So Premier Danny Williams is lecturing New Brunswickers about giving away their hydro asset.
“They’ve sold the farm,” he says, using phrases like “complete capitulation” in accusing New Brunswick of selling away its future.
Our premier is blowing smoke on this one, however. Just over a year ago, Williams himself suggested that his government might sell Nalcor – for the exact same reason New Brunswick is selling its asset. Here’s what Danny Williams said to the House of Assembly, on April 30, 2008.
“This particular government wants to strengthen Hydro, wants to make it a very valuable corporation: a corporation that will ultimately pay significant dividends back to the people of this province; a corporation that perhaps some day may have enough value in its assets… where hopefully we might be able to sell it some day and pay off all the debt of this province, and that would be a good thing.”
You can read the remarks in their full context at the province’s Hansard site.
Isn’t that odd? Williams would “hopefully” sell our energy corporation to pay down the province’s debt, a key reason why New Brunswick is now selling its asset. Yet, Williams accuses New Brunswickers of “complete capitulation.” Which is rather hurtful, don’t you think?
Actually, intemperate outbursts have been consistent throughout the premier’s efforts to develop the Lower Churchill.
Let’s start with Williams’s decision, in May 2006, to go it alone on the Lower Churchill development, a decision that was something of a slap to Ontario, Quebec and other proponents who responded to the province’s request for proposals.
If you click the above link, you will note that the province doesn’t acknowledge the respondents or thank them for their efforts. Nor does he explain why he is rejecting the proposals. There may have been good reason, but apparently they weren’t worth sharing with those who own the resource. (No, Danny doesn’t own it. You own it.) Instead, we get this:
“We know that we are capable of executing this project in a way that will ensure we maximize the returns while mitigating the risks,” the premier said. “We have the experience, knowledge and capacity to take on a project of this magnitude and we are recognized as world leaders in hydroelectric operations and development. This is about doing it by ourselves, for ourselves. We are on a path to be masters of our own destiny and the successful development of this project will be a significant step forward in reaching that ultimate objective for this province.”
Of course, we couldn’t literally ‘go it alone.’ We still needed customers to buy the power, financial backers, loan guarantees from the federal government and a way to get the power to market through other jurisdictions. No matter how you cut it, a co-operative – not combative – approach was needed.
Unfortunately, Danny Williams was not the man for the job. From that day forward, the project development process was characterized by name-calling and back-biting.
In September 2006, Williams used his typical approach of putting down others in an attempt to put himself in a better light.
“The more we can spread out our energy supply means that we won't be totally dependent on Quebec for energy which, given the volatility of the politics in Quebec, could be a very, very sensitive situation in the years to come,” Williams said. He apologized for the comment three weeks later, then retracted in the same breath by saying he was “stating reality.”
In July 2007, in an interview with The Independent, Williams said he wanted to bypass the Hydro Quebec power transmission route “for all the obvious reasons”. The reporter didn’t ask what those reasons were, but presumably they had to do with historical resentments. This was odd, given that the Quebec route was the most logical and cost-effective means of getting power to market. It was a pointless comment, and not exactly diplomatic.
Have I missed other instances where Williams picked a fight on this matter, rather than built relationships? If you can add some, please comment below. (But please limit comments to this specific issue; there isn't space to list all the premier's insults, attacks and outbursts.)
Then there are the attacks he made last month on New Brunswick, which were ill-considered and patronizing, given his own musings on selling Nalcor as recently as 2008.
Last week on VOCM Open Line, Williams described Quebec Premier Jean Charest as “a friend,” which might be a good relationship to maintain, given recent developments. Alas, he has burned that bridge too.
First, there was Williams’s comment that, “over my dead body am I going to hand this over to Jean Charest in Quebec,” which was odd, given no one is asking him to do such a thing. The situation is far more complex than that.
And then, last Thursday, there was this report from CBC Radio-Canada’s Telejournal program:
Dans une entrevue à CBC News, hier soir, M. Williams a carrément traité Jean Charest de menteur après que ce dernier eut affirmé que "la tarte est assez grande pour tout le monde" pour subvenir aux besoins des Américains. "Je ne l'ai pas vu dire cela, mais je présume que son nez allongeait lorsqu'il parlait", a-t-il dit.
Here’s a rough translation:
In a meeting with CBC News, yesterday evening, Mr. Williams bluntly stated Jean Charest was a liar when he asserted "the pie is big enough for everybody" to meet the needs of the Americans. "I did not see him saying it, but I guess his nose was growing when he spoke,” he (Williams) said.
So Charest is a lair too. Nice touch. Way to wreck those bridges, and come back for the footings.
And then, on top of all that, there was the revelation from Kathy Dunderdale, early in September, that the province has been trying for the last five years to sell an equity stake in the Lower Churchill to Quebec.She told VOCM’s Randy Simms that the province“got a path beaten to (Hydro Quebec’s) door” in its efforts to do a deal, but there was “no take-up” from Quebec.
This is not surprising, given the premier’s habit of firing public broadsides, which could quite conceivably torpedo any private negotiations that may have been underway.
Meanwhile, what was Hydro Quebec’s approach, after Williams rejected their proposal in 2006 and announced his “go it alone” decision?
One thing they didn’t do was attack others and burn bridges. They went to work – quietly, effectively, strategically – and launched a plan to develop several hydro projects within Quebec borders, with a combined capacity of 4,500 megawatts (compared to the Lower Churchill’s 2,800 megawatts). They built relationships, and negotiated the purchase of New Brunswick Power.
While Danny Williams was talking tough for the benefit of the local crowd, Hydro Quebec quietly outflanked and outmaneuvered him.
We lost, and now the Lower Churchill is looking more and more like a dead horse.
To use a hockey analogy, I agree that there is a place for goons and enforcers in the game of politics. We have no shortage of that on our team, to be sure.
The Telegram is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.
This is a moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes to a moderator for the website. Once it has been approved, your comment will be displayed on the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.
All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.
The only thing I would add is that Williams' mishandling of the hydro issue is just one part of a much larger pattern. In an incisive column in September, Look before you leap, Russell Wangersky noted, the best word to describe our current provincial government is 'impulsive.'
What you've laid out sounds virtually the same as the reckless ABC campaign, though Williams has still not matched his vitriolic speech to the Board of Trade on 10 September 2008, which should be required reading for anyone interested in what makes this government tic.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
W McLean from ON writes: The Enemies aren't always foreign, either, sometimes they are domestic.
As in, A HREF= http://labradore.blogspot.com/2005/10/lowering-churchill-expectations.html ''It also depends on what the ask is from the aboriginal peoples. It depends on what the ask is from Labrador.'' /A
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Art MacKay from Bocabec, NB writes: Gee guys. We will be happy to trade our Shawn for your Danny; behind your back vs up front, phys.ed teacher with no experience vs successful business man. Without this kind of leadership to look after our real Atlantic interests, we would be sucking the left tit of Quebec day after tomorrow.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
David Cochrane from St. John's, NL writes: I'm going to post here, knowing full well that I shall incur the wrath of the local blogosphere. But here goes.
I was in the legislature when Williams made that comment. The entire press gallery perked up when he spoke of selling Nalcor.
We pulled him outside for a scrum to ask about it. Even before we asked a question he clarified his comments. He said he misspoke in the legislature. He wasn't talking about selling Nalcor. He was talking about selling the individual assets it acquires.
For example, if the Hebron stake is eventually worth 5-billion dollars and someone wants to buy, Wlliams said he would consider selling it to reduce debt.
That was consistent with past comments he had made when the government rolled out its plan to revamp Hydro into an energy company.
So while his statement in the legislature certainly appeared to be big, big news the followup showed that it wasn't what it appeared but rather a careless comment from Williams that he immediately clarified.
I don't write this to defend Williams. Only to explain why the media (this IS supposed to be a media blog isn't it?) didn't do a breaking news story that day.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Geoff Meeker from Newfoundland writes: David,
You never incur my wrath by posting here. I wish more journalists would weigh in.
Regarding Williams misspeaking in the House, the rest of the world - myself included - can be forgiven for not knowing this, because the media gave the premier a break and didn't do the story. Did he retract his statement in the House? If not, he should have, because those words will endure in Hansard long after you, me and Danny are gone.
The problem is, the subject of his discussion was Hydro, and it cannot be misinterpreted; Williams was talking about selling the company. Was it really a mistake, or was he into damage control for letting something slip? You know better than I - you were there.
Interesting that, even back then, Williams was getting into hot water for careless comments.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
W McLean from ON writes: How many such bullets has Dear Leader thus dodged, by having a legislative gallery so willing to overlook, fail to hear, or willingly have things explained away?
I keep going back to that press conference that D.L. did with Loyola Sullivan, before the latter was made an Unperson, back during Equalization War I, in which D.L. and his ostensible finance minister revealed the shocking truth that —
Are you sitting down?
— That as a province's own-source revenues go up, all things being equal, its equalization entitlement goes DOWN!
CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?
No one challenged D.L. or the ostensible finance minister with the obvious question, which, briefly stated, is: ''And?''
The question mark should be heavily tinged with incredulous sarcasm, BTW.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Ed Hollett from St. john's, NL writes: So if I understand this correctly, David, you claim this is a non-story because in his clarification the Premier explained that he meant that he would sell off all the assets of the company - i.e. all the stuff that makes it a viable company - but that this would somehow not be actually selling the company.
Silly Geoff for misunderstanding that while the Premier said what he said, he actually meant to say the same thing but with slightly different words that had the same meaning but which were, of course, entirely different.
And people wonder why Alice in Wonderland is such an apt metaphor for local politics and now, as it seems political reporting.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
David Cochrane from St. John's, Newfoundland writes: It is good to see my prediction about the local bloggers held true.
Williams did not say he would sell off all the assets (i.e power generation and transmission capacity). He was talking energy assets in the oil and gas sector. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in my earlier post. Or perhaps I should have hyper linked to something on Bondpaper. That is the depository of all truth in this town it seems.
Nalcor has a division between the regulated side of its activities (the old Nfld Hydro) and the unregulated side (the new energy corp). Williams has said repeatedly he wants to build wealth in the unregulated side and use that to increase the province's net worth and reduce debt. He can either flip those assets as they grow in value, or use the revenue they earn to pay off debt. That is what he was talking about.
He had said that very thing many, many times before. So it wasn't news once it was clarified.
We all jumped at what he said in the House because it seemed like a stunning reversal to us all.
But -- correct me if I'm wrong -- aren't we supposed to seek clarification? And ask follow up questions to get the true meaning of what was said? Or are we to just do as some local bloggers do and take comments and parse them to suit our own ends?
Had we done the story Geoff is suggesting we could have been accused of manufacturing a controversy. Williams did not let those comments stand. Within five minutes he came out to a scrum and said I gotta clear something up because he realized what he said in the legislature was not what he (apparently)meant.
Now you can go all Da Vinci code and try to twist this into something that suits your agenda. But I'm telling you what happened. Because -- unlike you guys -- I was there.
And Geoff -- this is the last time I'm going to post on this site. I do not think this is actually an effective media blog anymore. It has joined the chorus of the anti-Williams blogs maintained by the people who most frequently comment here and on every other local blog in Newfoundland and Labrador(e).
CBC and NTV have been at 90 minutes since September and there is no blog post analyzing the two shows. We just launched live late night news. There is no assessment of that show.
Instead its more guest editorial by Craig Westcott and another post calling Williams a dictator. If you want to blog about that stuff, fine. But don't call it Meeker on Media. Because as far as I can tell, the big local media issues aren't getting covered here.
That is likely why more reporters don't post here. This blog simply doesn't cover issues about our industry anymore. And when we do post - like I did earlier-- people like Ed and Wally will just twist it to suit their own purposes.
So flame away guys. I can't wait to see how you take a sentence or two here and there and torque it in the finest tradition of the shoddy journalism you so readily condemn -- when it disagrees with your world view.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: David:
To start off, the only one flaming here is you. Perhaps you might focus on the substance of the issue - since you raised it - rather than engage in the ad hominem slurs aimed widely and wildly.
Your prediction also isn't accurate (any more than your argument) at least as far as what is aimed in my direction is concerned. I certainly don't feel anything akin to wrath. i may have a bit of fun at your expense, but if you wander out and make asinine comments, I think that's par for the course.
All that's really to one side, though since the issue is really something else. Let me run through it as I see it.
1. You made yourself perfectly clear the first time. I also read the Hansard. He was referring to the whole company. Your new version doesn't apparently match up.
2. There is a huge difference between reducing liabilities by increasing assets (a paper transaction) and selling off assets.
3. Since I don't recall any of this has been widely reported (if reported at all) a great many people might be under the mistaken belief that (to borrow your distinction) the unregulated bits of NALCOR are of the same sacrosanct, inviolate type and regulated ones.
4. In the comment the Premier made no distinction as you now do between the unregulated and the regulated as far as potential sell off goes. That is fairly obvious since the comment came in response to a comment about improving Hydro's net equity ratio.
5. In that context, it is also interesting that Hydro recently sought and received approval to be treated for regulatory purposes the same as Newfoundland Power for the purposes of fixing its debt equity ratio (if memory serves).
6. The structure of the whole company is not as the Premier described it in 2008 Hansard a full year AFTER NALCOR was created. Hydro is a subsidiary of NALCOR, not the other way round. Improving Hydro's debt ratio wouldn't necessarily make a difference to the valuation of the oil assets. Since the oil assets got their cash and other assets directly from the taxpayers, what he said and what you now say he said don't fit together. Government didn't need to (and apparently wasn't) fatten Hydro to make another compnay fatter for slaughter.
7. Poking at Westcott, Meeker, Wally, me and the fire hydrant next door doesn't seem to get at what ought to be a relatively straight forward matter of discussing what the Premier said and what it meant.
If it has been misunderstood then it has been misunderstood but it would seem in this case pretty clear he meant what he said and said what he meant and that your efforts at clarification either now or then actually cleared up nothing.
7. But speaking of flame wars, in the wider context of the government's current flame war with the New Brunswick government, it seems odd that at no point has anyone in the conventional media managed to recall these supposedly oft-made statements about sell-off to include in a story or at least to remind the premier of in a scrum so he can clarify them once again.
8. As a last point, since you keep bringing up supposed misquotes, are you suggesting that Kathy Dunderdale didn't say that the Premier spent five years secretly trying to sell off a chunk of the Lower Churchill to HQ, leaving 1969 to one side?
perhaps you would be able to clarify that for us all as well.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Darrell Smith from CBS, NL writes: As a follower of local media and politics, I've found David to be highly neutral in his observations and reporting, exposing no bias one way or the other.
I can't recall which journalist's bio this was taken from (I'll go out on a limb and say Walter Cronkite??), but he remarked that when you become predictable, you've lost all credibility. 'Nuff said.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Winston Smith from Canada writes: Geoff,
It's unfortunate that both the substance of your original comment and the implications of David Cochrane's initial response got lost in his flame-out.
Cochrane's angy rant speaks for itself. Slagging bloggers seems to be a popular sport these days. But I hope your readers take a long, hard look at Cochrane's comments.
Ironically, this exchange turned out to be precisely what Cochrane said it wasn't: a revealing commentary on the local media.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Peter Jackson from St. John's, NL writes: If I may.
I empathize with David. Every now and then, the Ed and Wally show drives me around the bend too. I have occasionaly waded into a little tit-for-tat, but it usually ends up being a stick for my back, because they gang up, and occasionally draw in a couple of blogger buddies. But if you just see them for what they are, it's much more tolerable. Fact is, when you look past the partisan agenda, they often have interesting and insightful things to say, and are even worth a chuckle now and then. Like when Ed accuses someone of being ad hominem, and then calls him asinine. What a joker!
That's not journalism, of course. Mainstream journalists don't seek to twist every word and syllable to support an agenda, or ignore events that don't fit the message. Most media in this town do an excellent -- sometimes even excessive -- job of fairly poking and prodding and getting the dirt and the details. That's their job.
In defence of Geoff, I have to say that most of his posts are thoroughly media related. As well as posting Westcott's rants (and he has reduced his quota a little bit lately), he has posted guest comments from numerous other people.
Geoff, if you want to join the get Danny brigade, that's your choice. But I still have faith you won't turn your blog into a campaign headquarters. Certain other bloggers are more than capable of fulfilling that job.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Tim Wetzel from NL writes: I generally agree with the observations of Darell, Winston and Peter. I am actually wondering if David has just baited the political commentators into proving his point, but in their own words. Irony indeed.
Here is what I feel to be a sensible solution: write two blogs. The media-related postings and politically-oriented postings initiate two completely different comment threads which could easily be managed separately.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Mark Watton from ON writes: ''Just see them for what they are''
I had every intention of avoiding this with a ten-foot pole, but heck, I'll bite:
Peter, ''what'' are they?
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: Well, to drag this all the way back to the beginning, I was surprised to see David wade in at all.
There is no reference to him or the CBC in the original post anywhere.
The Premier's words from Hansard are plain enough and even if we accept unquestioningly David's clarification, the thrust of the Premier's original comment remains pretty much the same: he will sell off some or all of the energy corp to pay down the debt.
There you have the pith and substance of the whole thing.
Now it would seem to me that the pre-emptive swipe David took, followed now by Peter repeating the same old talking points have done a lovely job of getting away from that original point.
The Premier said it.
The words are clear.
Now to turn to the ad hominem attacks started by David and continued by Peter: no one should forget that both David and Peter have a problem with some of us who who write online.
Who knows what their reasons are? Who cares?
It has nothing to do with the issue raised in David's comment and does nothing to alter the point that the premier said exactly what he said and that he meant either exactly it or David's minor variation.
But if you want to have a sense of the ludicrous nature of Peter's argument, consider this: I agree with the Premier on the rightness of selling off Hydro and its assets at an opportune moment. I also am gratified that he and his cabinet now share the views of a number of people (me included) that their spending has been unsustainable.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Peter Jackson from St. John's, NL writes: Oh dear. Dave's comments were asinine, and now mine are ludicrous. No personal attacks here, folks. Move along.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
W McLean from ON writes: No wrath from this corner.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Peter Walsh from St. John's, NL writes: Wow. What a sad commentary this thread is on the state of things these days in the ever-blending world of information, news, journalism, spin, fact and fiction.
I've read the tedious arguments above, and selling part of something is NOT the same as selling all of it. The sky is blue. The sun rises every day. If it walks, sounds and looks like duck, then usually it's a duck.
David, and any other reporter present that day, who heard the premier's clarification, and moved on to a proper story, did the right thing. Any unbiased, trained daily news journalist with half a degree of experience and professionalism would have done the same.
Explaining the nuance in an effective way to the public would take a longer-form task requiring the kind of research, time and resources that is sadly missing form today's media. Opinion and spin has no place so, imo, David and the others did the right thing by letting the comments pass.
But of course, in this day and age, everyone thinks they're a journalist or at least think they know how to tell journalists how to do their job. They may have access to the tools of journalism and some of the skills of a journalist..but they are not journalists.
I don't care what bloggers, politicians, PR practitioners, citizen journalists etc say about journalists.
I DO care that the general public is not engaged in this important issue and may not see what is happening to the old fashioned ivory-towered filter that is journalism.
Good old fashioned journalism is all but dead in this province and, despite its faults, I think most people will miss it if it ever dies altogether.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Geoff Meeker from Conception Bay South, NL writes: Peter - Thanks for offering your views. I agree with much of what you say. I am not convinced, however, that running this story would have been a ''longer form task''. A simple piece, showing the premier's statement in the House, and then subsequent retraction, wouldn't have been a lot of work. And why didn't the media - and especially the Opposition - ask for a retraction in the House? History is not well-served when such remarks live into perpetuity in Hansard. I do agree that media in general are under-resourced. There are also good questions to be asked about whether the public knows the difference between what is presented online, particularly in blogs - which are mostly opinion and commentary - versus mainstream journalism, which is objective reporting of fact.
On a side note, regular commenters will note that there are quotation marks in this comment. For some reason, this site strips away quotation marks, which is endlessly frustrating. You can work around this inserting by TWO apostrophes where you would normally open or close a quote... like so: ''
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Peter Walsh from St. John's, Newfoundland writes: I agree there would be nothing wrong with running a quick he-said-something-and-then-clarified-it story, but Geoff I think you might agree that's a pretty weak story in an of itself and can see why the legislative reporters took a pass on it when, as you pointed out, there were other fish to fry that day. I see nothing evil at play here, and nothing worthy of a flame war.
One point of clarification on my part: When I wrote - I don't care what bloggers, politicians, PR practitioners, citizen journalists etc say about journalists — I did not mean to disparage those professions or anyone engaged therein — only that they are different jobs than journalism. There are cross over skills and functions, but also key differences among us all and I think the blending in the minds of the public about these professions is generally not a good thing.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: Peter, just because someone has a different occupation does not make their observations about the work of the other invalid.
One of the things that can come out of a discussion of this case is an understanding of the issues involved in being a reporter, genrerally and in this specific case.
What's interesting to my mind is that we haven't seen much of it in this thread, particularly from the three or four contributors who are paid reporters/editors. We've seen lots of other stuff but no discussion of the line of reasoning that applies in cases like this one.
What we did see was an explanation which I accept on the face of it (he gave us an clarification and we opted to run something else) but the content of the explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny in hindsight.
One of the other questions I'd be curious about is why the comments about selling NALCOR, in whole or in pieces, hasn't resurfaced lately in scrums especially since it is - supposedly - a well know provincial government policy. [Hint: this isn't meant to imply anything sinister.]
With all respect I think there is a great deal more to your intial comment and your subsequent clarification that it would appear. There is a very real problem right now with declining readership/viewership for news done by paid reporters.
One of the things that has occured is that the interpretation of the world is no longer in the hands of a specific group of people who put together newspapers, and radio and television news.
The world has shifted. Lots of people can do reporter-like things and in many respects, they can do major reporter-like things successfully and coherently. They determine for themselves where they find their information and it increasingly isn't in the old three versions.
This takes us off to another discussion altogether but I think it comes back to the point you made in your first comment. You don't care what some of your audience (as a reporter) has to say. You only care about an undefined mass called the general public.
You do not care because, to use your words They may have access to the tools of journalism and some of the skills of a journalist..but they are not journalists.
Elitism and exceptionalism - intentional or inadvertent - is one of the things that tends to turn off the sorts of people who used to follow conventional media much more closely than they do today.
Just a thought. If you do not understand your audience, respsect their views and pay heed to them, you really are in a bad spot.
Then again, what do I know about reporters and editors? I can't know, according to you, because I am not one of them.
By the way, i do agree the blending of different jobs is bad. One of the worst examples of it locally comes from the assumption that reporeters can walk out of a newsroom and practice PR successfully. Seldom does it work that way, but that too is another topic.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Winston Smith from Canada writes: Peter,
You need to make a clearer distinction between two discrete activities that commonly get categorized as journalism:
1) Actual reporting, which entails primary research, interviews, and writing news stories.
2) Commentary, which usually entails regular columns, though it increasingly involves blogs and online threads like this one.
The blending of the two in the public mind is not a good thing.
While the first set of activities draws on specialized skills and professional ethics, the second does not. I would never claim to be a reporter. My blog makes no claims to breaking news stories (though, like most bloggers, I provide a link whenever I quote from a source, such as a newspaper).
A professional journalist is no more qualified to write an opinion piece than I am. As for the actual quality of the opinion available to the public (both by amateur bloggers and professional columnists), readers can decide for themselves. As I pointed out to Peter Jackson when he sent me an angry email last summer, whether anyone reads my blog is due entirely to the quality of my arguments and my writing. And since it's standard practice for editorial boards to endorse a candidate during an election, can we please dispense with the canard that journalism is necessarily neutral.
In papers such as the Telegram, much of the original content of local journalism comes in the form of opinion pieces. If inflamatory online comments (such as those already made by Mr. Jackson in this thread, for example) count as journalism, then professional reporters need to realize that they cannot have it both ways.
Finally, on the link between journalism and liberal democracy, readers may want to read two pieces that actually deal with both the history and the future of the debate:
1) Jill Lepore in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/01/26/090126crat_atlarge_lepore
2) Jack Shafer in Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2214724
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
David Cochrane from St. John's, NL writes: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2005/10/21/nf_hydro_future_20051021.html
We didn't do this story in 2008. Because we had done it in 2005.
If I recall correctly Williams said the same stuff to the Telegram in an editorial board. Our stories ran within a day of each other. I'm sure someone at the Telegram could check their archives for Oct 2005.
You can follow the link to read the entire story. I've pasted what I consider to be some of the relevant parts below.
So clearly, this story wasn't missed, suppressed or ignored. It was just something that we had already done. IT. WAS. OLD. NEWS.
Just because you guys missed it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
FROM CBC: Oct 21, 2005
Williams says his top priority is for the company to become an investor in every form of energy development – or, as he calls it, to get a piece of the action.
I would like to see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro gain a strong asset base, so in fact then the government of Newfoundland, as a shareholder, also benefits from that asset base, he said.
SNIP
Williams says his approach could mean substantial long-term rewards for taxpayers.
If energy continues to grow in value as it is now, perhaps what we could now buy for a billion dollars could be worth $10- or $20 billion in 10 or 20 years' time, which means that those assets have a value whereby we could pay off our debt, Williams said.
It is bringing a private-sector mentality to a public operation, because our debt is our biggest concern in this province.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Peter Jackson from St. John's, NL writes: Winston:
Please indicate what I wrote in this thread that was inflammatory. I'm at a loss. I said that certain blogs have an obvious partisan bias. This is hardly inflammatory. It's just fact. But I also said such blogs often offer interesting and insightful commentary. For that, my comments were called ,,ludicrous,,.
I also gave Geoff the benefit of the doubt with the fairness of his blog, even though he has openly declared he is anti-Williams.
Yes, I e-mailed you personally last summer to complain about distortions and untruths you posted on a PUBLIC blog about a column. I would have commented online, but you refuse to offer that option.
By the way, I must ask, as welll as not allowing comments on your PUBLIC blog, it seems quite a coincidence to me that you happen to have the same name as the protagonist in 1984, and that your blog is callled Orwellian Spin. Surely you're not using a pseudonym! Geoff wouldn't knowingly post your comments if you are.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Geoff Meeker from Conception Bay South, NL writes: Peter - Yes, Winston Smith is a pseudonym. I have communicated with him directly and know his true identity. I am also satisfied with his reasons for remaining anonymous. I DO allow anonymous comments, from people who identify themselves and give their reasons for doing so.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Winston Smith from Canada writes: Peter (Jackson, not Walsh),
You asked, ''Please indicate what I wrote in this thread that was inflammatory.''
Okay, here are some salient examples:
''the Ed and Wally show''
''they gang up, and occasionally draw in a couple of blogger buddies''
''partisan agenda''
''the get Danny brigade''
I call these remarks inflamatory because they infer that there is a cabal of bloggers (or buddies, as you term it), when there is no such thing. I have never met Ed or WJM. I will let other bloggers speak for themselves, but I know of no ''brigade.''
What you call a ''get Danny'' agenda, I would call a healthy reaction to the unhealthy rhetoric of the Williams regime. Whether I allow comments on my own amateur blog is my own business. I keep a valid email address and answer every single email I receive, yours included. Last summer, I took the time to answer every single one of your complaints. Geoff knows my real-world identity; he has my contact information; and he has copies of our email exchange. As for my post on your column last summer, readers can make of their own mind whether my blog was fair.
If Ed called your argument (not you, by the way) ludicrous, then you should restrict your comments to Ed, rather than making generalizations about every amateur blogger who is alleged to be part of a mythical brigade. And even if Ed was out of line (that's between the two of you to work out), I hardly see how two wrongs make a right.
As for my own blog, you need not worry. As its small group of readers know, I've been trying to wind it up. Reading comments like the ''Ed and Wally show'' show certainly help to discourage me from blogging.
In fact, this might raise as good a point as any on which to sign off my little blogging career: there is a reason why the so-called anti-Danny blogs are so much better than the pro-Danny commentary.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Peter Jackson from NL writes: Winston, foor the love of God, just give up your blog. You're worse than Ross Perot. I'm amazed you can say with a straight face that terms like Ed and Wally show are so offensive that it makes you recoil from the blogosphere. Have you ever READ their posts? Do you not read their back-patting interchanges? I'm sorry you are so offended by my sarcasm and turns of phrase. Wally's blog must be absolutely excrutiating for you. If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it. If not, just wallk away.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
W McLean from ON writes: Given the proportion of my own hits which come from the CBC and Transcontinental, someone seems to be enjoying the show.
And, of late, from New Brunswick.
Who knows. Maybe they enjoy in the same way some people like watching those TV programs which consist of nothing but gratuitous explosions.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: Peter Jackson, I think it is perhaps more revealing that a couple of people people who have spent a chunk of their comment space here (you pretty much all of yours) slagging off some local online writers.
You have had ample opportunity to offer some substantive commentary on the wider issues raised by Geoff's original post. you could give us all some insight into the challenges of being an editor in the modern world.
Instead you have been the classic verbal pyromaniac aiming your flames at a couple of us who bang at keyboards online.
Thanks for all the attention. The only thing that is plain though is your fear. Something must be stirring anxiety within you to engage in such a protracted string of personal invective without once - not even once - presuming to offer anything but.
In the meantime, and to get back to some serious matters, thanks David for the link to your piece from the time Ed Martin arrived. We all miss things from time to time and I couldn't recall if the sell-off thing had ever been documented before.
Still, by your own account even you had forgotten it three years or so later. There are many reasons why a story wouldn't make the line-up. In itself, though there was an angle in the comment that made it news-worthy. That would be the inherent contradiction in 2008 between one plan to sell off an asset to pay debt which was supposedly reckless and another (his own) which was pure and fine.
Fast forward to 2009 and that inherent contradiction takes on an even greater significance.
At the end of it all though, I find it interesting that covered once apparently means never covered. At last we all can get some relief from the endless Lower-Churchill-is-around-the-corner stories. How many times since 1997 have we all suffered through that old chestnut?
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
David Cochrane from St. John's, Newfoundland writes: Ed -- what is the basis of this statement?
''Still, by your own account even you had forgotten it three years or so later. ''
Nowhere did I say I had forgotten this. In fact I said repeatedly that this was a position Williams had taken many times before and we had reported previously. That's why the incident outlined by Geoff above wasn't news once Williams had corrected his comments.
Seriously, how do you draw that conclusion and make such a statement?
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Peter Jackson from NL writes: I promised Geoff I'd clew up here, but I just can't let Ed's comments stand. They are, to use his words, asinine and ludicrous.
Ed, I didn't address the original posting because the points have been made and addressed countless times over. You seem convinced of some colossal Freudian slip, and Dave has more than adequately shot it down.
As for me slagging other writers, what in heaven's name do you do? You've slagged me more than once on your blog. You've made a career out of slagging people -- and not exclusively Tory politicians. It makes no difference that you hide behind a veneer of long-winded coolheadedness.
I call a spade a spade. You call it a tapered gardening implement for moving small amounts of soil. But invective is invective.
I know you would never concede a point to me, so don't feel obliged to respond. unless you'd like to psychoanalyze me further.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: Pretty simple, David, it was your own comment:
The entire press gallery perked up when he spoke of selling Nalcor.
Presumably if this was a position Williams had taken many times before and we had reported previously , you wouldn't have perked up at the idea unless it had slipped your mind.
You also wrote: We all jumped at what he said in the House because it seemed like a stunning reversal to us all.
Something that was a position Williams had taken many times before and we had reported previously would hardly have caused you to jump up at what seemed like a stunning reversal to us all .
Well, not unless it had somehow slipped your mind until he reminded you of how old hat it was, surely.
Are you now contending that you the gallery) remembered it all along, knew it was old hat but asked him to come downstairs to scrum it anyway based on something that wasn't a story because at the time you all perked up at what seemed like - to again use your own words - a stunning reversal of position?
I draw the conclusion and make the statement based on a plain English reading of your own account of what happened. I quote you in full sentences from comments above which are freely available for all to see. That precludes the word twisting red herring.
I then gave the benefit of the doubt that it had somehow slipped your mind in the moment.
Otherwise, we are left with a rather glaring contradiction within your own story.
How could the whole thing have been known and widely reported beforehand yet at the same time have struck the memebrs of the press gallery as a stunning reversalsal, to use your own words, if you hadn't simply forgotten about it for a second?
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
David Cochrane from St. John's, Newfoundland writes: Love of God . . .
We jumped up because Williams' comments initially led us to the same conclusion Geoff drew in his blog post. That ALL of NALCOR was suddenly up for sale. Not that the equity stakes he hoped to get in future energy projects could be up for sale. There is a distinction between the two.
Selling all of NALCOR would have been news. Selling the equity stakes was consistent with what we reported in 2005. AND WITH WHAT WE REMEMBERED TO BE THE ACTIVE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Once Williams clarified his remarks it became clear that there was no change. That ALL of NALCOR was NOT for sale. There was simply the possibility that SOME of the EQUITY STAKES he hoped to get in future energy projects MIGHT be for sale if he could get a good price and use the windfall to reduce debt.
How is that not clear by now?
Either I need to become a better writer. Or you need to become a better reader.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: David:
It is eminently clear. You've explained the Premier's position far better than either Andrea or Elizabeth could.
Surely can see, though, that there is still the same internal contradiction in his argument that there was when you first explained. And by the way, we should be clear it is his argument and not yours.
From the quote in your 2005 story to the one in the House and the one in the clarification, the basic premise is the same: NALCOR is up for sale in whole (the House statement) or in bits and pieces in order to pay down the debt.
That is no different ( in substance) from privatising Hydro in 1994 in order to accomplish eight or nine policy goals, one of which was paying down debt (back when there were no money to buy into oil fields and no more oil fields to buy into that might be developed in the near future) or as in NB right now where the Premier is taking the only energy asset the government owns and is turning it over to a new operator in order to pay down debt.
Whatever way you slice it, the current Premier makes an entirely meaningless distinction between what he is proposing and what others have proposed or are doing.
In fact, there is something rather interesting in the speed and intensity with which he backed off what he said in the House, coming down and clarifying before the question was even asked.
You see one of the things that has to be brought to bear here to change the intensity of the argument (that the same isn't the same) has to be the recent Dunderdale revelation about government trying to get Hydro-Quebec to take an equity stake in the Lower Churchill without any redress for 1969.
Now if anyone has any documented examples of THAT in public before she said it last month I'd love to see it. There are plenty of things that could be reinterpretted but nothing quite so clear and unequivocal as her statement on the radio. (Incidentally, no one at all has reported that in the conventional media or even documented the statement as part of the stories on the tussle with Hydro-Quebec).
Until that statement was made no one would have likely believed there'd be a second CFLCo on the Lower Churchill either as a matter of policy and that redress would go off the table so easily.
Hence, the statement that the whole of the energy company is on the block (April 2008 in the House) is - in hindsight - a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what the Premier said. It is also one that cannot be ruled out so emphatically given that he has been known to move around his position quite a bit on a great many things.
As I said before, what one understands of things changes as new information comes to light. It isn't really an issue of what you understood him to mean in 2008 and why you didn't cover it; it's more a question of what he meant then (not what you thought he mean as it could be different) and what he means now.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: David:
Just so as not to have my words misunderstood that first line was intended to be a compliment for the clear fashion in which you explained what was said.
To repeat the point I made on the other related thread, I make no issue about the fact the comments never got reported in 2008.
That to me is entirely separate from the issue of knowing what was said and of having it properly documented for future reference.
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
NOTE
The management of this site emphasizes that it is in no way liable for persons, physical or legal, who are hosted here. Moreover, the managers of this site may not be held liable for errors and omissions that may slip into the information displayed in these reader comments. Everyone who submits a comment should read, understand and agree to the Terms of Usage for this section.
