The great Calgary Herald writer Howard Solomon arched an eyebrow.

“Owners of media properties,” said Howard, “should be seen and not heard.”

There was general agreement about that, in the Herald newsroom, and we all soberly nodded our heads.

Except, even as a lowly summer Herald student and general assignment reporter, I knew that the media world Howard Solomon described wasn’t actually the media world we all lived in. And besides, as I learned much later, having an owner — of a newspaper, of a radio or TV station, of a social media platform — was much more preferable than having no owner at all.

And, really, the issue isn’t having an owner of a media enterprise. The issue is having the right owner.

Which leads us, in a circuitous fashion, to Elon Musk and Twitter. Is the former the right owner for the latter?

You’ve heard of Musk, of course. He went to Queen’s University for a couple years and is now the world’s richest man — Tesla, Starlink, etcetera. Twitter, meanwhile, is a social network platform that offers “micro-blogging” in the form of “tweets.”

On Monday, it was announced that Musk had reached an agreement to buy Twitter for $44 billion. Immediately thereafter, forests were felled to print thumb-sucker analyses of what Musk Twitter would mean for free speech, politics and Donald Trump.

Some conservatives, who believe that Musk is one of them, think it’ll be a brave new world. Some progressives, who are suspicious of Musk, were encouraged by his (typically) amorphous promise to start “authenticating all humans” — which, they thought, possibly meant eliminating bots and trolls and fraudsters on Twitter. Who, most agree, have rendered Twitter a cyber-sewer.

Me, I’m not so sure either side is right. At any media company I’ve worked for, all of us ink-stained wretches always feared the arrival of new owners. We’d fret about whether they would try to censor and control what we write. We’d wonder if they’d make us walk the plank.

But, almost inevitably, the new owners would stay on their side of the newsroom, preoccupied only with the bottom line, not the black lines. (Which has always been my experience at the newspaper you clutch in your sweaty maulers, by the way: Not once — not once, ever — have the owners tried to control what I write.)

Musk, I suspect, is about to learn some of the same media lessons. If he messes with Twitter overmuch, he’ll wreck it. And then someone else will come along and start something new, and everyone will go over there.

For Musk, Twitter is potentially problematic for another reason: It is wildly popular among the two constituencies who can have a measurable impact on his various enterprises — politicians and journalists. Both politicos and hacks love Twitter because it resembles a Rorschach pattern of our tiny craniums: It flits all over the place, it’s bit-sized, and it’s nasty.

If Musk takes a hacksaw to Twitter, politicians and journalists will start sniping at him even more than they already do. Journalists, as a collective, can maul Musk’s reputation in and out of the market — and the politicians, acting at the behest of the journalists, have the regulatory power to make life complicated for Internet-based companies like his.

There are other problems: Personally, I think Musk is possibly insane to spend that much money on a social media platform that — unlike Facebook and Instagram — has never really figured out how to make money. And, whether he likes it or not, civil and criminal speech laws will still have the final say over what he puts online.

But, for me, I think the pearl-clutching about Elon Musk Twitter is — like Musk himself — a bit overblown. If he can do just one thing — eliminate anonymous accounts whose bile have made Twitter a perfectly awful place for many, women in particular — he will have improved people’s lives.

In the meantime, however, some of us will remember Howard Solomon’s wise words about media owners.

And we will comfort ourselves with the knowledge that the media universe, like the Internet universe, is simply too big for one person to control.

Comments (6)

Comments (7)

Full disclosure: Doug Ford is going to win.

And, before we get this little column going, further full disclosure: my firm sometimes lobbies his government, just like we did all the ones before his.

Also: we’re on the Ontario government’s standing offer list for communications. But we haven’t gotten a stitch of work from him. Zero, zippo, zilch.

That’s okay, because here’s a bit more disclosure: I like the guy. My mom, an Irish Catholic Montreal Liberal, loves him. Asked her why.

“He’s got a big heart,” said my mom. “He cares about people.”

And he does, he does. If you’d told me that a few years back, when Ford and I would duel to the death on radio and TV political panels, I would’ve said you were crazy. Back then, I didn’t really know him, and I figured he was one of those Trump-style ideological right-wing types.

I was wrong, wrong, wrong. He ain’t. And I’m not the only one who knows it, now. Polls say he is cruising towards a second big majority government on June 2.

Here’s five reasons why.

1. Ford Nation. I don’t like the name, because it sounds a bit boasty to me. But that’s quibbling. Despite the criticisms of the pink-skinned, Blundstone-wearing deepest Annex types, I’d wager that Ford’s base is more racially diverse than that of any other conservative politician in North America. I first saw it almost a decade ago, during a Toronto mayoral race. Downtown progressives sneered that he was a racist – but Ford had the support of 70% of people of colour. Ford Nation is like the United Nations: everyone is represented there.

2. The pandemic. He’s made a misstep or two during the pandemic — the quickly-rescinded playground and police lockdown comes to mind — but, for the most part, Ford has done a pretty good job throughout the past two tough years. His critics didn’t expect that. They assumed he hated government, and he’d leave people to the ravages of the virus. He didn’t. He pushed vaccinations and sensible public health measures, and he pushed hope. You could see, too, that the COVID-related death toll weighed heavily on him on TV every morning — his voice raw, his face ashen. He didn’t care what his haters said, but he sure seemed to care about keeping them alive.

3. His government. The pandemic was the biggest economic, cultural and personal event of our collective lifetimes. Everyone had an opinion on it, because everyone was hurt by it. More than once, the hardcore Leftie types were mad at Ford for not shutting everything down. Simultaneously, the hardcore Rightie types were mad at him for shutting anything down. I spoke to a former Liberal prime minister about it. “When the hard Left and the hard Right are both mad at you, it’s a good day,” he said. And it’s true: Ontario voters are smack-dab in the middle of the road. That’s where Ford mostly is, too.

4. His opponents. Ontario New Democrats grumble that their leader, Andrea Horwath, has lost too many elections and needs to go. But they don’t do anything about it. Ontario Liberals give interviews to the Toronto Star — anonymously — and agree their guy, Steven Del Duca, is “not a leader.” During the pandemic, when the consequences were literally life-and-death, Horwath and Del Duca were up and down like a toilet seat — demanding masking, then holding mask-free superspreader rallies (as Del Duca did). Or falsely claiming public sector workers had “a Charter right” to refuse vaccinations (as Horwath did). Right now, the Ontario election is a battle for second place, between the Dippers and the Grits. And they act like Ford has already won. But he doesn’t — it’s not his personality to take anything for granted.

5. His personality. So, this column ends where it started: on Doug Ford’s personality. Way back when, I used to crap all over Doug Ford in the media. I went after him every chance I got. And then one day, when I got in a whole lot of trouble for a stupid tweet, guess who was the first person to call? Yep: Doug Ford. “Warren, you’ve kicked me and my brother around a lot, but we respect you,” he said. “Hang in there.”

I’ve heard dozens of similar tales from dozens of other folks, of all political persuasions. Doug Ford, they agree, is one of the best retail politicians Canada has ever produced. (My former boss Jean Chretien, naturally, is the best. And Chretien and Ford know and like each other, tellingly.)

Are other factors at play? Sure. Justin Trudeau’s re-election helped Doug Ford, because Ontario voters prefer to have different parties representing them in Ottawa and Queen’s Park. And Pierre Poilievre’s crusade to turn the Conservative Party into a wing of the far-Right People’s Party doesn’t hurt, either: it makes Ford look like a kind-hearted centrist.

Except he already was. He is.

And, full disclosure: that’s why he’s going to win again.

— Kinsella ran Dalton McGuinty’s three war rooms

Comments (6)

Comments (5)

Life imitates art.

The reverse is true, too. But what does it mean when those who promote art – those who are supposed to know a great deal about art – are engaged in actual lies?

What happens when all that they are “imitating“ is woke stupidity?

It’s a fair question, this week, because the Canada Council for the Arts – a federal government cultural agency that is entirely paid for by you and me – this week actually issued the following statement on Twitter:

“Let’s liberate the Canadian landscape from the Group of Seven and their nationalist mythmaking: By erasing Indigenous perspectives, Tom Thomson and the Group of Seven painted a new nation into being.”

That is a quote. That is real. That is an actual tweet by an actual government agency. And it is madness. Insanity.

The government of Canada’s principal cultural agency is saying, in effect, that the Group of Seven – among our greatest artists in our history – were crypto-Nazi nationalists. That they consciously “erased“ Indigenous culture – and, one presumes, Indigenous people along the way.

They didn’t. In no way, whatsoever, did the Group of Seven “erase“ Indigenous culture. In no way, whatsoever, were they “nationalists” – in the way that Hitler’s filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl, assuredly was.

The basis for the Canada Council tweet? An op-ed that had been published online – surprise, surprise – by the CBCs elflords. The op-ed‘s author is Indigenous, and he is absolutely entitled to his (misguided) perspective.

But the Canada Council is not entitled to state, as a fact, that some of our greatest-ever painters were “nationalists” who “eliminated” Indigenous culture. Because that is offensive and a lie.

But don’t just asked me, a privileged white guy who knows a little bit about Indigenous art. Don’t ask me.

Ask Norval Moriseau, arguably the greatest Canadian Indigenous artist, the Picasso of the North, who literally took up residence in Tom Thomson’s shack in Algonquin Park for weeks on end, painting. When Morriseau did that, does the Canada Council think that he was participating in the elimination of his own culture?

Or ask Emily Carr, who Lawren Harris said was indeed a member of the Group of Seven, and who painted astonishingly beautiful scenes of West Coast Indigenous life – and whose works have been showcased alongside that of the other greatest Canadian Indigenous artist, Haida Bill Reid?

Oh, wait. We can’t ask Morriseau or Reid or Carr or Harris, because they are all dead. So, perhaps, the Canada Council thought it was safe to defame them.

The best person to quote, here, is not some conservative who reflexively hates taxpayer-funded culture, or institutions like the Canada Council. The best person to quote is a person of color named Barack Obama.

“I get a sense among certain young people on social media that the way of making change is to be as judgemental as possible about other people.

“If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because ‘Man did you see how woke I was? I called you out!'”

“That’s enough,” Obama said. “If all you’re doing is casting stones, you are probably not going to get that far.”

After the Canada Council published their tweet, and cast stones at the Group of Seven for something they never did, this writer got in touch with the Council’s media representatives. I asked them questions. They didn’t respond.

Their tweet, however, silently disappeared.

Ironic, isn’t it? The Canada Council alleged that the Group of Seven “eliminated“ Indigenous culture.

And then, when called out on their woke lie, went and “eliminated” their own tweet.

[Kinsella is a painter who represents first Nations across Canada.]

Comments (20)