Didn't we just do this like two months ago? And now we have to do it again because Sabrina Maddeaux wants to be an MP? Really?! I want to throw stuff at people.
You could call the Liberal response to Maddeaux’s candidacy a double standard, but to paraphrase Jonah Goldberg, the better explanation is that they actually have a different solitary standard: whatever Liberals do is good, whatever anybody else does is bad. The reaction is doubtless amplified because the Liberals feel real political peril at this moment and are inclined to react desperately.
I'm not concerned when an opinion writer or columnist crosses over to a political party. Their work has often been partisan for years, we readers know it, and we have interpreted their views accordingly. When a news reporter crosses over, however, that is a different story. We -- or at least I -- rely on reporters' objectivity in reporting the facts. I recognize that, for some people, the line between oinion and facts has become blurred, but I still think that the distinction is useful.
As for charges of racism, misogyny or whatever, I ignore them unless there is some independent corroboration. The terms racist and misogynist have been emptied of their meaning and now function as terms of disapproval -- I don't like you or what you have done -- nothing more.
For what it's worth, the kinds of charges and counter-charges being levelled over Ms. Maddeaux cheapen and discredit both sides. We need politicians to step back from these petty squabbles and focus on issues that matter to Canadians.
The real measure on leadership will be how they react. Will she lean into the victim role and lazily defends herself from criticism with the race and gender card (per Ien). Sabrina I suspect will ignore those temptations other than to point out the hypocrisy. Most importantly this is the sort of balanced journalism that holds people to account on both sides. I wish this take would be more mainstream, it would be better for Canada. Hopefully The Line gets its deserved audience and influence.
Here's a thought, Maybe women politicians (and others) need to step up and say, "Stop this nonsense," when someone tosses bogus accusations of sexism or racism as a way to discourage political discussion or air political views. Calling out these bogus charges would change the woman's position from that of a shrining violet who needs protection from the (real) sexists and racists by taking a position of strength, if only strength of character, and it would help them reserve an accusation of sexism or racism for when it is really justified.
The beauty of our democracy is that anyone with the chutzpah and nerves of steel can run for office. The notion that people involved in journalism must take a pass on moral principles is ludicrous. In fact I see far more moral clarity when journalists run for office than when they are seconded from their jobs to join a politicos communication team. There is some inside baseball spin that I find troubling when a journalist is joined at the hip with a political machine.
I’m most fascinated by the liberal criticism. They must be concerned if they are criticizing for things they themselves have done.
I can get behind the need for a consistent standard. No clue what it should be though. I’m strangely not too opinionated on the original issue but do wish people would stop tearing each other apart. Seems to be getting worse and the best I can contribute is teaching my kids to try and be balanced and reasonable without jumping to anger. They seem to have figured out that arguing with people online doesn’t change anyone’s opinion and backed away from it now so I think it’s a start.
It all feels like high school drama. I don't think this artificial concern from the Liberals is going to change people's minds given that rent, food and inflation continue to rise.
With respect, the Menzoid is closer to the description of a journalist than Seamus and Marci were. They were, as the BBC calls people in such roles, “presenters” or “personalities” - breakfast show hosts.
Thanks Matt for a well thought out article. I’ve seen for quite some time this social justice scorecard used as a shield to cover actions by politicians and others. It is now firmly embedded in political and societal discourse since the 2015 election of the far left party of Justin T.
I don't have and issue with this. But, I do have an issue with the folks who play multiple roles and don't regularly disclose it. If you do comms work for a political party or candidate AND regularly appear on media panels and write op-eds on politics and policy, you should be disclosing your role every time you appear. That often doesn't happen and the lines here are very grey.
I get it: part of their value in terms of strategic comms services is the fact that they have direct media outlets. But, to the public, they just appear as pundits or subject matter experts. Transparency should be the watchword here.
I saw Ms Maddeaux's announcement on Twitter almost immediately, and posted this comment/reply ...
**That is just WONDERFUL. I have long been an admirer of your common-sense smarts. With new candidates like you & Carson now backstopping proven solid gold like Dancho, it will be harder for Pierre Poilievre to suddenly fuck this up ... an "always-there" dangling proposition ... **
Many many years ago I initiated a long long (30 month) courtship. It was thorough and meticulously-prepared. Most-of-all, it had to be persistent ... because I was politely rejected about a dozen times. I was pursuing my dream job and was bound-and-determined to convince the powers-that-be that Manitoba (and Winnipeg in particular) deserved to have its own automotive journalist.
I mention this because, as with Ms Maddeaux's case, it was all about trust. I was trying to broker a relationship between the media (newspapers and radio stations) and "people who sell cars and trucks and motorcycles".
I needed to convince the editors and station programmers that I could provide them with scrupulously-prepared world-class reviews of products that they were advertising. Simultaneously, I also needed to convince the manufacturers and/or their local dealerships (the folks buying the advertising) to provide me (a total unknown) with a constant supply of interesting things to write about.
I was eventually successful. In one glorious springtime week, I was offered a weekly column in the Winnipeg Free Press (the sixth-largest English-language newspaper in Canada) and a weekly "spot" on CBC Manitoba's radio morning show.
The gigs came and went ... as gigs do ... but during the next 12 years I produced 313 newspaper columns and 161 radio shows.
It worked because there was quiet trust and honesty everywhere. If my listeners and readers did not believe that I was 100% forthright and thorough (no bias by omission!), it would be "game-over". It was the unspoken large pachyderm (with the big flappy ears and long nose and flat feet) in the room. If I did not mention that now, this whole comment would have been irrelephant.
Unfortunately Matt, the allure of a short-lived SM boost burns much brighter than the hum-drum decent glow of a standard for equitable performance! Thanks.
You could call the Liberal response to Maddeaux’s candidacy a double standard, but to paraphrase Jonah Goldberg, the better explanation is that they actually have a different solitary standard: whatever Liberals do is good, whatever anybody else does is bad. The reaction is doubtless amplified because the Liberals feel real political peril at this moment and are inclined to react desperately.
I'm not concerned when an opinion writer or columnist crosses over to a political party. Their work has often been partisan for years, we readers know it, and we have interpreted their views accordingly. When a news reporter crosses over, however, that is a different story. We -- or at least I -- rely on reporters' objectivity in reporting the facts. I recognize that, for some people, the line between oinion and facts has become blurred, but I still think that the distinction is useful.
As for charges of racism, misogyny or whatever, I ignore them unless there is some independent corroboration. The terms racist and misogynist have been emptied of their meaning and now function as terms of disapproval -- I don't like you or what you have done -- nothing more.
For what it's worth, the kinds of charges and counter-charges being levelled over Ms. Maddeaux cheapen and discredit both sides. We need politicians to step back from these petty squabbles and focus on issues that matter to Canadians.
Two really good editor pieces in two days from Matt and Jen - what busy little beavers they are! Keep up the good 2024!
The real measure on leadership will be how they react. Will she lean into the victim role and lazily defends herself from criticism with the race and gender card (per Ien). Sabrina I suspect will ignore those temptations other than to point out the hypocrisy. Most importantly this is the sort of balanced journalism that holds people to account on both sides. I wish this take would be more mainstream, it would be better for Canada. Hopefully The Line gets its deserved audience and influence.
Here's a thought, Maybe women politicians (and others) need to step up and say, "Stop this nonsense," when someone tosses bogus accusations of sexism or racism as a way to discourage political discussion or air political views. Calling out these bogus charges would change the woman's position from that of a shrining violet who needs protection from the (real) sexists and racists by taking a position of strength, if only strength of character, and it would help them reserve an accusation of sexism or racism for when it is really justified.
The beauty of our democracy is that anyone with the chutzpah and nerves of steel can run for office. The notion that people involved in journalism must take a pass on moral principles is ludicrous. In fact I see far more moral clarity when journalists run for office than when they are seconded from their jobs to join a politicos communication team. There is some inside baseball spin that I find troubling when a journalist is joined at the hip with a political machine.
I’m most fascinated by the liberal criticism. They must be concerned if they are criticizing for things they themselves have done.
I can get behind the need for a consistent standard. No clue what it should be though. I’m strangely not too opinionated on the original issue but do wish people would stop tearing each other apart. Seems to be getting worse and the best I can contribute is teaching my kids to try and be balanced and reasonable without jumping to anger. They seem to have figured out that arguing with people online doesn’t change anyone’s opinion and backed away from it now so I think it’s a start.
It all feels like high school drama. I don't think this artificial concern from the Liberals is going to change people's minds given that rent, food and inflation continue to rise.
With respect, the Menzoid is closer to the description of a journalist than Seamus and Marci were. They were, as the BBC calls people in such roles, “presenters” or “personalities” - breakfast show hosts.
Thanks Matt for a well thought out article. I’ve seen for quite some time this social justice scorecard used as a shield to cover actions by politicians and others. It is now firmly embedded in political and societal discourse since the 2015 election of the far left party of Justin T.
Societal poison - well said.
Freeland, Jolie and Monsef are great examples of bad examples. All three having achieved their level of entitlement without contributing anything.
I wish Sabrina Maddeaux all the success in the world and will miss her perspective in the NatPost.
I don't have and issue with this. But, I do have an issue with the folks who play multiple roles and don't regularly disclose it. If you do comms work for a political party or candidate AND regularly appear on media panels and write op-eds on politics and policy, you should be disclosing your role every time you appear. That often doesn't happen and the lines here are very grey.
I get it: part of their value in terms of strategic comms services is the fact that they have direct media outlets. But, to the public, they just appear as pundits or subject matter experts. Transparency should be the watchword here.
I saw Ms Maddeaux's announcement on Twitter almost immediately, and posted this comment/reply ...
**That is just WONDERFUL. I have long been an admirer of your common-sense smarts. With new candidates like you & Carson now backstopping proven solid gold like Dancho, it will be harder for Pierre Poilievre to suddenly fuck this up ... an "always-there" dangling proposition ... **
Many many years ago I initiated a long long (30 month) courtship. It was thorough and meticulously-prepared. Most-of-all, it had to be persistent ... because I was politely rejected about a dozen times. I was pursuing my dream job and was bound-and-determined to convince the powers-that-be that Manitoba (and Winnipeg in particular) deserved to have its own automotive journalist.
I mention this because, as with Ms Maddeaux's case, it was all about trust. I was trying to broker a relationship between the media (newspapers and radio stations) and "people who sell cars and trucks and motorcycles".
I needed to convince the editors and station programmers that I could provide them with scrupulously-prepared world-class reviews of products that they were advertising. Simultaneously, I also needed to convince the manufacturers and/or their local dealerships (the folks buying the advertising) to provide me (a total unknown) with a constant supply of interesting things to write about.
I was eventually successful. In one glorious springtime week, I was offered a weekly column in the Winnipeg Free Press (the sixth-largest English-language newspaper in Canada) and a weekly "spot" on CBC Manitoba's radio morning show.
The gigs came and went ... as gigs do ... but during the next 12 years I produced 313 newspaper columns and 161 radio shows.
It worked because there was quiet trust and honesty everywhere. If my listeners and readers did not believe that I was 100% forthright and thorough (no bias by omission!), it would be "game-over". It was the unspoken large pachyderm (with the big flappy ears and long nose and flat feet) in the room. If I did not mention that now, this whole comment would have been irrelephant.
Sabrina will rock the room! I wish her well.
OK i’ll correct myself. Len did some reporting 30 or so years ago but most of her career was as a presenter
Unfortunately Matt, the allure of a short-lived SM boost burns much brighter than the hum-drum decent glow of a standard for equitable performance! Thanks.