John Doyle's Christmas Gift To All Of Us

One of the few bright spots on that erstwhile formidable newspaper, The Globe and Mail, is television columnist John Doyle. His trenchant wit and justifiable cynicism about showbiz, along with his capacity to point out shows worth watching, would almost make the paper worth its cost were it not for its abject subservience to its political masters.

A man who refuses to drink the corporate Kool Aid, Doyle maintains an independence that I suspect few are accorded at the Globe. In that spirit, his offers his Top Ten Most Irritating TV-Related Canadians for this year. I reproduce a few that may be of special interest to followers of politics:

Ezra Levant

A truly, truly outstanding year. His supremacy in irritating-ness is unmatched, a fact that must make him proud. His demented ranting about young Mr. Trudeau. An Ontario court ruling that he was guilty of libel and that he demonstrated a “reckless disregard for the truth.” And his bizarre attack on an Ontario school-board memo he alleged was some sort of anti-Canadian, pro-Muslim conspiracy. Still he smiles.

Pastor Mansbridge

Mansbridge should not have accepted money from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers for a speech. It was just a dumb thing to do. Inept and, as such, hugely irritating.

If I may make a personal aside here, Mansbridge should also not be doing the devil's work.

The people behind “A message from the Government of Canada”

Specifically, the ad titled Drug Prevention – Marijuana Use, in which over deeply ominous music, it was announced, “Did you know that marijuana is on average 300 to 400 per cent stronger than it was 30 years ago? And that smoking marijuana can seriously harm a teen’s developing brain?” Actually the science is limited and, actually, the commercial is political, not medical. Irritating to think we are taken as fools.

Pierre Poilievre

Anyone with the ridiculous job title minister of democratic reform, which sounds like something dreamed up in a satire of North Korea, should be a bit abashed. Poilievre spent the year as a finger-pointing, accusatory bully. Every time he appeared on TV he was outrageously choleric, instantly a ridiculous figure.

Our Glorious Leader (OGL)

The PM, the pianist and singer, whatever you want to call him, or Our Glorious Leader, announced himself to be in “a different headspace” in a year-end TV interview. We knew that.

Regarding the last illustrious name on the list, obviously much more could be said. But I guess there are even things that the redoubtable Mr. Doyle knows he cannot say.

Another Reason Not To Subscribe To The Globe and Mail

As I noted recently, we are currently receiving a free three-month subscription to the Globe, one that we will not be renewing. My last post on the subject dealt with one of the reasons. Here is another.

In its 'wisdom,' and despite widespread evidence to the contrary, Canada's self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record' insists, in its Monday editorial, that the Harper regime is not muzzling scientists.

As with so many other efforts by The Globe to extol Dear Leader, the piece starts off deceptively, seeming to suggest there is a basis for concern:

The Conservative government only undermines itself by restricting the ability of federally employed scientists to communicate freely with the public and the media. It feeds suspicion, suggesting that Canada has something to hide, for example, on such controversial matters as the oil sands – wrongly or rightly.

So far, so good. Then:

Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists, an American organization, and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada sent Prime Minister Stephen Harper an open letter strongly recommending that Canada no longer insist that government scientists get the permission of a media relations officer before they speak to journalists. Fifteen thousand or so researchers are said to be affected by such rules. There were 800 signatories – Canadian government researchers themselves did not sign it.

Hmmm. Even better. Has the self-titled 'newspaper of record' finally seen the light?

The PIPSC rhetorically exaggerates when it repeatedly says that government scientists are “muzzled.” But in November, 2007, the Conservatives did lay down a rule that any media interview with Environment Canada scientists would be “co-ordinated” by communications staff.

And then we get to the 'exculpatory' heart of the matter, at least what passes as exculpatory in Globeworld:

David Tarasick of Environment Canada and others wrote a paper in 2011, which appeared in one of the world’s most respected scientific journals, Nature, saying there had been an extraordinary loss in the ozone layer over the Arctic. Nobody in government got in the way of its publication, so it cannot be said that Dr. Tarasick was silenced. This was not a case of Galileo, the motion of the heavenly bodies and the Inquisition.

The paper then reveals what the 'real' problem is.

Nonetheless, “media relations” did get in the way of direct, effective engagement with reporters who might have been able to translate scientific language into news stories adapted for the general public.

So you see, it is just a bureaucratic problem that has created a 'bottleneck.'

It is one thing for cabinet ministers and MPs to work with communication staffs in order to keep the government’s messages consistent and coherent, in accordance with cabinet solidarity. It is quite another to insist that thousands of researchers communicate through legions of flacks. That inevitably creates bottlenecks.

So, the message from the Globe, obviously labouring under the delusion that it still has real influence on public thinking, is simple: Nothing to see here. Move along. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Telescope vision is one thing. Patent dishonesty is quite another.

The paper is right about something, however. When it comes to The Globe and Mail, there really is nothing to see there.

The Globe And Mail: Same Old, Same Old

We are currently receiving a three-month free subscription to The Globe and Mail, a paper I supported for many years until it returned to its largely right-wing nature after vanquishing its putative competition, The National Post, and jettisoning many of its finer writers. At least getting it free for this period allows me unimpeded access to the front section of my paper of choice, The Toronto Star, since my wife very generously reads the Globe at the breakfast table.

When the free subscription period ends, I shall not continue with the Globe, as my wife and I are clearly not part of its intended audience. I was reminded of that fact this morning as I read what was essentially a two-part editorial on tarsands oil.

Part 1, entitled Canadian oil scores a well-deserved win overseas, begins on a note of triumph:

It’s encouraging that Canada was able to exert “immense” pressure (in the words of a European Commission official) so as to moderate the terms of a proposed EU fuel quality directive that would have discriminated against Canadian exports of bitumen from the oil sands. Canadian persistence has been admirable, and no doubt the successful Canada-EU trade negotiations helped.

The piece then appears to dampen its enthusiasm by broaching the subject of those pesky carbon emissions, but the basis of the paper's concern quickly becomes evident:

Even so, Jim Prentice, the Premier of Alberta, is right to warn that, though this is “positive news for Alberta, and for all of Canada,” this country cannot afford to appear to be a reluctant foot-dragger on the environmental front.

For example, the stalling of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline is a result of immense pressure from the environmental movement, which harms Canada’s legitimate economic interests. (italics mine)

Which leads us to Part 11, Carbon policy: lagging on the home front. Intially, it appears to be offering a counterbalance to Part 1, faulting the Harper government for its sluggish pace and vague policies on reducing carbon emissions:

The government’s plans for limiting carbon emissions are vague and incomplete. Even at that, the work is lagging behind schedule. There is no clear path forward. And much of whatever progress Canada has made on these matters has been accomplished by the provincial governments, not Ottawa.

However, it emerges very clearly that it is the optics of this delay, not the ongoing environmental and climate degradation, that is The Globe's true concern:

Such silence and delay give Canada and Canadian oil a bad name, not least in the U.S. They amount to damaging weapons in the hands of the American opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would benefit both Canada and the U.S.

So it is clear that nothing has changed at The Globe since I cancelled my subscription. The self-named newspaper of record continues to see the world through the bifurcated lens of business imperatives and those who oppose or challenge those interests; the paper clearly continues to subscribe to the notion that anything wrong with our version of capitalism can be fixed with a little tinkering around the edges and some effective spin.

I'll take The Star's social agenda and citizens lens over that any and every day of the week.

A Prime Minister Hath No Honour In His Own Country

That paraphrase of a famous line from the Bible perhaps sums up the pitiable plight of Stephen Harper, gallant man of the world and fearless foe of evil on the world stage. Despite his indefatigable efforts to denounce the Teutonic tendencies of Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine or stand unreservedly with Israel in its disproportionate responses to Gazan irritants, like the late Rodney Dangerfield, he appears to be unable to secure any respect.

There is, for example, that chronic naysayer at The Toronto Star, Tim Harper, who opines that for all of his tough talk, Mr. Harper has no defining accomplishment on his foreign policy ledger.

But is nothing sacred? Rewarding the prime minister's unyielding support of and service to Israel, B'Nai Brith CEO Frank Dimant has announced his intention to nominate Dear Leader for the Nobel Peace Prize.

He said Mr. Harper has demonstrated international leadership and a clear understanding of the differences between those who “seek to do evil” and their victims. As a professor of modern Israel studies at Canada Christian College, Dimant qualifies as a nominator under the rules.

Let's just say that the announcement was met with outrage in some Canadian quarters.

But what do the people think about this singular honour possibly being bestowed on Canada's leader? Alas, there is no comfort to be had, apparently, even from one of the perennial cheerleaders of the Harper regime, The Globe and Mail. Here is what two of its readers think:

Re B’nai Brith CEO To Nominate Harper For Nobel Peace Prize (Aug. 30):

Why stop at the Nobel? Let’s nominate Stephen Harper for a Polaris for his music covers; an Emmy for his online TV show and a Governor-General’s award for his hockey book. Make him a trophy – a silver glazed donut on a plinth. It would cost us less than $30.

Clive Robertson, associate professor, art history, Queen’s University, Kingston


I was interested to learn that the CEO is eligible to nominate the PM as a professor at Canada Christian College. As a retired professor previously unaware of this credential, I shall hasten to nominate my miniature schnauzer, Guinness.

Like our PM, Guinness “has consistently spoken out with resolve regarding the safety of people under threat.” I refer to his shrill, predictable barking to defend the Bowd family’s territory from the daily invasion of the postman.

Alan Bowd, professor emeritus of education, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay

Of course, I suppose the Harper crew could simply dismiss such carping as the ranting of 'liberal elites.' Guess they'll have to hope it doesn't spread in 2015.

Harper's Reign Of Terror - Part Six

The latest installment of this series illustrating the Harper regime's subversion of the Canada Revenue Agency to punish nonprofits for opposing government policies also demonstrates its pathologically secretive nature.

The following was recently reported in The Globe and Mail:

Since Ottawa first started cracking down on political activities among charities in 2012, Pen Canada has filed a series of access-to-information requests seeking, among other things, the criteria auditors use to determine what, exactly, constitutes political activity.

The Harper cabal has refused to release this information, offering only a heavily redacted CRA training booklet that listed “Specific Audit Guidelines,” as well as a document entitled “Reminder Letter Guidelines” that was redacted where it explained, in three parts, when a letter might be issued. In other words, they refuse to tell people the criteria used in deciding whether or not to initiate political-activity audits.

Such a response seems more like an excerpt from a Monty Python sketch than one from an agency of a democratic government. Pen Canada executive director Tasleem Thawar had this reaction:

“The CRA claims that revealing the criteria their auditors use to determine political activities would make it easier for charities to avoid being caught, but if we don’t know which activities the CRA considers problematic, how can we ensure we’re following the rules?”

And of course Pen Canada now finds itself in audit hell because of their persistent inquiries.

But what the government refuses to admit, journalist Dean Beeby, from The Canadian Press, reveals in a compelling timeline that leaves little doubt about the regime's motives. I reproduce the entire piece below:


OTTAWA - Timeline of key events surrounding the Canada Revenue Agency's launch of political-activity audits of charities:

Jan. 9, 2012 — Joe Oliver, then Natural Resources minister, issues an open letter denouncing "environmental and other radical groups" who "threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical agenda."

March 21, 2012 — EthicalOil.org, founded in 2011 by Alykhan Velshi, who currently works in the Prime Minister's Office, files formal complaint to CRA about the political activities of Environmental Defence Canada Inc., an environmental charity.

March 29, 2012 — Federal budget announces new restrictions on political activities by charities, including more disclosure of funding by foreign sources. The Canada Revenue Agency is also provided with $8 million over two years largely to establish a new political-activity audit program, with 10 such audits planned for the first fiscal year. Funding later increased to $13.4 million over five years.

April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013 — First wave of 10 political-activity audits includes at least five environmental charities, including Environmental Defence Canada, Tides Canada Foundation, Tides Canada Initiatives Society, Ecology Action Centre, Equiterre. CRA will not itself release list, citing confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act.

April 24, 2012 — EthicalOil.org files formal complaint to CRA about the alleged political activities of the David Suzuki Foundation, an environmental charity.

May 1, 2012 — Peter Kent, environment minister at the time, suggests Canadian charities have been illegally used "to launder offshore funds for inappropriate use against Canadian interest," that is, by obstructing the environmental assessment process.

July 23, 2012 — CRA issues a warning letter to the publisher of Canadian Mennonite, a monthly magazine, saying the Canadian Mennonite Publishing Service risks revocation of its charitable status for publishing recent pieces "that appear to promote opposition to a political party, or to candidates for public office." The agency later identifies several problem pieces, including one criticizing then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

July 24, 2012 — CRA concludes an audit begun in 2004, revoking the charitable status of Physicians for Global Survival because the group's work is "inherently political." The audit was not conducted as part of the new political-activity program, but under the standard financial audit that also examined political activities wherever necessary.

Aug. 8, 2012 — EthicalOil.org files formal complaint to CRA about the political activities of Tides Canada Foundation and Tides Canada Initiatives Society, two related environmental charities.

April 1, 2013 - March 31, 2014 — Audits slotted for second year of the political-activity audit program appear to broaden targets to include more groups fighting poverty and human-rights abuses, and promoting international aid.

Feb. 12, 2014 — Then-Finance Minister Jim Flaherty responds to a question about why the CRA is auditing charities that oppose oil-pipeline projects by saying "charities are not permitted to accept money from terrorist organizations."

April 9, 2014 — Pen Canada, a Toronto-based freedom-of-expression charity, receives call from CRA saying the group is to undergo an audit that will include a review of its political activities. Three auditors show up at their offices on July 28, 2014.

April 10, 2014 — Canadian Council of Churches sends letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper raising concerns about the "chilling effect of threats to revoke the charitable status of organizations that draw attention to policies that harm our world."

May 27, 2014 — Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada sends letter to UN Human Rights Council raising a "particularly troubling trend ... the selective targeting of organizations by Canadian revenue authorities to strip certain organizations of their charitable status."

June 2014 — Gareth Kirkby, graduate student at Royal Roads University, completes master's degree identifying "advocacy chill" resulting from the political-activity audits of 16 charities he examined, after offering them anonymity. Kirkby cites evidence indicating three charitable sectors singled out for CRA attention: environmental, development/human rights, and charities receiving donations from labour unions.

July 16, 2014 — NDP sends letter to Kerry-Lynne Findlay, national revenue minister, calling for an independent inquiry into whether CRA is conducting its political-activity audits at arm's length and free of political interference. "These targeted audits are effectively muzzling public interest groups," say MPs Murray Rankin and Megan Leslie.


Sure sounds like a witch hunt to me.

Canada's 'Newspaper Of Record' Further Debases Itself

Currently, The Globe and Mail, the hubristically self-proclaimed newspaper of record and Canada's national newspaper, is embroiled in an ugly labour dispute with its workers.

In a statement issued last week, Unifor, the union representing the workers,

recommended members reject the company’s offer because it would weaken job security, reduce base pay for advertising sales staff and require certain newsroom staff to work on “advertorial” articles paid for by advertisers.

The later concept forms the crux of this post. As explained by Wikipedia, an advertorial is an advertisement in the form of editorial content. The term "advertorial" is a blend of the words "advertisement" and "editorial."

Advertorials differ from traditional advertisements in that they are designed to look like the articles that appear in the publication.

For an excellent examination of this sad devolution in journalism, take a look at Alison's post the other day, with links to a variety of examples that amply demonstrate their insidious nature.

But the Trojan Horse of propaganda can take many forms, not all of which are obvious. Take, for example, an article appearing in yesterday's Globe, purportedly written by Mike Harris, arguably the worst and most divisive premier that Ontario has ever seen. Bearing all the earmarks of a public relations offensive carefully crafted by one of the many arms of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the piece, entitled Work together on Gateway, for prosperity’s sake, is eerily reminiscent of the advertorial written recently by Martha Hall Findlay, who, with a straight face, conflated the Northern Gateway with national-building.

And, like Findlay's, the Harris advertorial is clearly written with the assumption that the public is infinitely malleable and has a collective memory that is virtually non-existent.

Consider the first paragraph:

Canada is a resource nation. In every region, its natural resource sectors, including mining, forestry, energy and oil and gas, support vital social programs and provide stable, well-paying jobs.

Despite the fact that it evokes a nineteenth-century version of Canada as drawers of wood and hewers of water, it equates resource development with things most Canadians consider vital: jobs and social programs (the latter despite the egregious contempt Harris showed for the concept during his tenure as Premier).

The next part is even more redolent of the kind of revisionism the right-wing is addicted to:

Consider, as just one example, the Northern Gateway pipeline, recently approved by the federal government. Since being proposed more than a decade ago, the project’s journey hasn’t always been easy. It has faced tough criticism. But thoughtful debate has taken place and ideas have been exchanged that have resulted in a better pipeline proposal.

As a former premier, I know first-hand the experience of fighting for economic development for your province and its people, but not to the detriment of local communities and the environment. Receiving social licence for resource projects must be the leading objective for proponents; public input and consultations are paramount.

Yet another bald-faced lie, which this link will amply attest to.

The rest of Harris's encomium for 'prudent and thoughtful' development goes on in a similar vein, and to parse it in detail would make this post far too long. But I hope you will check it out for yourselves; as both an indictment of contemporary journalistic standards at the Globe and as a skillfully wrought propaganda piece that demonstrates what money will buy these days, it is a peerless example.

A New Enemy Of The State

When it comes to the media, it is common knowledge that the right-wing sees the CBC as a repository of leftists bent on perverting all that is sacred in Harperland. Hence the ongoing funding cuts, despite the Mother Corp's repeated efforts at appeasement. What is surprising, however, is the fact that now the broader media have joined the Harper Enemies List.

In a letter to significant Conservative Party contributors, the Harper regime is asking them to reach deeply into their pockets, warning of next year's election battle that will be a choice between Stephen Harper’s economic record and “inexperienced Liberals like Justin Trudeau” or the “leftist ideologues like Thomas Mulcair.”

The battle will be be complicated by the perfidy of, you guessed it, the media, specifically, media concentration:

“Despite all his verbal flubs, lack of experience, and his failure to outline any practical economic policy for Canada, Justin Trudeau is still awarded a shining halo by liberal-minded journalists and pundits who are bedazzled by their own hopes of a Liberal second coming,” says the letter by Conservative Party director of political operations Fred DeLorey.

The root of the problem, the Tories tell supporters, is that a few corporations control much of Canadian media.

Hinting at a dark conspiracy to deprive the Conservatives of their long-sought goal of becoming Canada's natural governing party, the letter observes,

“Over 80 per cent of Canadian media is owned by a cartel of just five corporations – each of which owns dozens of publications and networks under various subsidiaries and affiliates”.

“The Canadian newspaper industry today is largely controlled by a small number of individual or corporate owners, which often own the television networks.”

And the proof of this de facto conspiracy is obvious to all who have eyes:

DeLorey noted good economic news such as March, 2014, job growth and asked “how much of that good news has come to you in the press and media?”

For the more obtuse inhabitants of Harperland, the letter leaves nothing to interpretation:

“Media convergence has greatly complicated our Conservative Party efforts to present the unfiltered facts and foundations behind our policies for economic growth, our faith in family values and our commitment to jobs, free trade and prosperity,” Mr. DeLorey wrote.

Ho hum. Another day. Another addition to the Enemies List. Another ort for the red-meat crowd to chew upon.

Sammy Yatim Killing: Once More, The Globe And Mail Is Out Of Step

Thanks to a tweet from Dr.Dawg, I became aware of an odious, but ultimately not very surprising editorial from The Globe and Mail on the shooting of Sammy Yatim. I have written numerous times of how I view the paper as the organ of the establishment and the status quo, as well as why I cancelled my subscription some years ago.

Today's editorial confirms that the decline of the paper is proceeding apace under the sychophantic stewardship of Editor-in-Chief John Stackhouse, a man who abandoned any semblance of journalistic integrity when he failed to fire Margaret Wente for her serial plagiarism.

The editorial essentially says let's all calm down, police have to make split-second decsions, police don't usually fire just one shot because the chances of hitting the 'target' are only about 25%.

Perhaps the following excerpts best catch the flavour and bias of the piece. The bolded parts are mine:

The videos show that the officer fired nine shots toward 18-year-old Sammy Yatim, as the teenager, who had ignored repeated commands to drop a knife he was holding, began moving toward the front steps out of the streetcar. Two officers had their firearms aimed into the streetcar; one fired three shots, there was a pause, and then six more shots were heard.

...But the public should not overreact to the images seen on the Internet before all the facts are known.


Perhaps these on-line commentators say it best as they express their disdain for the Globe's propagandistic piece:

Tom Philip, 9:09 PM on July 29, 2013:

I have been considering cancelling my subscription to The Globe and Mail for some time, chiefly because of the dramatic decline in quality in recent years. This editorial has made the decision for me. The slaying of Sammy Yatim -- no threat to anyone, confined as he was on a streetcar in what amounted to a jail cell on wheels -- was as brutal, callous and ugly a crime as I can recall. Did it not cross the minds of the dozens of police officers as they aimed their 9mm automatic pistols at this boy with a knife that here was someone's child, someone with a father and a mother, sisters and brothers, a young man with his life ahead of him and every right to live that life? In the moments before he so casually gunned his victim down, did it not occur to the officer who fired the fatal shots to display some simple humanity? Spare me the tired bromide about police having to make split-second decisions. The police in this instance had all the time in the world to de-escalate the situation, but without even taking the time to think, opted instead to end it with an overwhelming display of lethal violence. Spare me, as well, the nonsense about allowing the SIU, as gutless and toothless a body as ever existed in this province, to complete its investigation. The proper venue for this case is a court of law, with the evidence presented in public and the officers involved judged by a jury composed of the citizens of Toronto. That is what this editorial ought to be calling for, and what it would have called for before The Globe and Mail and most of the rest of the media in this country became a mealy-mouthed lapdog to power and authority. Sammy Yatim could have been any one of us. He could have been your child or mine. Until justice is done and seen to be done, his death will be a stain on this city and on everyone who wears the uniform of the Toronto Police Service. That's my name up there, by the way. No Internet anonymity for me. Now I'm going upstairs to call the Globe's circulation department. I won't have this rubbish in my home one more day.


And this from KevinBrown2011:

9:18 PM on July 29, 2013

What moron wrote this editorial?

So we should not form any opinion on what is clearly shown in the video until the SIU issues its findings?

The writer tries to justify the number of shots fired when clearly NO shots should have been fired. Also it is obvious that the first 3 shots felled the victim as the officer changed his trajectory and fired 6 more shots while the victim was on the floor. There was no need to fire at the victim when he was injured on the floor the street car. And after filling the young man with lead an officer jumps in and tasers him?

How could anyone believe that the actions of the cops were reasonable and justified?

How, indeed.

The Globe and Mail: A Study in Vindictiveness

As one well-acquainted with the scourge of depression and the toll it takes on both the sufferer and his/her family, it was with great interest that I recently read Jan Wong's account of her struggle with the disease in Out of the Blue. In what I view as an act of personal courage, the former Globe and Mail reporter whose wide-ranging work certainly enhanced the Globe “brand,” reveals at length the story of her mental descent as a result of toiling in what ultimately became an unsupportive and toxic workplace.

Even those whose lives have not been either directly or indirectly marred by this insidious sickness will doubtless be fascinated by the vindictive, almost Machiavellian machinations of the Globe's upper management once it no longer had any use for Wong, amply illustrating the sad fact that the newspaper business is just that, a business, with no tolerance for anyone who 'rocks the boat' in ways that discomfit 'the bosses.'

In her book, management at The Globe, both present and past, including Sylvia Stead, John Stackhouse and Edward Greenspon, come across as especially venal, petty and cowardly, essentially 'hanging Wong out to dry' after a story she wrote about the 2006 Dawson College shootings included a comment about cultural alienation in Quebec, linking it to two previous tragedies in La Belle Province. Controversy and condemnation of Wong ensued, and the Globe went into full defensive mode, ultimately essentially abandoning Wong to the rabble.

But the Globe wasn't quite through with Wong. Because the paper carries a great deal of clout and has substantial reserves with which to litigate, Wong wound up self-publishing her chronicle after her publisher, Doubleday, ultimately wanted her to censor her story, excising most references to her experiences at The Globe, an impossibility since her depression was caused by workplace stress.

Eventually, Wong won a severance package from The Globe, on the condition that she not discuss the details of it. In her book, after being fired by the Globe for time missed due to her depression, she talked about how she “fought back and won,” that her former employer “had caved” and that she had received “a pile of money.” It would appear that those comments were too much for the Globe, which will now receive back the severance after an arbitrator ruled that by saying those things, she breached her confidentiality agreement with the paper.

The self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record' would have us believe that they took this action based on principle; others could just as cogently argue that it was simply a continuation of the vindicativeness that essentially drove Wong from the Globe.

If you get the chance, I highly recommend the book; not only does it give valuable insight into mental illness, but it will also enable you to decide for yourself who is in the right and who is in the wrong in this matter.

A Classy Apology

Regular readers of this blog may be aware of my almost boundless enthusiasm for The Toronto Star. I deeply admire its progressive mission, and I find its roster of excellent columnists informative and thought-provoking. I have come to regard it as a trusted source of news and opinion.

It was therefore a bit of a shock to realize how badly below acceptable journalistic standards it recently fell when it published a story about Ontario Liberal MPP Magaret Best who, after being dropped from her cabinet position in the new Wynne government, took a medical leave, which she is still on. The story was accompanied by a photo of Best and her daughter vacationing in Mexico. As I supposed most readers did, I drew what seemed to be some obvious conclusions about Best's behaviour.

There was only one problem, however, with the story; the photo in question was taken, not recently, but in 2008, from a picture posted on Best's Facebook page.

Upon realizing the error, the Star printed a full correction, directing readers on Page 1 to go to A2 for the complete apology. In this morning's edition, there is a full column by The Star's Public Editor, Kathy English, explaining and apologizing for what she calls the paper's egregious error; without any equivocation or self-justification, English makes it very clear how far below standards the paper fell.

I have to respect the fact that the paper is holding itself fully accountable for this terrible mistake, and has even gone so far as to remove the offending article from its website. In my mind, this contrasts sharply with the temporizing and vague explanations issued by The Globe and Mail's Sylva Stead and editor-in-chief John Stackhouse when Margaret Wente's plagiarism became known.

If anyone wants to see an apology that really isn't an apology, read the Globe links above, or better yet, look at Wente's own 'explanation' for her failure which, it turned out, was only one of several instances of plagiarism, all of which the Globe has excused.

Despite the decline of the print medium, in my view it still plays a vital role in protecting our increasingly precarious democracy. Showing disdain for that public trust, as I believe the Globe did, does nothing to advance that mission. Because of its unequivocal, classy and very public mea culpa, the Toronto Star retains both my trust and my subscription.

Social Media and Margaret Wente

About two years ago, I wrote a blog post explaining why we cancelled our subscription to The Globe and Mail. At the same time, I sent an email with a link to the post to Globe editor-in-chief John Stackhouse, suggesting that if he wanted to know why he had lost a long-term subscriber, he should read my post.

Later that evening, I received a response from Stackhouse which I have never discussed in this blog, simply because I regarded it as private communication. While I am not prepared to reveal the content of the letter, I will tell you his closing observation, which was something along the lines of, "You seem to prefer the smaller world of the blogosphere. Sad."

Well, it would seem that the world of bloggers is not so small after all, given it was Medi Culpa's analysis of Margaret Wente's plagiarism that has created something of a firestorm within the world of journalism, shaking to its foundations the once proud Globe. In his column today, The Star's Tim Harper addresses the role it plays in journalists' lives, and how it forces everyone to be very careful in how they write.

Of additional interest is a brief profile of Professor Carol Wainio, the blogger behind Media Culpa.

Oh, and Torontoist has some thoughts worth perusal as well.

The Harper Government: Abuses Of A Nixonian Character

That is the description that Lawrence Martin applies to the Harper government in his latest column for iPolitics as he reflects on the vital and valiant role journalism played in uncovering the Watergate Scandal 40 years ago.

However, while acknowledging some bright spots, Martin laments the unevenness of the contemporary Canadian journalistic landscape in holding the Harper regime to account. Especially interesting is that while lauding some efforts, he withholds any praise from his own employer, The Globe and Mail, which will not come as a surprise to those who see it as little more than an apologist for a Prime Minister drunk on his own power.

As is always the case, this latest piece by Martin is well-worth the read.

Are Workers Paying For The Globe and Mail's Sins?

UPDATE/CORRECTION: While I strive to be as accurate as possible in this blog, the second paragraph of this post contained an inaccuracy, which I have since rectified.

I have to say that my heart rejoiced yesterday when I saw the news that Torstar, the parent company of The Toronto Star, has increased its quarterly earnings over the year by about 100%, an unequivocal confirmation that quality, in-depth journalism for the social good can still very much be a profitable enterprise in the 21st century.

I also have to admit to an almost equal delight in the news I received from my son that the Globe and Mail, by contrast, is not faring so well. The Earnings Per Share (EPS) profit that the Globe and Mail contributes to Bell Canada, its parent company, is off by 0.23.

I interpret this profit reduction as an indictment of the direction in which John Stackhouse has taken the paper since assuming the mantle of editor-in-chief. It is a direction that has seen such betrayals as unequivocal editorial endorsements of the Harper regime, an inhouse apologist for all things Harper named John Ibbitson, and the continued employment of unoriginal thinkers like Neil Reynolds and Margaret Wente who, one suspects, would have great difficulty recognizing an original thought, should one occur to them, an admittedly unlikely event.

The one group for whom I feel sympathy at the Globe is the rank and file, who are now being asked to take unpaid leaves this summer in an attempt to temporarily reduce costs.

Oh, and I almost forgot. In either a very desperate grasping at straws for financial salvation or a very public display of delusions of grandeur, The Globe announced today that it is instituting a paywall. If you read the article, I strongly encourage you to also peruse some of the readers' comments that follow, comments of such withering contempt that one might infer that this 'Hail Mary pass' from the Globe is too desperate by anyone's standards.

The Sky Isn't Falling (The One-Percent Just Pretend It Is)

One thing you have to hand to the monied class - they are shameless and unconscionable in their hyperbole. Reacting to the imposition of a 2% surtax in Ontario on those making over a half-million per year, they are pulling out all the stops, even invoking the Holocaust as they shamelessly fight against paying a little more in a country and province in which the inequality between the rich and the poor is increasing with each passing year.

For a full accounting of this despicable tack, take a look at Gerald Caplan's piece in The Globe.

Margaret Wente Scores Another Win For Superficial Thinking

I suspect that with the exception of her employer, few believe The Globe's Margaret Wente is a subtle thinker who deserves a forum in the self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record.' Her capacity for cartoonish characterization is especially apparent in her latest column where, borrowing liberally from a secondary source, as is her wont, she professes to explain the difference between the conservative and the liberal mind.

Replete with stereotypes, absolutist examples and fallacious thinking, the article will have a certain entertainment value for those who take the time to see through her usual banal superficiality.

Agitation At The Globe and Mail Continues

In the throes of some form of political delirium tremens since Thomas Mulcair's election as leader of the NDP, the Globe and Mail has apparently lost its lexicographical grasp, describing three resignations from the party with the following hyperbole:

Communications director joins NDP exodus under Mulcair

Expect more of the same as panic continues at Canada's self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record.'

Canada's 'Newspaper of Record' Continues Its Defense Of Harper

The Globe's John Ibbitson says the Harper regime wasn't behind the voter suppression crimes because, well, because Guy Giorno and Stephen Harper say they didn't do it.

Seems like it isn't just the Conservative Party that has contempt for the intelligence of Canadians.

Today's Globe Editorial on Occupiers

Ever the arbiter of all things significant, it is hardly surprising that in its latest editorial, The Globe and Mail has the arrogance to assume to speak for all when it says that "the [Occupy] movement has tried everyone's patience." Nonetheless, it should put aside its very conservative prejudices to acknowledge the real achievement of the occupiers, which has been to end the isolation and hopelessness felt by the many who aspire to a better world, despite all of the obstructions posed by those who purport to represent our interests in government.

While I agree that the issue of the right to pitch tents has a diversionary effect on the conversation the movement has sparked, to suggest, as the editorial does, that the occupy protests are only a response to the excesses (not to mention criminality) that contributed to the world financial crisis is to betray a shockingly shallow understanding of the issues the occupiers are drawing attention to worldwide.

But then again, that seems to be the typically blinkered perspective disseminated by the bulk of the mainstream media today (The Toronto Star excepted!), doesn't it?