106 responses so far ↓

• 1 Mark // Sep 12, 2010 at 11:40 pm

  I enjoyed reading that post so much. Thank you Frances!

• 2 Paul Hillsdon // Sep 13, 2010 at 12:46 am

  Amen Frances! Thanks so much for this post. It genuinely summarizes my feelings towards this whole blogging controversy and the trends with regards to this online political espionage, as well as the MSM’s reaction towards it. We are in the midst of a fascinating and significantly divisive web-based partisanship that I believe is fundamentally making history in civic politics. Interesting times indeed.

• 3 rf // Sep 13, 2010 at 7:05 am

  really great post.

• 4 Frances Bula // Sep 13, 2010 at 7:16 am

  @rf. Now that is a compliment I value.

• 5 solitary man // Sep 13, 2010 at 7:36 am

  Outstanding post, finally a voice of reason. Thank you.

• 6 Todd // Sep 13, 2010 at 7:50 am

  Yep, Frances, good insightful post from another angle.

• 7 spartikus // Sep 13, 2010 at 8:21 am

  Instead, they place their information in blogs where there are lower standards of proof. Then a second, similarly aligned blog picks it up.Then the mainstream media, in a quandary these days about all of this, feel compelled to do some kind of story, even if it’s only “blogs are reporting that …”

  Alas, this is a feature of our Brave New World, not a bug.

  Excellent post, and the meta part of it is worthy of much discussion.

• 8 Fred // Sep 13, 2010 at 8:26 am

  Good baring of the modern journalist’s soul and the burden of operating in a new media world.

  But many people seek out new media because we no longer trust old media to be fair and balanced. Way too much telling one side of a story, promoting a preferred outcome. I give you the New York times and the Toronto Star.

  They called CNN the “Clinton News Network” for a reason. CBC is horrendously biased – maybe they can finally come clean like the BBC just did and admit 50 years of pushing Left Politics.

  If it wasn’t for blogs, the UN IPCC would have gotten away with the great Global Warming Scam, if it wasn’t for blogs, we wouldn’t have heard the ADSCAM testimony live so WE could determine for ourselves what was really going on.

  Blogs serve a purpose – they fill a journalistic and information void.

  I don’t know how this will all play out, but it will be fun watching and now with blogs, being able to participate.

• 9 landlord // Sep 13, 2010 at 8:33 am

  @ Frances : “I don’t know. It doesn’t look good”.
  Damning with faint praise.
  The print and broadcast media wrote the book on deciding what to cover based on the demands of owners and advertisers (does the name Conrad Black ring a bell?). Journalistic objectivity has always been a myth. Why should blogs be any different? At least they’re not full of “stories” about celebrities or violent crimes.
  I think you’ll find that this story has longer legs than you think.

• 10 Brenton // Sep 13, 2010 at 8:58 am

  Great post. There was a really interesting article in the Atlantic about this issue, looking at conservative bloggers during the Obama election win. I’m looking for a link.

• 11 IanS // Sep 13, 2010 at 9:10 am

  Nice post.

  I see blogs such as Civicscene and Citycauces as advocates for their particular causes, rather than news media as such.

  Yes, all media has its biases and no reporter can ever be totally objective (who can be?), but the very purpose of these blogs is to advance a particular political point of view. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one doesn’t mistake them for news media.

• 12 rf // Sep 13, 2010 at 9:59 am

  I just loved the breakdown of the thought process in this post. It reminds me of season 5 of HBO’s The Wire (a geniune attempt to explain the mainstream media in a Vancouver sized town -Baltimore- dealing with civic issues. I think anyone who has not seen this series should invest some time in it. The parallels to Vancouver are uncanny).

  There’s lots of media out there but only the longtime pros still have a passion for the words, grammar, and a sense of tradition and philosophy about the profession.

  And IanS, the point is not that Civicscene and Citycaucus are objective or not. If they are funded by their parties it’s all fair game (in my opinion).
  But if Vision is funding the spin, through poorly documented untendered, uncouncil-approved, taxpayer contracts, they have crossed a line.

  The whole conversation mining for $50 an hour is pretty creepy. Does this mean that John Ross is paid by Vision, with taxypayer dollars, to dig around blogposts like this to figure out who I am and then retaliate if they don’t like it?
  Ick.
  And Ross’s explanation about the timing reminds me of one of Judge Judy’s beliefs.
  “If it doesn’t make sense, it’s because it’s probably not true”.

• 13 Frances Bula // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:01 am

  @landlord. Actually, blogs are filled with news about celebrities and violent crime, far more than news media ever were. Just not the ones you have chosen to read. No one who works in journalism says that they’ve attained perfect objectivity. But at least we try to understand what our biases are and develop some methods of making sure that we check into all information we get, not just the information that we happen not to agree with and are trying to disprove. That’s something I don’t see bloggers doing. They find a piece of info they like that happens to suits their view and they apply very little scrutiny to it. They dismiss information that doesn’t happen to suit their point of view.

  If that’s the kind of information universe you want to live in, you will have to accept, then, that bloggers whose views you utterly disagree with will put out all kinds of information that you will think is bs, but that the public will buy. It won’t always go your way.

  Finally, I would not be surprised if this story has legs. That’s why I took the trouble to write about it rather than just ignoring or dismissing it.

• 14 Frances Bula // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:03 am

  @rf. Jon Ross says he was paid to do conversation mining on completely other issues and organizations in the U.S. Again, we have no proof one way or the other because there are no specifics in the contract he was given to do conversation mining.

• 15 Morven // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:23 am

  I am encouraged and at the same time alarmed by this thread.

  But I thought Frances buried the key point in the last paragraph – that community groups working with journalists, trained in checking for certain levels of proof, could be the powerful new journalism of the future (and dare I say, the new electoral battle ground)

  Call me an incurable optimist but the very idea that our tax money possibly is being used, directly or indirectly to manage public news is distasteful. Now a political party’s own funds – that is a different matter but say so, so the auditor and the voters can tell the difference. (eg, a warning that this party political blog is being paid for by the XX party).

  To use a hackneyed old phrase from the financial industry = sunshine is a wonderful disinfectant)

  In the incurable optimist tone, I think that a reasonable minded citizen can tell the difference between a blog that is informative, broad based and serves no vested interest and the blogs that are partisan and serve only to amuse their followers. If the partisan blog masters think their breathless prose will influence the views of the greater majority, they are in my view mistaken (they are scathingly referred to as Fox populi (literary joke)).

  But if there is a whiff of scandal, then we all slow down as we drive by (as with traffic accidents).

  But hyper-partisan blogs have limited span of influence in the key middle ground.
  -30-

• 16 ThinkOutsideABox // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:34 am

  Great post Frances, the other great feature of journalism’s brave new world in the blogosphere is that unlike “yesterday’s news”, posts have a longer shelf life and make great reference material.

  Take for example the notion that the Vision-inspired smear on Randy Helten by Ross is reprehensible, I note that in comment 26 of a previous post at the following link, you state:

  http://francesbula.com/uncategorized/the-stories-behind-the-mayors-f-bomb/

  “At least one person who’s loosely affiliated with West End Neighbours has been sent a warning letter by the city’s legal department, after he left messages on people’s phones about the “corrupt” behaviour of one councillor over this issue.”

  I can’t seem to find this story anywhere in the media. How did this information, that might take an FOI request from Joe Public, happen to land in your lap? Can we see a copy of the letter? Or see a transcript of the voice message left on “people’s phones”?

  Why should we have taken the information you passed along at face value with the additional “at least” dubious suggestion of more than one recipient?

  You can criticize one blogger for a reprehensible post, but moral equivalency isn’t going to cut it when nothing justifies a political party (or Councillor) co-opting bloggers to attack citizens. That’s just fundamentally wrong on all levels and bad politics.

  “We need to find a way where we can agree on what the test is for believable information.” – indeed.

• 17 solitary man // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:48 am

  @Frances
  Concerning your comment that “I do believe Alex is non-partisan in the sense that he is eventually turns against everyone, except, to this point, Tony Parsons” (funny)

  I think you might be mixing up self-serving and non-partisan, he is by no stretch of the imagination non-partisan. He was a member of the NPA board for 2 terms, worked with the now defunct Socreds, cozy as a bed bug with NPA Klassen, and he appears to be so right leaning its surprising he can stand up. He appears to have the capacity to spin a story on anybody, friend or foe, so watch out Tony

  Also, the previous comment from someone that this story has legs, is correct. Unfortunately its more aligned with the notion of political pornography that will keep this story alive, and others like the “enemies list”. What I mean, is that in order to keep the casual blog readers from straying, the provocative content will need to be frequently jacked up to keep them aroused. So to engage the readership the highly biased bloggers will need to continually out-titillate each other on the breaking issues of the day . This will surely make for one sexy year running up to the next election, I for one am looking forward to it, at the very least for the pure entertainment value (and as someone else said in this thread about blogs “At least they’re not full of “stories” about celebrities or violent crimes”, yes indeed we wouldn’t want to be exposed to such rubbish).

• 18 ITK // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:56 am

  The Vancouver Observer is another “news source” attached directly to Vision and run by Linda Soloman, sister of Joel Soloman who is also Gregor’s top financial baker and who helps finance Vision Vancouver as well. Jonathan Ross also contributes to VO. They typically attempt to gain access to your Facebook or LinkedIn profiles so they can “mine” as much personal information about you as possible and then use it against you in character-assassination articles published by Ross and Soloman on their respective blogs. These same people are also fed information directly from City Hall that other blogs or publications must submit an FOI to obtain. They’ve done this to everyone from sitting Councillors to leaders of community groups who oppose any of their policies.

  In other words, this whole mess with FD Element and Ross is just the tip of the iceberg. Vision has taken attack politics to a whole new level in Vancouver.

• 19 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 13, 2010 at 11:20 am

  Not so fast Frances:

  1. Notwithstanding the ever so polite effort to smear me, caked in the usual Fabula wallowing, I do not seek to become a full-time “digger” of documents damaging to the Mayor, his suite, or his party. I know this will be lost on you but, the docus I recd came to me, I NEVER SOUGHT THEM. As troubling as that might be to you, perhaps we should look at the reverse: Are you looking to be the full-time receiver of docus favorable to Vision? Because it’s only when you’ve been upbraided, either here, or on my own blog that you decided to lay a hand on the Mayor, albeit with a flyswatter.

  2. The notion that any overpayments to FD Element might have landed in Ross’ hands, is NOT a conclusion made by me, but rather, a question I asked since the dates coincide. I nver once suggested this IS the case, what I wrote was that it MIGHT be the case, and that Ross, FD Element and Vision Vancouver had much to explain. At this point, Ross’ feeble statement that he was having his blog paid for by FDE for work he was doing in the States is a bald-faced lie. I interviewed a second source, who was a contractor with FDE who personally viewed docus that clearly showed Ross was not only having his site carried but was also being paid the $50.00 per hour to write the pro-Vision drivel he subjects readers to. Additionally, I called FTI and they intimate that they do not pay this way–EVER. As you’ve suggested (in a rare moment of clarity above) that an invoice is attached with a specific scope of work, etc. They would not, according to FTI, be doing a contracting quid pro quo, on any work–funny, that myth is not just being perpetrated by Ross, but by the local house of FTI, FDE too.

  3. The idea you’ve peddled that the leaks to me are part of a “dirty-tricks” campaign is not only offensive, it’s pedestrian thinking (my charity is fully on display). ALL the leakers are either current or past Vision members. None of them hails from any political bailiwick even remotely close to the NPA and none of them are up to no good. Simply put, as the campaign isn’t even on yet (how can it be with the COPE still wiping the sleep from their eyes and NPA only brushing their teeth) these are principled people that clearly believe your friends with Vision Vancouver have lost their way. I know this is concept neither you, nor most of your readers (whom dwell in the same undergrowth) want to admit–but it’s fairly obvious to the rest of us.

  4. Your entirely ludicrous suggestion that these docus only put a “smell” around Vision and the Mayor is the same kind of pandering that you lavishly provided in the now thoroughly laughed at Vancouver Magazine love letter to Mike Magee in this month’s edition.

  5. Your additional smear that I have “turned on everyone” is really quite rich. The lazy journalism you practice is precisely why you are revered in the MSM–that’s their calling card. A good portion, the Province, NW, CBC and Global being the chief exceptions (although the Courier is might impressive as of late), feed off such absurdities. You think I build a party or politician up so that I can take him down? That’s funny. I think Stephen Harper is the best choice for Prime Minister, but I loathe the fact that on World AIDS Day he won’t wear a ribbon. I wouldn’t vote for the NDP but believe Gordon Campbell is the worst Premier we’ve ever had–autistics, the elderly, the poor, Wendy the Waitress and Tom the Toolbelt have all suffered endlessly. Not to mention the Rape of Rivers and kowtowing to native aboriginals, whose reserve remain slums while chiefs drive new cars and wear tailored suits. I spilled gallons of ink on Sam Sullivan because he was wrong for Vancouver. I supported the statements and actions of the current Mayor until his radical green agenda became obvious (please don’t tell us you knew–I’ve laughed enough for one morning after reading your post). You like to brown-nose in the hopes you get, ah, say, released the next polling numbers first. I don’t. I analyze those numbers and tell you why their right or wrong. I’m not going to sit silently allowing major stories to go by and only excuse them in the hopes the Mayor’s crew might throw me a bone. That’s what killed the NY Times. It’s what is making people head in the opposite direction of the MSM. And it’s why my blog easily eclipses yours–people want honesty–raw, unfiltered honesty. Where can you locate that in your statements above? Nothing but excuse making for the MSM’s race to the bottom.

  6. “There’s no hard evidence to me that there was some kin dof bogus inflation of the bill.” At least at some point later, you admit that you didn;t do your homework by calling a WordPress expert. But I did: Four of them. To a man (and one woman) each of them told me that the $28,000 contract to FDE for the Mayor’s site was a huge amount of money.

  7. Your (attempted) comparison of Klassen’s work and the aforementioned $28,000 should make it abundantly clear–you need to get on the payroll as well–I’ve rarely seen a journalist embarrass herself like this (although Maureen Dowd comes close on almost any give occasion). Klassen billed $24,000 over the course of TWO AND A HALF YEARS. Was it appropriate that he got the contract. In my opinion, no. There should have been a tender–there should be one for everything. Taxpayers deserve that. But FDE no-bid/no-tender fluffy pay day was over the course of a few months. The difference is obvious. But don’t let me get in the way of yet another good piece of deflection.

  8. “On the other hand, if FD and Ross were trying to keep all of this so secret by making sure there were no references to a blog or Civicscene or Vision on any of the contracts between FD and Ross, why would this piece of work be so casually open?” This statement should be a classic example in almost any journalism class (yours?) of how to misread the intent of a document. The contracts were clearly built to do exactly that–obscure the real relationship while formalizing the relationship. it was only because I included the bills that FDE paid to construct, maintain and support Ross’ Vision attack blog. I note for the record, as well, that you were critical (even in this post) that Klassen and Fontaine are pro-NPA bloggers, but find the latitude to deny clear links to much more political partisan (pro-Vision) work by both FDE and Ross. I’ve seen and written more contracts than you’ve had lattes.

  9.”(I note that Alex, in a previous smoking-gun post, was convinced that Bob Rennie had a secret plan to sell off all the 49 rental units in Millennium’s Bidwell tower — the ones the city was supposedly giving extra density for — because he talked to some junior staffer at Rennie’s whose last name he didn’t get and she told him that the company wouldn’t have any rentals, that they would sell all the units and it was up to owners to decide if they wanted to rent. But Alex didn’t notice that the number of units Rennie was marketing matched the number of private condos the building had always been planned to have; nor did he notice that Rennie’s doesn’t have a property-management licence, so it wouldn’t legally be allowed to handle the rental units. Oops.)” I’m assuming you ended with “Oops” because you were apologizing for misrepresenting what I wrote. Again, despite the completely silly assertion that I didn’t ask for the last name of Rennie’s assistant (I love the way you inject little useless pieces of info in the hopes that it sows seeds of doubt with the reader or redirects that I called for confirmation of the development proposal–oh no! An MSM tactic!). Please a pay attention: Your point that Rennie is selling the same number of condos the building always planned to have is terribly misleading. The sq footages were altered as was the height. So your claim that the density shift was “supposed” only serves to curry favor to STIR PROponents. But it makes no sense from yet another angle too. There was indeed a massive density shift for Millenium as I have a copy of they initially proposed building on that land–unsurprisingly, it’s NOT AT ALL as you claim–the proposal is for much less condo space. That you don’t know that isn’t shocking, since you’ve never once offered up an opinion on real estate in this town that isn’t parroted from some drivel Beasley offered or frothy pap Bob throws up ay six o’clock to Global, to tell us how swimmingly the OV will be sold (again, for the record, I predicted he’d get stuck, while you on the other hand were busy holding his ice cream cone so that he could fastidiously remove a lone spec of dust off the hood of his $350,000 Bentley–very sustainable–while I drive a hybrid…hysterical!) Additionally, that Rennie has no mgmt license is another straw man. I never assumed Rennie would be stuck managing anything–and didn’t even come close to writing or saying so. For your information, developers typically set up a separate corp to manage “available inventory” through a strata sale. Then again, what would I know about real estate. You’d now way more than me…un huh..

  10. Says the once great Fabula, “On a final note, there is a troubling trend here and that’s this. Leakers of anti-Vision information are now choosing not to go to anyone in the mainstream media at all with their information these days, not even those who are from time to time labelled as “crackerjack” reporters because of their willingness to follow anti-Vision blog stories.” This MUST be the single greatest excuse for lazy journalism embalmed by pandering media elitism that I’ve ever read. Sources come to me because they don’t trust you. They’ve told me that time and again. I offer them complete anonymity–no differently from how Woodward offered Mark Felt (no, I’m not comparing myself to Woodward, relax Sparty, go shelve a book or something…). Sources will, however, trust people on an individual basis.

  At the end of the proverbial day, Frances my dear, how can you possibly expect a confidential source with something real to come to you, when you offer up something like what you wrote today.

  Now if you’ll excuse me, I must return to the comfort of my blog–a true no spin zone. And when there’s breaking news, I don’t have to kiss the robes of any politician to get it.

• 20 solitary man // Sep 13, 2010 at 11:25 am

  @ITK

  Right on queue, without missing a beat. See what I mean about having to continually out-titillate each other; character assassinations through Facebook mining, isn’t that like shooting fish in a barrel.

  … and so it goes.

• 21 boohoo // Sep 13, 2010 at 11:33 am

  @ AGT

  ‘no spin zone’ ….Where have I heard that before?

  You’re comic gold.

  @FB

  Thank you for the conclusion ‘I don’t know.’ It’s refreshing to see people not leaping blindly to conclusions.

• 22 JamieLee // Sep 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm

  Frances Fabula

  As a community activist I brought forward a key issue in 2005 about Mr Jim Green because it related to an issue of public trust. Mr Green was seeking the highest office in the City and I believe citizens had the right to know that $10,000 was stolen at DERA when Mr Green headed up the organization. Two employees of Mr Green allege that they loaned him money at the same time that the $10,000 was stolen. I still have a handwritten letter from Mr Green to one of his employees thanking the individual for the loan. The letter stipulating how much was remaining and which was subsequently paid. The loan according to the employee from the one employee was $5,000.00.
  So what was the loan for? I only have one former employees account of what the loan was for and she was his executive assistant. But I felt it was necessary for this to come out since her story was collaborated by others.

  I also recall when I raised the issue of Kim Kerr stealing thousands of dollars from DERA and giving suites to APC members who paid no rent, the media including yourself and your husband virtually ignored this matter. As we now know and which has been backed up, I was speaking the truth. But it seems not to matter to you when funds earmarked for the poor are stolen by these supposed leaders.

  To the matter of political nastiness it started long before the dates you mention. Have you conveniently forgotten when Mayor Philip Owen was campaigning for Mayor that a journalist referred to Mr Owen as Philip the dim? Perhaps with all your experience Ms Bula you can enlighten us who coined that term and why it was front news in the mainstream media. I could be wrong but I believe this bit of nastiness appeared in the Vancouver Sun.

• 23 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 13, 2010 at 12:33 pm

  OK, from what I can tell, here is the general theme of many posters here on this thread:

  Alex is a name caller. Alex has a huge ego. Alex doesn’t play nice.

  Agreed.

  But Alex seems to keep getting these stories. This one is especially interesting since it involves an ill-defined project, a doubling of the original estimate with only the vaguest of terms .

  Believe me, I have been involved in government contracts—both giving and getting. The writing re: the scope of work on this one, as well as the odd doubling of the original estimate without any detail, would not pass most procurement or risk assessment practices in most governement offices. I don’t care if you are labelled a “preferred (vetted) supplier” or not, this one sounds fishy.

  Add to this the possible odd comingling of payments to support another blogger, and the msm should be checking this out. If it involves taxpayer dollars that are not being used properly, we have a problem here.

  Is it any surprise that community groups or insiders go to bloggers? No. MSM doesn’t seem interested in looking at practices until bloggers do the leg work.

• 24 Tessa // Sep 13, 2010 at 12:49 pm

  I’ll add another thank you to Frances Bula, for source-checking and for balanced reporting, and for not turning into the ranting, raving and pettiness of AGT’s post.

• 25 bewildered // Sep 13, 2010 at 12:52 pm

  @ITK
  Interested in your comments on the VO, I took a blush through the site (www.vancouverobserver.com). Clearly it’s an MSM news site and it publishes many points of views including voices and profiles of people from the NPA, factual and balanced in the most part.

  You say character assassinations by “these” people using Facebook profiles, really now. I think you are swinging into the far right-wing conspiracy theory territory. Take a breath.

  and the beat goes on.

• 26 Mark Allerton // Sep 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm

  The thing I don’t get about this story – and which I’m surprised hasn’t been mentioned so far – is the motive, if it were true.

  Aren’t we continually being told by Vision detractors that Vision is lavishly bankrolled by gazillionaires like the Solomons and the heiress of the Rubbermaid fortune? It does appear that the party is not at all short of money. So why would they take a risk like this for a few thousand dollars of taxpayer money?

• 27 Mark Allerton // Sep 13, 2010 at 1:01 pm

  BTW, +1 on the “great post” comments.

• 28 landlord // Sep 13, 2010 at 1:03 pm

  Note to FD Element : Ross bills $50/hr? I’d do it (better) for $40.

  It’s not like any of us believes any of this stuff. True, shmue. It’s just words. Talk is cheap which is why we bill by the hour, not the column inch.

  We all know the cold, hard truth : hits = dollars. Whether its bums in seats or eyeballs on the page or screen. Eventually everyone will have set their hair on fire and the novelty will wear off. No voice will sound louder than any other. True equality at last.

  At the moment the problem is not whom to trust (personally I’m not what you’d call the trusting sort), but where to draw the line. It was bad enough when we turned for information to a dozen or so papers in 2 or 3 languages, then the number of 24-hour TV and radio stations grew into the thousands (us old guys will remember when your local station ran the sign-off cart with the stunning scenery and national anthem and then WENT OFF THE AIR) until today, when the average Google search returns a million media pieces, amateur photos and video clips, blogs, books and so on, on any topic. That number (pages with related content) is growing exponentially.

  In the not-too-distant future there will be video coverage by wireless cams of everything and everyone. How do you choose what to watch?

  Nobody knows how to deal with information overload on this scale. Far too many (myself included) are contributing to it. According to Ray Kurzweil it just gets weirder as we explore the 21st century.

• 29 spartikus // Sep 13, 2010 at 1:08 pm

  Note to FD Element : Ross bills $50/hr? I’d do it (better) for $40.

  Marketing companies will pay a roomful of people $75 – $90 each to sip and rate different formulations of beer. Elsewhere roomfuls of people will pay $5-$8 to drink a formulation of beer.

  Strange, but true.

• 30 landlord // Sep 13, 2010 at 1:21 pm

  Note to VAG. Digitize all the books in the Central Library, chuck’em, then move in. Instant icon.

• 31 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2010 at 1:58 pm

  Just for context, and to address the contention that a ‘good’ writer can be had for $40 per hour.

  http://www.writers.ca/whattopay.htm

  As the link indicates, most freelance work starts at around $50 per hour.

  Like all small business people writers have overhead and other tasks beyond just writing that must be attended to if their business is to be capable of surviving in the long term. At $40/hr that is going to be a challenging task, esp. in an expensive city such as Vancouver.

  Really good copywriters… think triple digit hourly rate and hope they’re interested in your project. Chances are they’re busy and can pick and choose their clients.

• 32 Dave // Sep 13, 2010 at 3:09 pm

  @Chris, Francis et al

  Just remember you get what you pay for…

  Funny though… his writing seems to vary in quality and content. of course everyone has a bad day…but tend to be consistent.

  It’s almost as if a different person is researching writing some of his opinion on some days.. and yet when he voices his opinion on other matters the quality, content, punctuation seem to be very different. odd but it could happen.

  I guess the happy pills don’t kick in as well on some days..

• 33 Tom // Sep 13, 2010 at 3:11 pm

  Actually, I don’t find this post very good at all.

  Frances admits to being lazy or too old, (I’ve forgotten which now considering the length of both the posts and the comments), to look into this further, and then she offers up a bunch of drivel regarding a party she’s rarely criticized since Dec 2008, despite what’s come out time and again. Not to mention distorting other information by taking things out of context becuase she knows it panders to her anti-Alex Tsakumis blog crowd.

  Next, she lays blame at the feet of the people coming forward and not at the reasons why they may be coming forward which begin and end with the very party she has trouble critiquing. Unbelievable.

  To suggest that everyone coming forward has an agenda, is absolutely insulting to those who refuse to compromise their principles. I can honestly say this statement alone has me questioning why anyone still employs you.

  For someone trying to write a blog post that sits on the fence and considers both sides of the story in some way, to revert back and take a firm stance that anyone ratting on the party you voted for, has to have an agenda….are you kidding me? Don’t you teach journalism?

  I visit ALL of the civic blogs regularly and if I were to rate the fairness of each, Tsakumis’ site is at least equal in its criticism of everyone. Love it or hate it.

  Ross has been outed as the paid fluffer everyone always thought him to be……now the question is whether or not its with taxpayer funds……and geez forgive me for not believing their denials….Vision has pretty much taken the cake for lying on EVERYTHING they do…but no you seem to gloss over this little tidbit and somewhat defend Ross.

  City Caucus is slanted to a weak NPA that doesn’t know which hand to hold their peepee in, when they go peepee. I don’t think the NPA even know who the NPA are for pete’s sake. They have no 2011 candidates, no policies, but yet you insinuate through your post that they are organized enough to be in attack mode.

  And this site, and its writer continues to deny the obvious which is disappointing. Not being honest to your readers is one thing, but not being honest with yourself is just down right sad.

• 34 Chris Keam // Sep 13, 2010 at 3:32 pm

  @Dave:

  re: getting what you pay for… Absolutely agree. My comments shouldn’t be construed to have any political slant, endorsement, or condemnation of civicscene. The only time I read it is when Tsakumis really gets incensed over something posted there. I just wanted to address landlord’s $40 per hour gets you a good writer statement. That’s bad information that’s not helpful to writers or their clients.

• 35 Julia // Sep 13, 2010 at 3:45 pm

  the conversation above is being carried on in more than one place.

  http://mashable.com/2010/09/13/future-social-media-journalism/

• 36 landlord // Sep 13, 2010 at 4:32 pm

  @Frances 13 : “…we check into all information we get, not just the information that we happen not to agree with and are trying to disprove. That’s something I don’t see bloggers doing.”
  I thought we had established that this is exactly what Mayor Robertson is paying Mr. Ross to do.

• 37 spartikus // Sep 13, 2010 at 4:56 pm

  I thought we had established that this is exactly what Mayor Robertson is paying Mr. Ross to do.

  He does?! Has there been a new development I’ve missed?

  Not even Tsakumis in his #19 claims that.

• 38 landlord // Sep 13, 2010 at 5:30 pm

  The real test of character occurs when the “information that we happen not to agree with” are the facts of life. You remember, facts. Those things journalists used to be interested in.

  And Chris : if you can find me a copy-writer who can convince people that black is white or up is down, I don’t care how much he charges. Tell him I’ll double whatever he’s getting from Vander Zalm.

• 39 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm

  Ross is not paid by Vision Vancouver. I don’t believe that, because you will hear tomorrow how an eyewitness will confirm what I have been saying all along: Ross’ pathetic Vision attack blog was being run through FD Element because Vision didn’t want it on the books.

  So the questions remain:

  1) Why would FDE be paying for Ross’ blog? Since we can all agree it wasn’t for “other work in the States”

  And;

  2) Is anyone paying FDE to pay Ross? If so, why? And when why is discovered, by whom?

  Very key questions.

  And I agree with Fourth Horseman who makes perfect sense on this matter.

  Sorry, as you know, I write about all sorts of matters, but after being bullied by the city’ legal dept and finding out that Vision are on a dirty tricks campaign, I had an obligation to report what I was presented with.

  Contrary to what any of you might think, and Jamie Lee and I will disagree on this, with respect, that PERSONAL matters are completely offside in the push and pull of political discourse UNLESS those personal matters involve a matter of the public interest.

  Why would a former colleague of mine get a call from someone pretending to be a headhunter, who proceeded to (try and) bullshit her about a “job” I was supposedly applying for (some senior PR position–I’d rather die!)? After she pressed the ‘hunter’ for credentials and a fax, she found out exactly why the caller was making the inquiries…

  “We were actually wondering if you knew of any drug or alcohol issues Mr. Tsakumis might have had when working with your firm?”

  Other than the idiotic train of illogical questions that set off alarm bells from here to Douglas Park, the caller wasn’t well informed–I’ve never even tried drugs. I refuse even Advil.

  So, why am I telling you?

  The ‘hunter’ claimed they were calling from Caldwell. And when the number was traced it turned out to be the the home of the ex-wife of a not terribly obscure Vision underboss.

  No dirty-tricks, eh Frances??

  This isn;t about right vs. left, it’s about right vs. wrong–and Vision are wrong for this city.

  They are by far and away the nastiest bunch of bottomfeeders I have seen in 25 plus years of observing politics and politicians.

  The problem for Fabula is clear: The rising tide of reporters and journalists in this town are sick of the Vision BS and are digging–much deeper.

  Except you…

• 40 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 13, 2010 at 5:53 pm

  @Allerton

  Did it ever occur to you that maybe he’d be offended at the kind of underhanded, despicable dirty tricks that are being revealed by disgusted insiders?

  Maybe even he wouldn’t approve.

  Think before you reply…

• 41 spartikus // Sep 13, 2010 at 6:01 pm

  There are 3 issues, 1 one of which interests me.

  1. The link b/w Ross and FD Element. This is a contract between 2 private companies – you’re never going to get a definitive black and white answer on that.

  2. The FD Element and the Mayor’s website – I find the former coming up with an estimate of $X and the City coming back with $X x 2…odd.

  3. Finally, there is the larger, personally much more interesting subject….

  Who is Vancouver’s Assignment Editor?

  Journalists are supposed to perform a gatekeeper role. They are supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff so that stories that are in the public’s interest rise to the fore. That was the ideal anyway. But now, as has been pointed out, we live in an ever increasingly unfiltered world where white noise often drowns out the signal.

  In the United States, the right-wing has built an elaborate, parallel media system that is increasingly insular (Please see this article ‘Epistemic Closure’? Those Are Fighting Words). Fox News, Think tanks, newspapers, magazines, and blogs. Fine and dandy, but if starts leading to things like 1 in 5 believing President Obama is a Muslim…danger, Will Robertson, democracy is in trouble.

  I don’t think the Vancouver blogging scene has quite developed to that point, but the dim outlines are beginning to take form.

• 42 Stephanie // Sep 13, 2010 at 6:14 pm

  I’m with spartikus on the danger Will Robinson thing.

  I have to say that I’m having trouble caring about any of this, because I can’t get past the initial impression that a bunch of really distasteful people are throwing mud at one another. When bloggers dress up their personal grudges and call them principles, figuring out what actually happened seems not just difficult, but almost beside the point.

• 43 Mark Allerton // Sep 13, 2010 at 6:27 pm

  @AGT 38

  Who’s the “he” you’re referring to?

• 44 Charlie Smith // Sep 13, 2010 at 6:53 pm

  You’ve written a very thoughtful post. For me, it’s hard to believe everything Tsakumis writes because I have firsthand knowledge of the falsehoods he has spread about me.

  For example, he recently stated that I despise Pierre Karl Peladeau. It’s a ridiculous comment.

  First of all, I’ve only seen Pierre Karl Peladeau once. I asked him a couple of questions at a news conference. He was pleasant.

  Secondly, I once had lunch with his brother Eric, who was exceedingly pleasant and quite funny. I can categorically state that I do not despise the Peladeaus.

  I don’t recall ever having a conversation with Tsakumis. Therefore, I can only conclude that he made it up. Either that, or he’s trying to get noticed by the Peladeaus so they’ll hire him as a commentator on a right-wing news station.

  In the same post, Tsakumis wrote that I hate all conservatives. Once again, this is a ridiculous comment.

  The company that employs me used to share the same building with the Fraser Institute. I had many pleasant conversations with the institute’s Peter Cowley, to name just one conservative. I’ve also had many pleasant conversations in the past with Terry O’Neill, who is another well-known conservative. Tsakumis simply invented this myth that I hate all conservatives. I don’t hate Peter Cowley. I don’t hate Terry O’Neill. I don’t even hate Tsakumis, though I do wonder why he seems so intent on smearing me.

  In my early days in the media, my office was next door to perhaps the most outspoken conservative in B.C. history. I’m talking about the old broadcaster Pat Burns. I didn’t hate Pat Burns. I actually found him to be quite amusing. He also had an amazing memory.

  In those same days, my office used to be taken over on Sundays by another legendary conservative, Bernice Gerard. I had no problem with her associates sitting at my desk, using the phone. They were pleasant people.

  I remember Glen Clark once complaining that I was a right-wing journalist. It might have been because of stories I wrote about two NDP boondoggles: the fast ferries and the natural-gas pipeline to Vancouver Island.

  Here’s another one. Tsakumis claimed I criticized Sean Holman. I don’t recall doing this. So I called Sean Holman, whom I respect. Sean told me that he couldn’t recall me criticizing him.

  Here’s my favourite from Tsakumis. He said I was wrong 99.9 percent of the time. It’s amazing that anyone would hire me with that kind of track record.

  I’m sure that by submitting this comment, I will once again be maligned by a man who has never spoken to me (as far as I can recollect). Does Pierre Karl Peladeau really want to have someone like this working for him?

• 45 landlord // Sep 13, 2010 at 7:18 pm

  Democracy? In trouble? 1 in 4 think UFOs are visitors from another planet. The churches are not yet bankrupt. Half the country thinks we should keep sacrificing Canadian lives to protect the world’s biggest heroin dealer. Sizable numbers believe the government can force us to reduce our carbon footprint, thus averting a threatened climatic catastrophe. A third of Canadians are functionally illiterate.
  And they all have the right to vote, just like in Afghanistan.

• 46 Stephanie // Sep 13, 2010 at 8:19 pm

  Hey, just as long as the rent cheques don’t bounce.

• 47 Tom // Sep 13, 2010 at 9:52 pm

  @#41

  Seriously, you bring up a right-wing media conspiracy?

  You must be joking right?

  Gee, I suppose you’d try and tell everyone that the CBC, BBC, CNN, et..al..are all balanced and don’t represent a left-wing media conspiracy now would ya?

  You union guys are all the same. Hate THE MAN that pays your paycheque, feeds your kids, and puts a roof over your head all because he’s a capitalist pig….you know because he got there through some right-wing conspiracy.

  You and Charlie must have the same barber.

• 48 spartikus // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:24 pm

  It would be kind of fun to know if Alex and Tom have the same IP address.

• 49 Stephanie // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:30 pm

  @spartikus – Nah, just matching 8×10 glossies of Andrew Breitbart.

• 50 solitary man // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:45 pm

  @stephanie
  Very funny!

• 51 spartikus // Sep 13, 2010 at 10:52 pm

  R’uh roh…it looks like Gary Mason won’t be getting a Xmas card either.

• 52 solitary man // Sep 13, 2010 at 11:03 pm

  @spartikus – yup he is on their sh#t list for sure.

  newly educated hit right on the money.

• 53 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 13, 2010 at 11:58 pm

  Charlie,

  Your kvetching would be more credible if you also weren’t engaged in ongoing pissing matches with both Vaughn Palmer and Keith Baldrey (and throw in Gloria Macerenko, too!).

  We can see you huffing and puffing here…

  http://www.straight.com/article-212769/baldreydash-new-post-scribes-who-speak-specialinterest-groups

  or this one…

  http://www.straight.com/article-210177/baldreydash-my-response-vaughn-palmer-and-keith-baldrey

  or this one…

  http://www.straight.com/article-210397/baldreydash-palmer-baldrey-and-macarenko-will-speak-bc-chamber-commerce-annual-meeting

  or this one…

  http://www.straight.com/article-317007/vancouver/are-new-democrats-and-vaughn-palmer-between-rock-and-hard-place-hst

  Just sayin’…

• 54 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 12:26 am

  PS Just to be absolutely clear…Charlie takes the mickey out of Vaughn regularily, insinuating that Vaughn acts an agent of the provincial Liberal government. Why? Because Vaughn has spoken at BUSINESS functions. Therefore, he must be a supporter of the current government.

  Really? Seriously?

  It has been my personal pleasure to see governement operatives poop their drawers when they think that Palmer might take the mickey out of them on some issue or the other. I also know Vaughn as an incredibly careful, fact-checking journalist. He doesn’t rush; he gathers data very deliberately. And then, as we have witnessed time after time, once he has checked many sources, he lowers the boom, not only on this government, but sadly for Charlie, the NDP opposition as well , as warranted.

  Therefore, I can comfortably state that Charlie should be held to the same high reportorial standards that he desires of others.

• 55 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Sep 14, 2010 at 1:08 am

  @ solitary man

  But I wonder if newly considers Mason a “credible” journalist now?

  Conversation mining aside, at least when he wrote the phrase “juvenile vituperation” he wasn’t describing the crowd’s reaction to yet another soft goal scored on Dan Cloutier.

• 56 Dave // Sep 14, 2010 at 7:33 am

  Mason Credible.

  MM I DON’T THINK SO!!!

  He lost any semblence of credibility when he had one of his first man crushes on Brian Burke and drank the cool aid, writing glowing ‘crush” pieces for Burke & friends and his later tour de force on Gregor’s good looks and hair..

  Right up there with Cernitg and some of Fabula’s wonderful hard hitting pieces on Mayor McJuice’s hair, eyes, shoes, suits, colour co-ordination of belt and socks and the fact he shaves every day…

  Alas, the reality is that real journalism on the city scene is sadly lacking.

  There are important issues in this City that are constantly being ignored in deference to puff pieces.

  Bad journalism is bad journalism whether it be from the right, middle or left and serves no one.

  Sadly we all lose…

• 57 spartikus // Sep 14, 2010 at 8:07 am

  @Dave

  You’re absolutely right. How did I miss it. Mason’s columns “Vancouver mayor puts foot in his potty mouth” and “The Vancouver mayor’s chicken and egg problem” completely support your point.

  If by “completely support your point” you mean “completely undermines it”.

  “Epistemic closure” is, apparently, not restricted to American conservatives.

• 58 Tom // Sep 14, 2010 at 8:55 am

  Good to see both Stephanie and Spartikus, apparently both union fluffers, think only one person in the blogosphere exists, that may have an opinion contrary to their own. You both really should peruse more web sites and get out of the house to get a reality check.

  No my ip address does not match Mr. Tsakumis’. He doesn’t look anything like my wife, nor does my ladder swing that way.

  If you re-read my first post above, during a break in that socialist cloud over your head, you should be able to see a difference.

  As for Mason piece, if he actually paid any attention to the pettiness involved in the Vancouver political scene, he may have mentioned certain leaked in-camera documents during an election, and a blog formerly run by the mayor’s now chief of staff.

  City Caca, did not start the war in Vancouver’s civic blogosphere, they merely continued it. Any douche knows this, Mason chose to leave it out, just as he does selectively with every piece of trash he writes. (Notice how I said “every” piece Spartikus.)

  With the present quality of writers at rags like the G&M, and coming out of journalism schools taught by the likes of Anne Roberts and your host, its no wonder people get their news from blogs today.

  And the person posting as the fourth horseman, (how you don’t accuse this person of being Tsakumis as well is lost on me), is also correct on Charlie Smith.

  Charlie plays “the victim” at every opportunity when it comes to being criticized, and refuses to admit any wrongdoing when he’s caught in the act – by many people time and again.

  A bigger man (no not size-related) would be able to admit when he’s wrong on some things. Don’t expect that to happen anytime soon because Charlie is only one rung above Jonathon Ross on the credibility scale, and sliding lower every day he wakes up.

• 59 Dave // Sep 14, 2010 at 8:55 am

  @ Spartikus

  mm I guess you completely forgot his previous columns but then that’s not surprising.

  Selective memory is a wonderful thing… It proves your point without having to justify it.

  BTW Epistemic closure may not be limited to Conservatives but also isn’t limited to pseudo intellectuals either. Nice try though.

  Ever occur to you that perhaps some actually enjoy objective journalism on occasion or real stories about issues (not the Fox bathwater that you seem to like to label people as drinking if they disagree with you) as opposed to puff pieces or piling on pieces like those done by Mason et al in the guise of showing their journalistic muscles or integrity.

  Just because some, myself included don’t think Fabula’s, Mason’s, Garr’s or Cenitig’s wonderfully insightful pieces merit much credibility doesn’t mean we are rabid, foaming Harperites or Palinista’s. <— Sarcasm here in case you didn't pick that up with that GIANT intellectual brain of yours.

  I guess the wonderful ivory tower you live in , where everyone rides a bike, the flowers are always in bloom and the sky is always a wonderful shade of blue provides a great life devoid of worry or reality.

  The fact is reliable, credible journalism is sadly lacking in the Vancouver market and those columnists and others like them (on either side of the political fence) do nothing to add to it.

  Remember, it was Bloggers and real reporters like Bob Mackin that persued the truth about Ark, The Olympic Village, the morale issues, the overspending, etc etc etc not those quickly becoming more and more irrelevant bastions of journalism like the Vancouver Sun and Province.

• 60 Tom // Sep 14, 2010 at 9:12 am

  And no, there are no 8×10′s of anyone other than family on my walls.

  Although if there were, a picture of Mr. Breitbart would at the very least show someone who has accomplished more than:

  a) a guy with a misspelled moniker who trolls blogs in support of his socialist ideals, who also (see Charlie) has trouble admitting at any time that someone else with a view to the right of his own is correct,

  and

  b) a person who at first claims: “I’m having trouble caring about any of this, because I can’t get past the initial impression that a bunch of really distasteful people are throwing mud at one another”..

  … then goes on to insult a person as part of the very dialogue she first criticized. Apparently Stephanie is blind to her own hypocrisy and as such falls right into line with the usual crowd at this site. Don’t think you’re so special Steph, clearly you’re not.

  And lastly, the pictures on my walls would never include the likes of Che, which I’m quite sure spartikus proudly wears in t-shirt form to union rally’s on the lawns…….ooops……….sorry all gone, at city hall.

• 61 Chris Keam // Sep 14, 2010 at 9:22 am

  I think the Internet may be the fountain of youth.

  It certainly enhances the juvenile facets of debate and discussion. Wonder why young people don’t got no respect?

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Elr5K2Vuo

• 62 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 9:54 am

  I can confirm—I am not Alex Tsakumis!

  I don’t even like cigars…LOL!

  I do think, however, that whether one believes it or not, most posters on blogs tend to support their personal beliefs when they post. Even if they can avoid the over-the-top ad hominem attacks (and really, no matter the nicety of the language, I note that sides are taken from all on this blog) let’s not pretend that we al park our biases at the virtual door).

  Srill, the facts will still speak for themselves. I eagerly await further developments on the FD Element story.

• 63 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 10:13 am

  One more point.

  People who tend to frequent these blogs tend to be politically partisan, anyways. It was ever thus—there are many fine political cartoons from the 19th century that are every bit as viturperative (and more!) as anything that appears on today’s blogs.

  All the handwringing from Mason et al about the “technology” or the demeanor of posters. Maybe we should just acknowledge that blogs are the playgrounds for the bright but naughty and mischievous children of a much lesser god.

  It is why we differentiate between wonks and hacks (thanks, Rahm!).

  The wonks quietly work through the logic and logistics of policy. The hacks, well, I think they are just in it for the blood sport of it! If you want sober discourse go attend a plenary seesion, somewhere. Here, it’s a place for smartypants from all sides to wade in. A little light on policy; looooooooooooong on rhetoric.
  Though in saying that, there have been lively discussions, with ideas bandied around on occassion. Except for someone like Geller—a genuine expert in his field—it is pretty much an exercise in mental masturbation. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

  At any rate, it appears that never the twain shall meet…

• 64 Stephanie // Sep 14, 2010 at 11:49 am

  @Tom: Come now – surely even you know the difference between faux-principled hatchet jobs and everyday blog snark.

• 65 Dave // Sep 14, 2010 at 12:15 pm

  @ Spartikus et al

  A must read today is another tour de force opinion piece by Gary (I am SO important!) Mason in the Globe today.

  Wow what a brilliant piece of writing and editorial. His happy pills were kicking in big time today… the cogent argument, the defence of Penny Pincher Ballem ( mm interesting that he forgot to mention her time in Ontario .. oh ya how did that work out?.. what did it cost the taxpayers to get rid of her…all of course conviniently forgotten).

  Of course in his haste to drive home his point as if he was a paragon of virtue, he made it clear he is as much or more of a hack as those he condemns.

  At least those he condemns (yes including Ross) come up with legitimate news unlike Mason who couldn’t smell a story with a cane and braille unless it was spoon fed to him. (See Brian Burke and Mike Magee for details)

  Mason brillinatly shows once again showing how former journalists like himself and others are becoming more irrelevant and not taken seriously, all the time.

  They just don’t get it ..

  One thought for Gary.. time to kiss up more and get a gig where you can ride things out till you really retire.. your expiry date has long since past.

• 66 Morven // Sep 14, 2010 at 12:20 pm

  This brief glimpse into the black underworld of Vancouver politics is rather depressing.

  For one, it seems like a high school gang trading insults and skeletons in the cupboard. Two, there is an evident disdain for outside blog posters (or so it seems). Three, there is an evident joy in trashing others of different views.

  And you wonder why ordinary citzens are apathetic in municipal politics.

  It seems as if there are some elitists at work that only trot out the mantras of democracy at and around election time.

  Evidently, from the posts, Vancouver is not alone in this febrile atmosphere.

  Just an ordinary citizen.
  -30-

• 67 spartikus // Sep 14, 2010 at 1:04 pm

  @Dave

  A must read today is another tour de force opinion piece by Gary (I am SO important!) Mason in the Globe today.

  Er, that was the Mason column I linked to last night. That’s…uh…really, really suggestive that you didn’t read it before you wrote your thoughtful reply.

  Care to explain? Why should I or anyone take the time to respond to you seriously if you don’t, in turn, respond to what was written?

  @Tom

  If you re-read my first post above, during a break in that socialist cloud over your head, you should be able to see a difference.

  Alex will often mischaracterize things. Arguments, citations, personal background, etc. In that regard when I read your comment about a “right-wing media conspiracy” in response to an article I cited in which conservatives, in their own words – let’s repeat that for emphasis – conservatives in their own words lament the intellectual closing of their movement and how it doesn’t bode well for their future…and well, throw in the Tsakumisesque ad hominem and you can see how I might have wondered.

  That said, tongue was in cheek. Relax.

  City Caca, did not start the war in Vancouver’s civic blogosphere, they merely continued it. Any douche knows this, Mason chose to leave it out, just as he does selectively with every piece of trash he writes.

  Mason’s column isn’t a history of the Great Patriotic Blog War but about, you know, methods and standards of current partisan blogs. But alas, here’s something Mason said our friend Tom seems to be selectively leaving out: An avowed Vision supporter, Mr. Ross’s anti-NPA blog is every bit as partisan, petulant and mean-spirited as CityCaucus’s. Whoops.

  who trolls blogs in support of his socialist ideals….YADDA YADDA

  Socialist ideals? Che T-shirts? Fluoridation? You keep a list of known Communists in your neighbourhood, don’t you?

  Nevertheless if, for example, supporting a property tax increase greater than the (IMHO) artificially capped 2% in a City and a country that has one of the lowest tax burdens on the continent constitutes “socialism” -> guilty as charged. Otherwise, WTF? I don’t really recall advocating the nationalization of vast swathes of the economy. And “trolling” blogs? I make the odd comment here and there, but this is the blog I’ve hung my hat. Funnily enough I’ve done so because, well, for one Frances writes good, interesting posts obviously. But also because the population of commentators here represent the entire political spectrum. You’ll be challenged to defend your assumptions by smart people. And that is something I value.

  I note that with some amusement as coming from someone who clearly didn’t bother to read the first article I linked to, and who is apparently ignoring that I explicitly said above I found the to-ing and fro-ing b/w the FD Element and the City over the Mayor’s website “odd”. I guess if I don’t enthusiastically join in “The Lynching of Jonathan Ross” and march on City Hall with pitchforks and torches that I am morally suspect. Possibly a socialist, or worse, a hippy.

  @Fourth Horseman

  Maybe we should just acknowledge that blogs are the playgrounds for the bright but naughty and mischievous children of a much lesser god.

  That’s not the issue, nor does he touch on technology. The issue is, according to Mason:

  The blog has become a regular hunting ground for non-discriminating news organizations that are not above taking whatever CityCaucus is offering. TV reporters often add Mr. Klassen’s dissenting voice to their stories without identifying him as someone who might have a partisan political axe to grind. To the uninformed viewer, he is just a guy who believes the city deserves better from its elected officials.

  As I say above, it’s about who’s Vancouver’s assignment editor. And…

  If anything, it scares good people away from even contemplating running for office.

  Not so sure on that. But whatever.

  2 years ago, I wrote that City Caucus – given the decimation of the NPA – had (and has) a potentially vital role to play. But you have got to bring strong arguments and, alas, City Caucus has too often been loosey-goosey with their supporting evidence. The most recent examples being “iPhone-Gate” and “Hornby Bike Lane was scheduled to start in August-Gate”. But, and I’m sure this will come as a deep surprise to Tom and Dave, they’re in my RSS feed. And Tsakumis would be too…if he had an RSS feed. I follow a wide array of blogs representing many points of view.

  When Mike Klassen and Daniel Fountaine occasionally wander away from the subject of Vancouver municipal politics they can be quite interesting to read.

  Note, this is the sort of thing they should be focusing more on – a true and troubling verbal gaffe by Gregor Robertson. Note[2] This article embarrassing to the Mayor was written by certain alleged fluffer France Bula. Note[3] I found out about it via CityCaucus.

  Incredible!

• 68 Dave // Sep 14, 2010 at 1:18 pm

  ok Spartikus
  will give you that one.
  I missed that link.. fair enough. My bad.. I looked at the last one not the one from last night.

  Still doesn’t change the fact that Mason is an embarassment. and btw perhaps you should do some fact checking of your own…

  Far from me to defend Mayor McJuice but his comments are being seemingly to be taken out of context…

  I haven’t heard or read the whole interview but would like to read it before condemming the guy on yet another potential gaffe.

  Besides, with his history there will be more to come anyway. he is a walking talking gaffe factory anyway.. No need to pile on when there is plenty to go around.

• 69 Dave // Sep 14, 2010 at 1:27 pm

  PS @ Fabula , Spartikus et al

  The difference between Fabula and a hack like Mason is that Fabula can and does actual research and writes legitimate news stories.

  While she may express her opinion, which I often disagree with, she does not always drink the bathwater and will quite often do the work necessary to make sure something is accurate.

  Sadly the same can’t said for Gary. Even when he was a reporter and columnist for the Sun sports he was known as a joke by those in the sports community.

• 70 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 2:06 pm

  sparticus,

  I can’t agree that the msm taking info from outsiders, be they bloggers, staff or community groups is anything new. If these people produce a cogent argument (or supply evidence) of wrongdoing or malfeasance, as far as I am concerned, they are bound by their own journalsitic and investigative ethics to check the story out.

  You (and Gary Mason) can’t seriously believe that this hasn’t been going on since Day 1 in journalism. It’s called “sources”. Sometimes things check out, sometimes not. Whatever side, whether there is an axe to grind OR not, I believe the 5th estate owes us the ability to follow-up. It may be a sad state of affairs now (srew the media outlet bean counters—they have helped bring this on) that they count on so many others to assist, but since I also believe it is human nature for long-time journalsits to stick to their own long-time sources (and for columnists to stick to sources higher up the food chain—who certainly throw their own spin ready), perhaps the infusion of new blood isn’t such a bad thing. People do get lazy in the journalism business, as they do elsewhere.

  As to this vexing question of who in the blogosphere represents which side of a political argument: most of the msm reports I see consistently ID CC and Tsakumis as bloggers—and sometimes as”right wing” bloggers.

  I also know that Ross’s own “come to Jesus moment” where he now self identifies as a Vision supporter (and 1 02 mentions on your own blog, during times of duress don’t count, Jonathan) in reply to the current shite storm, has been a curiously overlooked fact when he submits his opeds to the Sun. Perhaps the msm weren’t aware. Which is more an indictment of the msm as far as I’m concerned. If someone writes an oped, that signature line should clearly tell us of any competing affiliations .

  You say Mike “has an axe to grind” —and this this separates him from Jonathan Ross or even Allen Garr or Gary Ross, or whomever, how? I think the problem that we are facing that we are now heading into a very grey area of what constitutes “real” journalism from “fake” journalism. While bloggers may have “motives” they may also have the kinds of access to information that folks working at media outlets have—or ued to have—and maybe even more!

  Gary acknowledged that CC breaks stories and comes up with thought provoking pieces.
  I don’t know that one’s political leanings—and I am pretty sure that all columnists have them, too–and some regularily on display—preclude you from attacking those in power.

  Is it all “fact-based”.? No. Is there piffle? Of course—but I have seen idle speculation, wrong-headed conclusions and bad guesses from those in the msm . I have also read s gushing editorial from columnists who have “access”, letting same go to their heads. For instance it beats me why, when a civic project is put forward–or completed–that a columnist might not ask basic questions, such as “did we get value for money?” Or, how does this project fit in with an overall plan for the community? Let the reporters asks the basics. I do expect columnists to give us a wee bit more analysis, even if they want to go the a more esoteric level and speculate on a projects ability to deliver improved community, sustainability, etc. It appears to me, that in this town, the columnists give us their opinion without a lot of back-up. I can get that from my next-door neighbour.

  By the way, wasn’t it a newspaper man who once said , “It’s a beautiful day to bring down the governement!”

  Here’s what I expect from journalists: comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Find out who in power might be gaming the system. Run down the info you get from others. Get multiple sources. Verify.

  As for columnists and bloggers: caveat emptor!

• 71 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 2:10 pm

  Sorry, I am a crappy typist. I believe J. Ross has mentioned his attachments to VV in 1 or 2 posts.

• 72 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 2:24 pm

  BTW, sparty,

  I do agree that the mayor’s words from the Mayor on democracy are troubling. I think that many people, once in power, see how messy it is dealing with the electorate.Life would be simple if one could just launch one’s party program without interference.

  However, I also believe that most politicians aren’t elected on platforms (except, perhaps economic ones). Platforms are for party faithful, who think of what they would like to achieve–without a thought of to how to govern to get them (that damn hank versus wonk thing again!). At any rate, it keeps the party volunteers on the line.

  For the vast majority of those who can be bothered to vote, it’s usually a case of voting to replace a leader who:

  a) has managed to get himself into the soup too often ,

  b) who starts coming off as a kook (open definition!)

  c) who does not measure up to the “he understands who I am as a voter—and we match!” factor.

  I would say, currently, that the perception out there (and ye, I am taking in the latest poll) that perhaps 2 out of these 3 measures are in play right now for the current resident of City Hall.

  I will let greater minds than mine carry on with this discussion

• 73 Dan Cooper // Sep 14, 2010 at 4:17 pm

  My word! I find myself agreeing today with points made by Morven (#66 speaks for me) and Gary Mason (you know where), and even enjoying a post or so by landlord (e.g. #45).

• 74 Patti Bacchus // Sep 14, 2010 at 4:20 pm

  Another perspective on bloggers vs MSM from my favourite recovering newspaper writer – read “Is this the new politics?” at http://splinterinyoureye.blogspot.com/

• 75 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 4:33 pm

  Thanks, Patti.

  Straight from the horses mouth. Interesting post!

• 76 landlord // Sep 14, 2010 at 5:14 pm

  “Life would be simple if one could just launch one’s party program without interference”.
  that;s the weird thing : they can. They have total control of Council. What are they waiting for?
  When TEAM formed Council and stripped out the deadwood from the SMT, they had smart people (Walter Hardwick, Fritz Bowers,etc.) with a real plan and the willingness to reward creativity. Look what they accomplished.
  What’s the hold-up with Vision? Is it all really just about handing over the budget to selected developers and employee unions?

• 77 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 5:23 pm

  I think the phrase “real plan” says it all, Landlord.

• 78 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Sep 14, 2010 at 5:47 pm

  I agree with a lot of what you say, Fourth Horsesman, esp. re. the 19thC – these kinds of spats are a sign of a robust and maturing media landscape, even if it may suggest otherwise.

  But I would note re. your comment a while back that Geller is not the only expert who comments on Frances’ blog. There have been numerous incredibly informative and in depth discussions about building policies, transportation, budgets, housing, homelessness etc. that explore many different angles, put forward interesting alternatives, and sometimes begin to develop consensus visions for change. Plenty of verifiable facts, insightful information, and relevant links are brought to light by the more diligent commentators.

  These kind of discussions and information-sharing show the blogosphere reaching for its true potential, and are where the State of Vancouver leaves the others in its dust. That experts and well-informed people from all perspectives, who don’t all see the world in black and white, engage on this blog is a direct reflection on the professionalism and even-handed nature of our good host. It’s also a reflection on Ross, Alex and Mike/Daniel that their comment sections are usually devoid of meaningful discussion. Readership may be high, but for whatever reason, there’s usually not much to be gained by reading the comments, unlike here.

  I’d also add that, as a working parent, I find it very difficult to find time to engage in or contribute to the political process at open houses, Council meetings, lectures, etc. But as someone genuinely interested in civic politics, and who sees the effect of the actions, or inactions, of governments everyday on the streets around me, Frances’ blog provides an invaluable source of information and an accessible forum to engage, voice opinions, report on-the-street developments, and share independent research online. How Mason can possibly conclude – especially after regurgitating a blog discussion he’s read — that blogs are a detriment to democracy is beyond me.

• 79 spartikus // Sep 14, 2010 at 5:48 pm

  If these people produce a cogent argument (or supply evidence) of wrongdoing or malfeasance, as far as I am concerned, they are bound by their own journalsitic and investigative ethics to check the story out.

  Where did I say they shouldn’t? This debate is about the production of a cogent argument, or lack thereof. Just because Blog X has received a phone call from someone saying the City has purchased Widget Y rather than Widget Z doesn’t mean Joe/Jane Reporter needs to drop what you’re doing and “check the story out”. There has to be something compelling to check out. And all too often, there isn’t. Just noise.

  That’s what this is about.

  It’s called “sources”.

  You’re putting words in to people’s mouths, but no, it’s not about having sources or receiving leaks. It’s what you do with them and how you judge them. Is the source reliable? Is the story worth the public’s attention when there are other stories that deserve a hearing? Because, you know, not everything is a “story”. It’s a tricky business, yes. Here’s an example of how sources can abuse the system: Dick Cheney gives an off-the-record interview with the NY Times about [bogus] ties b/w Iraq and al-Qaida. He then goes on the Sunday talk shows and cites that interview as proof of ties b/w Iraq and al-Qaida. The NY Times certainly blew that one.

  most of the msm reports I see consistently ID CC and Tsakumis as bloggers

  No, not always true.

  You say Mike “has an axe to grind” —and this this separates him from Jonathan Ross or even Allen Garr or Gary Ross, or whomever, how?

  I said no such thing. Mason did. And I cited it to explain Mason’s position (I even say “the issue is, according to Mason”), because it seemed to me it was being mischaracterized. That’s not an endorsement. Now, here’s what I said, 2 years ago: It’s truly great, democratic, and empowering that anyone can start a blog and potentially reach a broad audience – but it does not follow that you deserve a mass audience by virtue of simply being “a blogger”. Quality of content still counts…There’s nothing wrong with being proudly partisan, but if City Caucus doesn’t up the quality of their arguments, their audience will simply be the base of the NPA and will always remain so.

  To reiterate, there’s nothing wrong with being a partisan outfit. Lots of great journalism has come from such things – but they walked the walk too. Again, that’s what this is about.

  The link to Lee Bacchus is a good one. Yes, there’s always been yellow journalism, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try to elevate the discourse.

• 80 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 6:11 pm

  sparticus,

  Are you keeping count of what consitutes media coverage worthiness? I would think that supplying verifiable documents or eye witnesses helps separate the wheat from the chaff. Are you saying that the only stories worth covering are policy only—not the personalities or they the way they “get the job done?”. Egads.

  The Dick Cheney stuff, remember, comes from the GOVERNMENT side of the equation. In other words ” a respected authority!” with LOTS of access to the msm, and one who uses his position of power to get the word out. It is precisely because msm can’t seemingly be bothered listening to the “little people” that we are having this debate at all. People with little or no “power” (hello, Karen Silkwood!) passing info along.

  I have always been a proponent of elevated discourse. But if that means obscuring the facts or problems with more and more effective spin methods, then I say, bring on the bloggers, many warts and all. I agree with Lee—most people can differentiate the bitching (or bitchy stuff) from hard facts or evidence. Give the “little people” some credit!

• 81 spartikus // Sep 14, 2010 at 6:16 pm

  I would think that supplying verifiable documents or eye witnesses helps separate the wheat from the chaff.

  As I said, and I provided two examples, that often isn’t the case.

• 82 spartikus // Sep 14, 2010 at 6:44 pm

  According to the Twitterverse, someone from FD Element has gone on Global’s Newshour saying the Mayor’s office “arranged payments” to CivicScene.

  And there you go.

• 83 landlord // Sep 14, 2010 at 7:07 pm

  I rest my case, M’Lud.

• 84 spartikus // Sep 14, 2010 at 7:29 pm

  Here’s the video.

• 85 spartikus // Sep 14, 2010 at 7:42 pm

  I don’t understand why the source, described as an ex-contractor, had his identity concealed. Well, I understand why he might want it concealed, but I don’t understand why Global would agree to it.

  Here’s the New York Times Confidential News Sources Policy created in the wake of the Dick Cheney debacle mentioned above, for reference.

• 86 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 14, 2010 at 10:17 pm

  Hey Gassy Jack (and btw, say hi to Joe Fortes for me

  Yes, of course. I stand corrected.Geller’s was the only one I could ID by real name. I agree there have been some well versed folks here, and lots of interesting points and ideas exchanged.

• 87 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 14, 2010 at 10:32 pm

  @ Charlie Smith.

  None of what I wrote about you were lies. It’s fact. While I was still with 24 you consistently took cheap shots at PKP. Why? Could it be that you’re a knee-padded, left-wing drivel jockey from the bell tower of the MSM?

  You sure did take shots at Sean as well. I distinctly remember Sean once complaining, and then explaining, that this is how you operated.

  As for your laundry list of ‘Tories I Love’ who cares?

  You routinely ignore what I write only to manipulate it to suit your own narrow audience which is decidedly left wing.

  And for your information I am not negotiating with anyone you’ve named, but certainly others.

  Charlie, face it…it’s over and it wasn’t that good a run. But don’t let me wake you from the bowels of a paper that takes ads from “Darla…44-29-38…9!”

  You ARE tragic…

• 88 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 14, 2010 at 10:34 pm

  @ Frances and crew.

  Any of you happen to catch Global tonight???

  Ross has zilch credibility. A source who contracted for FD Element revealed the whole scenario…Magee’s tentacles, Miller’s complicity and Ross’ foolishness….

  It’s all over…

  So Frances, still don’t believe???

  Don’t let me interrupt another latte…

• 89 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 14, 2010 at 10:35 pm

  @spartikus

  You’ve read Mason’s piece on me…?

  Wait for my piece on him…

• 90 Frances Bula // Sep 14, 2010 at 11:07 pm

  @ Alex. Spartikus already posted the link hours ago. If you ever actually read anything I wrote, instead of just looking for an opportunity to heap on more childish insults, you’d realize that I said there were things about the billing and Jonathan’s defence that didn’t make sense. And the whole reason I spent so much time assessing the information in my original post is because I thought it was a serious story worth attention.

  The source didn’t reveal “the whole scenario.” He said he wrote and then leaked the documents, that Mike would have people at FD send him messages on a non-city hall address to deal with issues (I’m sure Sam Sullivan’s staff would be shocked, shocked to hear that), and other things not quite as lurid as you’re painting it, but very bad news anyway. If this story keeps on going and lands at Magee’s feet, he may have to go.

  But I have no reason to doubt what the guy said. Sources of my own say FD could be sloppy about their work and that one of their specialties is negative campaigns, so it seems credible to me. It was obvious that Jonathan was getting material from city hall offices, questions of payment aside.

  As for my latte, you should know from the hours we used to spend talking on the phone that I can’t drink coffee at night. Can’t you ever just try to make a point without adding a silly and cheap shot?

  Btw, your previous screed was too tiresome to answer for the most part but just to try to type it out more simply in the hopes that you’ll get it: I didn’t say why didn’t the guy leak it to ME. I said why didn’t he leak it to at least an MSM reporter that you’ve designated as “ace”? I note that he now has gone to MSM, perhaps because he noticed that the story wasn’t getting picked up.

• 91 Frances Bula // Sep 14, 2010 at 11:14 pm

  @spartikus. I can understand. He’s not hiding his identity from FD, since he says he wrote Jonathan’s contract. They have to know who he is.

  But it probably doesn’t go over too well with future employers to think they’d be hiring someone who will take his word files to the media if he doesn’t like something you’re doing. Some may see him as a noble whistle-blower; someone trying to run a business would be a little wary, I’d think. So I get it.

• 92 SV // Sep 14, 2010 at 11:16 pm

  oh snap!

• 93 spartikus // Sep 15, 2010 at 8:02 am

  @Francis

  Yep – but why would Global agree to it? Concealing his identity isn’t really protecting a source from retalitation in this case. If they know who he is, they can make his name public on their own or quietly pass word around the web design world. Or am I missing something?

  Because it seems to me keeping his identity concealed is hampering the public’s ability to judge whether he’s a credible witness. ie. Is this person who they say they are, were they in a bonafide position to have access the information they leaked, and so on.

  He may well have. But as it stands, I don’t know.

  But yes, it’s certainly looking like this is going to end in a resignation. Or a massive lawsuit. Or both!

• 94 Frances Bula // Sep 15, 2010 at 8:21 am

  @ spartikus. Because they want the story, they think it’s credible, and it’s the only way they believe they can get it. I have, from time to time, though not often, used unnamed sources when I thought it was important to get a particular fact into a story that helped readers understand something going on at city hall.

  There is always a danger with unnamed sources that you are being manipulated. So you always have to assess whether that’s worthwhile. Generally if a source is providing some factual information and it’s the only way to get it, reporters will be more inclined to consider it. If they’re just slagging someone else and it’s opinion based, less inclined.

• 95 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 15, 2010 at 8:59 am

  spartikus,

  Being a whistle blower is not something one would undertake on a lark, methinks. Not when it is obvious that retaliation of some sort could be forthcoming.

  That this chap was even on camera is a testament to his bravery in going against the Establishment. He appears to have provided hard evidence. What—are you looking to see if he looks “beady-eyed!?” (Thanks to “Suzie Smith” making a comment on CC re: Global reporter Marisa Thomas. My laff of the day—so far).

  One can see political, business and union leaders on the tube every day, cooly going over speaking points. Because they have that practiced look of confidence, does this mean that they are telling you the truth? I trade you three smiling, glib faces for one good invoice any day.

  Also, we know that most news is broken through sources you will never see. Perhaps you recall a fellow named “Deep Throat?” Tok him darned near40 years to come above ground. Yet, I hear no complaints about him not being on camera. LOL!

  My advice: Don’t shoot the messenger.

• 96 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 15, 2010 at 10:26 am

  @Frances.

  You draw first blood, complain about being upbraided, and then take a parting shot about covering the story.

  Similar to your colleague and lazy MSM posterboy Mason jar…you STILL don’t get it.

  Who was going to cover it?!

  It took one week for the source to come around. I asked for delays to ensure he was comfortable. Remember, I protect my sources. He came to me because as he put it, “Out f anybody I’m the local scene, you look like the only guy we can trust.”

  But that’s okay old pal, you keep lobbing shots at me.

  It only strengthens my resolve.

• 97 Frances Bula // Sep 15, 2010 at 10:45 am

  @ Alex. As usual, you don’t actually respond to anything I said. You just throw more playground insults around. Who was going to cover it? Global, which has shown itself ready to do previous stories on the subject. And that’s where your wary source finally ended up to ensure that the story got wide coverage.

• 98 boohoo // Sep 15, 2010 at 12:30 pm

  FB, why do you bother?

• 99 solitary man // Sep 15, 2010 at 12:59 pm

  @boohoo
  She bothers because its actually a cozy little club, this particular slice of blogworld.

  The bloggers and commenters need each other, feed off one another, all with a bit part to play in this improv style soap opera, thats what makes it work. Everyone has a personality, from the righteous to the badboy to all the walk-on characters (lefties, righties, greenies, meanies, ….) All craving the attention and spotlight even down in the bowels of a long thread like this.

  So sit back and enjoy the performance.

• 100 Frances Bula // Sep 15, 2010 at 1:15 pm

  @boohoo. I don’t know. Too much time on my hands. Better to direct my aggression outwards than at my family. Hopeless liberal belief that if people can just talk to each other, they can realize they’re not at odds but actually all trying to make the world a better place. Misguided wish that the Alex I used to know who can actually be kind of funny and at moments charming can be induced to stop screaming. All of the above.

• 101 spartikus // Sep 15, 2010 at 8:50 pm

  One can see political, business and union leaders on the tube every day

  Well, political and business leaders, anyway…

  I hear no complaints about him not being on camera.

  Uh, yeah. You’re putting words in people’s mouths. Namely mine. It’s not very nice, so stop it. As I pointed above, anonymous sourcing can be abused – as the run up to the Iraq War so clearly shows.

  But I’ve never said that whistle-blowers are bad.

  Show me where I did, please.

• 102 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 16, 2010 at 12:34 pm

  And with me, the Frances I used to know, wouldn’t delve into slicing into a colleague because she’s admittedly, “too tired” to dig for stories that she would have taken front page if it were the NPA.

  I’m still charming. Just unwilling not to call you out anymore.

  I repeat, the reason the MSM did not cover this story on the Ross docus was because I wanted the source to be completely comfortable and advised him NOT to do any interviews with anyone else if he wasn’t entirely comfortable–because I know what a vicious group your pals with Vision are.

  Every thought of doing a post about why all these anonymous sources are coming out and why the theme is the same: Vision nastiness.

  You didn’t hesitate to describe Sam’s relatively meaningless, if not flaccid. statements in ‘Citizen Sam’ as “shocking” and over-the-top. But to address the crumbling world of the Mayor and his party, nope, not a chance–just an incredibly fawning love letter to his Chief of Staph in the recent Vancouver Magazine.

  Charming, huh…? LOL.

• 103 A. G. Tsakumis // Sep 16, 2010 at 12:36 pm

  @ Frances

  Not to mention you literally had to be dragged, kicking and screaming no less, by many of your readers, to cover Vision-negative stories during the summer.

  The pattern is obvious. And sad…

• 104 solitary man // Sep 16, 2010 at 1:14 pm

  #102/3 someone appears to be bitter that Frances is actually taken seriously by the MSM and serious readers, as opposed to those that are distastefully viewed as tabloid bloggers.

• 105 Frances Bula // Sep 16, 2010 at 2:22 pm

  @ Alex 104. I guess that’s why Citycaucus has so many of my stories up.

• 106 Frances Bula // Sep 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm

  @ Alex. Actually, I never wrote a story about Citizen Sam, though everyone else did. If you go back and check the newspaper databases, you’ll see that the film was heavily, heavily covered by many media who quoted various people saying it was political suicide and shocking and various other things. And, funny how that film was made by someone very sympathetic to Sam and yet turned out to be so damaging.

Leave a Comment