Recently, I was awarded the Peter G. MacKay Award for sub-standard and cowardly journalism by Canada’s justice minister.Touched as I was, I’ll have to turn the honour down. The column for which I was given the award simply doesn’t qualify — at least not in my sub-par opinion.
Besides, I have learned over time that judgements about journalism from politicians or government agencies are tricky matters.
This week, for example, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) was outed by the New York Times and The Guardian for breaking the encryption on Internet communication and giving themselves a window into the most private corners of everybody’s lives, including online communications, banking and medical records.
The agency has responded to these stories by invoking their vast journalistic expertise. James R. Clapper, the NSA chief who has already lied to Congress about spying on Americans, had his office respond that the accounts published by the NYT and the Guardian were “not news.” Editor Clapper had spoken.
Just like Editor MacKay. I suspect Minister MacKay’s idea of journalism is the recent cover of Hello Magazine — a lovely MacKay family portrait perfectly suited to a devotee of the photo-op. Sadly, PM (take it easy Steve, that’s Peter MacKay, not ‘prime minister’) has operated for so long in the Harperland world of public relations bumph and declarative reality, he can’t acknowledge hard facts when he sees them. Canadians have been carrying his bags for so long, he sees himself as a potentate, disrespected by any reference to Himself that doesn’t come with a Right Honourable, his best profile and a tug at the forelock.
Look Peter, I don’t really care whether or not you know British Columbia and California don’t share a border. I’m sure you know they’re both on the West Coast and have some stuff in common. Which was your point, so okay.
And that slip about the French fighting by our side in the War of 1812? Your claim that when you used the term “French” you were referring to the Voltigeurs Canadiens would have been far more plausible if you had been speaking in Quebec City — instead of the French Embassy on Bastille Day.
And you might have mentioned that the Voltigeurs Canadiens were not necessarily making common cause with the English side, but were “fidelite a eux-meme”, as Martin Auger points out in his excellent social study of the militia unit. But let’s not split historical hairs.
And I’m very proud of you for getting through law school, even though you don’t think much of the honorary degree I received from Memorial University in St. John’s.
The funny thing about that is the main reason I got the degree was the work I tried to do to undo the work of lawyers and politicians in the Mount Cashel Orphanage scandal. Closer to home from your perspective, Peter, it was the same thing with the work I did on the wrongful conviction of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Donald Marshall Jr., who spent eleven years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. Back in 1971, the 17 year-old’s trial lasted one day. That was a travesty of justice perpetrated by lot of people who, just like you, got their degrees by going to law school.
Which is just to point out that you said that I was cavalier about the law. Not so: I respect the law. It just hasn’t turned into awe.
The best line in your open letter denouncing my shoddy journalism was the one that attempted to deal with the motive behind what I had written rather than the substance — the oldest trick of the politician at bay. You said I long for the day when the Liberals were in power, before your new party drove out the scandal-ridden rascals.
Two things. This is a little like your statement that Justin Trudeau had lost “all credibility” because he smoked marijuana. As I said before, if I were you, I wouldn’t trigger a debate about credibility.
With all the scandals enveloping your government — including $3 billion in taxpayers’ money “misplaced”, the Senate and PMO scandal, the F-35 and practically all major military acquisitions, the pot should be careful about saying how black the kettle is. It does, after all, provide the rationale for your own demise. Remember the wise words of your former colleague Brent Rathgeber: “I barely recognize ourselves, and worse, I fear we have morphed into what we once mocked.”
But let’s not skirt your main point — that I am a Liberal sympathizer, if not a supporter. Some background for you. Back in 2006, I described Adscam on my daily radio show in Ottawa as “a one hundred gallon drum of rotten fish.” I advised listeners that they had to vote … for anyone but the Liberals. Day after day, I explained my rationale — that the Liberals were guilty of corrupting the institutions by which we are governed.
Ironically, John Baird was listening. I received a call from his campaign asking if I would speak to his workers. He was not asking for an endorsement — which I would not have given — but only a few words about the importance of being involved in the democratic process. I spoke to his volunteer workers and said the same thing I had been saying on the radio — get involved to reclaim our institutions, which are the property of the people, not of a political party.
What you don’t understand is that very few journalists, and no good ones, are partisan. You, by comparison, are partisan all the time. John Baird approved of me when I was denouncing the Liberals for Adscam, but hasn’t celebrated my birthday since I started training that same critical faculty on the Harper government.
Why is it trained on them? Not because of the political party involved, but because the Conservatives are the government.
Think about it. That’s why your colleagues were chasing my colleague Lawrence Martin for an autograph after his critical biography of Jean Chretien, and busily denouncing him after he published Harperland. The only person with a political motivation in our current correspondence is you.
And here’s another thing I’d revisit. After David Orchard repudiated your claim that he had agreed to talks on merging the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties, you suggested to iPolitics reporter Olesia Plokhii that the man who made you leader of the former PC party was a traitor.
Responding on David Orchard’s behalf, Marjaleena Repo had this to say: “This sounds almost demented …’Traitor’ was MacKay to Orchard and the Progressive Conservative Party. Talk about a classic case of projection.”
You owe David Orchard an apology.
Finally, this thought. When the auditor general released his damning report on how your former department understated the costs of acquiring the F-35 by $10 billion, Ferguson said the true number was known by both DND and cabinet. That day in April 2012 when all became public, you as minister, you as the spokesperson and poster boy for the F-35 for years, refused to take questions.
Nice credentials for a lecture on cowardice.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca
Author: Michael Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment