|
 |
|
| Last updated at 6:03 AM on 12/12/07 |
Email Trail 
Why the Premier can't stand Craig Westcott
GEOFF MEEKER (MEEKER ON MEDIA) 
The Telegram
 For this post, I will let the email messages speak for themselves. It begins with a note I sent yesterday to Elizabeth Matthews, the Director of Communications for Premier Danny Williams. Here it is:
Hi Elizabeth:
As you may know, I write a blog about the local media scene, hosted at www.thetelegram.com
I am looking at the latest edition of The Business Post and am wondering why it contains no government advertising. The paper has come a long way - it is widely read and talked about in the business community and they've now got Greg Locke doing photography so it looks fabulous.
I am not suggesting that all government ads intended for the general public should automatically appear in The Business Post. However, it is a good way to specifically target the business community with tenders, announcements from the industry department, and so on.
Is there a reason why government won't advertise in The Business Post?
Thanks for your time and attention.
Geoff Meeker
Fairly quickly, I received a brief reply from Matthews:
Hi Geoff. I cannot speak to where individual departments choose to advertise.
I then sent an email to Westcott, asking for his side of the story. I had a recollection of someone in the premier’s office calling him a “serial critic” or something to that effect, and wanted to know the detail of it. Here is his reply:
Geoff, the "serial exaggerator" comment appeared, I believe, in MacLean's
and was attributed to another young woman in the Premier's Office, whose
name I forget. Meanwhile, I'll look for a couple of emails I've received
from Elizabeth and forward them to you. It's worth noting that The Business
Post publishes more often and prints more copies for distribution in
Newfoundland than any other business publication. We also attend all the oil
and mining shows nationally and some internationally. At the OTC last year,
The Business Post was the only NL-related publication that did not contain a
full page ad from the premier. We also didn't have any ads from the
Department of Natural Resources. The Dependent, by contrast, contains, by my
estimate, a good $12,000 to $15,000 a week in provincial government
advertising, despite its exceedingly negative coverage of all things
Canadian. Elizabeth refuses all requests for interviews from me. When I was
at The Express and later the Dependent, she also phoned the editors there to
put them on notice that the Premier's Office would not deal with me in any
way.
As for Greg, I hope to purchase his services as much as I can afford to. He
is a great photographer and certainly improved the look of our most recent
edition.
Thanks,
Craig.
As promised, Westcott then sent me a string of emails, dating all the way back to December 2005, which reveal his failed attempts to get an interview with the premier – and why the premier was not willing to respond. Each message is prefaced by a boldface line, which explains who sent the message and when.
December 5, 2005, Westcott to Matthews:
Subject: Interview request
Elizabeth:
I'd like to talk with the premier about Placentia-St. Mary's and the coming
byelection. Can you arrange something between now and the end of Monday? I
need about five minutes. It's for The Express.
Thanks,
Craig.
December 5, 2005, Matthews to Westcott:
Subject: Re: Interview request
Sorry Craig. The premier is not available.
em
February 9, 2006: Westcott to Matthews:
Subject: Interview request
Elizabeth:
Could I get an audience with his Holiness on the byelection and early retirement proposal? It's for The Express.
Thanks,
Craig.
February 9, 2006, Matthews to Westcott:
Subject: Re: Interview request
Sorry Craig. The interview will not happen. It is truly unfortunate that you did not grant us the same consideration before you wrote your article last week on Harbour Breton. A call to government could have resulted in a much more accurate and positive story.
February 9, 2006, Westcott to Matthews:
Subject: Re: Interview request
Elizabeth:
Shutting out the media because you don't like the message is old school, Elizabeth. It's positively Peckford-like. What's next, cutting off advertising? My views were fair comment. It's a good thing you guys are not in Toronto or Ottawa where columnists really haul the skin off the government.
Here's hoping you get over it,
Craig.
February 9, 2006, Matthews to Westcott:
Subject: Re: Interview request
Actually Craig, we accept criticism all the time. And we do not shut out the media because we do not like the message. Our government, and indeed the premier, has absolutely no problem dealing with critics - we accept differing opinions and views and we welcome constructive opposition and criticism. However, a constant barrage of critical commentary without any thought to the opposing argument is very difficult for me to accept. I have previously extended an offer to you, to call anytime to hear the Premier's perspective on any issue of the day. With the exception of the by-election, you have rarely if ever taken us up on at that offer. The premier himself has placed personal calls to you, in an effort to share his views and insights. He does not do this in an effort to have you write a glowing, positive article - he does so simply so that you can gain a better appreciation for some of the things we do as a government. However, you continue to attack government policy and initiatives and the premier personally, without giving us the benefit of sharing our perspective. I fully appreciate that you are paid to write your opinions and you have no obligation to gain government's perspective. However, there comes a point when the commentary becomes personal and unbalanced, and therefore, unfair. Furthermore, in response to your email we have never, ever indicated that we would cut off advertising. That is a completely unfounded and unfair statement. In the future, we will refrain from commenting for your stories.
Thank you for listening and I wish you all the best.
Elizabeth
February 27, 2006, Westcott to Matthews
Subject: Interview request
Elizabeth:
I would like to talk with the Premier about the Labrador Ventus wind farm proposal for a story I'm working on for The Express.
Thanks,
Craig.
February 27, 2006, Matthews to Westcott
Subject: Re: Interview request
Sorry Craig. The Premier is unavailable.
April 25, 2006, Westcott to Matthews
Subject: Interview request
Elizabeth:
Could I have a one on one with the Premier this week about the fishery in general and FPI in particular? It's for The Independent and The Navigator.
Thanks,
Craig.
April 25, 2006, Matthews to Westcott
Subject: Re: Interview request
Sorry Craig. As I have indicated previously, the premier will not be available for your interview requests. Thanks.
Elizabeth
May 31, 2006, Westcott to Matthews:
Subject: Interview request
Elizabeth:
I would like to interview the premier about Ocean Cusine and his suggestion last week that perhaps an industry co-op should buy it. I am in all day today and this evening, but will be out of town for a few days as of tomorrow. The story is for The Independent.
Thanks,
Craig.
May 31, 2006, Matthews to Westcott:
Subject: Re: Interview request
Hi Craig. As per previous correspondence, the premier is not available for your interview requests. Ryan is aware of this. Thanks.
Elizabeth
May 31, 2006, Westcott to Matthews:
Re: Interview request
Elizabeth:
I would like to interview the premier about the federal loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill project. He can reach me by cell phone this week at 709-689-****. The story is for The Independent.
Thanks,
Craig.
June 1, 2006, Matthews to Westcott:
Subject: Re: Interview request
Craig: As I have indicated quite clearly on a number of occasions in the past several weeks, the premier is not available for your interview requests. I feel compelled to point out that for two and a half years, you did not seek the premier out to gain his perspective on issues (despite the fact that the premier personally called you to offer himself up for a chat). During this time, you regularly did NOT attend news conferences or other media availabilities with the premier. The result has been intense criticism in your reporting. As I have said to you before, opposition and criticism of government is a healthy and necessary part of democracy. And we welcome that, especially from the media who play a critical role in informing the public on political happenings in the province. However, personal and malicious commentary on the premier is unwarranted and, more importantly, you have printed completely untrue information. For this reason, we feel it is counter productive to discuss issues of the day with you. I find it quite ironic that you only started to request interviews after we informed you of our decision to not grant them.
Elizabeth
June 6, 2006, Westcott to Matthews:
Subject: Interview request
Elizabeth:
Thanks for your reply. I'm just back at my desk after being out of town for five days. I accept the premier won't grant me interviews, however I have to make the request anyway in cases where his input is appropriate. It's up to you if he responds or not, I take no issue with that. However, I am disappointed that you characterized my coverage as malicious. I have been critical of the premier's handling of five specific issues: FPI Limited; the fishery generally; the depopulation of rural Newfoundland; cronyism in the public service; and the premier's claim that Stephen Harper promised financial backing for the Lower Churchill project. I will discuss briefly the merits of each of my stands on those issues below. But first let's address the nature of public commentary. I'm surprised that after having worked for the previous Liberal administration, and now nearly three years with this one, that you lack an understanding of how public commentary works. Most political columnists and commentators do not cover scrums and press conferences. For instance, you wouldn't see Bill Rowe or Russell Wangersky at the premier's scrums, or Jeffrey Simpson at the PM's escape attempts out the back door of Parliament. At least not usually. I cover more of those events than other commentators because I am also a working reporter, one of the rare beasts who wears both hats. You're right though in that I don't cover as many of those things as other reporters. The reason for that is simple. For the past few years, I've been writing for weekly and monthly publications. Scrums and press conferences are, for the most part, the territory of the daily press. Weeklies have different deadlines and different agendas. There would be little utility in covering and reporting on a press conference held on a Tuesday for a Sunday publication. However, for a commentary, the timelines are not as obstructive. One can still comment - and not report - on that Tuesday conference and the implications of it. Plus there is Hansard, the scrum tape played on CBC Radio and other sources to inform oneself in coming to an opinion. Again, the term malicious bothers me. Certainly, I have been critical. That is my job. As a former Liberal PR person, you know that I was even more critical of that administration than I am of the current one. Roger Grimes, at least, had enough professionalism and appreciation for the press's role to take my calls.
Now, very briefly on the five issues mentioned above:
* I think the premier has completely mishandled the FPI file and many people share that opinion. It raises eyebrows when a man who will stand up to ExxonMobil seems petrified of taking a hard stand with John Risley. It's baffling, and I've said so to the premier personally.
* On the fishery, the premier made a brave attempt last year to address many of the problems in the industry with the introduction of RMS. However, the measure was introduced clumsily and when it was rejected by fishermen, he appears to have turned his back on the fishery and only deigned again to face it after much recent negative commentary from the public and media alike.
* Rural Newfoundland: Where's the recovery plan?
* Cronyism: I admired Mr. Williams' promise to clean up the public service. But hiring his future son-in-law for a PR position that is supposedly removed from the purview of political selection was wrong. So was hiring a long-time politician for the important role of Chief Electoral Officer. The latter especially is an abrogation of the long held British parliamentary tradition of neutrality and professionalism in the senior ranks of the civil
service.
* The PM's lower Churchill promise. I've yet to hear any tape or read any statement in which Harper promised financial backing for the project. The premier's statement looks like bullshit poker to me, and I suspect, to Harper.
I'm sorry for the length of this note, but let me conclude with this: I am a professional journalist. I take my responsibility seriously. If I was reckless, or vindictive, I certainly would have indulged the many people who have offered avenues of personal attack upon Mr. Williams. One man, whom the premier went out of his way to help before entering politics, tried to interest me in chasing a story that the premier had had an altercation with a police officer in Nova Scotia because of an incident involving his son. I told the person that it sounded like he was full of shit and that I had no interest in following it. A malicious journalist would have chased the foolish report down. A malicious person too would probably report on the fact the premier is surrounding himself with people like yourself with close personal ties to him and his family. A couple of editors, among other people, have suggested that I report on the fact that you once dated Danny's son and that Pat Bruce is his brother-in-law. To those silly and malicious suggestions I have always respond that both you and Pat are political staff and the premier has every right to select whomever he wants for such positions.
No doubt my severe criticism may seem personal sometimes. But it is impossible to avoid the link of personality and politics entirely. Politics is very much a popularity contest and strongly influenced by the personalities of the individual players. Hence the prevalent use of opinion polls. To ignore the personality aspect of it altogether would be negligent on my part as a political commentator.
So there it is. Sorry for the length of this note. But I felt a need to clear the air on a few points.
All the best,
Craig.
June 7, 2006, Matthews to Westcott:
Subject: Re: Interview request
Hi Craig:
First of all, I am very familiar with how public commentary works. Secondly, let me clarify my use of the term "malicious". Oxford defines malicious as "characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm". Now indulge me as I list several excerpts from your work (again, bearing in mind that most of these were written by you without ever having the courtesy of calling the premier to discuss his viewpoint or perspective):
- "a small man"
- "cowardly and self-demeaning"
- "exposed Danny Williams as an immature, petty tyrant"
- "doing the dirty work for the likes of Risley and Rowe."
- "Danny Williams is just another rich guy looking after his rich friends."
- "That the premier is making a monkey out of the rest of us, is not too surprising"
- "Danny Williams and his minions have been duplicitous and cowardly"
- "nobody likes a bully, especially a vindictive one"
- "he'll squat you like a fly"
- "No doubt Williams wasn't the one who stood in the caucus room and gave the orders on how the caucus should vote. The premier after all, needs deniability. But some lieutenant surely did do the dirty work of herding together the PC vote to ensure passage of what we can only hope is the biggest particular government."
- "For leaders like that, only absolute power for themselves and abject loyalty will do"
- "But when you weaken it, as Williams is doing now, you open the door to corruption and other abuses"
- "I can see it now, a pin-striped figure cast in bronze, more than life-sized, about the height of a two story house with a dozen crouching cabinet ministers pressing their cast iron lips his metal butt"
- "But Williams political skin is as thin as an onion's and he is used to getting his ass kissed, insists on it too, I think"
- "some people prefer to stay at home and have their asses kissed"
- "That his minions on the government benches were made to vote for the disastrous idea while he voted against it to save face was beyond tawdry"
I would point out that this is a very small sampling of what I based the term "malicious" on. You can be the judge Craig.
Elizabeth
I am going to reserve comment on all this for now, and will offer some observations – including an interview with Westcott – over the next day or two.
In her reply to me, Matthews also responded to my series of posts about the stacking of callers to Open Line. I will revisit that subject in a future post as well.
Note: I do not feel that publishing the content of these emails is in any way a violation of privacy, as Matthews was fully aware that she was talking to a reporter and was ‘on the record’ throughout.
|
11/12/07
|
Comments: |
|
This Conversation is Moderated. What is moderation?
|
| What does moderation mean? |
 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Greer from NL writes: I particularly like the Ryan is aware of this line.
Begs the question whether at that point Craig was writing for Ryan or Ryan writing for Elizabeth.
I guess by counting the plethora of government ads in the Indy that week we could probably make a good guess.
Where's George Orwell when you need him?
|
| Posted 12/12/2007 at 11:47 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: Still, that list from Matthews is pretty damning. If Craig had said all that about me, I'd wonder too what I could possibly gain from granting his interview requests. His mind is already made up.
|
| Posted 12/12/2007 at 4:37 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
Simon Lono from NL writes: I'm not at all sure what this all means, Peter.
Does that mean that if you are sharp and critical then it's ok for the subject (Premier of the province) to cut off access?
So how does one maintain access? Does a media outlet keep producing constructive criticism stories (with the PO as the arbiter of what that constitutes) even when they are not deserved?
Or does a media outlet simple choose not to run down stories which might lead to sharp criticism?
Is it happiness all the time or do hard and critical stories get done? What if you have to choose between hard criticism and maintaining access?
What choice is a news outlet to make?
How is the way the PO has treated Wescott in particular different from the attitudes which have propelled Harper to treat the entire Ottawa press gallery in general?
Inquiring minds want to know.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 11:57 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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, list is far from damning except as an indication of the 8th floor's ability to confuse opinion and comment with reporting reporting.
The comments are taken out of context and the context of each of them is extremely important, even in whatever opinion piece they were taken from.
The last e-mail is all the worse considering that there are obviously a great many occasions when Westcott did try to speak with the Premier but was denied the opportunity. Westcott clearly did try to arrange interviews so it is absolutely wrong to claim he wrote things without trying to gain the Premier's perspective.
But again, there's obviously a difference between an editorial or other opinion piece and straight reporting.
Just consider though, if you were to write a column critical of any premier or any administration would you first call to get the government perspective.?
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 12:01 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
Craig Welsh from NU writes: Just so I'm clear, Peter, you would encourage any reporters or columnists you deal with on a regular basis to not ask any hard questions, never use strong language or engage in any harsh criticism of those in power at the risk it might offend them and cut off their access. Or, worse yet, advertising dollars.
Somewhere Ray Guy is whacking his head off a desk and looking for a drink.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 12:22 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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 J from St. John's, NL writes: Oh, I see I've drawn the Danny is worse than Hitler crowd out of the woodwork. My comments are not meant to be a defence of Danny Williams. He can defend himself (when he wants to). My point is that, surely, there must be a line beyond which journalistic freedom turns into pure, self-righteous hubris. Perhaps some of you feel there is no such line, that commentators should be free to rip a person's character to shreds and then hide behind the veil of fair comment. If that's what journalism has become, then I'm in the wrong business.
Fact is, Danny gets plenty of scrutiny from all quarters, including The Telegram. And I agree that he doesn't take criticism well. He has frozen out The Independent, and he's certainly given reporters at The Telegram a hard time on occasion. I don't condone this sort of behaviour, and I think he should be called on it. But I also don't condone unbridled smear and sneer (Ed? Simon? Wallace?) and I find it equally, if not more unpalatable. It's ironic that the same people who harp on Danny's rudeness and bullying feel no qualms about conducting themselves in a similar manner.
And, I'm sorry, but as clever as he can be sometimes, Craig Westcott is no Ray Guy.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 1:08 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Nadine Browne from Ontario writes: The last email from Lizzy where she states: bearing in mind that most of these were written by you without ever having the courtesy of calling the premier to discuss his viewpoint or perspective): had me actually cackling with laughter.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 1:58 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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:
Once again you do a fine job of completely missing the point when you've been caught out .
You also resort to the most miserable of personal smears by stating - among other misrepresentnations - this sort of drivel:
Oh, I see I've drawn the Danny is worse than Hitler crowd out of the woodwork. My comments are not meant to be a defence of Danny Williams.
No one said your comments were a defence of the current premier. However, you did just now when you denied you were defending him.
You will note I specifically referred to ANY administration and any premier. We were discussing general principles not specifics and personalities.
In the process of confusing personalities with the core issues, you miss the point entirely. By the earlier argument (and editorial policy) you presented, even Ray Guy would not get into print. How could he? He has said some rather strong and sometimes some personal things about all manner of politician. if ray was not punished directly by being shut out, the comment made earlier suggests it would be acceptable to complain to the newspaper in question, punish the paper and the reporters and thereby bring about what? The demise of the offending column.
The root of the problem on the 8th and with your comments seems to be the same: all things, i.e. all critical comments, are personal. You claim that you don't condone blackballing yet you defend it by stating that if you'd been on the receiving end of the list of comments - out of context - Matthews listed you wouldn't speak to the person either. And on top of that you claim to condemn gratuitous smears and then engage in them yourself.
You may not like some of the comments I've made about your columns in the past, but note; the comments I've made were about your column and the argument you presented, not you personally.
You're a fine fellow and I'd gladly have a meal, a drink and laugh with you and your wife. Once in a while, though, you say some things I disagree with. The words may be sharp and sarcastic but they are aimed at the idea, not the man.
There's a difference in the two you should learn and when you figure it out, pass the advice along to a few others.
in the meantime, take a look at your earlier comment and ask yourself a simple question: if you were the ME at the Telly, which of Ray Guy's columns over the years would have hit the spike because they ruffled the feathers of whoever was in power or whoever was amajor advertiser? That's the thrust of what you argued. I'm just amazed you'd do so.
Did I misunderstand your point?
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 3:07 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: Who compared Danny to Hitler?
Duplessis, Smallwood, the darkest parts of Peckford's soul, sure.
But Hitler?
Strawmen make the best bonfires...
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 3:32 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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 J from St. John's, NL writes: Ed:
Did you misunderstand my point?
Most certainly.
If you go back through this string, you'll see that Simon Lono actually suggests I condone Danny's actions in principle. In fact, it's not the first time Simon has made such an absurd extrapolation from something I've written. If I say some criticism is unjustified, he twists that into a statement that ALL criticism is unjustified.
As for the worse-than-Hitler and smear-and-sneer remarks, it's a defensible description of the tone of yours and others' daily criticisms of Williams. As I indicated quite clearly before, it's a question of degree. For me, a lot of what I read crosses the line from fair criticism to sheer smear-fest. Of course, I can't expect you to see those woods for the trees.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 3:53 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: Seriously, Peter J: ''Hitler''?
Who raised the spectre of Hitler?
Putting words in other people's mouths (keyboards), that's suspiciously like what Danny himself does!
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 4:34 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
Craig Welsh from NU writes: OK, before this turns into one of these mind-bender internet debates that Ed and Simon excel at so much...
Peter, you really ought to know better. First rule of the Internet - First person to use Hitler in an argument, even in passing, loses. You know better.
Second, you're taking snipets of what a the premier's chief PR person is saying and not putting them in the context of the full context of what he said. It's easy to pull 20 words in a 700 word column and make someone look bad. You're a seasoned editor and you're falling for this? I find that hard to believe. You're smarter than that.
Third, I don't think you personally like Westcott all that much. This certainly isn't the first go you've had at him when Meeker has written about him. Which is fine. There are a healthy number of those people out there. He can rub people the wrong way. I don't mind him and consider him a friend.
But I do wonder if you let that personal dislike get in the way of what he's doing. There are people I dislike, but still try to respect the craft of what they do and why they are trying to do it. Granted, I have mixed results. But I try.
Perhaps you're letting that personal dislike get in the way of at least respecting what Westcott is trying to do. The simplest thing in the world for Westcott would be to shut up. He'd probably get government advertising again within the year which would certainly help the paper he's practically running on his own. But he doesn't. You call that hubris. Others might call it insanity. Maybe. I think it's sticking to your convictions and not letting anyone browbeat you into the ground not matter what the consquences.
And I can't help but think that's something journalists and the general public should admire at least a little bit.
Oh, and having said all that, I'm still not sure it was the right thing to do to release this email exchange. It feels a tad...petty.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 4:46 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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 J from St John's, NL writes: Oh, please, spare me the holier than thou crap. I used the word Hitler as flippant hyperbole, and you all know it. Talk about taking someone out of context.
I don't really know Craig at all. I've met him once or twice. When he worked at The Telegram, we rarely crossed paths. I don't consider him a friend or an enemy. I don't like him or dislike him. I know that from the few times I have been in his presence, he seems like an ordinary, friendly fellow. But that is all beside the point. You're right that I have complained about his journalistic style before. It's not like I'm basing everything I say on one e-mail from Liz Matthews.
It would appear, more than anything, that I have become a lightning rod for some reason. Is it because I don't toe the professional line that all journalists are righteous and pure and all politicians are scumbags? Is it because I don't subsribe to the Danny-is-worse-than-er-Smallwood cult (Yes WJM, I'm throwing the term cult back at you.) I don't know, but I'm sure starting to know what it's like to be bullied out of expressing my honest opinion. Maybe I know how Craig feels after all.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 5:16 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
Simon Lono from NL writes: . . . and it took record time for this all to go personal.
My last thought before I get slagged again:
I, as a voter, expect the political leadership of the province to make themselves available on a reasonable basis to legitimate media in the province regardless of their personal feelings about the outlet or the reporter. Period. That's part of their job.
As a former professional political staffer, I would argue that if a member of the the political leadership of this province wants to play favorites or freeze people out based on getting stung in the past, then I would say that they are acting like amateurs.
If they don't like that part of their job, they should feel free to take up a different job where that's not required.
Finally if one wants to question the legitimacy of certain outlets or reporters, that's another separate debate that I'd love to see.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 5:40 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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 belief that the world is out to get you: yet another symptom of Dannyitis.
You ''throw the term 'cult' back'' as if there's something wrong with it. You don't see the political cult of personality that revolves around Danny? Even many of his supporters do.
And as for the ''Danny-is-worse-than-er-Smallwood cult''... There aren't enough members to even conduct a proper good ol' fashioned group suicide, at least not yet, nor a cult idol to rally around. Your ''throw back'' falls more than a little short; nice try, though.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 5:50 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: At the risk of proving Craig Welsh correct, let me make a few simple observations.
First, the root of the Meeker post here is what occurs when matters become personal.
Second, as I noted before not only were matters personal but the last e-mail lists comments from editorial/opinion conent and not from reporting. Those two are distinctly different.
Third, your reference to a mind being made up simply doesn't apply unless one subscribes to the view that a professional journalist cannot separate personal opinion from professional work.
To be frank, in almost 20 years working with reporters of all types, locally, regionally and nationally, I have yet to find very many who fall into that category. I certainly haven't found any who I would simply refuse to deal with because I didn't like what they'd written or broadcast either once or a dozen times. It ain't supposed to be personal and my client's interest wouldn't be served.
My experience in the PR business is not unique. I suspect the overwhelming majority of my colleagues reading this thread have similar experiences and follow a similar policy.
Fourth, this case is a perfect lesson of what happens when a relationship breaks down: everyone loses. Westcott doesn't get access. Apparently, he can't get government advertising and the Premier and his comms director get their laundry splattered across the Internet. It's a reminder of the old aphorism about who gets to buy ink by the gallon.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 6:46 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Richar Greer from NL writes: This is incredibly entertaining.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 9:19 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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 J from St. John's, NL writes: Happy to oblige
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 10:09 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
Michael Williams from St. John's, NL writes: Let it be said that no matter how bad it seems one thing may be a source of solace.
PEI is infinately worse.
|
| Posted 13/12/2007 at 11:18 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Dave Sorensen from NL writes: I'm with Peter on many of the points in this debate. Fair comment is fair indeed, but I've been reading Westcott and Hollett for some time and you'd have to be catatonic not to notice the relentless negativity of their work. Much of it is excellent commentary, well done, but eventually it gets tiresome. It's fine to dislike Williams' management style, personality etc., but it's simply not possible that everything his government does is feeble. If Westcott and Hollett see themselves as the opposition, go at it. However, in my view, neither of them has a balanced view.
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 9:21 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: Relentless negativity?
I guess that would include pointing out that the current administration has not been dealing with the debt, despite claiming to do so. Lo and behold, in making his debt reduction announcement this week, the finance minister noted that the $55 million reduction he'd budgetted was inadequate.
I guess relentless negativity would include pointing out that the House of Assembly is sitting less than at any time in the past decade or more and that far too much legislation is being passed with only cursory public discussion and debate. That would include, by the way the last budget and supplementary supply bill. Oddly enough speedy passage of bills based on backroom agreements lay at the core of the spending scandal, which by the way I guess must also count as some of the relentless negativity I've written, according to Mr. Sorenson.
Relentless negativity must also include the background information and commentary on the oil and gas industry. And it must also include the budget commentary which includes god bad and other features.
Bond Papers doesn't exist as a news organizatio, nor do I feel obliged to cheerlead for an administration or serve as the opposition. An alternative point of view, which tries to give some background detail that is omitted from either official announcements or background isn't negative. It's just alternative, and it's hard to disagree and not be perceived as negative by people who have a contrary view. That's what discussion and fair comment are all about.
If excellent ... well done commentary gets tiresome, I'd hate to think what holds your attention continuously. The thing is, Mr. Sorenson, it isn't personal and that's something many people - you included -seem to miss. There's a lamentable tendency to personal everything these days and that, in itself is at the root of this thread.
Incidentally, to go at another and possibly more fruitful aspect of this issue, do you condone blackballing reporters?
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 10:24 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
Craig Welsh from NU writes: Peter, you're not being bullied out of an honest opinion. If you were, you'd know it. People are disagreeing your assessment. The points being:
1. Did Matthews act in an unprofessional manner?
2. Is the Williams government right in cutting off Westcott's access and not advertising in his paper?
With the exception of Dave, nobody really appears to be rushing to your side. More seasoned debaters than I can correct me on this, but I think that means you're losing the argument so far. But I stand to be corrected.
Here's the tricky question in all of this: Is it right for a provincial government to punish a newspaper (and business) by refusing to advertise with them because they dislike their opinions? Not can they get the job done in a professional manner, but they just dislike what they have to say.
Peckford did it to the Sunday Express and many people thought it was a pretty petty thing to do. Granted, the Telegram didn't mind too much as it helped drive a competitor off the playing field. As the only daily in the province, the Telly is pretty much assured its government advertising. However, if the government ever did cut it, boy would there be howls.
Least we forget, there have already been stories of local businesses afraid to say anything negative towards the Williams government for fear of not getting government contracts.
Here's another question: Is the government rewarding the Independent for more positive press coverage by giving them more advertising? Because if this is the way its working, well, we're getting into uncomfortable fields here.
Government advertising is the lifeblood of many papers in this province, but it's a slippery field when you start altering your coverage to make sure you get enough ads to cover your budget for that month.
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 10:39 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: Here's a viewpoint from a non-journalist / non-blogger / just a guy who follows the political scene because he enjoys it and is obviously not as smart as 99% of the people who write on these boards (based on the verbage I've read above).
br
br
I believe Danny is doing a good job overall, although I do believe he has a somewhat vindictive side which may or may not be affecting Craig's ad revenue. That being said, there are plenty of great publications that do not receive much in the way of Gov. ad revenue, but they suck it up and find it elsewhere. I doubt there's anywhere else in the world where publications are so dependent on government ads as they are here.
br
br
To the non-journalist, some of the guys discussed (and discussing) here do come across as downright negative and the good points they make often get lost in the mix because they 'appear' so biased. I don't know any of you, but Peter seems to make the most balanced points of anyone...kudos for standing your ground.
br
br
Love the blog - glad to see this note has sparked such great debate.
br
br
d
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 1:45 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
Dave Sorensen from St. John's writes: Hilarious, Ed. I say your blog is well done, yet constantly negative, and you fire back with more negativity directed at the government. I appreciate your analysis and commentary; I've read your blog for a while. But, again, it's not balanced, and, for me, that gets tiresome.
Also, who personalized it?
Finally, no I don't condone blackballing reporters. Why don't you ask if I've stopped beating my wife?
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 1:52 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: ''Least we forget, there have already been stories of local businesses afraid to say anything negative towards the Williams government for fear of not getting government contracts.''
Published stories?
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 3:40 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
Craig Welsh from NU writes: I believe I read it in a speech that Geoff ran on his blog. I'm trying to remember if it was Dave Cochrane or Westcott who made the statement.
Plus, weren't there reports on the CBC last year about some businesses feeling uncomfortable when dealing with Danny. I can't cite specifics, unfortunately. I'm just going from memory.
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 5:30 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: ''Negative'', ''negativity''.
The stock words — along with ''innuendo'', ''personal attacks'', and ''non-constructive'' — of cabinet ministers and planted VOCM callers, to describe anyone who dares criticise Our Dear Premier.
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 5:57 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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 J from St. John's, NL writes: So, I am either a cabinet minister or a VOCM plant. Hmm, let me check... nope, I'm neither, although I did call VOCM once to find out a World Cup score. Perhaps I'm just one of those ubiquitous brainwashed members of the Danny cult you keep talking about. Perhaps I should start selling flowers along Prince Philip Drive. I obviously can't think for myself anymore. True, I didn't even vote for Danny, but somewhere along the way he used his magic and roped me in. My brain is now mush. Is there no hope?
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 7:14 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: Nonsense, Dave.
I fired back with examples of points I had made that contradicted the media line being presented by government and which turned out to be accurate. That's not negative. That's something akin to the job you used to do when you worked the other side of the street.
There are plenty of other examples that demonstrate that your comments were superficial. Interesting to note, by the way, that despite the best efforts of a small few, Westcottt does seem to be doing well on his own. Likewise, as much as a certain group of people like to toss out the same simplistic comment you did, the audeince for Bond papers continues to grow and thrive. That just confirms for me where the negative comment is coming from.
As for the question on blackballing, it wasn't loaded. Odd you took it that way since the core issue in this thread was about blackballing.
|
| Posted 14/12/2007 at 7:14 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Craig Welsh from NU writes: Darrell, I've just reread your comment. I'm trying to think of any newspapers in the province that do not receive some government advertising. Other than Westcott, I can't think of any. I stand to be corrected, of course, but I don't think so.
|
| Posted 15/12/2007 at 11:58 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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: You're right...there are no consumer-targeted newspapers in the province who receive no government ad revenue (not sure about Current or Scope).
There are, however, other publications such as magazines / weeklies (Herald, Downhome, Buy & Sell, etc.) which receive little to no consistent government ad revenue.
With a business audience, Craig's paper would be ideal for Small Business week type ads or trade mission expressions of interest, etc...I agree. However, with other print options that currently receive minimum ad $ from government (yet survive), it's too easy to say it's because of a vendetta. If Craig's reps continue to call for the next year or two, highlighting 'fits' that make sense and there's still no ad $, then I'll think you're on to something.
|
| Posted 16/12/2007 at 6:44 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
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.
|
|
|
