Author: admin

More relief for Pakistan; duped on refugees; and an e.coli scare: Get a four-minute audio summary of what's on Monday's front pages of papers across the country by clicking on the link below.

Listen!

You can also get these audio summaries automatically every day via podcast from iTunes or via an RSS feed by subscribing to my AudioBoo stream. Both the iTunes link and the RSS link are at my profile at AudioBoo.fm. Look in the top right corner of the “Boos” box.

I'm making some tweaks to my Directory of Canadian Political Twits. (Twits, by the way, is used here as a term of affection mostly because using the word Twitterers or Tweeters sounds odd.) Some notes and explanations about this directory:

• This directory does not exist in a vacuum. There are lots of great resources for those interested in Twitter and politics and media. One great example of another directory is Politwitter.ca. It aims to be a comprehensive directory and wonderful stats compiler for the whole intersection of media, politicians, political bloggers. It also includes provincial and municipal politics. My directory is more of a niche directory with a focus almost exclusively on the Parliamentary Precinct. And, to focus it even more tightly, it is not intended to be a directory for people who tweet, blog or write about Parliament Hill but rather a directory of people who tweet, blog or write from Parliament Hill. It's a directory of federal political staffers; federal government departments; foreign embassies and a guide to hashtags used by those who generated twitter feeds from Parliament Hill. This focus will be useful to some (mostly me, as the creator of it) and, I hope, to others. Other directories will be useful in different ways to others.
• Anyone's free to “declare” a hashtag and it's up to the Twitterverse to accept it or not. So please keep that in mind when I start talking here about committee hashtags. If you think I'm for the birds here, fine: Tweet your own tags. When I first declared hashtags for House of Commons committees, I simply put the # in front of the four character short form given to each committee by the House of Commons itself. But then I searched to see if, for example, the hashtag #INDU, for example, was in wide use and, as it was in wide use for some other subject, I thought I'd just stick a C in front of the four-character shortform to make it unique and so I dubbed INDU #CINDU. I now think the concern about the hashtag being unique to the committee is overblow, so I'm dropping the C and I'm going back to #INDU. If you're using an RSS feed, a Twitter list, or other method to keep track of these committee hashtags, I don't think there'll be a lot of confusion.
• Adding a few hashtags (a bit late, but better late than never) including #jaffer, #guergis and #LPCX. Suggestions for others?
• Reorganized and made lots of edits to the Hashtags and Organizations page
• Added a Twitter list I've created for “hopeful” MPs, i.e. a list of twits who are official candidates for the next general election. I'm open to putting more Twitter lists up here. Do you have some lists to share? Let me know.

Diane Johnson in a review essay “The Marrying Kind”:

By the time they’re forty, 84 percent of American women have been married, a higher percentage than in other Western nations; and more than half (54 percent) of marriages will have broken up within fifteen years. About the same percentage of “cohabiting relationships” will have broken up even sooner. Americans divorce more often than others do and have more partners, more children out of wedlock, and more abortions.

Along the way, a total of 90 percent of women, almost all of them, will have one partner or more during their lives, and some many, many more …

Tamils taken; Shania and a death in the political family: Get a four-minute audio summary of what's on Friday's front pages of papers across the country by clicking on the link below.

Listen!

You can also get these audio summaries automatically every day via podcast from iTunes or via an RSS feed by subscribing to my AudioBoo stream. Both the iTunes link and the RSS link are at my profile at AudioBoo.fm. Look in the top right corner of the “Boos” box.

Reporters Without Borders today released the following open letter to the folks behind Wikileaks

Open letter to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: ‘‘A bad precedent for the Internet’s future’’

Julian Assange
Founder
Wikileaks

Dear Mr. Assange,

Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organisation, regrets the incredible irresponsibility you showed when posting your article “Afghan War Diary 2004 – 2010” on the Wikileaks website on 25 July together with 92,000 leaked documents disclosing the names of Afghans who have provided information to the international military coalition that has been in Afghanistan since 2001.

Wikileaks has in the past played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror. Last April’s publication of a video of the killing of two employees of the Reuters news agency and other civilians by US military personnel in Baghdad in July 2007 was clearly in the public interest and we supported this initiative. It was a response to the Obama administration’s U-turn on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. The White House broke its word in May 2009, when it defied a court order and refused to release photos of the mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks.

Defending yourself, you said that it was about “ending the war in Afghanistan.” You also argued that: “Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future.” However, the US government has been under significant pressure for some time as regards the advisability of its military presence in Afghanistan, not just since your article’s publication. We are not convinced that your wish to “end the war in Afghanistan” will be so easily granted and meanwhile, you have unintentionally provided supposedly democratic governments with good grounds for putting the Internet under closer surveillance.

It is true that you said that “a further 15,000 potentially sensitive reports” were excluded from the 25 July mass posting, that they were being “reviewed further” and that some of them would be released “once it was deemed safe to do so.”

Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.

Reporters Without Borders has for years been campaigning for a federal “shield law” protecting sources, one that would apply not only to the traditional media but also to the new Internet media without exception. This is why we condemn all forms of harassment of Wikileaks contributors or informants – such as the recent arrest of Wikileaks researcher Jacob Appelbaum – by government agencies and immigration officials. We also condemn the charges brought against US army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the video of the Baghdad killings. However, you cannot claim to enjoy the protection of sources while at the same time, when it suits you, denying that you are a news media.

The precedent you have set leaves all those people throughout the world who risk their freedom and sometimes their lives for the sake of online information even more exposed to reprisals. Such imprudence endangers your own sources and, beyond that, the future of the Internet as an information medium. A total of 116 netizens are currently in prison in a dozen countries because of the comments they posted online. Can you image the same situation in the country of the First Amendment?

Wikileaks must provide a more detailed explanation of its actions and must not repeat the same mistake. This will mean a new departure and new methods.

We look forward to your reply,

Sincerely,

Jean-François Julliard
Reporters Without Borders secretary-general

Clothilde Le Coz
Reporters Without Borders representative in Washington DC

Superbug threat; Tamils have TB and stolen love letters: Get an audio summary of what's on Thursday's front pages of papers across the country by clicking on the link below..

Listen!
You can also get these audio summaries automatically every day via podcast from iTunes or via an RSS feed by subscribing to my AudioBoo stream. Both the iTunes link and the RSS link are at my profile at AudioBoo.fm. Look in the top right corner of the “Boos” box. <

Earlier today, I wrote that journalist Andrew Coyne is among the 22 invitees to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's off-the-record two-day “summer policy retreat”. My friend, Paul (Coyne's colleague), thought this was laughable, that this was the pot calling the kettle black: Coyne is advising the finance minister; I gave some presentations to the campaign schools organized by the Manning Centre for Democracy.

Some readers and some of my Twitter followers also chimed in suggesting that, at the very least, I had some questions to answer.

I am happy to oblige.

And, at the end of this you will have to come to one of three conclusions:

1. Both Coyne and I are in danger of violating a journalistic bond or trust.

2. You shrug your shoulders because you see no foul in either instance.

3. You concede that there is a difference between's Coyne's circumstance and mine and assess each one accordingly.

I think the two circumstances are different but I'll present what I see as the facts of the matter here and trust that you will provide your judgement (or further questions) in the comment section.

On Coyne:

Coyne, the national editor for Maclean's, is the only journalist to attend this year's event but not the only only journalist to attend one of Flaherty's annual summer retreats. There was one other: business journalist Andrea Mandel-Campbell was among the invitees in Year 1. The Finance Department says that while academics are provided financial assistance to cover their travel costs, everyone else is there on their own dime. The sessions are off-the-record or, to be more precise, held under the Chatham House Rule: You can talk about what was said but you just can't attribute what was said to a participant.

I sent a note to Coyne telling him I was covering this meeting and asking him what his role might be.

He wrote back to say, “I imagine my role is the same as everyone else's: to listen to the other participants, and to offer my own views. Plus I might write about it, if it seems worth it.”

I followed up with this question: “Is it not a little problematic that a journalist who writes and reports on federal fiscal policy — and who plays a significant role in shaping federal government coverage for a national newsmagazine — is participating in an off-the-record roundtable designed to provide policy advice to the finance minister?”

To which Coyne replied: “I thought about it, but I don't think so. Journalists are briefed off the record all the time, by department officials. In this case, the “off the record” sources aren't even department people, but academics and business people. I can quote them, I just can't name them. My “advice,” on the other hand, is not off the record. Whatever I say at the roundtable will be exactly the same advice I would offer in my column, and I'm happy to share it with anyone who asks. (I'll give you a hint: cut spending.) And it will, I trust, have exactly the same influence on policy as it always does, ie none whatever. (See, for example, my last five budget screeds.)”

I wished him luck in changing Flaherty's mind and that's all I know about Coyne's circumstances with the policy retreat.

Me and the Manning Centre:

I am often invited — and often accept — invitations to give presentations to any number of groups. Sometimes I solicit an invitation, if it's a group I'd like to speak to. I invariably speak about my business, that is, the business of being a journalist. I talk about how we're using social media, how the news business is changing, how decisions get made in a newsroom, and so on. About two years ago, when I noticed the Manning Centre for Democracy was putting on a series of campaign manager schools across the country, I pitched them on the idea of making a presentation at these events. My presentation would describe how reporters at outlets large and small, at broadcast and at print outlets, view politicians and reporting on politics and how we go about our job. The Manning Centre agreed with the idea. We agreed upon an appearance fee and that the Centre would cover my travel expenses to these events, which happened in Edmonton, Toronto, Victoria and Ottawa.

There is certainly no doubt that the Manning Centre is a philosophical home to small-c conservatives. It's founded by Preston Manning, after all. And many of its staff take leaves of absence during any number of election campaigns to work for Conservative, Progressive Conservative, and Wild Rose candidates.

But there was no political litmus test for attendance at these schools. Anyone who wanted to pay the fee (a few hundred bucks) was welcome to attend the whole weekend-long school. (My presentation lasted about two hours). And if a reporter wanted to attend my presentation and report on the proceedings, they were free to do so. Indeed, at the Ottawa event, Kady O'Malley, then with Maclean's and now with CBC and Julie Van Dusen, (I believe), now and always with CBC, attended my presentation. Kady live-blogged it and you can review her reportage on what I said here.

What Kady and Julie saw was the same presentation used elsewhere.

The whole thing, at my insistence, was on the record.

Who attended these events? The Ottawa one had a good turnout — about 150? — but the others had 30-50 people. Certainly, people who identified themselves as federal Conservatives were there but no elected federal politician attended any of my sessions. Based on discussions with the organizers and with participants, the majority were campaign managers, organizers, and the odd candidate for municipal councils or provincial elections. There were Green Party candidates, independent mayoral candidates, Wild Rose candidates and, in the B.C. session, some provincial NDP campaign managers. If there were any members of a provincial or federal Liberal party present they did not identify themselves as such to me. But Liberals, like any person, were certainly welcome to attend.

So why do this? This is from Kady's live-blog:

“i'm independent,” David assures the crowd — he's not advocating for any particular party, but he *does* think that Manning Centre is doing something worthwhile in its efforts to get more people interested in politics. (An opinion I share, by the way…

I'll expand on that point. One thing which Manning gets credit for, across all party lines, was his ability to mobilize grassroots voters, to get people who had often never been interested in politics, interested in politics. As I say at that outset of these presentations, politicians and political reporters have the same problem: Fewer and fewer Canadians are interested in politics — lowest voter turnout ever in the last federal election — and stories on TV or in the newspaper about politics are generally shunned by news consumers — I've seen the minute-by-minute ratings.

So if I can explain to political organizers what it is journalists do, I'm hopeful (and probably a bit naive) that we may find ways to do a better job of telling political stories that news consumers find compelling and interesting. So my presentation consisted of discussing who does what in a TV newsroom, in wire agency, in a large print newsroom and in a small print newsroom. I walk through a scrum on Parliament Hill (a Helena Guergis, scrum as it turns out, held in front of Parliament the day after her husband Rahim Jaffer was arrested) and explain why the journalists do what they do in a scrum. I talk about how stories get selected. I answer questions.

This presentation was not, I should point out, a discussion of how any one particular party ought to get elected nor, in any presentation I give, do I advocate for any particular policy position. Indeed, as my friend Paul also said once, I am “politically hard to pin down” and I'm rather proud of that reputation.

And I have given this presentation or a variant of it to public relations firms, industry associations, lobbyists, universities and colleges and to groups of government bureaucrats. Last year, for example, the communications bureaucrats at Industry Canada held a professional development day and I made a variant of this presentation to them, talking to them about the shifting media landscape, the rise of social media and who these changes were affecting the way we were reporting on the federal government in the hope (again, perhaps naive) that these government communicators would do a better job responding to journalists and helping us find information for our stories. (Kady O'Malley, incidentally, also made a presentation to this group after mine though I was unable to stay and listen to hers.)

I am a believer that journalists ought to do more to 'drop the veil', if you will, which often shrouds our profession and causes some readers and viewers to be frustrated about what they see and don't see in the news. Telling those who want to know how the sausage is made is good for the state of journalism. And whether your business is selling computers, campaigning for a rainforest, or volunteering on a political campaign, I would be pleased to give you, too, some insight into the minds of the journalists you will inevitably meet while engaging in those activites. The phone lines are open …

So there you have it. Judge away.