Login / RegisterThis space makes me overthink and lose confidence ; will keep all that could be close to my heart:) will miss you
24 hours backs off on story about Mayor Gregor Robertson's alleged media hit list
On September 3, I wrote a blog post questioning if Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson was the victim of McCarthyism in relation to reports of a so-called Vision Vancouver list of "media enemies".
Today (September 7), 24 hours published the following "clarification" about its story last week on the matter:
"Last week 24 hours reported an anonymous informant claimed a media 'hit list' was created by a group that included Mayor Gregor Robertson's assistant Kevin Quinlan. At this point in time that information should be considered rumour as we have not been able to prove it to our satisfaction. We continue to investigate and will apprise you of any further developments."
Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.
Any person remotely connected to the rumour -- paper - muckrakers et al must -- upon absolute clean hands -- must be pressed - as Campbell ought to have been (and still isn't).
The timing of this admitted rumour preceded other information relating to $$ for mayor's websites etc.------a 50-50 hit following a malicious rumour.
I note our very recent Bruce Allen 4 Vancouver mayor poll scored Bruce at (46-48%) and was followed by another poll showing Vision 51% - Gregor Robertson 49% (popularity) ------- a match up between Allen and Robertson predicated on the apparent preceding drop in support for Robertson. CKNW radio was the alleged target of the 'hit list' and Bruce Allen has a commentary on that show.
Who's to say that this rumour wasn't a public relations hit - coming from a newspaper (and unfortunately this happens far too often in media) linked to politicos? It is past unethical--right now.
What if Bruce Allen were prepared to drop $100,000 to start up his campaign? ---He looks at robbins polls/ - the book on public opinion-- (like a hungry young man looking at Robin Stickley at Global)---when his numbers could have been bumped by negative news on Robertson----based solely on a rumour--and Gregor's numbers could bounce on an expose of this rumour mongering?---that's the spin within libel I as alluding to in an earlier post.
A person like Bruce Allen - like the rest of us - who thinks politics is way too much bullshit - but whose voice in politics we could really use right now-- might say -- screw it - "I'm Rich James - I'm rich Bitch"--and never get involved.
If hands are cleans -- its an obligation to move to murder - let me know if I can help?
Kevin Quinlan has already informed me that the media hit list is "100 % false". The burden of proof is on those who make the allegation that it exists. So far, I haven't seen any convincing proof of its existence.
Charlie
Under GS - let the hounds go at it with the paper and any ancillary players involved that GS insiders are aware of.
That kind of apology has go to have a public relations value of $100,000 to the mayor heading into election year.
Nice work Charlie - you are an excellent - honest - ethical reporter.
(ANY inside on whether GS wants to sell website?)---oops --
Perhaps he could tell us?
It's Vancouver city's reputation on the line.
If as Charlie says - Vancouver City says easy clean hands --and this is the case--then you press the source of the story to put up or apologize. Whether the communciation is email or mental telepathy -- matters not when the admission NOW is "rumour".
If the City doesn't --- it is essentially saying that its ok to print a damning story on "rumour"---//Global went off on the website2 nite - (where the story didn't live up to the lead in imo (needs some security software))---the mayor gets reprieve countering with the 'hit list' story.
Many people believe the press - less and less anyhow---these days.
If the City allows the 'hit list' story to stand on rumour - without a full retraction - that is even more odd-- then the original rationale for printing such a story on "rumour" in the first instance.
Sparticus' contribution vis-a-vis the 'email' entry -- makes a present irrationale basis from which to publish a serious story -- seem slightly more rationale when in fact it adds nothing new except more spin inference of a "rumour" as a legitimate story - which a "rumour" at least in credible journalism never is.
If there NOW isn't sufficient credibility for "our satisfaction" there never WAS "satisfaction" and the story teller has admitted to consciously telling a very significant story (imagine a city government with a hit list of others -- I heard Christy Clark -- who sought the nomination for Vancouver city mayor {losing to Sullivan} - and could well be looking for another run -- predicated on what appears to be -- a very low journalistic standard or none at all.
Considering the present problem in the US (Canada too) where pull extracts are taken from full content to produce wholly unfair stories--one can see there is no proper role for a rumour.
How can there possibly be disagreement with this - unless your protecting the rumour monger?
I say ambiguous because the way Mackin's original article is written it certainly seems like he actually spoke with someone. He used phrases like "The informer says..." not "The informer writes...." But I don't know...only Bob knows. However, if true the subsequent "clarification" suggests a whole different level...of something. What, I don't know.
There are a lot of red flags here. Why in Tsakumis's version the informant is an original recipient of the "hit list" (something supported by the screenshots he/she provided Tsakumis) while in Mackin's version the informant received the "hit list" from a third party? There is the somewhat startling difference in tone used by the informant in the two interviews. Did they actually inteview the same person?
Who redacted the screenshot? Why were all the recipients redacted except, famously, for one? If Quinlan rec'd the email, then he knows who got it and who sent it...so why keep it secret? Why redact the date sent? Has Tsakumis or Mackin examined the headers in the email? Have they even seen a real email or just these informer-provided screenshots? If the informant is an "ex-insider" - why grant anonymity? Surely they are thus beyond retaliation?
And so on.
In the screenshot as it now stands, the only individual who is actually singled out for pushback is Mike Klassen (the rest is just a list of names, and while the order is highly suggestive of "degree of unfriendliness", there's nothing within the email itself to suggest it's a hit list), and I would surmise that pushback ultimately took the form of Ian Reid's piece in the Vancouver Observer. Which is, yes, a broadside against Klassen...but not something that isn't typical in politics and hasn't been done a million times before.
There might, ultimately, be explanations for all of these. Including some simple ones I'm missing.
CKNW crowed about this signficantly.
Not very good is it?