So, there’s a Toronto Star story this morning about Kathleen Wynne’s political future. By my count, it has five sources in it who are quoted directly, but not named. There are three other people quoted in it: Wynne, her Finance Minister, and a guy who doesn’t want to be quoted.

A snippet:

Sources told the Star that more than a dozen MPPs are looking at not running again in the 2018 election over fears they will lose their seats due to her unpopularity.

No MPPs will yet speak publicly about the potential exodus — more out of their personal regard for Wynne than‎ due to a fear of retribution.

But some are known to be considering an appeal to her en masse‎ to share their worries about the future.

Quite apart from whether this kind of story is fair to Kathleen Wynne or not – she’s in politics, and she has likely authorized many people to speak anonymously on her behalf over the years – this kind of story is possibly unfair to readers. Among other things, these sorts of tales require the reader to trust the paper, trust the reporter, and – most importantly – trust the anonymous source.

Should we? I mean, if these folks feel so passionately about the need for Kathleen Wynne to step down, shouldn’t they say so, publicly?  Shouldn’t they attach their name to their conviction?

I like what the International Journalists’ Network has to say about the issue:

Media professionals everywhere in the world grapple with the thorny issue of anonymity. It can be a double-edged sword.

According to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), “Anonymous sources are sometimes the only key to unlocking a big story, throwing back the curtain on corruption, fulfilling the journalistic missions of watchdog on the government and informant to citizens. But sometimes, anonymous sources are the road to the ethical swamp.”

The SPJ code of ethics makes two important points on anonymity:

1. Identity sources whenever possible. The public is entitled to as much information as can be provided on sources’ reliability.

2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

The problem surfaced recently in The New York Times’ newsroom. In March, the newspaper’s top management cracked down on anonymity, sparked by readers’ complaints about “persistent” use of unnamed sources. The new guidelines require editors to approve the use of anonymity in stories.

“Direct quotes from anonymous sources should be used rarely, and only when such quotes are pivotal to the story,” according to the July 15 article explaining the crackdown. “At least one editor must know the specific identity of any anonymous source before publication.”

The Toronto Star is one of the best newspapers in the world. It is. The reporter in question has been on the Queen’s Park beat for many years, and is considered to really know his stuff. And, as noted, Kathleen Wynne is a grown-up politician, and she knows how the game is played.

But, if you were to ask the public about important public issues – say, who their Premier is, and is going to be – they would probably indicate a preference for knowing who a source is, and what that person’s agenda is, so they can decide whether he or she is credible or not.

It’s not that reputable reporters or newspapers lie: in my experience, that almost never happens outside of Russia and dictatorships.  It’s that anonymous sources do.

So, at the end of this windy exposition, does anyone have a clear sense of what is happening with Kathleen Wynne?

No, not really.  And that’s the problem with the false god of anonymous sources: you just don’t know, you know?

 

Comments (17)

…and the other is the Easter Bunny. 

Caption of Holy Week, folks, right here. 

Comments (1)

White House press secretary Sean Spicer standing at the door to a United Airlines plane, sipping a Pepsi. 

 If a picture is worth a thousand words, and it assuredly is, then that would be the picture for the past few days. To wit:

 · United Airlines forcibly “re-accommodated” a Vietnamese-American physician out of the seat he had paid for on an oversold flight in Chicago, smashed his face against an arm rest, broke his nose and some teeth, then blamed him for being “disruptive.” When that turned out to be a bald-faced lie – and when a global backlash resulted in United losing $1 billion in value in just 24 hours – the airline did a whiplash-inducing about-face, and apologized, and said it would never happen again, blah blah blah.

· Pepsi’s in-house “creative team” put together a commercial featuring one of the Kardashian Cretin Crew modelling, then rushing outside to join a passing protest, with lots of knowing nods and fist-bumps ensuing. The Kardsahian Cretin – famous-for-nothing Kendall Jenner, who later insisted she was “traumatized” by the ensuing mean tweets – hands a grateful cop a can of Pepsi, and all is well in the world. Take that, Women’s March, Black Lives Matter, et al.: you wouldn’t have so many darn problems if you bought the right soft drink! Global backlash, withdrawal of ad, groveling apologies, blah blah blah.

· Sean Spicer, the groper-in-chief’s liar-in-chief, (a) calls the Nazi gas chambers “Holocaust centres,” quote unquote; (b) repeatedly mispronounces the name of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who his boss had just, you know, bombed; and (c) says Hitler didn’t use “chemical weapons” on millions of Jews, gays, gypsies and dissidents when, in fact, he had. Standing before the assembled White House –all of them agog and agape – Spicer said: “You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.” Immediately, the Anne Frank Centre and many others demanded Spicer be fired. Spicer retracted, apologized, blah blah blah.

Quite a week, eh? It all reminded me of a long-ago Canadian equivalent. During the year 2000 federal election campaign, former Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day – who, it should be noted, this writer always thought bore more than a passing resemblance to Dan Quayle, of potato/potatoe infamy – decided to use Niagara Falls as a backdrop to a campaign announcement.

Standing at the falls’ edge, Day attempted to draw an analogy between the flow of Lake Erie from “north to south” and the “brain drain” from Canada to the United States. A reporter from the area pointed out to Day that, in fact, the relevant body of water drained from “south to north.” Oops!

Missing a golden opportunity to poke fun at himself, and thereby seem as human, Day darkly warned that he would “check the record, and if someone has wrongly informed me about the flow of this particular water, I’ll be having a pretty interesting discussion with them.” So, not only did Day succeed in making himself look like a dummy, he also came across sounding like a dummy who couldn’t take responsibility for his own mistakes.

Such mistakes can have profound consequences, if you don’t deal with them quickly. Personally, I am always a big fan of Bible-thumping Republican/Conservative politicians who regularly denounce gays/abortion/infidelity – and then, subsequently and inevitably, get caught having gay sex/procuring abortions/working with sex workers. Without fail, they end up exposed as sweaty, creepy, debauched nut bars, not self-professed men of God. And regular folks – as United, Pepsi and the White House certainly discovered in recent days – punish them not for the sin, but for the hypocrisy.

The lesson, naturally, is that candidates/companies/communicators should, if the circumstances warrant, ’fess up, laugh at themselves, then move on. Periodically falling on one’s sword is an excellent strategy. Always.

In this writer’s experience, voters and consumers are forgiving. They are profoundly aware of the tendency of humans to have human failings, being human beings themselves. And, as long as mistakes are not being made all the time – cf. Messrs. Day, Quayle and Spicer, above – they will forgive and forget and move on.

Apologies cost nothing. Retractions are free. Once given – unequivocally, sincerely, directly, and without condition – they have magical healing powers.

But the best approach, of course, is to avoid making the dumb mistake in the first place.

Sean Spicer, sipping a Pepsi on that United flight to ignominy, would certainly agree.

 

 

Comments (5)

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/853721136701550592

The biggest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States was a bomb in Oklahoma that killed 170 people. A white guy did it. https://t.co/r4OTIH1l1e

— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) April 17, 2017

Comments (3)

But fair. Found here.

As regulars know, I’ve written a lot about how there should never be a fine line between supportive and supplicant. Neville Chamberlain was very popular, for example, when he said “peace for our time” in Sepetember 1938. He became quite a bit less popular thereafter. 

Even when Trudeau fails to spin the press, the press will do it for him. During his recent visit to the White House, a photo was snapped that seemed to depict Justin Trudeau looking down with revulsion at Trump’s extended hand. It went viral.

In reality, the moment after Trudeau gazed down at the president’s hand, he shook it vigorously, eagerly embracing Trump in many ways. His Washington visit concluded without the slightest pushback on any issue, and the two leaders quickly came to terms on the controversial Keystone XL, a pipeline that will deliver the world’s dirtiest oil from Canada’s tar sands to U.S. markets. Trudeau was even willing to sprinkle some of his progressive pixie dust onto Trump’s battered brand, working together on a hastily arranged and wholly ceremonial PR project about boosting female entrepreneurs. 

Hours after Trump surprised the world with a missile attack on Syria, Trudeau voiced his total support.

While America’s press celebrates Trudeau for seemingly thumbing his nose at Trump, Canadian media praises him for successfully ingratiating himself to the president, skillfully avoiding opportunities to bruise the Donald’s ego. Nervous Canadians who know their place want a smooth relationship with the giant next door, whatever the circumstances.

Comments (7)

There were some confrontations between Left and Right – or, more accurately, antifa and white supremacists – at Berkeley in the past few days. As my Canadian friend (and Berkeley resident) Mike Brock wryly observed: “must be Saturday.”

Anyway, the Berkeley street fights attracted cameras, which meant that those who love to see themselves on camera were attracted to Berkeley, too. Including some Canadians. 

Here’s one on the, um, right. It’s our very own Ilsa, She-Wolf of the Clueless, Lauren Southern. 

I have laughed at this photo every time I have looked at it. Perhaps you will laugh, too. 

Who is the nerdling beside Ilsa? Why, that’s apparently one of the Proud Boys. What’s a Proud Boy, you ask?

Well, they’re sort of a white supremacist frat boy thing. They get drunk and beat up on minorities. They are the brainchild – as it were – of Gavin MacInnes, the anti-Semitic guy on Rebel Media.  He’s a tit. 

Anyway, Gavin’s Proud Boys can be read all about here. But this is my favourite part:

McInnes promotes a similar idea called “#nowanks,” saying that masturbating more than once a month drains one’s interest — especially for millennials — in sex. The caveat: Proud Boys can always masturbate within a yard of a woman, with her consent.

There are times when I am uncharacteriatically at a loss for words. This is one of those times. 

Laughing, however. Still laughing. 

Comments (7)

Will they be able to impeach before he starts wars in Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea? 

That’s the only question.

The official investigation into relations between Donald Trump and Russia now has “specific, concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion”, it has been reported.

New evidence proves discussions took place “between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material,” a source allegedly told the Guardian.

The developments come as it has emerged that Britain’s spy agencies were among the first to alert their American counterparts to contact between members of Mr Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives.

Comments (16)

So I bought this shirt. (Get yours here!)

Comments (2)

…so he made another kind of bombshell, to distract. MOAB: Mislead, Obstruct, Antagonize, Baffle.

CNN:

Washington – The US military has dropped an enormous bomb in Afghanistan, according to four US military officials with direct knowledge of the mission.

A GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed the “mother of all bombs,” was dropped at 7:32 pm local time Thursday, the sources said. A MOAB is a 21,600-pound, GPS-guided munition that is America’s most powerful non-nuclear bomb.

The bomb was dropped by an MC-130 aircraft, stationed in Afghanistan and operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump told CNN.

Officials said the target was an ISIS cave and tunnel complex and personnel in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province.

Oh, and look at this report. What a coincidence.

Indictments imminent? Drop a MOAB. 

One source suggested the official [FBI] investigation was making progress. “They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,” the source said. “This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material.”

Comments (16)

Just like John Lennon protested the failure of ‘Cold Turkey’ moving up the charts by sending back his MBE, I am protesting that none of you have turned the Hot Nasties ‘Hey There Girl’ into a massive hit.

I want to retire on the royalties and live on a beach in Jamaica. Get with it, people.

Comments (2)