Layton retreats from "stand up" challenge to Liberals

Jack Layton in BC

Does Jack Layton want an election?

Last spring, it certainly seemed that way. As his caucus voted against the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in one confidence vote after another, Mr. Layton and the NDP taunted Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals for propping up the Tories.

They even took out radio ads that challenged Mr. Ignatieff to “take a stand” and defeat the government.

But now, as MPs prepare to return to the House of Commons Monday and with the Liberal declaration that they will no longer support the Tories and will indeed push for an election at the first opportunity, Mr. Layton's springtime ardour to “stand up” to Mr. Harper has changed.

“I think some Canadians are going to be looking for a new direction,” Mr. Layton said in an interview with Canwest News Service and Global National. “There's two ways we can get it: either by Mr. Mr. Harper working with other parties to establish a new approach on some key issues — that's what we're offering — or by rattling the cages and trying to take us off into an election.”

Mr. Layton has been here before … [Read the rest]

I took the picture on the left during the 2006 campaign. I left the Vancouver debates that year for a week with Layton. While other leaders jetted off in their campaign planes, Layton took us on ferry ride from Vancouver to Nanaimo — and the late November weather was perfect. This snap was taken on deck of the ferry as we were leaving Horseshoe Bay.

PR Types: Why do you bury the lede in your releases?

Press release writers have it tough, I imagine: Clent/boss wants to you to 'sell' the project, attract the interest of journalists so we'll write stories about the project, and, oh yes, get the bigwigs names up as high as you can. It's that last one that drives me nuts personally. I give you this release, issued earlier this month by Canada Economic Development for Quebec Region:

Sainte-Ursule, Quebec, August 6, 2009 Acting on behalf of the Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of State for Canada Economic Development, Jacques Gourde, Member of Parliament for LotbinièreChutes-de-la-Chaudière, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, today joined Jean-Paul Diamond, Member of the National Assembly for Maskinongé and Parliamentary Assistant to the Ministre des Affaires municipales, des Régions et de lOccupation du territoire, acting on behalf of Laurent Lessard, Ministre des Affaires municipales, des Régions et de lOccupation du territoire, in announcing …

… You've lost interest, by now, in the rest, haven't you?

Now, really, Mssrs. Lebel, Gourde, Diamond and Lessard must surely be reasonable gentlemen and recognize how silly they all look in insisting their names and titles lead off this relatively routine funding announcement?

Despite early hot flashes of economic recovery, expect long, slow climb back: CIBC

CIBC Capital Markets chief economist Avery Shenfeld cautions that, though we may see some big growth numbers in this early stage of economic recovery, we shouldn't be deceived: It's going to be a slow climb out of the depths [PDF]:

While a North American recovery is indeed beginning to build, it will be a while before we have a clear picture of its strength and durability. The first leg of growth could prove a bit hotter than suspected, at least stateside. With government stimulus in the US kicking in just as manufacturers restart production to rebuild inventories, American third quarter growth could top 3%.

To some, that could look a lot like a “V” shaped rebound we’re all hoping for. But the true measure of success will be just how quickly private sector final demand is coming back, after stripping out the one-time boosts coming from inventory rebuilding, cash for clunkers, first time homebuyer grants, and tax cuts. If, as we expect, the fragility of the US household sector and a still-strained financial system keeps private sector demand on a lackluster track, what looks at first glance like a “V” might be better pronounced like a “U”, with a longer wait for sustained brisk growth to return.

Canada's Biggest Twits V 2.1

Still compiling a list of Canadians who have attracted the greatest number of followers on Twitter. I'm going on faith here that someone is telling the truth if they enter a Canadian address in their Twitter profile but I'm not including those who use only a pseudonym. With that, here's the Top 20 at August 13, 2009

  1. Jason Sweeney – 689,940
  2. Matthew Perry – 120,236
  3. Justin Bieber – 107,749
  4. William Shatner – 106,246
  5. Nathan Fillion – 101,913
  6. John Chow – 57,417
  7. Walter Apai – 55,989
  8. Pamela Anderson – 54,459
  9. Sharon Hayes – 39,779
  10. Scott Stratten – 36,596
  11. Marc Mawhinney – 34,632
  12. Amber MacArthur – 33,114
  13. Tara Hunt – 27,988
  14. Cory Doctorow – 26,749
  15. Lucy Izon – 25,574
  16. Anita Fiander – 25,109
  17. Daniel Negreanu – 24,345
  18. George Stroumboulopoulos – 21,768
  19. Alanis Morissette – 20,578
  20. Jessi Cruickshank – 19,744

Please send me info if you've got a Canadian flavoured Twitter account that break into this list.

V 2.1 current at Aug 14, 1400 EDT


Announcing & Explaining My Album Art Emporium

Three Johns Brainbox Kirsty MacColl Kite 19 Hot Country Requests
Discomania Golden Treasures George Jones
Television's Greatest Hits Vol. II James Gang 20 Golden Number Ones
Mamas and the Papas Max Webster Jack Jones Bewitched

I may have mentioned somewhere along the way here that, for Christmas, I received a USB turntable to begin the task of digitizing all the vinyl records I've got kicking around the basement. Turns out you don't need a USB turntable to do that – you're regular turntable will do just fine with the right software and a $10 'Y' adapter (you want two RCA females to 1 'mini' male) from your local electronics retailer.

But as I digitized the music and tossed that into my iTunes library, I realized how attached I'd become to the album art, the gatefold sleeves and the good-old-fashioned 'bigness' of vinyl. Those who grew up buying vinyl records will know the tactile pleasure of spending hours in a record shop flipping through stacks of vinyl.

I'm not going to be able to digitize that tactile sensation but I can digitize the album art. So that's what I'm doing with “David Akin's Album Art Emporium“. I soft-launched this via Twitter in the spring but I figure I've got enough content up there for this (slightly firmer but still soft to the touch) blog-launch.

As I note on the site:

“I began digitizing my vinyl record collection in 2008. For many records, various online services would automatically retrieve album art and other information once I'd dumped the digitized files into iTunes. But in too many cases, the information was either absent, incomplete, or substantially different from the original vinyl. So with the help of a digital camera and some image editing software, I'm digitizing the album art as I digitize the actual music. This site contains the digitized album art. (There is no digitized music or links to digitized music here so you can just move right along if that's what you're looking for.) “

The home page for the site contains thumbnails and links to the 48 most recent additions. There's three indexes – one each for pop, jazz, and classics. And, to top it off, I've got a hand-crafted, home-made RSS feed you can pick it up for whatever's next.

It will remain a work in progress. Here are thumbnails (left) of some recent additions ..

Canada's Biggest Twits

I've been looking high and low for Canadians — individuals or institutions — that are attracting a lot of attention on Twitter or Facebook. Jason Lamarche tipped me to a list compiled at Twitterholic but it's crap because it's missing a whole pile of Canadians (including me who, with 1,200 plus tweeps would make Twitterholic's top 200 list). (That's not Jason's fault, of course, and I appreciated him drawing my attention to it.)

So, it looks like good, old-fashioned gumshoe work will be required here to find the Canuck with the biggest social media draw. Let's limit it, for now, to Twitter and to people who use a first and last name. Here's the Top 20, with tweeps (Twitter followers) current as of Aug 10, 2009:

  1. Jason Sweeney – 675,618
  2. William Shatner – 104,772
  3. Nathan Fillion – 101,272
  4. Justin Bieber – 99,343
  5. John Chow – 57,417
  6. Walter Apai – 55,989
  7. Pamela Anderson – 53,405
  8. Sharon Hayes – 39,779
  9. Scott Stratten – 36,473
  10. Amber MacArthur – 33,027
  11. Tara Hunt – 27,988
  12. Cory Doctorow – 26,749
  13. Lucy Izon – 25,574
  14. Daniel Negreanu – 24,345
  15. George Stroumboulopoulos – 21,452
  16. Jessi Cruickshank – 19,522
  17. CBC News Top Stories – 18,780
  18. Prime Minister Stephen Harper – 17,312
  19. Nia Vardalos – 16,432
  20. Terry Allison – 15,048

Please send me info if you've got a Canadian flavoured Twitter account that break into this list.

Last updated: Aug 11/2009 at 1942 Ottawa time

What Canadian is drawing big social media crowds?

Help me out, if you can with this:

Actor Rainn Wilson, who is wonderful as Dwight on The Office, has more than 1.2 million people following him on Twitter. Oprah has 2 million. Late night talk show host has 2 million tweeps.

That's the U.S.

What about Canada?

How are Canadians or Canadian institutions doing when it comes to drawing big crowds on Twitter, Facebook or other social media platforms? I don't think we've really hit that mass inflection point yet. Comedian Rick Mercer, for example, has only about 7,000 tweeps or followers and a little better than half that when it comes to Facebook friends. David Suzuki has something north of 10,000 tweeps. But do we have anyone in this country cracking 100,000? How about 50,000?

To put things in perspective: The national network newscasts I've worked for, earlier at CTV and now at Global National, can pull in 1 million on a real good day, but are usually hovering between 700,000 and 900,000 viewers per show. A top-rated show television show in Canada — American Idol, let's say — will do better than 2 million viewers. The Toronto Star, the country's biggest daily newspaper, is selling about 350,000 copies a day. That would be your mass media benchmark.

Ottawa Public Library's new hits: "The Going Down Guide" and the "Anal Sex Position Guide"

My favourite bit in this morning's Ottawa Citizen:

Ottawa is buying explicit sex instruction books for its public library because they have good information written by respected authors and some people want to read them, says Ottawa's chief librarian.

Barbara Clubb was responding Wednesday to a complaint about three new books on order at the Ottawa Public Library.

“We have a very broad collection,” said Clubb, noting that generating controversy is “part of operating a public library and has been for centuries.”

The three books spurring the complaint are all published this year: The Anal Sex Position Guide, which features a picture of a couple apparently in the act on the cover; The Going Down Guide; and The Sex Instruction Manual.

The city's chief librarian noted that books on sex are “very popular” with borrowers in Ottawa.

Click through for the full story —

Ok, @stratosphear, you are so unblocked … Or Bloggers Vs MSM, Part 82

[UPDATE: Note that, at the time this post first appeared, I was the National Affairs Correspondent for Canwest News Service, which has since become Postmedia News]

First things first: @stratosphear, you are free to follow me!

And, cuz I’m on holiday with not much else to do but sit in my basement in my pajamas and blog, can I go over your latest post? It reads well but either I phrased some things poorly last time out or you’re trying to pick a fight with a guy who’s mostly nodding his head:

Lacking the research capability of, say, Canwest or a political party – despite the impression you might have gotten from @phil_mccracken1 and others of the lunatic fringe, I do not receive my orders from Michael Ignatieff – I only have my faulty intellect on which to base my assertions. So please 1) ignore any factual claim I may have made and 2) replace with the following factual claims (which are presumably better since they’re not “tainted” by my partisanship):

Partisanship does not taint any opinion, argument, etc. on its own. Partisanship, though, speaks to motive. Your motive or general theme, it seems to me is to show that the Conservatives are unfit to govern and that a Liberal government would be a superior one. Nothing wrong with that view — it’s one held by and applauded by millions of Canadians. Indeed, it may shortly be the majority view in this country.

I have opinions as well about what party might be a better governing party but — and you might laugh at this and think it old-fashioned — as a reporter, I think it’s important to be as independent or non-partisan as possible and so I try to keep those opinions to myself.

My mission, as they say at the top-secret organization of MSM reporters, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. To speak truth to power, and all that. When/if the Liberals are the government, I’ll be doing the same thing. But you’ll then be The Man.

Now, you’re quite right to point out that the papers I work for contain lots of columnists who believe a Conservative government is the superior one but obviously that does not mean all employees believe the same thing. I have worked at lots of papers and no editor ever gave me the ideological litmus test before hiring me. To me this is a key ground rule of our ‘debate’: I’m not seeking to show that one party or another is a better governing party. You are. Doesn’t make either of us right or wrong. But I don’t want anyone thinking that just because I’m arguing with an avowed Liberal means that I’m arguing on behalf of the Conservative (or NDP or BQ) cause. I’m just arguing cuz, like I said, I’m on holiday with not much else to do! Oh — and as for research capability: We use something called the Internet for that. Believe me: There’s no army of Canwest researchers feeding me this stuff!

   * And that article would be referenced in this piece, which notes that “since assuming power in 2006, the Conservatives have, within the broad cultural sector, very purposefully targeted arts programs for cuts, and shifted the funds to sports and multiculturalism.”

Happy now?

Well, yeah, I am. Cuz that’s different than what you first wrote. You first wrote: “the Cons count funding for Sport Canada as cultural, and the Libs did not.” That’s not what James showed and it’s just not true. Both governments count it the same way, it’s just that, as both James and I showed, the Conservatives and Liberals spent money differently. But they still account for it under the same broad terms. And when you count it up using the same methodology for both, the current government is spending nominally more than the last one.

The important point here — and I’d curious to hear your view on this — i: We spend a lot of money on stuff that some people in this country call “culture”. Many people complain that “real culture” is not getting enough while others complain that “real culture” is getting too much! Why don’t we have a debate about what it means to be a cultured Canadian?

But that’s not really the point, is it? Akin’s criticism isn’t that I’m pro- or anti-government: his beef is that, as a blogger, I’m not “independent”, I lack the oversight of an editor, hence I’m inferior to the good ol’ MSM (mainstream media). For despite his blogging and Twitter acumen – he’s the second top federal tweeter for the month of July 2009 – Akin is nothing if not a staunch defender of the MSM, threatened as it is by the the likes of little ol’ me.

No, no, no no, no, no. Please, no. If you’ve got that impression, then we have definitely got off on the wrong foot. I have been arguing long, loudly, and often that the MSM is not and should not be automatically privileged in any info-hierarchy. There is no ‘royal jelly’ that makes something published in The Globe and Mail or National Post more special than something published on a blog read by 20 people. If you make a good point, you’ve made it. Period. Where you make that point is irrelevant.

Now, it’s true that I’m a professional journalist which means I pay the bills by going out and finding something interesting going on in the world and writing about it in a way that as many people as possible find it interesting. And, because I’ve been doing this for a long time now, I’m pretty sure that I’ll continue to find interesting things and write about them in a compelling way. But this is not a zero-sum game. You, other journalists, other bloggers, etc. will also find interesting things to say and will write about them in a compelling way. There’s plenty of interesting stuff going on in the world every day. How can any of us be threatened by that? The more the merrier — and, again, that’s something I’ve been saying for a long time.

My first response is that our inferiority is debatable.

I don’t think it’s debatable at all. I’m no smarter than you are and you’re no smarter than me. We’re neither our inferiors just as we’re neither our superiors.

Where would liberals (not to mention Liberals) possibly find news coverage reflecting their values?

Oh not this canard again. Of course Liberals think the MSM is dead-set against them. The Conservatives think the same thing. If anyone’s got reason to complain it’s the NDP! They just get plain ignored by the MSM. And, are you suggesting that my reporting reflects one party’s values to the exclusion of others?

In any event, we go back to the idea that this is not a zero-sum game between MSM and non-MSM information sources. The more the merrier. Democracy is well served by having all of it. And, in fact, as others smarter than me have argued, weakening either the MSM or the ability of anyone to blog, tweet, or what have you, would weaken democracy. We need both, not one or the other. So how about this? Isn’t it kind of pointless to keep arguing if the MSM or bloggers are better/less biased/more fun/valuable? Who cares? We’re all here and we’re all staying. Move along, already!

My second response is, well, tough bananas. Akin seems to think that he and I ought to be treated as equals, and insofar as my having no training or experience, that’s rather complimentary. However, I have no paid subscribers, receive no funding; I’m not an agent of the Liberal Party of Canada so my posts and tweets don’t carry the weight of partisan officialdom. I don’t even try to compete with the likes of David Akin in terms of facts and figures.

I ain’t got any training, either. I never went to journalism school. I wanted to be a history professor or a theatre critic but got slightly sidelined. But your last line strikes me as kinda weird: Why wouldn’t you want “to compete” with me or anyone for that matter by finding new facts and figures?

In short – as the MSM is quick to point out – I’m not a journalist, and I never claimed otherwise. You can’t contend that blogs don’t count as journalism then hold us bloggers up to journalists’ standards. That’s ridiculous.

Absolutely. And, in any event, who the hell knows what these standards are these days anyhow? People don’t read this blog because it’s written by A Journalist. They read it cuz it’s interesting. People don’t read your posts cuz they’re written by A Liberal Blogger. They read them cuz they like them.

Here’s the thing: folks like English and Akin have to heed “professional journalistic standards” (though going out of one’s way to censor a columnist or argue with a Liberal blogger might not count). Bloggers don’t. We make our own standards, and I’d say mine aren’t bad, really: I try to avoid personal attacks, I post all comments that aren’t spam or highly offensive (yes, even David Akin’s), and I heed constructive criticism even if I don’t always agree. But I’m not subject to “professional journalistic standards” ’cause, well, I ain’t a professional journalist. (See, I just used “ain’t” – that proves it.)

Well, your standards sound a lot like the “professional” standards over here.

The MSM made the choice to start blogging and tweeting because the alternative – ignoring social media’s impact – might mean further dwindling sales and increasing irrelevance in the digital age. But the MSM doesn’t set the rules for anyone but itself. The blogosphere is our turf, and one reason why we bother is that we don’t have to answer to anyone. It’s a little notion I like to call freedom of speech.

I wouldn’t equate slowing revenues for media organizations with increasing irrelevance. In fact, it seems to me that there is no dimunition in the hunger for information. In fact, more people than ever want information about more things than ever. Traffic to MSM Web sites is increasing every week. But traffic goes to people who are saying interesting things. So traffic to any number of popular non-MSM sites is also increasing. Again: No zero-sum game. It’s all good. You can claim the blogosphere as “your turf” but you know perfectly well that, the whole value of the place, is that it’s no one’s turf. And you’re right: You don’t have to answer to anyone but it sure seems to have got yer goat that an MSM reporter decided to answer back to something you said on “your turf”!

So, in closing, get off our backs, oh, and incidentally I’m still right about the Conservatives and cultural spending. And don’t block me, dude. That is so not cool.

Ok, you’re unblocked. Happy travels! Dude.

At Guantanamo, Navy man accuses female reporter of sexual harrassment

The one and only time I (left) was assigned to cover a hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Miami Herald's Carol Rosenberg had been on the base for 32 days straight. I was coming in for two nights on the U.S. Naval Base to cover an Omar Khadr hearing. Though Khadr, a Canadian, has been imprisoned there for several years, there are no Canadian reporters permanently stationed there. Canadian news organizations generally send a reporter there whenever Khadr is in front of a judge.

A reporter assigned to Guantanamo for any amount of time is not exactly in for a lot of fun. Because of security concerns, reporters can travel from the media room to their tents without a military escort and can use a beach near their tents without an escort. Your tents, incidentally, are military issue: i.e. there is canvas overhead and one thin pillow under your head. The tents are air conditioned by air conditioners that are about as quiet as a jet engine. There is no television and your shower and bathroom facilities are community facilities, community in the army sense of the word. If a reporter wants to eat, shop, or go anywhere else on the island, that reporter is required to have a military escort accompany him or her. And even if you have a military escort at your side, there's not exactly a lot to do at Guantanamo.

To get to Guantanamo, reporters must travel from Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, D.C. on a U.S. military plane. On my trip down, we travelled on a cargo jet but it was military-style transport which mean we sat on canvas webs on benches in the dark on the side of the plane. The Associated Press reporter who covers Gitmo is based in Puerto Rico but when he has to get to Gitmo, he must fly all the way up to Washington to come back down on a military jet from Andrews. The Miami Herald's Rosenberg has to do the same thing: Fly to Washington so she can come back down to Gitmo. When they leave, reporters can go straight back to Miami or other destinations.

Reporters go through all of this so that they can basically be court reporters. There's not much else the military will let you do at Gitmo. The military lets reporters into the courtrooms where, often behind soundproof walls or only via closed-circuit television, a reporter can watch the military trials of those accused of various terrorism-related crimes against the United States. After the court sessions, a U.S. colonel, representing the prosecution might make himself available for questions and the defence is always available for questions. At the end of the day, you end up filing a courtroom story with a lot of legal beagles going back and forth. It makes the front page every now and again but mostly, you're writing for the back pages. And unlike court reporters back in the real world, you are not ending your day in a bar with lawyers for the defence and prosecution trading war stories and enjoying yourself. Nope. You are sober and going to your noisy air-conditioned tent all by yourself with no family or friends around so you can get up and do it all over again.

Simply put: If you're a reporter and Gitmo is your beat, life is not going to be a bowl of peaches. I'm glad I went there for a three-day assignment but, as I told Rosenberg at the time, I could not imagine spending 32 days in a row there.

I say all of that as a preface to this story, by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, about a complaint that U.S. Navy commander, Jeff Gordon, has filed with the Miami Herald against Rosenberg:

In a letter to the paper's editor, Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon accused Carol Rosenberg of “multiple incidents of abusive and degrading comments of an explicitly sexual nature.” Gordon, who deals primarily with the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison, said in the letter that this was a “formal sexual harassment complaint” and asked the Herald for a “thorough investigation.”

“Her behavior has been so atrocious over the years,” Gordon said in an interview. “I've been abused worse than the detainees have been abused.”  

Gordon was the naval officer who was my press liason during my trip to Gitmo and it was evident to me that he had a good professional relationship with other Canadian reporters who regularly attended there, like the Star's Michelle Shephard. In my weekend at Gitmo, I perceived no tension between Gordon and Rosenberg. And I don't feel I'm breaking any confidences when I say that when it was just us reporters gossiping in the media room, I didn't a hear a word from Rosenberg or anyone else for that matter about Gordon, bad or good. We just pretty much kept our heads down trying to file on deadline. I can also say that there are reporters at Canwest News Service who know Rosenberg and who have worked with her before and these reporters, whom I trust, say Rosenberg is a good egg.

So I, for one, will be interested to see how this complaint plays out.

Kurtz, in his column, waits until the last paragraph, to throw this bomb out there:

“Gordon, a career officer who joined the secretary's office under Donald Rumsfeld in 2005, is retiring early next year, an exit date that may help explain the unusually harsh nature of his complaint against a journalist.”