John Doyle To Be Added to the Tremendous Hypocrites Walk of Shame

It seems arts funding is only for failures

According to Globe and Mail columnist John Doyle, Alex Trebek belongs in a game show host hall of fame, if there is one. Shania Twain belongs in a bare midriff hall of fame, if such a thing exists. Rich Little would be a shoo-in for an untalented comedian hall of fame.

Doyle himself would be a first ballot inductee into a hypocrite hall of shame. If such a thing existed. It doesn't, but it should.

Doyle recently attracted the attention of the Hollywood Reporter for his opposition to a grant from Heritage Canada to fund a festival inducting Trebek, Twain and Little onto Canada's Walk of Fame in the Toronto Theatre District.

"On the cusp of Canada Day, I put it to you that our taxes are collected and spent by a government that has contempt for us," Doyle fumed. "They must think we are airheads, as they dole out our money to fund the celebration of the already rich and famous."

Doyle goes on to infer that Trebek's success renders him unworthy of taxpayer money being spent to celebrate his success on the Walk of Fame.

Doyle, it seems, is like a lot of people: he dislikes a winner.

But it seems necessary to remember that he loves a loser. Consider his outrage that Sun News Network personality Krista Erickson would dare ask "iconic interpretive dancer" Margie Gillis some challenging questions about her arts funding.

During the interview, Gillis would complain that her renumeration as the top "professional" in her field is allegedly unfairly dwarfed by the pay received by other top professionals (who are actual professionals). In other words, she chose her career and when it turned out that it didn't pay what a top doctor or engineer pays, it's up to the government to step in and cover her losses.

Doyle tried to mask his outrage in smug yet spiteful contempt. But the irration and illogic of Doyle's screed was unmistakable. This was, after all, mere questions he was complaining about.

Now the government, instead of doling out $1.2 million over 13 years (1998-2011 was not a 35-year period, as Gillis comically insisted), the government is doling out a mere $500,000 to celebrate Canadians actually being successful on the international stage.

And not merely successful... wildly successful. In fact, Trebek and Twain (perhaps not necessarily Little) boast the kind of success stories that inspires many other Canadians to follow in their footsteps, following their dreams. And Doyle doesn't like it.

It's a bizarre look into the Canada that Doyle imagines for the rest of us to live in: one in which failure is celebrated as if it were success, and success is ignored as if it were failure.

Frankly, it's the kind of backwardness that could only be considered preferable in the mind of a consumate hypocrite; one of walk of shame calibre. Sadly, it seems John Doyle is up to the task.

More From the Relentlessly-Whiny Canadian Left

When the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council waved a red flag in the face of thousands of rabidly-censorious Canadian left-wingers, Charlie Smith of the Georgia Strait interpreted it as a red flag in the face of a raging bull.

And he's the bull. In so many ways.

Smith, of course, is among thos outraged that Sun News Network personality Krista Erickson asked "iconic" interpretive dancer Margie Gillis some challenging questions about her funding.

Smith is outraged that the CBSC has called for a halt to the complaints. Gillis' self-organized campaign to complain to the council has amassed so many that it can't process them all. So he recommends that, instead, the implacably-censorious left go directly to the CRTC.

In going to the CRTC, Gillis' cronies would be scrambling for an even bigger fly swatter than the CBSC; one that cannot be ingored.

And the CSBC very much can be ignored.

As Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley recently alluded to, it was the CBSC that, based on a single complainant, attempted to direct all radio stations in Canada to air an edited version of "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits.

Radio stations decided to ignore the ruling. The CRTC directed the CBSC to revisit their deicision, and they backed down.

The CRTC, however, cannot be ignored. If they decided to give in to the demands being made by Charlie Smith and the rest of the mice following Margie Gillis in her pied paper act, they could pull the Sun News Networks' broadcast license.

There should be no doubt that those expressing contrived, sanctimonious and generally false outrage at Gillis being asked some tough questions are prepared to accept nothing less than that. They're already demanding it.

The Relentlessly-Whiny Canadian Left

4,100 Gillis-organized crybabies wirte the CBSC

If one were to judge from the volume of complaints received by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, one would think Krista Erickson's interview on the Sun News Network with Margie Gillis is a geat and terrible thing.

News outlets like the Globe and Mail and distinctly not-news outlets like The Mark and the Toronto Star have repoted that the CBSC has received more than twice the number of complaints about that one specific interview than it normally receives in an entire year.

However, they're declining to report a single salient detail:

The complaints are the result of a campaign organized by Gillis herself.

In a previous Facebook note, Gillis expressed sadness at the malicious hate messages being posted on Erickson's own Facebook page. That much is to her credit. But in the very same post, she recommended that her followers write to the government to complain not about Erickson's conduct, but rather about her views.

"Filing a letter with the CRTC , with copy to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and to the Prime Minister, stating that the unilateral view depicted in that interview is not what we want for ourselves or how we wish to be known in the world would be a far more fruitful action and it wouldn’t replicate the hatred we want to denounce," Gillis writes.

That's almost as comical as concluding her campaign call with a direction to "be brave, be clear, be compassionate."

Uh... what? What does compassion have to do with Margie Gillis' outrage at being asked some challenging questions on the Sun News Network? Or being confronted with her bizarrely-sanctimonious attitude toward Canadian society (the same Canadian society that supported her interpretive dance endeavours to the tune of $1.2 million over 13 years).

Speaking of sanctimony.

In a comical turn of events, the Star's resident hate addict, Heather Mallick wrote a column about the complaints, wherein she depicted Erickson as "venomous".

Mallick even seemed to echo Gillis' bizarre insistance that 1998-2011 is a 35-year period.

"Viewers are up in arms about the bullying the much-loved Gillis took from the angry, wired Erickson for having received a total of $1.2 million in government cultural grants over the decades," Mallick writes. Huh? 13 years "over the decades"? It seems that Mallick shares Gillis' extremely bizarre sense of time.

She acknowledged the Facebook campaign, but failed to attribute it to Gillis.

Quelle suprise!

One would almost think Mallick forgot that it was herself, not Erickson, who once penned a column in which she declared that then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin dresses like a porn star. That column blissfully ended her career at the CBC, even if the Star has breathed undeserved life into it. But the most salient detail seems to be that Mallick is so unashamed of her own venmous performance that she maintains it on her personal website.

No rational person needed the reminder, but that's how contemptible a person Heather Mallick is.

This author would love to see her go on the Sun News Network to defend her condemnation of Erickson in light of her own conduct. Unfortuately, Mallick is far too much of a coward to do anything like that.

For the CBSC, there should really be only one response to the complaints, spurred by Gillis' own wounded pride: severe disintrest in the complaints, and immediate dismissal.

After all, one could likely safely guarantee that if one were to examine the complaints submitted to the CBSC and compare it to the petition that Avaaz so feverishly organized in order to prevent the Sun News Network from ever coming to air, one would likely find each one of those 4,100 complainees had signed the petition.

Because that's what this is about: it's about the relentlessly-whiny, impacably-censorious left trying to run the Sun News Network off the air.

If the CBSC doesn't treat this comical complaints with the seriousness they deserve -- which is none -- the Sun News Network should summarily respond to them with a middle finger. Perhaps even an exploding one.

Shake it off, ignore the crybabies, and just let them wail. No one's listening to them anyway.

Margie Gillis: Almost Famous

The Far-Left's Bizarre Love of Mediocrity Strikes Again

Margie Gillis bumbles through interview, hailed as a hero for it

As the Brigette DePape episode has shown Canadians, there's nothing the far-left truly loves more than mediocrity, so long as it's ideologically-soothing mediocrity.

Little else could explain the far-left's sudden love of interpretive danger Margie Gillis, who recently was the quieter -- yet no more polite -- participant in a dust-up over arts grant with Krista Erickson on Sun TV.

Erickson outlined $1.2 million in grants Gillis had received from the Canada Arts Council over 13 years. Gillis accused Erickson of belittling the arts community. The Globe and Mail's John Doyle firmly took Gillis' side:

"Recently, the channel’s Krista Erickson accosted dancer Margie Gillis on air about arts funding and tried to beat her up, verbally. This was comedy of the raw sort. Erickson explained that Gillis is a very famous, award-winning dancer and choreographer. Gillis, who talks in a very soft voice, thanked her for the nice introduction and things proceeded. Erickson, aided by an onscreen crawl, pointed out that Gillis and her dance foundation have, over the past 13 years, received grants totalling $1.2-million. That’s $1.2-million spread over 13 years. She demanded to know why Gillis was costing taxpayers $1.2-million.

Gillis explained that all the money didn’t go into her pocket. It kept a lot of people going. Erickson then went wacky. She waved her arms around in a lame attempt to mimic dance movement. Not a wizard at the arm ballet is Krista, believe me. She looked like the Martin Short character Ed Grimley getting excited. 'This whole thing,' she barked, while frantically waved her arms, 'Why does it cost $1.2-million over 13 years?' Then she shouted at Gillis to try to drown out the response. "

As anyone who actually watches the interview would quickly realize, this actually bears very little resemblence to the interview itself.

Gillis may draw some sympathy from the far-left because of her soft-spoken demeanor, but that also requires them to overlook her own behaviour during the interview. She did her best to be slippery, refusing to answer Erickson's questions. Despite $1.2 million in grants over 13 years being outlined on the show, Gillis tried to insist that money was spread out over 39 years... despite the fact that the grants were listed year-by-year from 1998 onward. (There may well have been more grants, but they were not the ones Gillis was being asked about.)

Over and over again, Gillis declared that she had "sacrificed her life" to interpretive dance. Aside from this remark being a little bit creepty, it doesnt' strike a rational person as much of a sacrifice: Gillis "sacrificed" her life to be funded to the tune of millions of dollars in order to do what, presumably, she loves to do.

In fact, since 1998 Gillis has been funded by the federal government, through the Canada Arts Council, to the tune of nearly $100,000 a year. According to her remarks, she also uses that money to fund the salarty of at least one other individual.

But even $50,000 to travel the world spiraling her arms is a pretty sweet gig.

In reality, Margie Gillis hasn't made any discernable sacrifice. She isn't hard put upon.

Nor does her spiralling arms actually do anything toward the goal of world peace. A Canadian fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan does; Gillis does not.

If anyone expected that Gillis' experience yestearday would provoke even the slightest bit of self-exploration to determine whether her behaviour on Sun TV contributed to the argument or not, don't expect it. Gillis has posted a message on her Facebook page asking her followers to write the CRTC and complain about the "unilateral views" expressed on Sun TV.

(She did, to her credit, instruct her followers to stop posting hate messages on Erickson's Facebook page. However, readers of the Nexus are by now familiar with the hateful behaviour of the far-left. They probably won't listen to her.)

It's nothing new to Canada's far-left, who demand merit for every mediocre remark to tumble out of the mouth of their adopted icons. Fortunately for the rest of Canadians -- who are becoming increasingly conservative -- it works out to our advantage.

And So The Story Begins To Emerge

But key questions remain unanswered

In a recent post to his CBC editor's blog, John Cruickshank has publicly offered such some snippets of the story surrounding Krista Erickson and the conduct that eventually got her reassigned to Toronto.

"When, as in the present instance, it is revealed that a reporter has been collaborating, even if only obliquely, with one party or another, an appearance of partisanship emerges that cannot be dispelled by claims that this is how political reporters interact with their sources.

In this case, our reporter provided questions to two Liberal MPs using her BlackBerry in the hope that these would be put to the former prime minister during the committee hearings."

According to Cruickshank, Erickson did in fact submit the offending question to two Liberal MPs (she also did it via Blackberry which leaves a trail of electronic correspondance that can be followed). One of them was clearly Pablo Rodriguez.

Who was the other Liberal MP? Was is Paul Szabo?

That could prove to be a serious breach of conduct for Mr Szabo, who evidently willfully allowed the Commons Committee he chaired to breach its mandate in pursuit of a non-existent news story that would just so happen to be damaging to the Conservatives.

Will a House of Commons Ethics Committee be called into his conduct? Perhaps it should be.

Also, a question for Pablo Rodriguez: why'd you lie?

Remember that Rodriguez claimed he wrote his questions himself, as he allegedly writes all his questions. Yet, John Cruickshank has clearly determined otherwise.

Rodriguez should be challenged on the public record. In fact, the extent to which he himself has benefitted from such misconduct on behalf of media personell before should be throughly investigated.

"I accept the reporter's explanation that she did not do this to advantage the Liberals or hurt the Conservatives — that she just wanted answers for her story.

She believed it was permissible to create a temporary alliance of convenience with the Liberals if it would help determine whether Brian Mulroney had lobbied a Tory minister on a recent matter."

Alliances of convenience do pose a serious threat to journalistic credibility.

Yet, if Erickson believed that was permissable, something probably gave her that impression. How prevalent are such "alliances of convenience" at the CBC?

Are they really temporary alliances, or are such "alliances of convenience" perhaps a sign that activist journalism -- wherein reporters intentionally work hand-in-hand with politicians they support in order to damage governments they oppose -- has truly taken root at the CBC?

"But in this kind of information sharing, reporters can become part of the story they are covering, which is not our role. Any time a reporter plants a question and covers the results, they are deceiving their audience about their detachment and fairness.

For our reporters, this makes cultivating sources problematic. We can't make deals that leave us beholden either to members of the government or any opposition party."

Yet it's entirely possible that the only difference between Erickson and other CBC reporters who may (or may not) have made similar arrangements is that she got caught.

Will there be a full-scale investigation into such practices at the CBC to determine who else, if anyone, has used such means to cultivate sources? If so, will anyone else found to have done so be disciplined?

A public inquiry into such practices at the CBC may still be in order. However, if John Cruickshank has yet to percieve the wisdom of calling for such an air-clearing process, it's at this point unlikely that he ever will.

Which is rather unfortunate. While Cruickshank and CBC Ombudsman Vice Carlin have answered some key questions, it seems that many more will remain unanswered -- maybe even formally unasked.

The CBC is far from clear of any doubt.

Krista Erickson: Busted!!!

CBC lives up to some of its big talk, but more is needed

One probably shouldn't be surprised to see Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez waving goodbye to CBC Krista Erickson today, as the CBC has announced it's transferring her from Ottawa from Toronto.

Conservatives, meanwhile, probably hate to see her go, but love to watch her leave.

Well, probably at the least the "love to watch her leave" part.

"Following an investigation by senior management of CBC News, we have determined that our reporter Krista Erickson did, in fact, provide questions to a Member of Parliament in the lead up to the Ethics Committee meeting in
December," CBC news editor John Cruickshank wrote in a letter to Doug Finley. "Those actions, while in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story, were inappropriate and inconsistent with CBC News policies and procedures."

"Our investigation determined there was no bias in related news coverage. However, our reporter, acting on her own, used inappropriate tactics as a result of journalistic zeal, rather than partisan interest," Cruickshank wrote.

Well, of course it did.

"Given the potential risk to the journalistic credibility of our Ottawa bureau, its reporters and CBC News generally, we have chosen on an exceptional basis to make the detailed outcome of our disciplinary process available to you, our employees and the public at large."

"I trust this addresses your concerns."

Actually, not quite.

As previously mentioned, the allegations of collusion between the CBC and any political party raises some serious questions about the CBC, and shakes public faith in the public broadcaster's ability to operate in a non-partisan matter despite the notably lopsidedly partisan character of the board of directors.

The only way to restore public faith in the CBC and answer the questions so many Canadians have come to ask is to hold an investigation in the public eye. A public inquiry is needed.

While admittedly, the break with CBC policy insisting the identities of disciplined personell would not be made public suggests the reported conclusions are indeed genuine (it's a tremendous show of good faith), Canadians also deserve certainty.

The conclusions simply do not deliver in this regard.

John Cruickshank should encourage Stephen Harper to call a public inquiry into what will likely henceforth be known as the "Krista Erickson affair" so that it can be determined how, if at all, prevalent indiscretions similar to Erickson's are amongst CBC staff, and if any CBC staff are acting in benefit of any political party, regardless of which party that may be.