The Globe and Mail: An outlet for Liberal Party research stories?
The Globe and Mail has carried two stories in the last two days that depended a great deal on material delivered to them from the Liberal Party research group. The Conservatives have a similar group, but you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence of it based on published news reports. And when you look carefully, the same name comes up over and over again whenever that paper is the first to report on news friendly to the Liberal Party -- Mark Dunn.
Guess what? Mark Dunn was re-hired by the Liberal Party only a week ago to manage communications strategy. No wonder we're starting to see Liberal-friendly stories again.
Guess what? With new information, I've decided I was way off base with this post.
Consider this story...
Any blogger who is knows his craft has had moments when they've looked at a post, thought about it, decided it was weak (and maybe wrong depending if there was more to the story), but then posted anyway.
Most of the time, I avoid that last step, but in this particular case, I didn't and now I ought to set the record straight.
When I wrote this story the first time, I almost spiked it before publishing. The linkage was so tenuous that I thought it was untenable. But I was swayed by what others had told me, so I went against my gut instinct.
Like Gilles Duceppe, I ought to have listened to my gut more carefully.
In that post I wrote:
The Globe and Mail has carried two stories in the last two days that depended a great deal on material delivered to them from the Liberal Party research group. The Conservatives have a similar group, but you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence of it based on published news reports. And when you look carefully, the same name comes up over and over again whenever that paper is the first to report on news friendly to the Liberal Party -- Mark Dunn.
Guess what? Mark Dunn was re-hired by the Liberal Party only a week ago to manage communications strategy. No wonder we're starting to see Liberal-friendly stories again.
Why would Mark Dunn's position be significant? Because he is Gloria Galloway's husband, Galloway being the a senior political reporter for the Globe and Mail.
I tied the timing of Dunn's hiring with the emergence of Liberal-friendly stories in the paper. I didn't say that Galloway and the other reporters were somehow acting as propagandists, but suggested perhaps that the link somehow made it easier for the Liberals to deliver information to the Globe and Mail reporters, helping influence the spin.
Turns out I was off. Consider this story from 2001:
Almost all of the 50 or so MPs who made a big splash by voting no in June to a juicy pay hike have stuck their snouts deep into the public trough.
Tory Leader Joe Clark is the only MP Sun Media could find who is sticking to his guns and not taking the raise.
Chretien pockets a 42% raise, bringing his salary in line with the chief justice of the Supreme Court at $262,988.
The increases are also retroactive --meaning MPs will get back pay of roughly $30,000 while Chretien will get a cheque for a staggering $71,000.
Grit MPs signed on to the raises as fast as they were passed in Parliament, while key legislation such as child stalking on the Internet was shunted aside.
Who wrote that for the Toronto Sun? Mark Dunn.
Hardly the writing of a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal apparatchik. In fact, when Dunn was hired by the Liberals the first time in 2002 (working for Denis Coderre), Frank Magazine published this, being surprised by the move:
Dunn, a virulent neo-con and reliable mouthpiece for the CA [Canadian Alliance], was always near the head of the pack when it came time to take a bite out of the PM's heels. His dogged coverage of Shawinigate alone was enough to make poor martyred Lawrence Martin look like Jane Taber.
And I thought Dunn was a conduit for Liberal friendly stories? I can't be sure, but I think I was taking a particularly strong cold medication that day. At least I hope I was.
Gloria Galloway has also written plenty of harsh pieces taking strips off the Liberals after Mark Dunn starting working for the Liberal Party.
But here's the thing I didn't know that really changes the complexion of the piece. When the Conservatives won in 2006, Dunn applied several times to work for the Tories. The Liberals made the first offer, though, and as a hired gun, he followed the money.
A mercenary. I like mercenaries. You can trust them. They work for money. Why would Mark Dunn risk his job and his paycheque playing games with the media? A partisan would take the chance, knowing that if got caught in an embarrassing situation, he could resign and be hailed a hero by other partisans. A mercenary would look at that praise and wonder just how you would pay the mortgage with it.
I've been told Galloway and Dunn never talk business, and that if Dunn needs to talk to a Globe and Mail reporter, he makes sure it's someone else. Professionals are careful about stuff like that.
So to Gloria Galloway and to Mark Dunn, I'm sorry. Half the facts gave entirely the wrong impression to me. Worse yet, I had a feeling that I was seeing only part of the picture, but went ahead anyway. I know today I would not have done that (I can think of a half-dozen story ideas people have sent me that I rejected since the only crime the principles were guilty of was that of knowing each other). Hopefully that sets the record straight.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Globe and Mail Liberal Party Mark Dunn media Canada
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
For whatever reason the Globe pays an inordinate amount of attention to the Liberal Party.
My goodness it is a leadership campaign and it gets played out like an election with amount and placement of coverage.
Mr Greenspon is no William Thorsell....
Posted by: Stephen at October 3, 2006 12:36 PM
Wow! Simply wow.
And when people have told me that the Globe and the LPC were in bed together I always figured they were talking metaphorically.
Posted by: molarmauler at October 3, 2006 12:38 PM
It is like a big game of Monopoly and the Liberals have worked their way around the board picking up all of the railway [media] stations
They have actually spent many years "buying the media outlets with Liberal coolade"
The Tories are always going to be fighting the media, because the Libs have got them all.
Posted by: ian at October 3, 2006 12:46 PM
If the Libs ever regain power, watch for Gloria Galloway to get a Senate seat. She is one of a long line of bought and paid for "journalists".
Posted by: JL at October 3, 2006 12:51 PM
I must say this comes as no big surprise. Gloria Galloway's coverage during the last Federal election was noticeably biased with negative animus directed against the conservatives. So much so I began looking at bylines before even reading Globe articles and just skipping hers. The Globe should disclose at the foot of every one of her articles that her mortgage is paid for in part by the Liberal Party of Canada.
Posted by: murray at October 3, 2006 01:23 PM
Janke, you do paint an interesting story here, one of incestuous and sleazy relationships between Grits and media outlets. Congradulations to you on a hard job well done.
However, I am compelled to sound a negative note as well. To the degree that you're attempting to explain away or at least diminish the issue of the appointment of a long serving Tory bagman to the Alberta supreme court you're being just as disengenuous as any puff piece by Galloway or Dunn. Appointments to the judiciary are of primary importance, and any kind of low-balling there is cause for serious concern.
Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 3, 2006 01:30 PM
Eddie Greenspon spent his time here in Ottawa sucking up to every Liberal who would give him the time of day. Guess he's been mining those contacts with gusto now.
Posted by: Mr Dithers at October 3, 2006 01:37 PM
If every Liberal---or spouse of a Liberal, sometime-Liberal-fundraiser, staffer for a Liberal, and so on and so on----appointed to the judiciary were to be forced out there would be maybe three judges left in the country. For Liberals to get hot under the collar about Bruce McDonald is beyond outrageous. It shows that the Liberals still don't realise that Canada is no longer a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Party and Power Corporation.
Posted by: Patrick B at October 3, 2006 01:57 PM
i do not understand how anyone can be surprised at this....lib hack media types have been getting patronage crap for years....clarkson, wallen etal...same crap/different era
Posted by: kingstonlad at October 3, 2006 02:10 PM
Do the Desmarias (sp?) cult in quebec control Bell Globemedia and run it for the NWO?
Posted by: Real Conservative at October 3, 2006 02:42 PM
Budd Campbell: It's kind of hard for the Liberals to cry patronage when the people they are complaining about were on a short list drafted by Paul Martin... don't you think?
Posted by: Surecure at October 3, 2006 02:49 PM
Budd Campbell: It's kind of hard for the Liberals to cry patronage when the people they are complaining about were on a short list drafted by Paul Martin... don't you think?
Posted by: Surecure at October 3, 2006
I think there's something wrong here Surecure. The Prime Minister doesn't do shortlists for appointments to the Bench. The law societies draw up these lists, not the PMO.
If you're saying that MacDonald was shortlisted by his peers in the Alberta bar sometime ago, fine, that's a point in his favour. But judicial appointments were one area where Toews said he would be bringing in more stringent requirements. One wonders now what he may have meant by that!
Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 3, 2006 03:03 PM
Cotler said the list of candidates to become judges is drawn up by a seven-person independent panel, with representatives from the judiciary, the law society, and the federal and provincial attorney general's departments.
"I am involved with respect to the nomination of judges on one basis only – merit, excellence," Cotler said. "And I think if you look at the appointments, they've been excellent appointments."
Posted by: Murray at October 3, 2006 03:15 PM
Angry,
Good digging.
Now the CPC has to realize that their dirt will be front page of the Globe and Mail. The LPC has as good a digger as you except he's paid full time and sleeps with one of the most anti-CPC reporters in the country.
The solution: don't create dirt. The conservative blogosphere justly hammered Quebec judge appointments based on Liberal connections. Now is no time for the CPC to provide grist for the mill. Any prospective judges need to reviewed to see how much they contributed to political campaigns. But a fundraising chair? Way over the line! Every appointment will be reviewed in this way by the Liblogs and Liberal researchers.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at October 3, 2006 03:21 PM
Perhaps The Gloat and Wail's blatant Liberal bias partly explains why a "national" newspaper's circulation is 61% of that for the Toronto Star? (1,970,216 compared to 3,236,655 per CNA web site)
http://www.cna-acj.ca
Posted by: at October 3, 2006 03:23 PM
janke,
you RAWK!
Posted by: tori at October 3, 2006 03:57 PM
I think we are all missing the point again.
The problem with the appointments is that the Liberals still have a long list of appointees to get through and the Tories are screwing things up!
Posted by: ian at October 3, 2006 04:05 PM
My understanding is that the VP of BellGlobemedia, which owns CTV and the Globe, is the Ontario Liberal campaign manager.
Is that incorrect?
Posted by: Selma at October 3, 2006 05:10 PM
Gloria Galloway for Governor General!
Posted by: kakola at October 3, 2006 05:32 PM
No, it's a bit different, here is the bit from Bourque's
'Heard at Hy's' feature:
"By the way, did you see Charles Bird was on the Hill this week ?"
"I missed that", he shugs, as the waiter appears with two glasses of vino. He takes a long pull on his, while she sips bird-like from hers. They both nod in satisfaction.
"Tell me about Bird," he asks.
"Charles is a lobbyist for BellGlobeMedia, they own this and that, including the Globe & Mail and CTV, you know that. Well, he was up on the Hill speaking to the Ontario Liberal Caucus, giving them advice."
"Charles was giving advice to the Liberals ? Why ?"
"He's the Liberals' Ontario Campaign Chair."
"The CTV and Globe & Mail's lobbyist is the Liberal campaign chair ? Now that's cozy !"
"Indeed".
"Has Mike Duffy reported on that little gem ?"
Posted by: Selma at October 3, 2006 06:19 PM
Angry, you have done good work here.
However, was it necessary (no insult intended).
We know the Conservatives under Harper SERIOUSLY THREATEN the liberal establishment which has mis-run this country for a very long time (like, over a century). They are the modern day FAMILLY COMPACT. Good grief, even Bob Rae is a member of that Desmarais familly, as with Cretin, Martin and Strong, not to mention Desmarais.
Let's kick the bums out for good.
No more familly compacts.
Posted by: Wimopy Canadian at October 3, 2006 07:01 PM
Bell GlobeMedia is a Liberal enterprise, we can't expect much balance from it. Ivan Fecan, the CEO, is a hardcore Liberal, active in fundraising, etc, he runs the place on behalf of its owners, who are in turn Liberals.
Posted by: Hector B at October 3, 2006 08:08 PM
Angry: That is one outstanding piece of work!
Posted by: davie at October 3, 2006 08:24 PM
Well done Janke.
What annoys me about the Globe and Mail is that Greenspon struts around telling everyone that his paper is not biased, when in fact we all know it is a mouthpiece for the Liberal Party.
I have no respect for a man who cannot simply tell the honest truth.
Posted by: TJ at October 3, 2006 08:35 PM
Steven, another fine blogging effort.
Compelling reading.
Posted by: Levesque at October 3, 2006 08:45 PM
Stephen says that Eddie Greenspon is no William Thorsell, though it's Thorsell who turned the Probe and Fail into the "fag rag" by, first, a pro-gay article in the Weekend Arts' Section, then another one a few weeks later, then two, then three, then as an Op-Ed piece, etc. until the G&M had normalized gay sex and the gay agenda.
I stopped reading it on a regular basis years ago, and this new 'revelation' merely confirms my suspicions about the entitled and privileged, "let them eat cake," left/lib/fem/gay
agenda they support.
I think the wo/man in the street across Canada is smarter than this, smarter than falling for the Toronto-centric claptrap of Dunn, Galloway and company, thought time and the next election will tell...
(True confession: I was born and brought up in Toronto...)
Posted by: 'been around the block at October 3, 2006 09:57 PM
Compelling....
and rich.
Posted by: biff at October 3, 2006 10:17 PM
Re: Bell GlobeMedia - Paul Sparkes is the VP. He was also a high-ranking member of Chretien's PMO back in the day.
Posted by: Number 2 at October 4, 2006 09:28 AM
Gee, what silly fools. With all the patriotism, cronyism appontments since the spring by the unethical Conservatives,you'd think there would be better stories there - and they just keep on coming.
And, bigoted religious wackos getting key appointments - where will this all end.
Posted by: Sonya at October 4, 2006 09:45 AM
Sonya, you say "And, bigoted religious wackos getting key appointments - where will this all end."
The only bigot I detect is you.
'Last time I looked it wasn't a crime to be "religious" in Canada; in fact, we still have "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" protected in Canada and they are often connected. That means that I am free to worship as a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, or Muslim (or not worship at all), and that I am also free to talk about my faith and to look at issues from a faith perspective. In fact, a person of any integrity cannot divorce their views from their 'spiritual' perspective, whether that perspective is religious or secular.
Your view is the restrictive one.
Might I suggest that you get a life and cease and desist from your whacky and bigoted views. They're cluttering the landscape.
Posted by: 'been around the block at October 4, 2006 04:16 PM
"The Prime Minister doesn't do shortlists for appointments to the Bench. The law societies draw up these lists, not the PMO."
So, perhaps you might want to mention this to all the newspapers that are reporting how the person the Liberals are complaining about was chosen from a list of potentials that the previous government had drafted... perhaps they got it all wrong and you are right?
Posted by: Surecure at October 8, 2006 08:44 PM
 
|
|
