Author: admin

Let the seat projection silly season begin!

As all the campaigns hunker down this long weekend and prepare for the final push to election day on May 2, we are starting to see some seat projections pop up. I must confess: I find it difficult to put a lot of faith in seat projection projects simply because I believe it difficult to trust some of the underlying regional and metropolitan data upon which such seat projections are based. For example: Has anybody got a really good poll sample for Saskatchewan? I think many pundits and campaigns themselves are assuming that, except for Ralph Goodale in Regina, it's likely going to a Tory wash through that province. My gut though tells that some Conservatives are going to find themselves in some very tough battles with the NDP in that province particularly if the Liberal vote in that province collapses. If you look at vote totals in past elections for many races there, particularly around Saskatoon, the Conservatives have benefitted from coming up the middle between a split Liberal-NDP vote. If opposition to the Conservatives coalesces around the NDP, I'd say watch out …

Still, seat projections are a kind of catnip to political junkies. So with that preamble, here's a few.

The Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy has a strengthened minority Conservative government:

  1. Conservative: 149
  2. Liberal: 68
  3. NDP: 52
  4. Bloc Quebecois: 39
  5. Green/Other 0

Here's the calculations from Fair Vote Canada, which has a whopping Conservative majority and a wholesale diminution of the BQ, published this morning on the front page of The Ottawa Citizen:

  1. Conservative: 201
  2. Liberal: 53
  3. NDP: 48
  4. Bloc Quebecois: 4
  5. Green/Other: 0

Eric Grenier's (fascinating) ongoing project at ThreeHundredEight.Com also has a strengthened Conservative minority today:

  1. Conservative: 150
  2. Liberal: 76
  3. Bloc Quebecois: 45
  4. NDP: 36
  5. Green/Other: 0

For your reference here's the seat total at dissolution of the 40th Parliament:

  1. Conservative: 143
  2. Liberal: 77
  3. Bloc Quebecois: 47
  4. NDP: 36
  5. Independent: 2

Judge calls journalist "character assassin" while 22-year-old spends 2 years in jail for getting caught with 2 painkillers

The title for this blog post seemed to be the best way I could convince you to click through so that I could point you to what I think is a tremendous piece of long-form journalism by Ira Glass of the radio program This American Life. Earlier this year, Glass aired a major investigative piece into the “drug court” of Superior Court Judge Amanda Williams (left) in Glyn County, Georgia.

I don' think we have “drug courts” in Canada (please, reader, enlighten me if we do though We have them here in Canada too, readers write to tellme, and they are experimenting with them in the UK) but the premise here is that those accused of drug offences can choose to go through the system the old-fashioned way where they have to post a bond to get out of jail while awaiting their trial and then they face peril of being sentenced to a prison term if they are convicted. Of course, they have a chance at a “not guilty” verdict and have built-in appeals processes and the U.S. Constitution which, presumably helps with a fair trial. The “old-fashioned way” also does not provide built-in help for the offender with addiction, education, mental health and so on.

But there's another option in many U.S. counties: The drug court. There are more than 2,500 in the U.S. Here, the defendant essentially admits right off the top to being guilty and signs away rights of appeal in exchange for, the offenders hope, avoiding jail. Judges are given tremendous power and leeway all in the name of trying to rehabilitate or cure the offender of any addiction. Offenders must submit to mandatory drug testing and the court often insists the offender use all sorts of social services while in “drug court”. The approach is one supported by both parties in the U.S. and, apparently, has become an effective way to rehabilitate drug offenders and is a whole lot cheaper than incarceration.

But, as Glass reports, in Judge Williams drug court, the absence of any checks or balances on the judge's power over an offender can lead to some terrible travesties:

We hear the story of Lindsey Dills, who forges two checks on her parents' checking account when she's 17, one for $40 and one for $60, and ends up in drug court for five and a half years, including 14 months behind bars, and then she serves another five years after that—six months of it in Arrendale State Prison, the other four and a half on probation. The average drug court program in the U.S. lasts 15 months. But one main way that Judge Williams' drug court is different from most is how punitive it is. Such long jail sentences are contrary to the philosophy of drug court, as well as the guidelines of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. For violating drug court rules, Lindsey not only does jail terms of 51 days, 90 days and 104 days, Judge Williams sends her on what she calls an “indefinite sentence,” where she did not specify when Lindsey would get out.

And then there's the case of 22-year-old Brandi Byrd. She got caught by police with two Darvoset pills, a painkiller. She told police they were her mother's and that her mother had given them to her because, without health insurance, Byrd could not afford any painkillers after she had an operation to remove some pre-cancerous cells that could have turned into cervical cancer. She was charged with two felony counts – one for each pill. Darvoset is a schedule four drug under Georgia law. It's her first offense. After spending six days in jail before, Byrd is ready for her first appearance before a judge – Judge Williams.  Byrd is told by the public defender and by the drug court's drug counsellors that she will likely be sentenced to between one and five years in prison — for holding two pills — or she can sign her rights away and go into the “drug court” program Williams runs where she'll be out on the street but required to attend counselling and behave according to a strict court-supervised code of conduct. She picks drug court, finds the program a farce, violates its rules — and gets sentenced to two years in jail. Remember: Her original offence was being caught with two painkiller pills. Glass quotes one defense attorney: “I would say in most courtrooms that that would be dismissed either through an affidavit or testimony of the mother saying she gave it to the daughter.” Glass talks to a district attorney about Byrd's case: “if the person didn’t go into drug court, then it would probably be a probation case.” Judge Williams put her in the can for two years.

While you can click through to read the transcript, I encourage you to throw it on the iPod or find someway to listen to it — you need to hear Lindsey Dills, Brandi Byrd and Judge Williams in their own voices.

And even if you're part of the “tough on crime” crowd, I think you might find Judge Williams to be a little too tough on crime.

Judge Williams didn't think so, though. (And she's got a recent re-election in her county to back her claim up.) So the judge, despite repeated requests for interviews and information from Glass while he researched the story, fired off a 14-page letter [pdf] and a press release [pdf] accusing Glass of engaging in “libel masquerading as journalism.”

The judge, though her lawyer, also makes the claim that:

“Glass [left] is an admitted character assassin who’s not above using his national radio platform for partisan political purposes in the national debate about drug courts, meanwhile trashing a local official whose major offense was to succeed at helping people to get off of drugs, keep off drugs, and survive.”

It's a ridiculous claim as anyone who is a fan of Glass' show knows. His whole schtick is to be the very opposite of a character assassin. He's quiet, sympathetic and bends over backwards to avoid being judgemental. There is a certainly a narrative or a through-line to his pieces which often lead a listener to make some conclusions or judgements but the hallmark of the stories on This American Life is that there is enough those stories that you and I might reach different conclusions — and be able to have a good discussion about them based on those stories. It's precisely the reason This American Life is so widely well-regarded

So Glass writes:

Let me state here unequivocally: I do not admit to being a character assassin. Also: I am not a character assassin. Further: I have no idea what “partisan political purposes” would be in the national debate over drug courts since, as I point out in my story, both major parties support drug courts.

I point all this out in the hope that you'll take the time to first, to listen to Glass' report and then watch the rather remarkable and rare counter-attack by a sitting judge on a journalist. Glass' initial response to that attack is here.

 

Abortion and hidden agendas: Brad Trost set to be this year's Cheryl Gallant

It is just coming up to 1 a.m. in Ottawa as I write this and, out in St. John's, NF where the Conservative leader's campaign tour finds itself bedding down for the night, Dimitri Soudas, Stephen Harper's chief spokesman, has just finished a rush midnight briefing with the reporters on that tour.

Soudas called the briefing to respond to stories that appeared in The Toronto Star and Le Devoir who were given a tape recording of Saskatoon MP Brad Trost — who proudly boasts that there is no one to the right of him in the Conservative caucus — in which Trost bragged that his government had cut funding to Planned Parenthood – but couldn't yet announce that cut. When asked about the cut earlier this evening, party spokesman gave no answer. (See the story). Soudas, late in the evening, is telling reporters that no decision has been made.

It was an exquisitely timed leak — likely from Liberal sources  — to the Star and Le Devoir as, with a little over a week to go, it puts abortion into the middle of the election campaign and gives Harper's opponents the chance to yell “A-ha! So-Con Hidden Agenda!”. This tactic, unfair as it might have been, turned many female voters away from the Tories in 2006 and almost cost them that election. Now, with the Liberal campaign unable to find much traction, the old bogeyman that Harper will gut abortion access in Canada is about to be trotted out.

I say it was unfair to have done this in 2006 and 2008 for two reasons: The Conservative Party, at its first policy convention, took a grassroots decision — with a lot of yelling and screaming — that it would not touch abortion laws in Canada. Harper has said in those two earlier campaigns and has said again in this campaign that he would not take action on abortion. In five years leading a minority government he has walked the walked (for better or worse, depending on your point of view) and even voted against a private members bill from an MP in his own caucus that would have nudged the dial slightly towards the anti-abortion folks.

But in this campaign, Harper is actively and openly seeking a majority government. And with Trost now saying Planned Parenthood is not getting any funding but we can't tell you about it … well, it gives the Conservatives' opponents an easy swing at the plate: If Harper does this with a minority, what changes won't he even tell you about with a majority?

 

So the Conservatives — or rather Soudas in his midnight briefing — now have to stuff the toothpaste back in the tube because of the Trost remarks, in much the same way they tried to do so (unsuccesfully) in 2004 when Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant compared abortion to the beheading of an Iraq war hostage.

And yet: Too many politicians won't stand up for their own convictions on this issue — it's an issue that does not follow partisan lines no matter what any Tory-hater tells you — but will be quick to criticize any of their opponents who do. (Watch what happens to Trost Thursday). In the 2006 campaign, I thought it tremendously hypocritical of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin to try, at the end of the campaign he would lose, to use the abortion bogeyman to attack the Conservatives from a stage filled with several of the Toronto-area Liberal MPs who actually took fundraising dollars from anti-abortion groups. Believe me: You will find a healthy percentage of Liberal MPs who are not comfortable with abortion laws.

Of course, there are many in the Liberal caucus that believe that the right to abortion access ought to be strengthened in law. (Legal beagles will te

Meanwhile, there are many small-c conservatives in the country who wonder why it was they elected a Big-C Conservative government if not for taking action on restricting or limiting abortion. They are as frustrated as the small-l liberals who want a government that will lock-in abortion access rights.

But, as any professional politician will tell you: The issue is simply not a vote winner. It's a polarizing issue where consensus is difficult if not impossible. Kudos to Brad Trost for standing up in front of his constituents and laying it on the line. I would say the same thing to any politician who stood up to campaign as hard for the opposite view — for the simple reason that we ought to be able to find politicians who will not frankly discuss their views on these difficult, troublesome but tremendously important topics.

 

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall weighs in on the federal election and post-election scenarios

Just out from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall:

Statement from Premier Wall:

I am deeply troubled by Mr. Ignatieff’s assertion that he may choose to overturn the democratic result of the federal election.

While I understand that the scenario spelled out by Mr. Ignatieff is within the conventions of our Parliamentary tradition, the last thing our country and our still fragile economic recovery need right now is a period of instability caused by a constitutional dispute over who should be the government.

Morever, Canada is poised to solidify its position as an economic leader in a world that needs the food security and the energy security we can provide.  How can we take full advantage of this reality if we are distracted by interminable national political machinations and constitutional wrangling?

The party that wins the most seats on May 2 should be recognized as the government, period.  If that were to be the Liberals, I would join with other Canadians in accepting this result and recognizing Mr. Ignatieff as our next Prime Minister.  However, if the Conservatives win the most seats but come up short of a majority, I would expect Mr. Ignatieff and his party to accept that result.

The notion that Mr. Ignatieff may choose to not recognize the democratic result of the election and may try to seize power with the support of the other parties, including a party dedicated to the breakup of Canada, is offensive to me and I believe, to most fair-minded Canadians. Voters should choose the government, not separatist MPs.

Ironically, this election was caused by a confidence vote over “contempt for Parliament.”  I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than the spectre of a party leader refusing to recognize the democratic outcome of the election.

The no-win proposition of being a talking head

I, like all of my colleagues at Sun News Network, are now into our third day of broadcasts and, so far, for me, at least, it's been both terrifying and exciting. Startups in the media business are pretty rare and I've been fortunate to be in on the ground floor of two now: I was there at the creation when the National Post launched in 1998.

On Sun News Network, I'm hosting a show called the Daily Brief. It's a Monday-to-Friday hour-long news-and-politics show. Because we're based in Ottawa and because of our time slot (6-7 ET), I suspect there will be inevitable comparisons to CBC's 2-hour Power and Politics and CTV's 1-hour Power Play though we are trying, in terms of format and story selection, to offer viewers something a bit different.

The hosts of those other two shows, Evan Solomon and Don Martin, are both good guys — Don is a former colleague — and we've all grumbled amongst each other that some weeks there's no winning with viewers and readers no matter what you do — and all too often it's for what you don't say. Why didn't you ask so-and-so this? Why did you ignore Factoid X? I'm not complaining (and I'm pretty sure those guys weren't whenever we've mentioned this to each other). I'm just sayin' is all. And,in fact, if you're getting shot at from all sides, most journalists will tell you, you're probably doing something right.

Case in point: on Tuesday's Daily Brief , my first guest was Liberal MP Bob Rae. My last was Sun Media columnist and national editorial writer Mark Bonokoski. These two men, I think it safe to say, would likely have opposing views on any number of issues. And that's why, I think, it's great to hear from them. And in In e-mail feedback, on Twitter, and elsewhere, some viewers took issue with what each man said on the program.

But, interestingly enough, the criticism aimed at me was largely similar: I was being taken to task for what I failed to say.

Here's a representative tweet from “Joanne TrueBlue”, a Conservative blogger:

Joanne

and here's a representative tweet from Alheli Picazo, who is blogging a “(Sun) Media Watch” column at the left-leaning site rabble.ca

Picazo

Oh well. As always: Appreciate the feedback.

The Daily Brief Show Notes: Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Healthcare

Election Issues

Inflation

Public Transit and Commuting

Refugee fights deportation

Brief Word:

The Daily Brief: Show notes for Monday, April 18, 2010

Some background reading for the conversations today on the Daily Brief: Airing 6 pm ET/3 pm PT and again at 11 pm ET/8 pm PT on Sun News Network. (Find it in your dial by clicking here)

Canada's Healthcare system

Insite

B.C. Politics

The U.S. Budget Battle

Libya

Brief Word

The QMI/Leger Poll: The full details

We published the results of our latest QMI/Leger poll in today's papers.

Here's the top line numbers:

Apr17Voting

And here's some stories we ran out of this poll:

Tories hold lead while NDP surges

OTTAWA – Stephen Harper's Conservatives continue to enjoy a commanding lead among decided voters but Jack Layton's NDP is surging and, in many parts of the country, has eclipsed Michael Ignatieff's Liberals as the second most popular party, according to a new poll done exclusively for QMI Agency…

Jack's Back! Leader's popularity lifts NDP

The good news for Jack Layton: In Quebec and in every province west of Ontario, the NDP is the second most-popular party among decided voters. <the bad news for Layton: NDP support is the "softest" among all parties …

Most Canadians shrug off “Just Visiting Attacks”

…a new poll shows that the Conservative attacks appear to have had some success in key election battlegrounds but, overall, most Canadians – or 54% – think the issue is irrelevant or that Ignatieff's overseas experience is a good thing for an applicant for the job of prime minister. ..

Constitution: Oui au Québec, non au Canada

Un Québécois sur deux serait prêt à rouvrir le débat constitutionnel pour faire entrer une fois pour toutes le Québec à l’intérieur de la constitution canadienne . . .

This poll was conducted April 15 to 17, after last week’s leaders debates. Leger surveyed 3,534 respondents selected randomly from its online panel of more than 350,000 Canadians. The pollster says results would be accurate to within 1.7 percentage points 19 times out of 20 for a similar-sized group selected randomly from among all Canadians.

You can download the poll data, methodology and questions here: National Poll_Federal Election 2011_April 17 2011.pdf

The truth about the news biz is it's hard to find the truth

Please see update below regarding CBC audience numbers

In the the fall of 1998, I was part of a relatively young group of journalists and editors that, with Conrad Black's money behind us, launched the National Post. As a journalist, it was a thrilling time — being on the inaugural staff of a start-up national newspaper, going up against the established market presence of The Globe and Mail.

Of course, given Black's well-known political sympathies, all the journalists on his staff — including the two top-ranking political writers at its launch Bob Fife (now with CTV) and Giles Gherson (now working for Dalton McGuinty's government) — were dismissed by our critics and competitors that we were about to wreck journalism in Canada — precisely because Black did not have the same kind of political views of the small-l liberal media establishment in Canada. We didn't wreck journalism in Canada, of course. In fact, I'd say we made it a whole lot better.

Still, on the eve of the launch of Sun News Network, here we are again. Same kind of critics; same kind of argument.

Personally: I'm always going to root for an initiative that, like the Post, creates more jobs for journalists and, in doing so, adds to the diversity of voices and opinions.

And I'll bet that, just as the Globe and the Toronto Star became better papers in response to the new competition from the Post, I think the added Canadian competition in the all-news TV business will force the existing entrants to respond with a new game. And, at the end of all of that, Canadians will be well served by more voices, smarter competition, and more choices.

That said: It disappoints me now, as it did back in the pre-launch days of the National Post, to read “reporting” from quality news organizations about their competitors that doesn't even attempt to do the basics. Such is the case with a piece moved on the Canadian Press wire — still thought of as the gold standard for some kinds of reporting — about the launch of our news network. It's written by Bill Brioux, “a freelance TV columnist based in Brampton, Ont.” and appears to be written in about 25 minutes after he watched one of our promos. By contrast, The Globe and Mail, assigned one of its most thorough staff reporters, Steve Chase, to do a similar piece. Over at PostMedia, my former colleague and veteran business writer Kim Covert delivered what I thought was, along with Chase's piece, the most straight-up piece on our network's launch (I may disagree with some of the people they interviewed but the reporting was bang-on).

But back to the CP piece. First of all: The Canadian Press makes much of its vaunted integrity, etc., etc., as if that organization employs nothing but high priests of objectivity. In fact, CP does employ many excellent, award-winning journalists who, like most of the excellent journalists I've worked with during my career at the National Post, Globe and Mail and CTV, love a story that upsets the status quo, that challenges authority, and that asks readers to re-assess commonly-held myths. CP reporters — again, like my present and past colleagues — work hard at fairness and accuracy. But CP journalists — like journalists at any organization — have no lock on objectivity and — again, just like journalists everywhere — must subject themselves to challenges of their work by readers, viewers and other journalists. In other words, CP has its blind spots and biases just like anyone else. Most of the time, CP's excellent reporters will acknowledge shortcomings in their reporting or possible bias in sources that could influence a readers opinion. (Great case in point: Joan Bryden's recent report on the leaked A-G report: There was no shortcoming in her reporting but she let readers know, as she reported on the contents of the leak, that it came from an opponent of the government. That was important information for a reader to be able to assess the reliability of the information passed on “anonymously” to Bryden. Inspired by her example, we did the same when we received a different leaked A-G report from a supporter of the government: Report the contents – report on the source)

But in reporting on its own industry, CP has been a big bust and that doesn't reflect well on the organization or its owners. Of course, you will never hear this criticism of CP in op-eds in The Globe and Mail or The Toronto Star and I suspec that the reason for that is because those organization are CP's owners. (Sun Media likely wouldn't run criticisms of CP either for the simple reason that most readers, like it or not, don't really care. But that's another story.)

And yet, despite this reluctance to criticize CP, I can't imagine any other news organization getting away with this howler on their Web site:  “The Canadian Press serves almost every daily newspaper in Canada”. Really? Let's think about that: My company, Quebecor, is the single-largest newspaper company by circulation in the country. In a given week, 6.5 million Canadians will read one of our newspapers. Our big titles include Le Journal de Montreal, the Toronto Sun, and the London Free Press. PostMedia is the number two newspaper chain in the country. It has the National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun and others in its stable. (PostMedia claims it is the largest publisher of “paid” circulation in the country; Quebecor does not make that distinction about “paid” circulation as it publishes some 'give-away' 24 Hours titles. Either way: Quebecor and PostMedia are 1-2 or 2-1 when it comes to newspapers in Canada)

Neither Sun Media nor PostMedia run CP copy. In other words, CP does not serve either the number one circulation newspaper publisher in the country nor the number two publisher. Without National Post, Toronto Sun, the Calgary Sun and Calgary Herald, the Edmonton Journal and Edmonton Sun, the Vancouver Sun and Province, the Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Sun, the Montreal Gazette, Le Journal de Montreal , or Le Journal de Quebec (I could go on), how on earth can you claim to serve “amost every daily newspaper in Canada.”

I'd ask someone at CP corporate but it is one of the most opaque organizations in Canada's media industry when it comes to disclosing its financials or governance. Have you checked its Web site? Who runs the place? How are senior managers appointed? How much money does CP get from CBC every year? How much money does CP get from its corporate clients?

So back to Brioux's article that CP moved about Sun News Network. Sun Media left CP last summer, a departure that cost CP $7 million a year. No mention of that by Brioux.

Brioux talks about the post-debate ratings of CBC and CTV. First, CBC is one of CP's biggest clients and sources of cash. BellGlobeMedia, owner of CTV, is one of the shareholders in CP. Sun Media is not a shareholder or a customer. No mention of that by Brioux. Brioux cites great ratings CBC (and to a lesser degree CTV) got after the debates. But really, these are the relevent stats:

 

According to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, between Aug. 31, 2009 and June 6, 2010 (almost a year):

  • CNN & CNN Headline News reached 3.1 million Canadians (18+) per week with an average minute audience of 22,000.
  • CBC News and CTV News Channel combined reached 3.3 million Canadians (18+) per week with an average minute audience of 21,000.
  • CP24 reached 3.5 million Canadians (18+) per week with an average minute audience of 22,000.

UPDATE

CBC spokesperson Jeff Keay writes to provide more up-to-date numbers. From Keay:

…you appear to be using year-old and incorrect BBM data about CBC News Network.
In fact, CBC News Network is the most-watched news network in Canada, based on the latest BBM numbers (i.e. adults 18+ for the 2010/11 broadcast year Aug 30/10 – Apr 3/11):
CBC News Network had an average weekly reach of 6.2 milllion Canadians 18+. This is greater than CNN and CNN Headline News combined and greater than both CTV News Channel and CP24.

So let me emphasize: CP24, which broadcasts only in Toronto, gets more viewers that CBC's and CTV's all-news offering combined when one averages viewership out over year, which tends to smooth out one-time spikes in viewership that might come with a leaders debate or some other big news event.

So what should Brioux “the freelance TV columnist” and CP have done with this file? First, the file should have reported the corporate blindspots. Sun News Network is owned by Quebecor, which, last year, ceased purchasing Canadian Press copy which cost CP $7 million a year. Second, CP is partially owned by TorStar Corp. and BellGlobeMedia, which owns The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail, which competes with Quebecor titles such as The Toronto Sun. CP's other owner is Gesca Inc., whose chief newspaper property, La Presse, competes with Quebecor's Le Journal de Montreal.”

Then maybe Brioux, like Chase and Covert, might liked to have phoned someone — anyone! — up to ask them about Sun News Network.

Do that and then let the reader decide. Because at the end of the day, readers and viewers are always right. (And I have I mentioned that the Toronto Sun's readership is up 22% while readership of the Globe and the Star are down... topic for another day.)

 

 

Civilized debate and Sun News Network

Sun News Network will debut Monday afternoon at 1630 and, as the host of one of the network's prime-time shows (The Daily Brief airing M-F 1800 ET) on that network, I'm surprised to read that, though we've not yet aired a single minute, we are going to disappoint Antonia Maioni, a professor at McGill University, who told my former colleague Kim Covert: “I don’t think it’s going to actually raise the level of civilized debate.”

Really?

How's this for civilized debate? This evening, I tweeted a promotional video of our daytime news anchor team which features some of the excellent journalists — many of them female — who you will see on the network. The promo video was titled: “Meet the Sun News hard news team.”

Here's the “civilized debate” coming from those who've never ever seen a single minute of our programming:

David Evans, who says he fixes “PCs, homes, and psyches” from London, Ont. tweeted:

“And looks has nothing to do with it. What dogs.”

Nice.

Here's Stuart Trew, the trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians:

Stuart

Wow. The Council of Canadians. Maude Barlow's group. Even if I was mistaken that the Council of Canadians stood for advancing the cause of social justice in Canada and around the world, I'm certain that those who campaign on its behalf aren't supposed to be laughing at journalists — just because they are women.

Here's Jean Proulx, an aide to Liberal MP Marc Garneau:

@davidakin Well that looks about as appalling as I expected, Hope you're well compensated Mr. Aiken #elxn41 #FoxNewsNorth #lipgloss #garbage

I'll forgive the spelling mistake — I realize how taxing it can be to get all of four letters in a row correctly to spell A-K-I-N — but, really, are those small-l liberal ideals? I thought small-l liberals were about freedom of expression. That more voices were always better than fewer voices. The arrogance of Proulx and Maioni is precisely what animates many of those who thought it a good idea to start up this kind of network.

And I am further saddened to observe that I have watched with anger and disappointment over the years as my friends  Krista Erickson (while she was at CBC), Susan Delacourt, Gloria Galloway, Jennifer Ditchburn and many other female journalists of the Parliamentary Press Gallery were singled out — precisely becuase they were female — for a unique kind of vicious insults from right-wing “haters” in the blogosphere, on Twitter and elsewhere — simply for their journalism. I suppose I was naive to believe that such mysogny and arrogance did not exist at the other end of the political spectrum.

Antonia: How am I doing now for civilized debate?