I wish there was an organization that reviewed the activities of the media to ensure that news reports are news reports and opinion columns were just that. The Broadcast Council was quick to jump on Duffy and CTV over the Dion interviews. Why don't they expand that into ensuring that those given licences for broadcasting in Canada actually do that in an independent non partisan way.

scf

Yes, you have hammered home John's point. The speech has absolutely nothing to say about an election, yet for some reason you claim:

"we interpret *that* based on what it bodes for a potential election".

So it is no longer reporting, it is creating the news. Not only that, they made it the headline. It does not matter what Duffy said, the story was written before the speech even happened.

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

But it's not bias if we do it to everyone, and the reality is that everything *does* play into the election-or-not question. When the PM talks coalition, when Ignatieff mulls over whether he'll vote against the government, when Jack Layton rails against the Liberal-Conservative coalition, when Elizabeth May shows up in yet another potential riding — it is all encompassed in that rich tapestry that is the reality of political life in Canada today. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but that's the way it seems to be. From: IntenseDebate Notifications

scf

Yes, but it's false. Your response simply does not apply. Treporter dreamed up a speech from an alternate reality, a speech that never actually happened.
The reporter was not relating the speech to the "election-or-not" question, she was falsifying the speech itself. If she reported what he actually said, and then she opinionated on the "election-or-not" question, then that is one thing, that is perfectly fine. Instead, what she did was she reported something that did not happen.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

If its a news report there should be no editorial content or speculation let alone spin. Canadians can make up their own minds if its for the purposes of an election not reporters. What's so important about election readiness? It will happen when it happens. However, have reporters/editors/publishers only the mental capacities to spin their stories in a jingoistic fashion as to who is up and who is down? What they are doing is forcing an unwanted election on the Canadian people. Any backing down of Iggy will be reported as he is scared, weak etc. not that it is in the best interest of the country. No wonder many Canadians are moving to the U.S. television news programs. They are far more diversified and interesting. Watching CBC/CTV is enough to put one toa sleep with their recycled stories about animals, the weather and of course never ending forest fires.
http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

Actually, she explicitly noted that he didn't mention the word "election", but described him as having "used rhetoric reminiscent of an electioneering politician". That seems entirely fair to me, although as I noted in my post, it is a matter for debate. Maybe it comes down to your definition of the word "electioneering".
scf

I'm not focusing entirely on the writer, because half the problem is the title: "Duffy's speech hints at looming federal election", and as far as I know writers are not responsible for titles.

I mean, of all things to say about the speech, to come out of the blue with that, that is simply inventing things, there are a million things that could be said that have an actual basis in fact, that actually have some sort of connection to the speech content itself.

Frankly, there may be a nugget of truth to the fact that if you think of it in a certain way, on the right sad, in the right mood, under a blue moon, there is perhaps a justification for the statement, perhaps, that it is somehow similar to how an MP behaves in an election (if Duffy were an MP and not a Senator).

But the fact of the matter is, that is something that was invented in the writer's brain, not anything that was said in the speech, the statement has no basis whatsoever in fact, it's an opinion, and it falsely suggests that Duffy somehow indicated something or other about the PM or about elections.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Why is it necessary for the media to interpret? Report the facts without the spin and "interpretation". Its not necessary. Facts my dear Kady that's what Canadiansdy's want. Forget about the spin, interpretation, rumours etc. Are the editors and publishers so crazed that they cannot accept a factual accounting of an event such as Duffy's speech in PEI that they have to gin it up. It's getting mighty tiresome.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Why is it necessary for the media to interpret? Report the facts without the spin and "interpretation". Its not necessary. Facts my dear Kady that's what Canadians want. Forget about the spin, interpretation, rumours etc. Are the editors and publishers so crazed that they cannot accept a factual accounting of an event such as Duffy's speech in PEI that they have to gin it up. It's getting mighty tiresome.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ron_in_Ottawa Ron_in_Ottawa

What this article does show is that journalism is on its death bed in Canada. No longer do we have people providing information, we have a entire generation of opinionated activists, pushing their own agendas. This "journalist" in PEI demonstrated how reporters print their interpretation and opinion masked as objective news reports. The problem isn't political commentators expressing their views; it is editors and publishers pretending it is news coverage and putting it on the front page. You are quick to be dismissive of bloggers "each ostensibly independently of the other" but are quite pleased to defend partisan, pack driven reporting as just fine. Do you not understand that your acceptance of sub-standard, opinion laden reporting being passed off as news is part of the problme; it is why people distrust media outlets and why many newspapers and TV stations are in such difficult straights – if there is no discernible difference between bloggers, gossip columnists and journalists, why pay attention to one more than the other?

Mulletaur

Opinion adds value and context to fact. Facts themselves are value laden, as are the choice of facts to be presented. But opinion should be based on facts that can be proven. Fact and opinion should also be separated in a recognizable way – nobody should be passing off opinion as fact. It is perfectly acceptable and even necessary for a journalist to have a worldview, because everybody needs some sort of intellectual framework to make sense of the world, but for us, the consumers of information, we should have a clear idea what that worldview is. It should be transparent. Shilling, whether it be for a political party, a commercial entity, a foreign government or whatever is perfectly unacceptable.

From a purely commercial point of view, a straight presentation of fact would not be as marketable as fact complimented by opinion. I suspect this is what Macleans' commercial strategy is based on, and after all, that's why we're here polluting Kady's blog with our rantings. At least now there are a range of information sources to choose from, so information cannot be controlled like it was in the (semi-mythical) past.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

I took the liberty of posting your comment down below. I thought it was very good. You have captured the problem in Canada very well and it deserves to be read by as many people as possible. Good job.
Johnny B Goode

Yeah, Ron, all of this is rather new. I've never in my 40 years observed journalism to have any opinion until the last couple of months or so.
http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

On the contrary, I am never dismissive of bloggers in general, and rarely dismissive of specific bloggers. Nor was I being dismissive of those particular bloggers — I was simply pointing out that it was, quite clearly, a deliberate — and coordinated — attempt to drive the "biased media" meme forward for another day. No harm, no foul.

Casual Observer

Manyjournalists, with few exceptions, are now held in the same regard as used-car salesmen at best, and on the same plane as the seemingly increasing in numbers sleaze- ball politicians, at worst. They are a big reason why the voter turnout is so low, so often now. Voters are so overwhelmed by non-factual information and even lies now about politics and elections, that they have practically given up on ever being able to decipher the truth from spin and fiction.
http://phantomobserver.com PhantomObserver

Kady: john G has a legit point. What this looks like is that the only way the reporter could get this story about an otherwise ho-hum speech published, is by adapting the rose-coloured viewpoint of a potential election. That appeals to the mindset of an editor who's already trying to build up a sense of drama in Canadian political coverage, by taking the easy route of "Will they? / won't they?"

You know, darned well, that we expect better — much better — from you guys. We want you to hammer the health minister over preparations on H1N1; we want you to go after Defence and Indian Affairs over the new northern strategy; we need you to hit Grits and the NDP over their upcoming convention and policy planning. And no, that last bit has nothing to do with election speculation.

Anon

Conbots Assemble!
http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

Hey, I didn’t say it was an example of great journalism. But it certainly isn’t Wafergate-gate II.

knick

As one of those nameless faceless 'ordinary' Canadians, it seems to me that the media is preoccupied with forcing an election. So many media outlets are in the race for *the* story predicting one and scooping their rivals that facts are being skewed and distorted to link whatever is being reported to a trip to the polls. We 'ordinary' Canadians are left to wonder if anything these media outlets publishes is valid journalism or just more hype. Whatever happened to the tradition of writing about news, not trying to make news?
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/ Joanne (T.B.)

I agree with Kady that this story is not on the same level as the Telegraph-Journal. However, it does provide yet another example of torquing the headlines to sell print media.

It reeks of desperation.

Anon

Reeks of desperation?

Calm down, love.
http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

Sadly, torqued headlines now seem to be the rule rather than the exception. I agree that it's an unfortunate trend, but I don't see any particularly sinister motivation behind this particular story.

http://www.bluelikeyou.com/ Joanne (T.B.)

Yes, I agree Kady. I don't see a 'sinister motivation' behind this particular story either; at least not to the extent where totally false information was injected into the copy without the reporter's knowledge after the story was filed.

My 'reeks of desperation' remark was directed at MSM in general which appear to be more into tabloid journalism and catchy headlines than accuracy and integrity. But these days it seems that staying alive is all that matters.

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

Can't disagree with you there — but I can tell you that it's just as frustrating for a lot of journalists, the vast majority of whom — believe it or not — want to deliver high quality news, information and, yes, analysis.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

You got to be joking Kady. Do you honestly think that any of us who watch politics and see the reporting believe that the vast majority want to deliver high quality news etc. This applies both to print and the electronic media as well.

Anon

A lot of this stuff would be more interesting if the Canadian mainstream media had at least *one* dedicated news media critic.

Why there isn't one remains a mystery to me.
JamesHalifax

The only desperation I sense, is the desperation of Canadians for REAL reporters to show their face in Canada. As it stands now, we are stuck with hopelessly Liberal writers (who call themselves journalists) who perform the same basic function as American Gossip columnists down south.

Frankly, if one wishes to see a real "news" story with actual facts and points of interest, one needs to head off to the Blogosphere. Angry in the Great White North is a good one…he's Conservatively biased, but he's a "digger" who finds interesting facts that "real" journalists are too lazy to find, or don't wish to report.
There is also the "Black Rod" which digs into old files, finds facts, and lays it out for the readers. At one time, that was the job of reporters…..who unfortunately are no longer worthy of the title.

(Except Andrew Coyne who slags any side….if they deserve slagging)

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

You know, you can accuse me of a lot of things, but not doing research? Sorry. Wrong journalist to pull that one on.

JamesHalifax

Kady, research is only effective and trustworthy if you report ALL of what you find….not just the parts that adhere to your preferred ending to the story.

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

I see the right whingers have turned out in force to defend their krackpot konspiracy theory.
JamesHalifax

Hi robert……..visit any synagogues today with your spray paint?
Jonny Dee

Hi Kady, I tend to disagree with most of the material you write, which immediately tells you my bias. This particular issue, however, brings up an interesting point. The very idea of unbiased news has had the last nail pounded into its coffin. I would be interested in seeing two or three obviously biased journalists (or professional bloggers if you insist there is a difference), that tend to disagree with each other, work together to write admittedly biased material. Get rid of the pretense, and go head to head on the issues.
Wayne

Way to go Duffman : I like thew ol guy I am glad he is a Senator now – adds a certain ambience to the institution!

frobisher

Especially after lunch.

Mulletaur

What I want to know is why Puffy was accepted uncritically as a 'journalist' in this country for all these years when he was so obviously a shill for the Conservatives, and now has the Senatorial seat to prove it. Is the media really so 'collegial' that it's unable to have a critical look at itself ? Doesn't anybody care about partisanship in the media ?

Stephen

Objective journalism is a relatively recent phenomena. In their genesis newspapers were aprtisan sheets. The slowly began to banish opinion to the editorial pages as they became corporatized. But then another effect took place, the view of a publisher and the views of their readeship were discovered to be intertwined…..customers self select once they have choice, why read the Star if you find it so biased, or why not read the Star when it so clearly delivers the news and opinions you share and the way you want it delivered…for example.

Now this says nothing about any given reporter on any goven story on any given day. But it does speak to a general feel for a media outlet. Reporters, I am sure, try to produce media as best they can in a manner that gets them approval from their editors while allowing themselves to look in the mirror AND receive a paycheque. But isnt that a struggle most people face in any job that goes beyond a simple task.

Summary: really small PEI Potatoes and all SNAFU in the grand scheme of things.

Mulletaur

I can't bear to read the Star, it's total rubbish.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Funny,that. I start off every morning running through four papers .. My local, the Globe, the Star,
and the Guardian. The only one I have any respect for at all is the Star. But I read them anyway.

Two of them publish Chantal's column. And I never read it.

But, then, lotsa people read the Star. Some people read MacLeans commenters.
Funny,that.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

To each his own, I guess. Who is your favourite Star columnist?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Depends on the day and the time of day, but I like Tom Walkom and David Olive.

But I find blogs more valuable than columns these days.
Mulletaur

Well, at least you didn't pick Travesty, Rockroller, and for that I am also grateful.

Stephen

The "you" in my comment probably should have been "one". It wasnt meant to say that you (mulletaur) read the Star….my bad

Mulletaur

No worries, I understood it just the way you meant it, but I used the opportunity to slag the Star, perhaps a bit gratuitously. Believe it or not, my preference is the Post because of the level of writing, and I like having my views challenged by its editorial stance, which I very often disagree with. I also pick up the Toronto Sun for a look whenever I have a chance – it's probably more influential in people's thinking about politics than most would give it credit for, and despite its very obvious political slant, does a good job of providing all the facts in a very readable way.

Stephen

On you point re Duffy, add in Jim munson, Adrienne Clarkson and Michael Jean. This is all about whether journalism considers itself to be a profession. If it really was, it isnt BTW, it would have licensing, ethics boards and codes of conduct that were actually enforced. One of those codes of conduct would be that you never accept a government appointment, or at least appointment from a level of government you had any recent hand in covering.

But no worries, its a job not a profession.

Mulletaur

Neither Clarkson nor Jean have been shills for any government or political party, unlike Puffy, so that's a very unfair comparison, but I take your general point about government appointments and journos. Taking a more detached view, a system which holds out at least some hope for journos of a spell as the GG means that they will be more inclined to be a loyal opposition, rather than seek revolution. (For example, I don't think Stevie Cameron is on anybody's short list for the job.) That's what the British House of Lords and life peers are all about, after all.

Stephen

While I like Duffy I dont like the idea of journalists taking government appointments, or them being offered. But while it is fair game then he suits the role just fine.

When journo's start criticizing each other, openly and professionally, for taking these positions then there amy be some hope. Until then, each side will appoint their friends.

Munson went from being a journo to working on Chretiens staff, then he went to "the other place"

Clarkson, well this was a reward….and some would say typecasting, she sometimes forgets that she isnt the Greeter General anymore.

Jean was a journalist, an yes you are correct that it sets up a career path that just shouldnt be there.

So, especially in the Munson case, Duffy isnt an exception….other than he turned out to be a Conservative (a mortal sin to many).

In 20 years I look forward to seeing Governor General O'malley reading the speech from the throne as Senators Coyne (Independent) and Wells (The Jazz Party) listen and send tongue in cheeck comments back and forth over whatever device RIM (now called ChinaMobile) builds at that time

Mulletaur

LOL, nice. I think there is probably somebody out there right now registered the Web domain for 'The Jazz Party' …
Matt F.

you are incorrect about Munson. He was dumped by CTV in a layoff, worked as a communications consultant and then went to Chretien's office. It's not much of a surprise that staffers from PMO end up in the Senate. But as I say in another place here, Munson wasn't a so-called objective reporter one day, than a Harper mouthpiece the next.

Matt F.

Jim Munson wasn't a journalist one day, a partisan Senator the next. Clarkson hadn't worked as a "hard" journalist in years when appointed as Governor General (hosting Arts shows on Sunday afternoon didn't really lend itself to a podium for Conservative talking points the way Mike Duffy Live did). And Jean has been the GG for two different PMs from different parties without a hint of partisanship on either side.

Sorry, but in this field Duffy stands out as a fragrant lump.

Mulletaur

Oh yeah.
Stephen

I dont see a lot of difference. Throw Pam Wallin in there as well. Some of these people are good people, but the issue is whether there is an career path that is established…looks pretty obvious.

But this is the stuff of an ethics class in journalism school. I am not trying to dump on them, but there is a noticable lack of silence or shame in taking these positions. Perhaps out of "professional courtesy" the carping is left behind the scenes, but it is a troubling trend…from a big picture democrocy/accountability point of view.

Appointments or the hope of them, is a time honoured way to domesticate your opponents, no matter what their profession is/was.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Ditto. One of the only good things about the Star is that is publishes Chantal Hébert's column.

Mulletaur

Yup, agreed. I am so thankful that I can read her column on the computer.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Wascally_Wabbit Wascally_Wabbit

I'll tell you what – Glen Pearson says it a lot better than Humpty – and never had training to be a journalist…

http://glenpearson.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/milqu…
scf

The fact that Kady has actually claimed that the speech is partisan because Duffy used the pronoun "we" shows how partisan she is herself.
And there is no doubt that defending this story as honest journalism is another example.
The story has not even the slightest connection to the speech. The story was probably written before the speech even happened. No matter what Duffy said or did not say, the story would be the same. The story was ridiculously inaccurate and false.

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

I'm sorry, but when you praise the actions of your government., while using the word "we", you are being partisan. It's not a bad word. The government that is spending all that money in Prince Edward Island is a Conservative government, and there's nothing wrong with Duffy wanting to make sure everyone realizes that. Here's a thought: Imagine this speech as given by Duffy during his broadcasting days. Would it seem at all inappropriate?

scf

No, he is clearly praising the actions of the government, of which he is a part, so it is not appropriate for CTV News. However, you can claim he was praising all of parliament, which includes opposition members, or the public service, or the Senators (since he is one), since there is no mention of the cabinet or the PM you cannot only make an opinionated judgement that he was talking about the PM. Since he was talking about pork, yes, you can say he was praising those who deliver pork, whomever that is (I don't even know how pork is delivered, but yes, it must be restricted to Conservatives and public service employees).

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

I read this on another blog this morning I think it adequately sums up the state of the media in Canada today. The blog was about Duffy's speech and the fabrication that the was touting an election. Pay attention Kady you may learn something.

"What this article does show is that journalism is on its death bed in Canada. No longer do we have people providing information, we have a entire generation of opinionated activists, pushing their own agendas. This "journalist" in PEI demonstrated how reporters print their interpretation and opinion masked as objective news reports. The problem isn't political commentators expressing their views; it is editors and publishers pretending it is news coverage and putting it on the front page. You are quick to be dismissive of bloggers "each ostensibly independently of the other" but are quite pleased to defend partisan, pack driven reporting as just fine. Do you not understand that your acceptance of sub-standard, opinion laden reporting being passed off as news is part of the problem; it is why people distrust media outlets and why many newspapers and TV stations are in such difficult straights -

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

Actually, you read it on this blog, and I replied to the original. I do worry about growing mistrust of media outlets, whether or not I think it is justified, and I'm always happy to discuss how and why I cover the stories that I do. That doesn't mean, though, that I'm going to go round and round in circles with someone whose mind is irrevocably made up on the issue — not because I don't respect the right to hold that opinion, but because at a certain point, it's just a waste of time for both of us. I'd prefer to discuss the issue with those whose minds are open to alternative perspectives, which I'm sure you understand.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

hollinm comments continued……

if there is no discernible difference between bloggers, gossip columnists and journalists, why pay attention to one more than the other? "

There was more evidence of fabrication in the G&M reporting on Karen Stuart Olsen leaving the PMO. The news story and I repeat news story reported speculation that she was headed for a Senate appointment. How is that news? There is nothing to substantiate that rumour but the reporter felt it important to impart that rumour to the paper's readers. Why?