I enjoy being a municipal reporter. That’s because on a local level I think it’s probably the easiest way to practice unbiased journalism, particularly if you don’t even live in the community in which you report. That happens to be the case for me, so it certainly allows me to report on subjects that would nearly be impossible to become invested in or inappropriately attached.

I suspect the heat grows as you report for larger municipalities, like a Toronto or a Vancouver newspaper. And once you begin reporting provincially or federally, it’s got to be difficult to please all of the people all of the time. Eventually someone, somewhere is going to think your newspaper articles are written favouring one side.

Reporting in a community where you don’t live is pretty much the heart of journalism. You don’t really know the place as well as somebody who lives there. And that’s partly a good thing, since it allows you to stand back and look at things objectively. You don’t necessarily care if some gigantic event is going to change things for better or worse since it doesn’t affect you.

Similarly, journalism is about reporting on events and things that you only have a superficial understanding about. Today I might have to write about municipal taxes and tomorrow I might have to write about a musician touring through town.

I don’t own a house so I don’t really know much about municipal taxes, and there’s a high probability I’ve never listened to the music of the band, but with a little research and some interviews I can become an expert for a day. It’s enough to help people understand the basics and then leave them the prerogative to dig deeper.

This whole process works for me. Something is happening, I find out what it is, I ask experts what they think, I print the story. Nowhere in that process do I really need to worry about what I think, other than trying to evaluate where the balance of sides might exist in a dispute. For instance, a new commercial development will have supporters and opponents and it’s important to get both sides.

But if there’s one thing that I believe has affected me after one year in journalism, it is the attitude some people have with regards to what other people are allowed to do with their own property. It’s not that I’m “pro-development” so much as I feel the whole “NIMBY” attitude is frustrating to deal with. And what’s worse is that if you don’t share sympathy with the NIMBYists, then you get the sense that they feel you’re against them. When the truth is I don’t care.

For example, the municipality I report in receives a large number of development applications. Some of them are big developments that affect the whole community and I can understand why people have reservations and want to voice their opposition.

But many of them involve modest changes where the owner of some land wants to subdivide his property and build new homes. Other applications just ask for variances to their property to build another structure, like a secondary dwelling or a coach house in the back.

It irritates me when people actually believe they have the right to get upset about what somebody else does to their own house or property. I think it’s bad enough you need to get permits and pass environmental inspections to make changes to your own property, but when other people decide to butt in I just don’t get it.

What business is it of theirs? Why do homeowners have to worry about what other people think? Why do people care how many trees get cut down on a piece of land that doesn’t belong to them?

I think the concept of property rights and land ownership is now so weakened in Canada that we all honestly believe we have the right to block other people from doing whatever they want to do. And to make things worse, I often hear complaints about how a proposal will ruin the neighbourhood, when it sounds exactly like the one I’m living in.

It’s almost a denial of reality and acceptance of how the rest of the world lives. If people don’t want things to ever change maybe they should move to the great barrens of northern Canada. Then they’d have nobody to worry about, and nothing bad will ever happen to the surrounding landscape.

As a person who’s never really won anything before, I was pretty pleased to learn this morning that I won a journalism award in my “rookie year”, so to speak. Actually, that’s not entirely accurate. When I was in Grade 9 I won an award for best student in the vocal arts program. I think I also won a trophy or two playing hockey, but they may have been “participant” trophies. I’m pretty sure they were, now that I remember.

What did I win? I actually didn’t receive first prize, but I came in third (bronze medal I suppose) in the Suburban Newspapers of America (SNA) awards for “Best In-depth Reporting” for a series of articles I wrote about the B.C. HST entitled, “The HST: What’s In The Cards?”

I was surprised because I didn’t win anything in the provincial or national community newspaper awards, so to be recognized on a continental scale (SNA looks at newspaper in both countries) is pretty great. And now I can call myself an “award-winning journalist” without it being a pretend self-esteem exercise in the mirror.

But in seriousness, I can’t really take credit for the award all myself. I was put into the Abbotsford newsroom as a rookie reporter and given complete confidence to work on the HST series by my editor (30-year veteran Andrew Holota), while providing guidance when I needed it.

To be honest, my confidence was really shot coming out of journalism school last year. Although I had the National Post writing gig on the resume, I absolutely bombed a job interview with the Vancouver Province newspaper (ask me about it in private if you’re curious because it’s fairly legendary), and then followed that up by bombing a second job interview with the Vancouver Sun. To top it off, I was told by the editor of the Langley Advance that I’d never amount to much as a reporter.

So it gives me great pleasure to say that even if it all goes downhill from here, for this one moment I’ve proven my doubters wrong and I am capable of doing something right.

I think that everybody has a general idea of what a journalist’s responsibilities are, even if the results of our profession have become as disregarded as the lawyers. People know that truth and objectivity are the most important pursuits for a journalist, even though the public might think we fail miserably in this objective. The primary goal remains the same. Present the facts, as unchanged or influenced by personal opinion as possible. We all know this.

The truth is that our concepts of pure objectivity in journalism are pretty antiquated. While journalism evolved during a time when one person had to actively seek out information on behalf of the general public, who then relied entirely upon the accuracy of your reporting for being informed, those days ended with the advent of the internet. Now, it’s fairly reasonable to assume that your reporting has a minor effect on whether an important story gets out. All you’re striving for now is to stand out in an industry where anybody with a cell phone can claim to be a journalist.

For the record, the primary goals of a reporter should be accuracy, impartiality and responsibility. Accuracy of information is what we depend on for credibility as a journalist; failing that basic goal we have nothing. To be impartial, even in the face of self-evident right and wrong, is also important. Though one might feel compelled to say that Casey Anthony got away with murder, one should not generally write this in news reporting. As for responsibility, this last issue is fairly nebulous and subject to ambiguity. After all, does the press really have a responsibility, and if so what are its motivators?

I realize that trust in the media is at an all-time low. I know this because I went from being a construction worker to being a journalist, and trust in what I write on my blog has diminished in the esteem of several of my readers. It’s bizarre to me, since as a man I haven’t changed my way of thinking at all, but the profession isn’t as well regarded as construction. Which is funny, since I didn’t feel very well regarded by my peers while working construction. I’ve lost your respect, but I’ve regained my own.

Are journalists impartial and objective? It depends on what you mean by the question. Is any human being impartial and objective? Of course not. We know journalists aren’t impartial because they’re just people, like you and I, who are required to do a job, but they still have underlying biases and opinions. When CTV News Quebec City bureau chief Kai Nagata quit suddenly (based on some rather self-aggrandizing notions of disillusionment, this from a 24-year-old earning six figures) we learned exactly how your average reporter feels underneath the surface.

Does that mean Nagata was biased in his reporting? No, I don’t think that at all. For example, I had a fairly strong opinion on the HST, and as you all know I voiced that opinion several times in opinion columns, talk radio and blog entries. But it didn’t affect the way I did my job, or the requisite impartiality I was obliged to produce to counter-balance opposing views. If you don’t believe me, read the news articles I wrote on the HST. If you can find an opinion in there that you think represents my biases, then you’re more perceptive than I am.

Let’s face it. All journalists have biases and opinions beneath the surface, and to pretend otherwise is nothing but nonsense. I’m still a politically centrist guy with right-leaning opinions who has politically incorrect views on immigration, and becoming a journalist has done nothing to change that. What has changed is my ability to freely express my views in any forum of my choosing. I am now obligated by the duties of my profession to be impartial in reporting a balance of other people’s opinions on an issue of importance.

Sometimes it’s easy to be impartial. I’m not likely to have an opinion on a fire or a car accident or a road closure. But, like most people, there are certain things that frustrate me and antagonize me, in that I’m forced to present a side of a story that I don’t necessarily think bears repeating. Fortunately for journalism, that choice isn’t up to me. If it were, I wouldn’t be a journalist, I’d be a blogger.

I understand why several people in the public feel betrayed by journalists, and sense there’s some kind of pervasive bias against right-leaning issues. I don’t deny there’s some credibility to this sentiment, but I do fail to understand why all journalists are tarred with the same brush. It may surprise people to know this, but many of the journalists I’ve met have either been of the same political mind as me, or have no political leanings at all. It is actually possible to have apolitical journalists, whether or not it is to be believed, the fact is that I’ve met these people.

I’m curious to understand, however, why some people think journalism should be disbanded altogether, and allow people to rely solely on bloggers and the government. The former, while quick to gather news and information that media can’t get access to, aren’t responsible to anybody to provide a balanced and moderate position on a subject. They can tell you whatever they like, and omit any relevant details they don’t think is worth telling. The latter, while more trustworthy than the one in Iran, isn’t likely to tell you the sorts of things that might impinge upon their ability to get reelected.

So, yes, even in 2011 we’re still very much dependent upon the profession of journalism, no matter how poorly you might think they do their jobs. From personal experience I can tell you that it isn’t quite as easy as you may think. It’s one thing to come across a news story. But you then have to corroborate it, verify details, find out the key actors, interview several sources, provide balance, do background research, consult experts, read statistics, and then distil it into a word count that is still compelling which attention-deficit internet readers might actually be able to absorb. Not easy.

You might say journalists are like your spouse of 20 years. Can’t live with us. Can’t live without.

The above team of Saddam Hussein and Satan stand a better chance of harming Muslims in Windsor this weekend

There’s a funny episode in Jerry Seinfeld when the star tells a Catholic priest that he’s annoyed at his dentist, Dr. Whatley.
“I have a suspicion that he’s converted to Judaism just for the jokes,” he says.
“And this offends you as a Jewish person?” asks the priest.
“No, it offends me as a comedian!”

I’m not calling out this dubious piece of journalism because I think the CBC is consistently derelict in reporting the news in a fair and impartial way — which I do. Nor am I deriding the journalist who was evidently so embarrassed by this assignment that he or she declined a byline. No, I’m responding in my capacity as a journalist.

I just don’t understand the point. I mean, I understand why they did it, but I don’t see why the CBC would waste precious resources writing about it. Don’t they have better things to do than write deliberately incendiary nonsense?

An article about Muslims in Windsor being concerned about being the victims of a potential terrorist attack? I apologize for being short of intelligent descriptive adjectives for once in my life, but that’s just stupid.

So stupid, in fact, that I’m sitting here on a beautiful Friday evening long weekend ranting about it. I literally can’t think of something so self-evidently contrived to be “fair and balanced” since Yasser Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize.

Worse still, the article has nothing to say, probably because there’s nothing to report:

The Imam for the Al-Hijra Mosque, also in Windsor, was not available to comment, but a student at the school told CBC News nothing unusual was happening there either.

No terrorist attacks taking place in Windsor today? Boy, that’s a shock.

Do you understand the CBC logic?

A white man in Norway attacked and murdered a number of mainly white Norwegians. In a rambling, disjointed manifesto which blames numerous groups and demographics for the state of the world, he included Muslims. Hence, Muslims in Windsor were asked if they’re concerned about a similar attack here.

It’s as clear as the muddy logic of a carbon taxer why the article was written. But my guess is it’s because every time an international Islamic terrorist organization claims responsibility for murdering scores of people in a bombing, the media prints a story about increased security measures. Which usually makes sense. With an international group like Al-Qaeda lurking about with the frequency of success they have, it’s probably a good idea to mention it.

But guys like Breivik, essentially lone wolfs, come along once every 20 years and usually don’t inspire anything but disgust and revulsion. There are no reprisals, no chance of “others who share his beliefs” who are “prepared to launch more attacks.” And why is that? Well, for one, Breivik isn’t following the commandments of his religious leaders like Muslim terrorists are.

The relativistic nonsense streaming from the “all cultures are equal” camp like a pea soup exorcism is a testament to how little people choose to pay attention to the news. Even if we’re to ignore the fact that Breivik didn’t represent Christianity’s return volley to Islam terrorism — because quite frankly, it’s hard to understand how murdering Norwegian non-Muslims could accomplish that — then there’s still the fact that the score is pretty lopsided.

More likely, as Sean Casey’s recent editorial cartoon in the Cape Breton Post pointed out, Islamic terrorists are sitting back in the third world with a bemused smile, happy their dirty work is being done for them for once.

So, no, you don’t get to write an article asking an imam in Windsor whether he’s concerned about terrorist attacks against Muslims just because a guy in Norway shot a bunch of mainly white kids.

And to the credit of Imam Mohamed Mohamed at the Windsor Mosque, he seems to to think Ihsaan Gardee of CAIR-Canada is pretty much an imbecile for suggesting it. Not that it deterred the CBC from dutifully churning out this dirty bath water.

I haven’t written in a while. Well, OK, that’s not entirely true. I write every day now, except it’s for a newspaper and not the blog. And it’s no longer opinion, but news.

It’s a weird role reversal. I used to be so intellectually starved in construction that I’d come home and write. That got me a small following of readers, who in turn encouraged me to write for the National Post. My experience (albeit peripheral) with the Post encouraged me to take journalism in college.

Well, that, and the fact I got laid off for the umpteenth time in construction and I got sick of it. So here I am now, working for a newspaper, but I don’t have any time left to write. It’s bizarre, I agree.

There are a couple of ways you can still read me. One is to follow me on twitter. It’s where I share my thoughts on politics and news, but in a much more distilled wisdom of 140 characters.

The other way is to read my newspaper articles, although they’re community news for the most part. Having said that, my latest article is a series about the HST in B.C. with an Abbotsford angle. You can read the first one here.

My piece shares the thoughts of local Abbotsford business owners, but also explores the broader topic of whether the HST is good for consumers or not. It also lists items that were tax exempt before, are still exempt and/or what products are affected now. Feedback is welcome.

Photograph by: CHRIS WATTIE, REUTERS

The reputation of Canadian journalism took a bit of a dive recently, but not because of their factual reporting on the Bev Oda affair, which correctly identifies the particulars of her very serious charges of parliamentary misconduct. I’ve already expounded at great length about the reasons I believe Oda is guilty, at the very least, of misrepresenting CIDA, and at worst may be taking the fall for decisions made out of the PMO.

No, journalism didn’t suffer by reporting on these happenings in Ottawa, which are a vital aspect of our democratic checks and balances of power and accountability. It suffered by taking a rather editorial slant with the propagation of the picture of Bev Oda getting caught smoking a cigarette.

One of the primary responsibilities of journalists is to report news and information in as unbiased and non-prejudicial manner as is humanly possible. Inevitably, that task becomes more difficult when reporting on news about a cabinet minister accused of serious misconduct, as opposed to something more emotionally neutral like the amount of rainfall over a 24-hour period.

Although it’s an unwritten rule, the basic understanding to photojournalism 101 is that if you’re going to take a picture of a politician in a manner that is unflattering or otherwise embarrassing, it better have a good reason to be in the public interest. Catching the prime minister picking his nose, or the opposition leader scratching his rear end, or the backbencher blowing his nose might all be embarrassing, but they’re all normal behavioural habits of human beings.

If we were to start taking compromising pictures of political leaders doing things that we ourselves all do at certain times, it wouldn’t speak well for our sense of ethical practices. After all, it’s easy to catch someone in a strange or ugly micro-expression, or doing something that looks otherwise ugly with the camera shutter speed set to half a second exposure. For this reason most photojournalists try to restrict themselves from indulging.

There are moments, however, when an embarrassing photo is in the public interest, mainly because the politician sought out the photo opportunity in the first place. When Robert Stanfield botched a football catch in 1974, hands grasped awkwardly together, a look of consternation on his face, that was most certainly legitimate. Similarly when dexterity-challenged Stephane Dion could not score on a goalie in a photo-op street hockey game in Montreal, despite taking numerous second chances, that was also news.

In other words, if a politician is going to stand there and invite photographers to document his or her futility, it’s all fair game. But that’s not what happened when Bev Oda chose to smoke a cigarette. That was clearly the worst kind of exploitative, paparazzi journalism that permeates the kind of tabloids usually reserved for the British Royals.

What’s interesting about this is that there were many liberals who complained about the smoking photos of Barack Obama that proliferated the internet in 2007. The photos were clearly unflattering and contrary to the clean-cut image of the suave orator, giving him a kind of disheveled, rougher appearance one might expect from a man waiting in the unemployment line.

Let’s face it, smoking has become a cultural taboo in North America. People still partake, but guiltily and huddled away from doorways and windows. Because it’s a physical addiction, most people sympathize with smokers to the extent that they will leave them to their semi-private habit so long as it doesn’t interfere with their own right to uncontaminated oxygen.

A shot of Bev Oda smoking accompanying any story about her being accused of lying in parliament is tantamount to editorializing and biased journalism. It isn’t just juxtaposition; it’s inherently exploitation of the worst and most serious kind, because it makes the subconscious suggestion that this person, a cigarette dangling casually on the precipitous edge of her lips, is just the sort of person who would do such an unethical thing.

In other words, the picture is prejudicial, with the intent to influence the outcome of events. In this case, that would be to have her judged in the court of public opinion and found wanting, not for what she’s actually done, but for the appearance of it.

At least seven of the 24 names on this sub-list for inside the Queenswayers are plain awful; few of the rest are beyond mediocre.  Your thoughts in the “Comments”, any names?

The Hill Times’ top 100 most influential people in government and politics in 2011
…
MEDIA

CBC’s The National’s At Issue Panel

The CBC’s At Issue Panel is one of the most-looked-forward to political panels because Andrew Coyne, Allan Gregg, and Chantal Hébert’s comments on the day’s top issues are insightful and accurate. Politicos usually take note of the 13-minute panel and is a must watch among the country’s top decision makers.

QMI Agency bureau chief David Akin

As the bureau chief of the wire agency for the largest news publisher in Canada, David Akin is influential in shaping the news agenda. He’s also a top social media user and often breaks stories on Twitter and through his blog.

La Presse bureau chief Joel Denis Bellavance

Joel Denis Bellavance is a well respected and well connected reporter who often break stories that the English media follows. As one insider said, if Mr. Bellavance has a story, “you can almost rest assured it came straight from the PMO.”

CBC reporter Rosemary Barton

Since veteran broadcaster Don Newman left his seat at the CBC-TV’s Rosemary Barton has taken on an even bigger presence for the national public broadcaster. She’s been called upon to fill in for Power & Politics host Evan Solomon, and she often breaks stories that shape the news agenda. Ms. Barton is new to the list and is also an influential Twitterer, engaging her followers with witty commentary and political news.

George Cope, CEO Bell

With the $1.3-billion purchase of CTV, President and Chief Executive Officer Bell George Cope steps into a whole new league as he leads the transformation of the country’s largest communications company. The deal will split the assets of CTV Globemedia, which includes The Globe and Mail newspaper, which will go to the Thompson family’s Woodbridge Company Ltd., although BCE will keep a 15 per cent stake in the newspaper. BCE will have full ownership of CTV and its specialty television, digital media, conventional TV and radio. Mr. Cope plans to broaden the media corporation’s content assets across its Bell mobile, online and television services.

Le Devoir reporter Hélène Buzzetti

Hélène Buzzetti has a keen political sense and often breaks stories which the English national media later follow. Her stories are a must-read for her in-depth analysis of the federal political scene from a Quebec perspective.

Toronto Star senior writer Susan Delacourt

Susan Delacourt is a Hill veteran who writes for Canada’s largest circulation daily paper. Her stories are full of insider perspectives and analyses. Top political players keep a close eye on her work, as does her large blog, Twitter, and Facebook following. She’s one of few Hill reporters who uses her blog to give insightful political commentary on the day’s top issues.

La Presse columnist Alain Dubuc

Alain Dubuc has been covering federal and provincial politics for more than 30 years and is a must-read columnist for any top political players wanting a French-Canadian perspective on the day’s most important stories.

CTV Ottawa bureau chief Bob Fife

Top political players and government officials often take note of Bob Fife’s stories. As a Hill veteran, he’s cultivated many sources on all sides of the House to break stories that shape the political agenda.

Toronto Star, Le Devoir, The Hill Times columnist Chantal Hébert

Chantal Hébert has covered politics since 1975 and top federal political players trust her honest, ever sharp and insightful views of Parliament and federal politics. She’s definitely an influential must-read and often shapes the political agenda.

The Globe and Mail Ottawa bureau chief John Ibbitson

As the Ottawa bureau chief for one of Canada’s national newspapers, John Ibbitson plays a large role in shaping both the news and political agenda. He has close contacts inside the PMO and often is the first to break stories which are followed closely by top political and government players [see here].

National Post columnist John Ivison

John Ivison is well-known for his Scottish accent, but is also best known for his gritty, insider, and thoughtful must-read columns that often have Hill reporters chasing stories of their own. Top political and government players watch his column closely.

Halifax Chronicle-Herald Ottawa bureau chief Stephen Maher

As the bureau chief for a regional paper, Stephen Maher has been successful at breaking original and exclusive national stories which are later followed by other Parliament Hill media.

CTV Power Play host Don Martin

Don Martin only recently started hosting CTV’s influential political show, Power Play, but is an influential media personality on his own. For years, he’s written thought-provoking insider columns with significant scoops that every politico follows intimately. Apparently, the government’s recent decision on BHP came partly to prove Mr. Martin wrong. He had written a column suggesting the government would allow the takeover. That’s some influence [see here].

Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin

Anybody who follows the federal political scene also follows Lawrence Martin, The Globe and Mail’s influential columnist. Not only is his latest book, Harperland, an insider’s account of the Prime Minister’s control on Ottawa, a must-read, but so are Mr. Martin’s columns [see here].

Political satirist Rick Mercer

Through seven seasons of the Rick Mercer Report, Rick Mercer has not only entertained Canadians by poking fun at politicians, but he’s also influenced public opinion through his political satire. Federal political players and insiders always want to hear what he’s saying, unless of course he’s ranting about them.

National Newswatch founder Will LeRoy

Every morning, it’s almost guaranteed that the first website politicos visit is Will LeRoy’s nationalnewswatch.com news aggregator. Mr. LeRoy’s aggregator is so popular, that he’s attracting top advertising dollars, and is often breaking his own stories with inside scoops and tidbits of information that reporters take note of to follow-up on. He’s hot.

CTV Question Period host Craig Oliver

Craig Oliver has been covering federal politics for more than 50 years, and continues to be an influential journalist. He’s seen as a thoughtful and respected journalist who political players can trust. He often shapes the news agenda [see here, and second comment here--which raises a theme I often raise].

CBC blogger Kady O’Malley

Kady O’Malley is the mother of live blogging and continues to do it best. She has a large following as people tune in to her blog postings to get real time coverage of the most important issues of the day, coupled with insightful commentary [see here].

Corriere Canadese, The Hill Times and The Toronto Star columnist Angelo Persichilli

Angelo Persichilli’s influence comes from the platforms that he has to give his insider’s perspective of the top daily stories. He writes for Canada’s largest circulation daily, The Toronto Star, and Parliament Hill’s influential weekly, The Hill Times, as well as the daily Italian-language paper Corriere Canadese. He has close sources and he breaks news in his insightful columns.

Canadian Press bureau chief Rob Russo

Rob Russo recently won the prestigious Charles Lynch Award for best coverage of national issues at the 2010 Parliamentary Press Gallery Dinner, a testament to not only his outstanding reputation as a newsmaker, but also the respect his peers have for him. Through leading a top-notch bureau, Mr. Russo’s team is often the first to break the day’s news, as a result influencing the federal political scene. The Canadian Press Ottawa bureau is trusted and influential.

Globe and Mail senior reporter and CTV Question Period host Jane Taber

Jane Taber’s stories are a must-read for the exclusive insider perspective of life on the Hill. As the senior political reporter for one of Canada’s national newspapers and the lead on a widely-read blog, Ms. Taber is an influential must-read [see here].

CBC pundit Greg Weston

Greg Weston left his years of writing for Sun Media during the Kory Teneycke fiasco, but has landed well at the CBC. Insiders say he’s responsible for heightening CBC’s profile with the scoops he has and the stories he breaks. He remains a key player among the Hill media, and is an influential player when it comes to shaping the federal political agenda. He’s an old fashioned journalist who breaks stories [see here, more on others too]…

Via David Akin at his blog.

Predate: Word sketches of mine from 2006 (in last link in quote):

English Canadian TV Pundits: 10 words or less

Jane Taber: Katie Couric without looks, brains or money

Jim Travers: Punching above his cranial capacity

Don Martin: Hunter S. Thompson without serious drugs or brains

Susan Riley: The class struggling

Rex Murphy: Only in Canada you say? Pity

Susan Delacourt: Hair punching above its weight

John Ibbitson: A conflicted but intelligent pixie

Gilles Paquet: The real and delightfully cynical deal

Don Newman: The chuckling fog (I like Mel)

Mike Duffy: The chortling tummy that showed a backbone a few months ago

Greg Weston: Something stinks and it couldn’t possibly be my judgement…

Mark
Ottawa

I think some people will remember how upset CBC blogger Kady O’Malley got when I asked her how she had the time to pore over thousands of documents pertaining to Afghan detainees, but couldn’t spare a minute for the climategate leaked emails, except to declare them possibly illegal.

A similar kind of “calling out” of CBC journalist Rosie Barton occurred today on Twitter, when my friend Bruce Stewart asked her why she would possibly want a group of children to ask the Prime Minister about the census. Much like the detainee affair, the CBC has been nothing if not busy manufacturing outrage over the non-issue, and Ms.Barton didn’t take kindly to his suggestion that she wouldn’t know objectivity if it mauled her in a bear cave:

Don’t feel too bad, Bruce. I’m sure that in the halls of the CBC, the journalists simply assume that the biggest question on the mind of 8-year-olds is the census, and how the Conservative Party is destroying their future. Once you frame that idea in your head, it’s only logical to assume that everybody else is probably thinking the same thing. Particularly when you’re earning a six-figure salary to simply invent what should be important to Canadians.

Earlier, some of the story so far. Now, Kate McMillan at her juxtaposin’ best:

Mainstream Journalism: Not Ethical Enough!…

Whilst our brick of a major media journalist, Blatchford of the Globe, reflects on Canadian journalistic ethics without actually using the word–and condemns them utterly:

Canadian media at fault for rush to believe friendly-fire report
The real evidence on the events of Sept. 3, 2006, is there for all to see

A Canadian soldier calls in an airstrike on Sept. 2, 2006, during the first day of Operation Medusa. The Canadian Press…

This mess is not a WikiLeaks problem, nor a Canadian military problem, nor a Canadian government problem. It is a problem with the Canadian media – Ottawa-centric, conspiracy-embracing, unquestioning and unskeptical so long as the information seems damaging to the government, too quick to publish and, of course, absolutely without a shred of accountability. Shame on us.

BZ to Blatch.  And read the Milnet.ca topic thread from which these two comments are excerpted:

1)

Warning – Reading the following will be bad for your blood pressure!

NDP wants proof Taliban killed Canadians
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 | 4:22 PM NT

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/07/28/nl-harris-wikileaks-728.html?ref=rss

The federal NDP is calling on the Canadian government to prove that four Canadian soldiers who died in Afghanistan in 2006 were killed by enemy fire rather than a U.S. bomb…

2)

I was there.  My LAV CASEVACed Bulletmagnet after he was hit by the same shrap that got Mellish and Cushley.  It was a Taliban Spig 9, not friendly fire.

Jack Harris is a tool.

Meanwhile one sometimes wishes our prime minister would emulate the, er, French, robust in national interest.  Good flippin’ luck:

France declares war against al-Qaida

Update: Terry Glavin, amongst other things, does in the Toronto Star’s Jim Travesty in nicely oblique fashion, has at Egregious Eric Margolis (mine: “Good riddance to an awfully rubbishy columnist“), and concludes:

…
There now. I feel much better.

One does, doesn’t one?  Post just grows.

Upperdate: Nice post by Brian Lilley of Sun Media at his Eye on the Hill blog:

CBC is unhinged over WikiLeaks

Mark
Ottawa

Paul Wells of Maclean’s magazine ponders journalists’ practices and ethics:

Gen. McChrystal gets hacked

…what’s interesting about the Hastings/McChrystal case is that it’s not clear what would have been less defensible: hearing all these things and reporting them, or hearing them and choosing, for decorum’s sake, not to report them. In one case you’re f—ing sources over. In another, you’re entering into a protection racket with them…

Mark
Ottawa