On journamalism

While I criticized a number of CanWest's obviously-biased op-eds on health care privatization yesterday, let's give them this much: flawed though they are, at the very least they roughly fit the definition of the type of material that's supposed to appear in their format. And that's more than one can say for what's passing for news on the same topic.

So what's wrong with the Leader-Post's excuse for a news article about private health services? Let's start with the basic premise before going into the details.

My impression would be that most news stories are intended to actually reflect news of some sort. So let's ask: what news value is there in the fact that a service provider has provided services? Or put another way, how often has the Leader-Post printed news stories about, say, happy welfare recipients as an argument for improved social services? Or people who received excellent care in the public sector and don't much want to see a privatized system?

The main answer is that they wouldn't bother, because things functioning as they're supposed to aren't generally considered to have any particular news value. But apparently CanWest makes an exception where it suits its editorial slant. And that brings us into the jaw-dropping degree of bias in what's supposed to be a matter of news rather than opinion.

Want any context comparing public and private services? Counterarguments in anything but the flimsiest of straw-man form? You'll find none whatsoever, just an article-long homily to privatization. Indeed, while I don't have a hard copy of the Leader-Post in front of me, I'd be shocked if there weren't some ads in the paper that are more balanced in their treatment of their subject matter.

And all this over services which themselves could just as easily have been delivered in the public sector as the private sector. But again, any actual context would be entirely unhelpful in serving the corporate purpose.

But wait, there's more! Scroll down to the end of the article, and you'll find out just who it is that's been called on to pass off their opinion as news:

Hopkins is speaking out, not as the CEO of the Regina & District Chamber of Commerce, but as a grateful parent.

Now, most of us would have the sense to treat an article along the lines of "President of Domestic Auto Dealers of Canada: Ford Offered Me A Great Car At A Great Price!" with the level of skepticism it deserves. And I'd like to think most journalists would do the same in deciding how to frame an article.

But the Leader-Post's choice to offer a corporate spokesperson free rein to spout uncontradicted pro-privatization blather amounts to effectively the same thing. And it's combined with just enough subterfuge to lull the reader into thinking there's something more to the article, before mentioning the interviewee's pecuniary interest as an afterthought.

Now, it's sad that this is what passes for media in our province - and it's never a plus to be up against such widely-distributed propaganda. But let's close with a look on the bright side: we can safely say that the privatization movement is completely devoid of any intelligent thought if this is what's passing for a sales job.

On private interests

A few weeks back, I noted how odd it was that Brad Wall looked to be raring for a fight to privatize health care even when the issue wouldn't seem to be a winner for the Sask Party. But in retrospect, the move was likely aimed far less at the public than at a corporate media audience. And sure enough, the province's major newspapers have served up a giant steaming pile of Canwest love for Wall's effort to push public services into the private sector.

So let's take a few minutes to deal with the most ridiculous of the Sask Party claims which are being repeated unquestioned by the province's two main print media outlets.

First, nobody is arguing against providing better health services or dealing with waitlists. This has been the favourite strawman of the press in mischaracterizing the NDP's position - but the next argument that the province shouldn't address the need for improved surgical capacity or CT scan availability will be the first.

But that leads into the second point: there's a choice to be made as to how to deal with health care improvements. And it's on this point that the media has bought the Sask Party's spin hook, line and sinker - bashing the NDP for having a preference which it actually defends with some reasoning, even as it's the Wall government which has stated without justification that it's looking for any "opportunity" to push private-sector delivery.

In fact, there's absolutely no reason why improvements can't be made within the publicly-operated system - and the Sask Party's defenders haven't even tried to provide one. At most, there's been some tangential observation that some of the usual efficiencies associated with single-location health care delivery (e.g. CT scans on hospital sites) won't apply. But even if it's taken as a given that a CT scanner can't fit into one of Regina's current hospitals, that doesn't answer the question of whether we should prefer public or private operation of a new scanner to be set up on another site.

But what about the cost of setting up a publicly-run scanner? Welcome to point three, which has been negligently omitted by the media at every turn: privatization is not a free lunch. Even on the Sask Party's own account, privatized service delivery may well cost as much as the current public model. And that's ignoring both the real possibility that a privatized system will in fact make the public system less efficient, and the reality that once a private interest is relied on to provide vital public services, it'll have plenty of leverage to raise the price later on.

And that in turn leads to point four: privatization has real structural consequences, as more decisions about public health are put in the hands of actors whose primary interest is to increase their own market share and profit margin rather than to achieve the best possible health outcomes. Murray Mandryk's column manages to unwittingly make this point in using past examples of privatized services to suggest that we shouldn't worry about just one more (or two more, or however many more the Wall government can jam into the next year and a half). But if past governments didn't sufficiently take into account the reality that corporate actors may create warped incentives within the health care system (and yes, the NDP can take some blame here), that's hardly an argument to continue to ignore the dangers now.

In sum, the Sask Party's case has been based entirely on lowballed costs, dishonest assessments of our options and straw men. But while that deception has unfortunately been parroted by observers who should know better, it's still an open question whether Saskatchewan's voters will be so easily fooled.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On high-priced credit

Shorter Murray Mandryk:

Sure, Rob Norris' stay in cabinet has generally been a slow motion train wreck. But it's theoretically possible that one letter he wrote could be linked to desirable action if another level of government which has ignored similar requests before decides to change its tune. And under CanWest policy, that entitles any Sask Party minister to a column singing his praises.

Flush? Or flushing?

James Wood reports that in last year's by-elections, the Sask Party and its candidates roughly doubled the NDP's spending while failing to cut meaningfully into the NDP's share of the vote. Which, by journalistic convention, is of course good news for Brad Wall.

The rewrite continues

Another day, another couple of stories which conspicuously rewrite history to pretend that pro-coalition grassroots efforts in 2008 didn't happen. And in both cases, there are points worth some serious followup.

First, there's Susan Delacourt's latest:

(I)t can be argued that last year's protest was more effective -- so far, anyway -- because it had an influence on the Governor-General. It was partly out of deference to widespread anger that she decided to grant the prorogation last year to Harper, we've heard. Right now, it's not clear what this Facebook group can accomplish -- the Jan. 23 rallies will be an important measure, but where will that influence have an effect?

Now, I'd take the above passage with a mine's worth of salt. Assuming that the Governor-General herself has kept the confidences of the PM, the only possible source for information about the basis for Jean's decision is the Harper PMO - which obviously has a massive stake in both ignoring the pro-coalition side in 2008, and talking down the possible impact of the prorogation protest now.

That said, if Jean's decision was in fact based in the slightest on favouring one of two competing sides in an active public opinion battle rather than the constitutional convention of accepting the advice of the PM, then that might well be the most disastrous precedent of all coming out of Harper's prorogation tactics. And any Cons who think they have reason to be smug about the outcome might want to consider what it would mean if opposition parties see both a need and a benefit in packing Canada's streets with protestors in order to influence the GG's decisions.

Secondly, there's James Wood's excuse for Brad Wall's refusal to comment on the prorogation crisis despite the fact that he's nominally the minister responsible for intergovernmental relations:

When reporters asked for the intergovernmental minister this week to comment on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue parliament, it was clear the Saskatchewan Party government wasn't too anxious to have Wall wade into that nest of thorns (especially with rumours flying that the PM was to attend the world junior hockey championship in Saskatoon on Tuesday -- and have a handshake meeting with the premier at the game. In the end, Canada's hockey-fan-in-chief didn't make it.)

The Sask. Party government has had its ups and downs with the federal Conservative government, but has generally been among its closest provincial allies. The prorogation issue, however, has fired passions on both sides and there appeared to be little interest in having Wall stoke them further.

Again, it's downright bizarre that Wood would consider the current prorogation as having "fired passions on both sides" when hardly anybody has bothered to take Harper's side - and the few voices trying to carry the Cons' water have tried to make the case that "it's not a big deal" rather than offering passionate support for Harper.

But the line is particularly out of place when Wall chose to wade directly into the 2008 confrontation when there actually were large movements on both sides. And particularly with Con member Don Morgan providing a tepid defence of Harper rather than even recognizing for a second that Saskatchewan's voters might not be happy to have Parliament shut down, this looks to be another example of the Sask Party placing its allegiance to Harper above the interests of the province.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

On questionable precedents

Apparently recognizing that "but...but...but...Chretien!" is wearing thin as a defence of the Harper government's misdeeds, Kelly MacParland unveils a radical new line of attack: "but...but...but...MacKenzie King!"

I particularly look forward to the forthcoming talking point that nobody would have complained when King accused his opponents of caring more about filthy Jap traitors than about Canadian troops abroad.

So much to learn

Sure, we anonymous wannabe opinion makers may have been the ones who publicly reported the recent committee meetings where Bill Boyd and Rod Gantefoer demonstrated that they lack the slightest clue about issues for which they're directly responsible as Sask Party cabinet ministers.

That said, though, CanWest's superior news-gathering resources and insider access still count for something. And it apparently took James Wood to report that Boyd also whispered the word "bastards" under his breath at the same meeting which he singlehandedly turned into a farce with his lack of knowledge about the subject involved. So clearly we bloggers have a long way to go in matching the corporate media's ability to cover what's really important.

Multiple choice

Based on this painful excuse for a blog post, is Leader-Post Deputy Editor Online Kevin Blevins:
(a) angling for a patronage appointment with the Harper Cons?
(b) angling for corporate largesse from Bruce Power?
(c) actually a bot programmed to spew two-decade-old Reform talking points in conjunction with random news stories?
(d) or, engaged in a performance-art impersonation of one or more of the above?

On double standards

On Monday, the Sask Party "notified the media" that RCMP officers would be entering the NDP caucus office at the legislature - insinuating that the opposition as a whole was somehow under police investigation. And the RCMP did indeed turn up - to invite the opposition to participate in a fund-raiser. The media reaction: a verdict of "boys will be boys".

On Wednesday, the NDP raised questions about the effectiveness of legislation on criminal record checks by pointing out an actual incident involving a Sask Party cabinet minister which would have slipped through a crack set up by the government's bill. The media reaction: a sudden case of the vapours about the incivility of pointing out such matters.

So is the problem that such talk is a "low blow" only if it actually has a basis in reality? Or is the issue that in CanWest's world, such attacks are only allowed from the right?

Burning questions

Am I the only one who wonders whether CanWest's move to put the National Post into the same corporate division as its local newspapers figures to be based less on any actual improvement to the real financial situation of any CanWest entity, and more on a desire to allow the National Post to argue that it can't be put out of business without depriving major cities of their local dailies? And if the National Post is at the point where it can't justify its existence based on anything more than the threat to take down other papers as well, isn't that a sure signal that it's due to go under?

On distorted inputs

Shorter Star Phoenix editorial board:

Enough of this pesky pretense of "democracy". We demand that the province officially turn the task of governing Saskatchewan over to some unspecified set of corporations for once and for all.

On selective reporting

When the party who came in a distant second in Saskatoon Riversdale in 2007 nominated its candidate for the upcoming by-election, the Star Phoenix reported it immediately.

And likewise with the party who came in an even more distant third. (Though it omitted the noteworthy detail that the candidate was apparently poached from the Sask Party's 2007 slate.)

But when the party which has held the seat in all but one election since 1967 nominated the likely next MLA? The crickets have been chirping since Monday, and there's no evidence that they'll stop soon.

Update: In comments, Jan points to a link to a story from Tuesday which oddly didn't show up on Google News searches for either Chartier's name or the riding name. My mistake to a point - though both the title attached to the link and the lack of search results still seem off.


Update 2: And now the Star Phoenix mentions Eileen Gelowitz' party switch.

All the news that matters

Sure, the Leader-Post can only be bothered to cover the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race grudgingly if at all. But let's not doubt the paper's focus on what's really important in the midst of a democratic process which will help to shape both the province and its largest political party for years to come: namely, how an AC/DC concert will affect the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

Sadly, the answer to that piece of investigation is that it won't. But stay tuned for tomorrow's followup on what the concert means for Pat Fiacco's hair.

CanWest math

Reality:

The latest numbers show only 40% of respondents approve of the Cons' handling of the economy, with 48% disapproving. And the Cons' approval rating is down to 38%, with 51% disapproving.

Which evidently has little overlap with CanWest World:

Like most Canadians, we are satisfied that Mr. Harper has handled the recession in a measured, serious way.

Burning questions

Has the stress of working for a media outlet that's set to go bankrupt any day now caused Kelly McParland to snap? Or is he operating entirely according to plan in trying to project as distorted a picture of left-wing thought as he can in what little time CanWest has left?

BONUS QUESTIONS: What would be the mirror image of McParland's insane depiction of left-wing thought? And how many threats would be visited on the head of whoever wrote, posted and approved it?

Predictable results

As I noted last week, the corporate media honeymoon over Michael Ignatieff's short-sighted decision to prop up the Cons was never likely to last long. Which brings us to Michael Taube:

Ignatieff’s acceptance of the budget was a poor tactical decision. It enabled Prime Minister Stephen Harper to receive a pass on his questionable analysis of Canada’s economic stability during the federal election, the “now you see it, now you don’t” proposed elimination of political party subsidies, and the constitutional crisis we recently faced. The PM needed cover to rebuild his shattered image (which he’s been doing since Parliament was prorogued last December) and implement an economic stimulus package – and now he’s got it.

Even though Harper will obviously have an incredibly difficult time getting through this economic storm – which hasn’t bottomed out – he can still argue that he’s doing everything in his power to get Canada back on track. He can also regularly meet with world leaders like U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to show that he is helping build a cohesive unit within the international community to properly tackle this global financial crisis.

Meanwhile, all Ignatieff can say is that he got some Liberal-oriented ideas in the budget, and saved Canadians from another election by propping up a government that has supposedly lost the confidence of Parliament. With no disrespect, big deal.

Of course, it'll probably take a little while longer for the same conclusion to spread to the pundits who gave their temporary approval to Ignatieff's actions. But the inevitable consequences of Ignatieff's decision to prop up Harper - whether based on Harper himself turning back to his usual hyperpartisanship, Con mismanagement which a coalition government could have avoided, or internal dissent over continued Harper government - can't help but to lead to a reevaluation of the wisdom of Ignatieff's call this week. And Taube figures to be only the first of many to conclude after the fact that Ignatieff made the wrong call.

On previews

The corporate media blitz is on, featuring "news" stories like this intended to try to force the Libs' hand toward backing the Cons' budget. But at least some of Harper's supporters in the press can't help themselves from letting slip what's to come if the Libs follow that poisoned advice:

(T)his isn't working out the way the Liberal leader might have preferred. Sure he'll be able to grouch about various details, and boast about having forced Mr. Harper to get serious after that embarrassing economic update in November. But claiming to have influenced the Prime Minister isn't the best route to becoming Prime Minister. One suspects Mr. Ignatieff will have some more cranky days ahead of him.

Fortunately, it isn't yet too late for Ignatieff to recognize the obvious dangers of supporting continued Con government. But lest there be any doubt, neither the Cons nor their mouthpieces in the media are about to ease off the Libs for a second longer than they have to in order to keep Harper in power. And if Ignatieff takes the easy way out for the short term by propping up a government which he knows can't be trusted, then he and his party figure to start paying the price the moment they make that choice.

Self-serving

Lorne Gunter is determined to bash Jack Layton for having the nerve to cooperate with anybody other than Deceivin' Stephen. But in so doing, he only offers up another stark reminder of the petty and destructive view of Canadian politics which still serves as the Cons' main governing focus:

First, he had a chance to do the Liberals in and replace them as the default selection on the left had he gone along with the Tories' plan to end public funding to parties. Next to the Tories, the NDP have the best chance of replacing public handouts with private donations. Layton could have crippled the Liberals, instead he tried to vault himself into cabinet by riding into power as the Liberals' shotgun.

With the revealing of the coalition, Layton was also exposed as a self-serving opportunist...

So let's review how the above statements compare to each other. In Gunter's world, Layton ought to have lent his support to a fiscal update that was both antithetical to the NDP's policy vision and likely to hurt them as a party as well, all for the sole purpose of helping Harper to inflict a death blow on the Liberals. Which would apparently be considered a selfless act of principle.

Instead, Layton cooperated with the opposition parties to work out an agreement which would not only improve the NDP's standing on the federal scene, but also help to ensure that policies closer to its values would be put in place (both in dealing with the recession and in governing over the next year and a half). Needless to say, that earns Gunter's condemnation as "opportunism".

Ultimately, Gunter's column looks to be just another example of the Con base's warped attitude that Harper's goal of destroying the Libs matters more than anything. But the more the Cons and their flacks try to project the same pathology onto the NDP, the more clear they make it that there's only one party which truly puts a perceived political war above the good of the country. And the Libs should be careful to keep that distinction in mind in deciding whether they want to leave Harper in control.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Wrongful exclusions

While the mainstream media regularly passes off Con spin as expert opinion, the right tries to put together its own claim to mistreatment at the hands of that noted influence on mass opinion: the University of Toronto Law School. So let's see what complaint is being made by media figures and bloggers alike:

University of Toronto Law School stages pro-Liberal rally masquerading as constitutional "panel discussion"

Last week, the University of Toronto Law School held a panel discussion on the Governor-General's decision to prorogue Parliament. I didn't go. But news reports suggest it degenerated into an anti-Harper bash-a-thon.

Now, anybody with an even remotely sound case to make would follow up with the question of how the panel might have lacked for Con representation. But there's a reason why Jonathan Kay apparently didn't bother asking that question - because the answer would completely undercut any allegation of bias.

For the record, here's a notable name on the list of panelists:

Peter Kent, Conservative MP for Thornhill and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Americas).

So whatever became of Kent's appearance?

MP Peter Kent was to represent the Conservatives, but was delayed.

So the Cons were invited to send a representative, who agreed to appear - but then didn't show up, apparently due to a delayed flight. (I'll even give Kent the benefit of the doubt and assume this wasn't a matter of Harper instructing him not to show up.)

Rather than mentioning Kent's presence on the panel as scheduled, Kay instead presents a misleading impression by blaming the law school for the lack of a Con voice. Which suggests that the story ultimately only signals the usual pro-Con orientation of Kay and his employer, who are always far too happy to misrepresent the facts in order to pretend that the right is hard done by.

(Edit: Corrected name. Is there a functional difference between Kay and McParland to begin with?)

More false expertise

When the coalition to make Parliament work first formed, CTV was quick to provide "expert" analysis consisting solely of Con partisans. And it looks like other media outlets are continuing the same pattern of allowing Harper mouthpieces to present opinions and talking points as neutral commentary.

First, there's the inexplicable decision by CanWest to give Garry Chipeur's opinion any credence as a declaration of constitutional convention - notwithstanding both Chipeur's obvious partisan bias, and the fact that his opinion rests on the assumption that the only actual precedents on the powers of the Governor-General should be ignored.

Then, there's the Hill Times' piece on lobbying, which features Tim Powers - yes, the same one who already delivers a steady stream of Con talking points to a Globe and Mail blog - singing the praises of prorogation and bashing the coalition while adding nothing of substance on the topic at hand.

And most glaringly of all, there's Macleans' apparent decision to offer a prime blog spot to the Cons' propagandist-in-chief - apparently out of concern that the informative blogging of Kady O'Malley, Aaron Wherry and others needed to be counterbalanced by unadulterated Con spin.

Needless to say, the Cons couldn't ask for much more generous treatment than to have their talking heads presented as the equal of people who actually offer original points of view and informed commentary rather than merely reading off a Harper cheat sheet. But those of us who would prefer not to see the media turned into a subsidiary arm of the Harper communications department have ample reason for concern.