Are Laytonistas and CBC Supporters The Same People?

There is a genuine and rarely seen phenomenon occurring in Toronto right now: the extraordinary public expression of loss for a politician who the media often dismissed as a left wing Don Quixote.

In the streets of Toronto today, I saw dozens - maybe hundreds of people teary-eyed, emotional, speaking fondly of the late NDP leader. Thousands are lining up to pay their respects at City Hall where Jack Layton's body is lying in repose.

Saturday afternoon, a state funeral is planned for Roy Thompson Hall, Toronto's premier concert venue. Several thousand are expected, with a spillover crowd to be accommodated in a nearby park and inside the capacious CBC atrium.

Historically, in English Canada, the electoral success of the NDP was always marginal. After every election, NDP leaders would talk about how being in third place was a "moral victory."

Jack Layton changed that in the last election by garnering enormous support in Quebec. But his popular vote in English Canada, while slightly improved, was unchanged from the traditional low to mid teens. It was the landslide in Quebec that vaulted the NDP into second place with 26% of the popular vote and the role of Official Opposition in Ottawa.

So why this public keening for a leader who, while well-liked, was never really popular enough to win big?

The chalk graffiti around Toronto City Hall tells the story: I think Canadians in general and Torontonians in particular are seeing the death of Jack Layton as symbolic of other losses:

A loss of municipal social cohesion as a right wing mayor, Rob Ford is a distinctly odd representation of a city that always prided itself on its progressive values.

A loss of a national figure able to articulate the higher social aspirations of its citizens. Gay rights, public services, bike lanes -  Layton espoused all the elements dear to the left.

Canadians may not have voted for him, but they were glad he was there. He was a contrast to Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper who is unable to articulate much passion or vision at all.

And without acknowledging it, Layton's departure represents a threat to another national institution - the CBC.

It may trouble upper management at the public broadcaster, but the people who are mourning Jack Layton are exactly the same people who would - given the right circumstances - speak out against the decline of the public broadcaster. If CBC management understands this, they are unwilling to acknowledge it.

There is a certain Princess Di quality to all of this: the loss of someone who embodied a certain view of the people. The acres of graffiti at City Hall are an expression of a build up of a mass emotionalism - bordering on hysteria - which as in England, the powers that were, could not understand.

Back in 1997, the BBC missed the story for days, and eventually, it was the public's demand for a deeper and more intense media treatment that forced the BBC to cover the story differently. And better.

The CBC (and the other national networks) also missed the intensity of public response at the beginning. They are now in full official mourning mode and covering every aspect of this extraordinary public expression.

The sense of loss in the streets of Toronto remains palpable and powerful, and that is what is driving the coverage now.

Jack Layton's Obit: An Excuse for Bashing Leftwing Bias in the Media?

The outpouring of sadness and regret for the death of NDP leader Jack Layton has been remarkable. Layton was a unique politician, a man of the left whose integrity and passion for the working class was in the best tradition of English Canadian socialism.

Less remarkable is the nasty and mean-spirited attacks by The National Post and Sun Media. It's too soon for them to attack Layton as they did when he was alive. So they are going after the other media and especially the CBC, mostly for its alleged socialist tendencies dressed up as eulogies.

Now there may have been a few reporters who got caught up in the emotion of the story. And not all of them were on the CBC.

But the story is almost entirely emotional and has plenty of pathos. Consider these elements:

• Layton was only 61.
• He just ran the most effective campaign in Canadian political history. 
• He wiped out the separatist vote in Quebec, pulling it almost entirely to the NDP through a combination of his own charm and the idea of social justice - still a major draw in French Canada. 
• He pushed the Liberal Party into third place. 
• He made the NDP the Official Opposition in Ottawa for the first time in Canadian history.
• He died before he could realize his political ambitions for himself and the party.

Those are compelling story lines for any newsroom.

Layton had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and just before the election was called, he had a small fracture in his hip that required surgery. Despite those ailments, he ran a brilliant campaign. Three weeks ago he called a news conference to announce that "another" cancer - never identified - had been found.

So his death was sudden but not unexpected. But it had all the hallmarks of a great journalistic drama. If you were to write a focus statement about Layton's death, it had all the emotion necessary. And Canadians always have enormous sympathy for an underdog, especially when he dies unexpectedly.

Terry Fox is also a similar sort of national hero. He was the one-legged cancer victim to tried to run across the country but died en route. Canadians identify intensely with Terry Fox and I think they will with Jack Layton as well.

Has the media been pro-Layton? Well, yes. The media has also been given a story that has enormous emotional potential. It is, at the same time, sad and ironic. And that fits the national psyche better than any nasty tone that some media are trying to evoke.

More Accountability = Less Privacy?

I received an email from a young woman who made a mistake. She was arrested and charged with breaking and entering. The charges were dismissed, and the local newspaper wrote it up.

She has asked my advice re: her local newspaper's refusal to remove the story from the website. She is convinced this story will damage her employment prospects.


I'm repeating our exchange (but removing any identifying features). I think this is fairly typical of how our media are contributing to a rapidly but inevitably changing concept of privacy. I'd be interested in how others regard this young woman's dilemma and what responsibility does the newspaper have in this case.

Here is her email:

Dear Mr. Dvorkin,

I am writing to you because I need help. I was arrested back in (xxx) of this year for B&E. It was a stupid mistake and more-or-less a case of "curiosity killed the cat" - and what was supposed to be the night of my going away party, gone wrong. The charges have now been cleared and my issue is with a online news source - ......

I have contacted ...... regarding the police brief report they posted on their website which included my name and the charges. The article is now archived and when someone searches my name on Google, it is one of the hits that comes up.

Long story short, I made a really stupid mistake. I am a recent graduate of a... program from ... College. I worked hard for 3 years in the program to graduate at the top of my class with a 3.95GPA. I've also worked hard building a reputation for my photography work and have done many Pro Bono gigs for non-profits and small businesses. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not a criminal and I've worked hard to get where I am.

I am writing to you to ask your advice. I have contacted the news editor, ..., as well as three other people within the ..... organization regarding my name in the archived article. I am now working for one of the largest law firms in Canada, and I don't want my name showing up under the police briefs when someone searches my name.

I've asked that they either remove the article, or edit the article to remove my name. I was told that this is public information and ... would not edit the article; however, ... did update the article to reflect the charges have been dropped (moving google priority in the search up and making things worse). I don't understand why ... will not edit the archived article - it brings no additional traffic to their site and provides serious consequences for myself.
After getting no results with the editor, I contacted three other people from the organization, all of which told me I would have to resolve the issue with (the editor).

Please help me. I know the information is public, but it's a matter of ethics and the repercussions the article has had, and will continue to have, on my reputation. I've done two days in jail, 2 months of bail conditions, lost out on a $400 train ticket, and have racked up $2,900 in lawyer fees and $500 in charges already because of this ordeal - not to mention the emotional stress. I want to be able to move on without having to worry about this article.

Please, any information or guidance you can provide me regarding this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Signed.


Here is my response:

Dear Ms. .....,

I appreciate the dilemma and the frustration that you are facing. But I think that
overall, the online paper has been correct in not "unpublishing" the story.

News ombudsmen and media ethicists have wrestled over this
one ever since news organizations started posting everything on the internet.
Now that Google and Yahoo can aggregate everything in perpetuity, the question of
privacy has become everyone's dilemma. Recently, Kathy English, public editor at
the Toronto Star weighed in -
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/publiceditor/article/1029335--english-the-long-half-life-of-news

When you say "I don't understand why ... will not edit the archived article - it brings
no additional traffic to their site and provides serious consequences for myself",
you are missing the point. The issue here is not monetary. It is about the role of the media as a reflection of society.

If (....) did this for you, one could legitimately ask, "who else are they doing it for?"

As a general principle, the public's right to know should trump the need for privacy. Should it
in every case? There are always exceptions especially for people who are not in the public eye.

Should it in yours? As you say, you made a mistake that most people would say was
simply an instance of youthful foolishness and hijinks. Do you deserve to be punished beyond what is reasonable? Most people would say no, since your academic record and history of civic engagement seem to be exemplary.

However we live in an era where there is less privacy and more scrutiny.
In your case, the news organization did the right thing by noting that the charges
were dismissed. In addition, the new information is prominently displayed at the top of the story.
 
I sense your discomfort, but you can't have it both ways: the record has been
corrected; and at the same time, the record is now more evident.

If it is any consolation, in looking for your name on the (....) website, it was not readily apparent. Also when I did a search for your name on google, your usual social media links were shown. Nothing about the event in question.

My guess is that a prospective employer would have to dig fairly deep 
to be able to make the connection.

The consequences of your actions are probably minimal; the real consequence is that
you will have to live with uncertainty.

I wish you well, but I can't say that this has been handled incorrectly.

There is one other way you might proceed, which is to contact the Ontario Press Council
http://www.ontpress.com/ and see if they might advocate for you. Their executive director is Don McCurdy and his email is donmcc@sympatico.ca.

Signed.

Lament for a Notion: On The Further Hollowing Out of the CBC

In Toronto's media circles, the subject of the CBC can still come up over coffee and beer, but not as often, or as passionately as it once did.

An exception to that was a posting by Tim Knight who excoriated CBC TV's nightly newscast for its over the top coverage of the recent royal visit and the minimizing of the end of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. I thought it was a timely critique.

Located on a lively website called J-Source, Tim's essay was powerful, as were the comments which evoked many strongly felt positions, some opposing, but most in support. It was heartening to read that the public broadcaster could still summon up those feelings. Tim's lament combined with a similar piece from a young tv reporter for CTV, Kai Nagata who quit the private broadcaster for reasons similar to Tim's. This generational bookend of media criticism is worth noting, given the state of television journalism in Canada right now.

But as Howard Bernstein writes in his blog, it may be too little, too late as the CBC continues down the path toward the "unbearable lightness of broadcasting." Howard notes that even longtime supporters of the CBC in Atlantic Canada (a traditionally strong region of pro-CBC sentiment) are now suggesting that it may be time to sell it off.

In the midst of all this is Sun Media - the so-called Fox News North which obsesses nightly about the CBC. Recently, a federal cabinet minister Vic Toews attacked the CBC for its refusal (correct in my opinion) to broadcast the names of suspected war criminals in Canada.

Sun Media picked up on that theme to hammer the CBC once again.

While attacks on the CBC from elements in the Conservative government are not unusual, what was disturbing was how the minister described the CBC as the "state broadcaster" and not the public broadcaster. This assumes that the CBC must behave as a government propagandist and not as the BBC-modeled independent agency that it is supposed to be. Nor did I see a press release from the CBC correcting the minister for his "error". As I mentioned a few months ago, the CBC ignores this phenomenon at its peril.

Sun Media is having an effect. CTV now actively planning to create a program or two that will be all bloviating and little reporting to try to shift some of that market over to its side of the media fence.

When that happens, what impact will that have on the CBC? The public broadcaster now increasingly tends to follow trends rather than set them, as it once did.