02.22.2012 04:22 PM

Canada Live, Feb. 22: in which Krista slices and dices the Freep


I particularly like this screen cap the Sun folks used before my segment.

7 Comments

  1. smelter rat says:

    There must be two moons in the sky. I actually agree with Gord. I doubt it will last.

    • Jan says:

      Can you bottom line what he said, i’ve read it three times and can’t figure out what he’s on about.

      • smelter rat says:

        Sorry, I posted that after a night of heavy drinking. It made sense when I read it the first time. I do agree that the MSM is dying, and rightly so.

  2. Jan says:

    When in history, was their not bad behavior, Gord. What period of time are you pining for?

  3. fred says:

    Gord wrote there ” will be a return to a secular form of strait-laced protestantism “. I doubt that. There are thousands of people having sex with whomever
    they like, and find conservative values to be peculiar and out of touch with reality.

  4. Jeremy says:

    I’ve agreed with your criticism of ‘Vikileaks’ and the broadcast of Toews’ divorce records, but I think the case Krista Erickson makes against the Free Press is much less sound. I certainly see no evidence of a “personal vendetta,” as she put it, and I disagree with your assessment, Warren, that this was “deplorable” or “lousy journalism.”

    I realize, Warren, that you may not have been given the actual newspaper articles which Erickson quotes before you went to air. There were six, four from May 2008 which deal with rumours of Toews’ imminent departure from Ottawa for a Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench appointment, and the suggestion this appointment was a response to the Conservative government’s desire to remove the liability of Toews’ personal problems. The October 2008 article is a riding profile during the election, and the January 2010 article revisits the circumstances of the possible judicial appointment in response to another round of rumours of Toews’ departure which had been broadcast on local Winnipeg radio and TV. I think publication of sensitive details from a politician’s private life should always be subject to ethical consideration — I don’t believe a politician, because he or she chooses to be a public figure, automatically surrenders his or her privacy — but reasonable people will agree there are times when such personal details might be relevant knowledge for a politician’s constituents, and thus a legitimate subject to be reported. (Of course we probably won’t all agree when these times are.)

    In this instance the ethics of breaking the story are to me a bit murky, but ultimately I support the Free Press. It seems relevant to Toews’ constituents, and to readers of the province where he was regional minister, to know why he might have been shuffled into a judicial posting. If it was true, as reported, that Toews had falled out of favour with the prime minister, this is something constituents might find useful to know, both in terms of how effective Toews might be expected be as a minister, and as evidence of how the Harper government operates. The Free Press was actually quite tactful in its reporting — witness the Ottawa reporters last week who didn’t even realize it had been made public! (See the update to http://blogs.canada.com/2012/02/18/why-nobody-wrote-about-vic-toews-divorce/ . Maher actually still gets the story wrong if the dateline on Martin’s piece is correct, since the first Free Press story was published the day before.) Whether a rumour of a judicial appointment is worthy of a story is a different matter, but presuming it was credible, the rationale behind the appointment is important.

    Mia Rabson wrote a good blog entry back about the dilemmas of this story here: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/blogs/34251714.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*