Original Post:
After almost every journalist covering politics called out Spector's blog entry for being BS, the Globe has decided to pull the entry because " it fell short of The Globe and Mail's editorial standards with respect to fairness, balance and accuracy." It makes one wonder though, if this story was so far off the Globe's standards, how did it ever make it up in the first place?
Because the blog entry has itself became the story, and because it has now been removed, here it is in it's entirety:
Perusing the Special Holiday Edition of my morning read, I see that Laureen Harper has given her first television interview with the Prime Minister since he took office in 2006. And that we’ll all get to see her full nine minutes under the lights tomorrow night, when Lloyd Robertson and Robert Fife sit down with Mr. Harper for their annual one-hour chat on CTV.
According to The Globe article, Ms. Harper “is not shy at all...she has a wonderful sense of humour and a good political nose – but she has declined offers to sit down with journalists, preferring not to be the story. Rather, she wants the light to shine on the work of her husband and his government. …(Cynics may think that the couple agreed to the interview because an election may not be far away).”
Perhaps. But, I think that something else is at play here.
Three weeks ago, a most extraordinary paragraph appeared in a column published in the Ottawa Citizen. It read as follows:
“In Ottawa, tongues have been wagging for two years about trouble in one political marriage. One of the partners is now said to have left the nest. It hasn't made the newspapers, at least not yet.”
The column was written by Andrew Cohen—who’s not your ordinary thumb-sucker—and you would expect that it would have elicited a reaction. For one thing, Mr. Cohen is President of The Historica-Dominion Institute (http://www.historica-dominion.ca/en/), “the largest, independent organization dedicated to Canadian history, identity and citizenship.” He’s also an Associate Professor of Journalism at Carleton University—the premier school of its kind in Canada. For another thing, Mr. Cohen has a long and distinguished career as a journalist himself, including stints as a member of the Globe and Mail editorial board, and as foreign editor and foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Post. As to his political preferences, I’d simply observe from having followed his writings over the years that Mr. Cohen once worshipped at the feet of Pierre Trudeau. And that the same cannot be said of his views of Stephen Harper.
In any case, Mr. Cohen’s “tongue-wagging” column was subsequently picked up by only one other PostMedia paper, the Windsor Star—a thinner take-up than usual for his offerings. And then there was silence—at least on the record.
Perhaps the silence was due to the limited circulation of the two papers that carried the column. Or maybe it was because the reference to the troubled marriage came at the end of the column, and many readers would likely have missed it. Or, and this is my guess, the same factors that kept the rumour of a troubled marriage out of the papers for the past two years continued to be at play.
Having been in the business myself, my guess is that there was one group of readers who would not have missed the reference to the troubled political marriage: staff at the PMO—up to and including the Chief of Staff--and the Prime Minister himself. In particular, none of these readers would have missed the kicker in the paragraph: that it was only a matter of time until someone reported the rumour--with names attached.
These days, being as far away from Ottawa as one can get, it was only a few months ago that I caught wind of rumours that the first couple (to borrow an Americanism) were living separately (Mr. Harper at 24 Sussex, Ms. Harper at the Chateau Laurier). And, truth be told, I learned this startling news, dear reader, in the comment boards on this website. Intrigued, I checked out the rumour with two journalists in Ottawa. From both, I got the sense that it was likely true. And that it was not being reported because it was deemed to be a personal matter.
I found this reasoning to be a bit strange—if the PM’s marriage was in trouble, that was something that could affect his performance and lead to bizarre decisions. (Have you heard about the census being abolished?) And given the power of the office, the troubled marriage could impact all Canadians. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged this, according to the Globe report, in one of his answers in the Christmas interview:
Asked about the stresses and strains of the job on their relationship, the Prime Minister jumped in to answer:
“Well, you know, we have a strong relationship,” said Mr. Harper. “I think, to be frank about it, I mean the demands are all on Laureen. Laureen is a very giving person. Laureen allows me to concentrate as fully as I do on the job and then on other things. She doesn’t put a lot of demands on me.”
The Prime Minister said his wife’s support is one of the reasons he has been “successful in this business.”
Having worked in the PMO myself, my guess is that Mr. Harper and his advisers have been struggling for some time over the best way to put paid to the rumours of marital discord.. In the wake of Mr. Cohen’s column, wait-and-hold-your-breath was no longer an attractive option. To deny the rumors formally would be counter-productive, as it would make out of them a huge news story that the media would have no choice but to report. The option decided upon--an interview with two friendly broadcasters—was the best course of action in the circumstances--and Christmas night you’ll get to see the results for yourself. A warning to all you Stephen Harper non-fans out there, however: Unless you have a PVR, you’ll have to stick with the interview to the end to see Ms. Harper scotch the rumours as untrue—albeit indirectly.
According to The Globe article, Ms. Harper “is not shy at all...she has a wonderful sense of humour and a good political nose – but she has declined offers to sit down with journalists, preferring not to be the story. Rather, she wants the light to shine on the work of her husband and his government. …(Cynics may think that the couple agreed to the interview because an election may not be far away).”
Perhaps. But, I think that something else is at play here.
Three weeks ago, a most extraordinary paragraph appeared in a column published in the Ottawa Citizen. It read as follows:
“In Ottawa, tongues have been wagging for two years about trouble in one political marriage. One of the partners is now said to have left the nest. It hasn't made the newspapers, at least not yet.”
The column was written by Andrew Cohen—who’s not your ordinary thumb-sucker—and you would expect that it would have elicited a reaction. For one thing, Mr. Cohen is President of The Historica-Dominion Institute (http://www.historica-dominion.ca/en/), “the largest, independent organization dedicated to Canadian history, identity and citizenship.” He’s also an Associate Professor of Journalism at Carleton University—the premier school of its kind in Canada. For another thing, Mr. Cohen has a long and distinguished career as a journalist himself, including stints as a member of the Globe and Mail editorial board, and as foreign editor and foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Post. As to his political preferences, I’d simply observe from having followed his writings over the years that Mr. Cohen once worshipped at the feet of Pierre Trudeau. And that the same cannot be said of his views of Stephen Harper.
In any case, Mr. Cohen’s “tongue-wagging” column was subsequently picked up by only one other PostMedia paper, the Windsor Star—a thinner take-up than usual for his offerings. And then there was silence—at least on the record.
Perhaps the silence was due to the limited circulation of the two papers that carried the column. Or maybe it was because the reference to the troubled marriage came at the end of the column, and many readers would likely have missed it. Or, and this is my guess, the same factors that kept the rumour of a troubled marriage out of the papers for the past two years continued to be at play.
Having been in the business myself, my guess is that there was one group of readers who would not have missed the reference to the troubled political marriage: staff at the PMO—up to and including the Chief of Staff--and the Prime Minister himself. In particular, none of these readers would have missed the kicker in the paragraph: that it was only a matter of time until someone reported the rumour--with names attached.
These days, being as far away from Ottawa as one can get, it was only a few months ago that I caught wind of rumours that the first couple (to borrow an Americanism) were living separately (Mr. Harper at 24 Sussex, Ms. Harper at the Chateau Laurier). And, truth be told, I learned this startling news, dear reader, in the comment boards on this website. Intrigued, I checked out the rumour with two journalists in Ottawa. From both, I got the sense that it was likely true. And that it was not being reported because it was deemed to be a personal matter.
I found this reasoning to be a bit strange—if the PM’s marriage was in trouble, that was something that could affect his performance and lead to bizarre decisions. (Have you heard about the census being abolished?) And given the power of the office, the troubled marriage could impact all Canadians. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged this, according to the Globe report, in one of his answers in the Christmas interview:
Asked about the stresses and strains of the job on their relationship, the Prime Minister jumped in to answer:
“Well, you know, we have a strong relationship,” said Mr. Harper. “I think, to be frank about it, I mean the demands are all on Laureen. Laureen is a very giving person. Laureen allows me to concentrate as fully as I do on the job and then on other things. She doesn’t put a lot of demands on me.”
The Prime Minister said his wife’s support is one of the reasons he has been “successful in this business.”
Having worked in the PMO myself, my guess is that Mr. Harper and his advisers have been struggling for some time over the best way to put paid to the rumours of marital discord.. In the wake of Mr. Cohen’s column, wait-and-hold-your-breath was no longer an attractive option. To deny the rumors formally would be counter-productive, as it would make out of them a huge news story that the media would have no choice but to report. The option decided upon--an interview with two friendly broadcasters—was the best course of action in the circumstances--and Christmas night you’ll get to see the results for yourself. A warning to all you Stephen Harper non-fans out there, however: Unless you have a PVR, you’ll have to stick with the interview to the end to see Ms. Harper scotch the rumours as untrue—albeit indirectly.
--------------
A selection of media comments on the Spector entry as found on twitter:
Kady O'Malley: You know, sometimes when someone says there really isn't a story there, it means there really isn't a story there.
Susan Delacourt: Okay. Here it is. About those rumours. http://bit.ly/hBwAye #cdnpoli Enough already.
Rob Silver: Norman Spector will be relaunching Frank magazine in January. Unfortunately he will only have year old rumors everyone has already heard.
Dan Gardner: Exactly. http://bit.ly/hBwAye It would be shameful and silly in high school, which is a pretty good sign it's not responsible journalism.
Paul Wells: Why does the Globe and Mail keep Norman Spector around? I protested when Maclean's dumped him 5 years ago. But I was wrong.
More Wells: Comments disabled on Spector's Harper rant, and all comments erased. The story itself, apparently, violates no policy.
Rosemary Barton: Oh for the record, Norman Spector is not a journalist. He's a guy who is allowed to write stuff. Big difference. Back to Holidays!
Kady again: That's right, @globeandmail. If there's one thing you can count on, it's that no one ever notices when something vanishes from the internet.
and still more Paul Wells: Norman Spector stands repudiated by his publisher on grounds of professionalism. He has no choice but to apologize or resign.
18 comments:
Sent a tweet your way.
Yes indeed. Who is the gatekeeper at the Globe? Especially at Christmas? Yikes!
Rarely have I ever seen the 'political media' so united against a single story. It gives one hope.
BTW: Sometimes it pays to have 20 tabs open on your browser at any given time. You never know what will disappear or when.
Thanks for posting this, Ardvark. Whatever respect I once had for Spector is now gone.
Crit_R.
BTW: Sometimes it pays to have 20 tabs open on your browser at any given time. You never know what will disappear or when.
lol! Good point. Nice catch.
AA yourda man! Thank you. And 20 browsers open is one seriously involved person. Beautiful!
Susaan
Congratulations on your informative post.
-- Gabby in QC
Thanks for posting this article. I read the whole thing via NNW around 5.30a.m., but later saw the This has been removed.
Has he been canned, as BC Blue says.
This trash the same day Susan Delacourt has a Christmas Miracle and writes a positive article on our PM/Wife.
Perhaps a crack team can be sent to investigate this never ending rumour.
Reminds me of the hatchet job on the state funeral holy host, Helena "air port security breach".
The media may have used this opportunity to get back at N.S. for his article.
It is time they spend some time in front of a mirror and look at their own articles.
Large segments of the public have written off the MSM for good reasons.
How else to you explain the crickets in the MSM for Billions diverted to Giant Fans, solar panels to justify increasing our hydro bills? Governments giving secured contracts above the spot price for twenty years?
"Laureen has been having an affair with a female RCMP officer. Said officer travels around with her for security, sort of like Queen Latifeh has her personal trainer follow her around everywhere.
Harper is also gay btw.."
I see the retards are in full Christmas spirit.
So why would these Conservative hating propagandists get all worked up over something that has already been published weeks before? Why now and not then?
Are they not amplifying and focusing attention to this blog post by putting on a dramatic front of disapproval? Are these not crocodile tears?
Are these characters not the very same buffoons who have belched out a dozen whoppers themselves?
Or have these vultures, snakes and jackals morphed into bunnies, kittens and unicorns?
I'd be ashamed to publish my name also, for posting such crap as anon.
I think he has our PM mixed up with Scot Bisson of the liberals.
Hey Anony @ 12:50pm
Mery Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas.....
Now perhaps that will help turn you back into a human being.
It's cold,lonely and really dull being a snake.
Wow this was a doozy! I read the article this morning, and then *poof!* it was gone.
Makes ya wonder, if it had been going on for 2 years, why hadn't any of the opposition MPs gone for the low blow? I mean, they didn't miss any opportunities with less volatile topics...
It's all crap, and Spector (and Taber for that matter) should go work for eTalk Daily.
Good post Ardvark, and this is a shining example of the reason I keep reading your posts!
Wasn't Spector supposed to be the token conservative at the Globe? Does this mean that they no longer have anybody who at least claims to be from the right?
Don't forget, the editors at the Globe thought it prudent to publish Scott Reid's "kill harper kill him dead" article in 2008. It didn't take long for that article to dissapear also.
Hindsight is 50-50, right?
I was out getting some last minute shopping done and I see some anon ass ( I would bet the mortgage that he/she/it supports a lefty party) decided to leave a nasty comment.
Normally I would delete it but I will leave it up as a reminder of the type of left wing Harper Hate that exists in this country.
And the poor boobs in the media wonder why they rank lower than whores and thieves on the respectometer.
I took a look at my comment moderation and found 6 comments all trying to sell the rumour, but what is really strange is that in the comments one 'anon' author comments on what another named author wrote even though NO ONE could have possibly read those comments as they were in held for moderation.
It is the same person, trying to lend credence to their OWN comments! LOL, fail!
Post a Comment