[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

National post did the same thing in their reporting over the weekend.  I don't think its a partisan issue. I think it is more problematic than that, our media are following what American journalists do, without understanding the differences between our systems.

Here is the relevant NP paragraph:

Brown, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2015 by then-prime minister Stephen Harper, was taking part in an awards ceremony and banquet at the resort ahead of the encounter.

No need to say who appointed him in that sentence.

[Josephus]

National post did the same thing in their reporting over the weekend.  I don't think its a partisan issue. I think it is more problematic than that, our media are following what American journalists do, without understanding the differences between our systems.

Here is the relevant NP paragraph:

Brown, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2015 by then-prime minister Stephen Harper, was taking part in an awards ceremony and banquet at the resort ahead of the encounter.

No need to say who appointed him in that sentence.

Five rules: Who, what, why, where, when. See in that sentence, for sure it needs to say who appointed him. It's background info. They are not elected, they are appointed and when (and therefore by who) they were appointed by is identifying information. Would you be happy if they just said when he was appointed, and not by whom?

[crazy canuck]

National post did the same thing in their reporting over the weekend.  I don't think its a partisan issue. I think it is more problematic than that, our media are following what American journalists do, without understanding the differences between our systems.

Here is the relevant NP paragraph:

Brown, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2015 by then-prime minister Stephen Harper, was taking part in an awards ceremony and banquet at the resort ahead of the encounter.

No need to say who appointed him in that sentence.

Five rules: Who, what, why, where, when. See in that sentence, for sure it needs to say who appointed him. It's background info. They are not elected, they are appointed and when (and therefore by who) they were appointed by is identifying information. Would you be happy if they just said when he was appointed, and not by whom?

The length of tenure on the court might be relevant.  Please explain to me what relevance who appointed this judge has to this story. 

[Barrister]

CC, as a statement of fact, I have no problem with simply stating Brown was appointed by Harper.  That is a fact.  I think to say "he was a 2015 appointment" without mentioning (as should be obvious) that he was a Harper appointee is kind of an insult to the reader.

As I read the allegations while I can see why the CJC might want to investigate I struggle to see why much discipline should be taken (other than to inquire whether alcohol dependency might be an issue, and urge treatment).

[crazy canuck]

CC, as a statement of fact, I have no problem with simply stating Brown was appointed by Harper.  That is a fact.  I think to say "he was a 2015 appointment" without mentioning (as should be obvious) that he was a Harper appointee is kind of an insult to the reader.

As I read the allegations while I can see why the CJC might want to investigate I struggle to see why much discipline should be taken (other than to inquire whether alcohol dependency might be an issue, and urge treatment).

It is also a fact that he is bald.  But that is also not relevant to the story.

I am not so sure about your conclusion about what might occur.

[Josephus]

National post did the same thing in their reporting over the weekend.  I don't think its a partisan issue. I think it is more problematic than that, our media are following what American journalists do, without understanding the differences between our systems.

Here is the relevant NP paragraph:

Brown, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2015 by then-prime minister Stephen Harper, was taking part in an awards ceremony and banquet at the resort ahead of the encounter.

No need to say who appointed him in that sentence.

Five rules: Who, what, why, where, when. See in that sentence, for sure it needs to say who appointed him. It's background info. They are not elected, they are appointed and when (and therefore by who) they were appointed by is identifying information. Would you be happy if they just said when he was appointed, and not by whom?

The length of tenure on the court might be relevant.  Please explain to me what relevance who appointed this judge has to this story. 

If I said he was appointed in 2015, it's not a secret who appointed him. One thing I learned in journalism is to make a story clear and provide as much info as I can. So you agree, when he was appointed is relevant. So why make people head to Google to see who was prime minister then? I don't think this is a partisan thing. If Chretien appointed him, it would be mentioned in the story.

[crazy canuck]

National post did the same thing in their reporting over the weekend.  I don't think its a partisan issue. I think it is more problematic than that, our media are following what American journalists do, without understanding the differences between our systems.

Here is the relevant NP paragraph:

Brown, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2015 by then-prime minister Stephen Harper, was taking part in an awards ceremony and banquet at the resort ahead of the encounter.

No need to say who appointed him in that sentence.

Five rules: Who, what, why, where, when. See in that sentence, for sure it needs to say who appointed him. It's background info. They are not elected, they are appointed and when (and therefore by who) they were appointed by is identifying information. Would you be happy if they just said when he was appointed, and not by whom?

The length of tenure on the court might be relevant.  Please explain to me what relevance who appointed this judge has to this story. 

If I said he was appointed in 2015, it's not a secret who appointed him. One thing I learned in journalism is to make a story clear and provide as much info as I can. So you agree, when he was appointed is relevant. So why make people head to Google to see who was prime minister then? I don't think this is a partisan thing. If Chretien appointed him, it would be mentioned in the story.

Because who appointed is irrelevant to the story.  the only reason it could possibly be relevant is if one accepts that the person who appointed is in some way meaningful. But again, explain to me how that could be relevant to the story.  As I pointed out to BB, he is also bald.  A fact which is not mentioned anywhere in the story.  For the same reason.  Not relevant at all.

[viper37]

If Chretien appointed him, it would be mentioned in the story.

No.  They never bothered for any other judge of inferior courts who got into trouble.

[crazy canuck]

As an example, here is how Justice Gascon was described by the CBC in 2019 when he went missing for a period of time, it turned out because of a mental health issue.  No mention of who appointed him:

Gascon, who was appointed to Canada's top court in 2014, recently announced his plans to retire from his position on Sept. 15 for personal and family reasons. For an additional six months after his official retirement, he'll be allowed to participate in decisions on cases he heard while sitting on the Supreme Court

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clement-gascon-mental-health-1.5136015

Interestingly the NP did state who appointed him.  Perhaps not surprising that a more right wing paper would more readily follow the American example of thinking the PM who appointed was in any way relevant.

G

ascon, 58, is a specialist in business law and has been on the Supreme Court for five years, having been appointed by former prime minister Stephen Harper after 12 years as a judge in Quebec.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/newsalert-clement-gascon-high-court-justice-who-went-missing-had-panic-attack

[Josephus]

the other thing of note, is that in 2015, we had two prime ministers. If I said he was appointed in 2014, only one prime minister could have done that. In 2015 it could have been either Harper or Trudeau.

[Josephus]

Here is a 2017 Globe article on Mike Duffy.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mike-duffy-sues-government-senate/article36078625/

Former prime minister Stephen Harper appointed Mr. Duffy, a former television journalist, as a Conservative senator in 2009. He now sits as an Independent. In 2013, the Senate was engulfed in controversy over the living allowances and expense claims of Mr. Duffy and senators Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau. The Senate suspended all three.

[crazy canuck]

Here is a 2017 Globe article on Mike Duffy.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mike-duffy-sues-government-senate/article36078625/

Former prime minister Stephen Harper appointed Mr. Duffy, a former television journalist, as a Conservative senator in 2009. He now sits as an Independent. In 2013, the Senate was engulfed in controversy over the living allowances and expense claims of Mr. Duffy and senators Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau. The Senate suspended all three.

You are now doing the very thing I am criticizing. The appointment of Senators has always been a partisan issue. The appointment of SCC Justices has not.  The failure of the media to recognize that fact and to begin following the US practice is the issue. 

[Josephus]

Fair enough. They are different

[crazy canuck]

Fair enough. They are different

 

[Barrister]

Former GG David Johnston is appointed the "special rapporteur" for the China election interference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Johnston

So I mean, his non-partisanship is beyond reproach.  He's moderated several leaders debate (going as far back as 1979!), was a Harper appointee as GG.

I understand there was some criticism of his about the Oliphaunt Commission looking into the Airbus scandal, but I honestly don't remember much about his involvement there.

Mostly though... the dude is 81 years old.  I don't know he's going to exactly oversee a vigorous investigation.