Dan Gardner, the Media Party, and the Disintegration of Modern Journalism

Some Nexus readers may recall a Byline segment from early October wherein Brian Lilley commented on a segment of Canadian journalism he refers to as "the media party".

In the segment, Lilley actually names a few journalists he considers to be members of the media party. Chief among them is "author, journalist and lecturer" Dan Gardner.

Last night, Gardner witnessed Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney refer to unreported crime in explaining and defending the Conservative government's omnibus crime bill. Garner couldn't hold back his objection -- nor, necessarily, should he -- and took to Twitter to voice his objection.

Gardner, who Tweets under @DGardner decided to respond to Kenney's comments by first selectively citing data from the study, then by dismissing unreported crime as "trivial":

Your not-so-humble scribe couldn't resist the opportunity to ask Gardner a few questions about the assumptions he was making. Gardner's ultimate response was that he ultimately would not consider any other data points:

In other words, Gardner refused to talk about any weaknesses in the assumptions he was offering, or even any other information. If it was going to be discussed, it would have to be discussed with other people, because he won't.

There's good reason for this. The survey as a whole says far more than Gardner says it does, and the data points he himself is offering don't necessarily support his claims about it.

There are obvious problems with a response that begins and ends with "not important enough", and it has to do with the respondent's perception of the meaning of that phrase. The question of who the incident in question is perceived to be "not important enough to" is a very real question.

To blithely assume that this means that the victim of the crime in general didn't consider it important enough to report is to also assume that all respondents perceived the meaning of that phrase in a uniform manner. This would be a mistake.

When a response begins and ends with "not important enough", it's every bit as likely that the respondent could conclude that the crime in question was not important enough to the police as not important enough to them personally. In lieu of a better-defined response, either conclusion is equally likely, and it's much more reasonable -- and responsible -- to allow for the probability that those who submitted that response had either of these in mind. Some likely concluded the former, and some likely concluded the latter.

Yet to ask Dan Gardner if the conclusion he reached -- that this response indicates that most of Canada's unreported crime is trivial -- is reasonable considering the ambiguous nature of this data is apparently to precipitate a meltdown on his behalf. If last night's events are any indication, he simply can't cope with that idea.

To ask him about the second-ranked response -- "police could not do anything about it" -- is apparently to make it worse. Gardner's response was that this was a worthy point to be discussed, but that he personally wouldn't. (That the second-ranked response trailed the first-ranked response by less than ten percentage points apparently did nothing to boost the worthiness of this data point in Gardner's eyes.)

It becomes difficult to avoid reaching the conclusion that, in the canon of the far-left media, these are forbidden questions. "Does the data actually indicate what you're saying it does?" That question is forbidden. "Isn't the second-ranked response also worthy of consideration?" That question is also forbidden.

What seems to emerge, in Dan Gardner's case, is that of a man who has not embraced journalism as a means with which to provide people with information or even ideas. Rather, he's embraced the journalistic enterprise purely as a means of political advocacy. Nothing else.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that Gardner is simply a card-carrying member of the media party. The media party has an agenda, and in this case it's in preserving the soft-on-crime, hug-a-thug policies that they claim have reduced crime in Canada, but in reality have not. The Stats Can study itself states that in no uncertain terms -- victimization in Canada has remained stable.

In support of that agenda, Gardner sets out to turn public attention away from specific data points that do not support that agenda, and toward data points that seem to support it only if they go unexamined.

It's one thing to insist that Canadians aren't reporting specific crimes because they're "not important enough", whatever that might mean to the individuals who offered that response.

To insist that the unreported crimes are trivial is remarkably obtuse when one considers what those unreported crimes are:

Of the crimes unreported in Canada, the number one is break and enter. That is not a trivial crime. The second is motor vehicle or parts theft. That is not a trivial crime. The third is robbery. That is not a trivial crime. The fifth is physical assault. That is not a trivial crime.

The fourth was vandalism. That could be a trivial crime, but not necessarily. The sixth and seventh were theft, or personal property and household property respectively. That, too, could be a trivial crime, but not necessarily.

It's not up to Dan Gardner to decide if the unreported victimization of Canadians is trivial. It's up to each individual victim to decide that for themselves and admittedly, many of them might reach that conclusion. Many might not.

But this is how the media party operates: they assume that they speak for Canadians as a whole, then they pretend to.

In the end, Dan Gardner's impotent response to the questions he was asked was to label your not-so-humble scribe a "troll". Basically it amounts to an accusation that the questions over whether or not Gardner has given ample consideration to the meaning of the data points he offers is "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic", as Wikipedia would have it.

The questions over whether or not Gardner is accurately interpreting the data offered by this survey are very clearly on-topic. It's simply a question that he considers forbidden: it's entirely reasonable to ask in the face of ambiguous data with a wide berth of potential meanings, but it seems to be Gardner's belief that no one is allowed to ask that question.

To this end, Dan Gardner is wrong. People have the right to ask these questions, and if Gardner, demanding merit in the public eye, refuses to discuss them, then it's he who has abandoned the lofty aspirations of journalism.

It's not what one would expect from a journalist. But it's precisely what one would expect from a member of the media party.

There Is Something Deeply Wrong With Some of These People...

If you were to ask any of them to their face, the far-left in Canada are the champions of rainbows and puppydogs. Their leaders are all "inspirational", and their causes in the best interests of "99%".

But scratch the surface of some of these individuals, and what is left underneath is a complete lunatic. Stark, raving, mad. And brutish to the core.

For evidence one needs look no further than the individual who identifies himself as @HarrisAJackson. The "A" apparently stands for "Ace".

Okay then.

As it turns out, Ace is an advocate for the long gun registry. There's very little wrong with that, in and of itself. But how Ace deals with political defeat leaves a lot to be desired. He tweeted:

"Wonder how many hard core Cons will think deregulation of the long gun is a good idea, when they're [sic] son or daughter ends up dead? We can only hope its a conservative victim, since those with brains and national pride are fighting to keep it alive."

Ace subsequently insisted he didn't wish gun violence on anyone, but screencaps have the final say:

(Following several Tweets of this image directly to him, Ace still couldn't figure it out.)

Even while objecting that he hadn't wished gun violence on anyone, he literally couldn't stop. Couldn't help himself.

This issue has keenly focused the mania of individuals like our dear Ace. Irrational rage that would otherwise have thrashed helplessly across the Twitterverse is now brought to bear on this singular issue. For the first time, we can see just how disturbed these people are.

And Harris Ace Jackson is very disturbed indeed. The civilized approach to the issue of the long gun registry is -- whether one supports it or opposes it -- to wish for no gun violence. Ace has adopted a very different approach: he simply wishes the gun violence to be aimed at a very specific group of people.

It's sick. It's evil. It's reflective of someone crying out for help.

His LinkedIn profile identifies him as "Senior Analyst at UFO Investigator Citizen Reporter". He lives in the Vancouver area.

If you, or anyone you know, knows Harris Ace Jackson, reach out. Let him know about any mental health resources in his area, and urge him to seek help before he does something he may not be mentally healthy enough to regret.

Does It Get Better?

Maybe not... if you're John Baird

Following the suicide of yet another bullied gay teen -- it's been happening with heartbreaking frequency lately -- one would expect that LGBT activists in Canada would welcome Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird taking a stand to stop homophobic bullying.

Think again.

Baird responded to the suicide of Jamie Hubley in both a statement in the House of Commons and in a YouTube video produced as part of the "It Gets Better" campaign. In both cases, speaking out against homophobic bullying.

Many hardline LGBT activists haven't welcomed Baird's stand against this scourge of the LGBT community. Instead, they're angry that Baird would dare denounce homophobic bullying.

To various LGBT activists, Baird has a dirty little secret.

Except that it's not really dirty, and not really a secret. Really, they're just determined to denounce him no matter what. No matter what.

So in the wake of Baird's statement and video, self-described LGBT activists took to Twitter to denounce him as allegedly hypocritical for being an allegedly closeted gay man.

"Okay, I'm still livid," fumed Ariel Troster. "John Baird isn't even brave enough to come out and he's telling youth #itgetsbetter?"

"If it gets better then GET OUT OF THE F*CKING CLOSET JOHN BAIRD, YOU HYPOCRITICAL COWARD," raged @Kyle_A.

"If Min John Baird really wants to set a good example for Gay teens he should finally come out of the closet himself," declared @RustyBoyRobot.

It's a confusing response to such a laudable act by Baird, one that belies an odd autocratic attitude by some LGBT activists towards their own: simply, that they demand the right to dictate to John Baird how he will live his life.

To claim that Baird is "closeted" would overlook the fact that Baird's sexuality is common knowledge to many of those who follow Canadian politics. But although Baird has never been secretive about his sexuality, he has been quiet about it. There's a difference.

Baird prefers to live his private life in dignity as he sees it. That's not enough for some militant LGBT activists, who demand that he live his life as they see fit: as some kind of human billboard for the Canadian LGBT community.

Not only is it shameful, but it threatens the simple moral principle that motivates any conservative who supports equal rights -- equal meaning precisely that: equal -- that people have the right to live their lives in any law-abiding manner they choose.

Homosexuality, as serious-minded Canadians know, is not a choice. But how someone chooses to live as a homosexual is. Not every Canadian LGBT should be herded onto a gay pride float once a year if that isn't how they want to live their life.

If John Baird prefers to live his private life, well... privately, that's his right. It isn't for militant LGBT activists -- or anyone else -- to dictate to him that he should do otherwise.

The numerous individuals trying to politicize this issue and deny John Baird the credit he has earned for his laudable stand against homophobic bullying should all be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

#Elxn41 Brings Out the Twittertards, Part Two

In an earlier episode of "#Elxn41 Brings Out the Twittertards", we explored the tragic example of Stephen Shakeshaft, and helpless stoner who Tweets under the handle @Shanker420.

Mr Shakeshaft thought it was a serious political issue that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a US government souvenir coffee mug on his desk in Calgary, more than 3,000 km away from where he normall drinks his coffee.

Today, we explore the equally-tragic case of Jeff Merklinger, who Tweets under the handle @JeffMerklinger, aka "STOP HARPER" (Merklinger apparently engages his capslock to attract maximum attention).

Judging from his Twitter account, Merklinger's flagship political argument is to accuse Prime Minister Harper and the Tories of being Nazis.

There really isn't much of a story with Merklinger -- just another intellectually-impotent left-winger relying more on bombastic sleaze than on anything even remotely resembling a factual or rational argument. The real story with Merklinger is who appreciates his work.

In examining the list of Merklinger's followers, one finds something remarkable -- the Catch .22 Conservatives:

The Catch .22 Conservatives are essentially a collective of left-wingers determined to defeat Tory candidates in targetted ridings. They applied for, and received, third party status from Elections Canada, meaning that they're allowed to spend money campaigning for or against candidates in this election.

Merklinger isn't the only borderline-certifiable individual involved in their campaign.

Also involved is CK, the basketcase chickenwanker behind Sister Sage's Musings -- a blog better described as "Sister Spiteful's Musings".

CK even produced this poster for the campaign, a poster she displayed on her blog with all the pride of a six year-old showing mommy and daddy their most recent finger-painted etchings.

Among the complaints listed in the poster is "secretly wishing Sarah Palin could join their gang". So among all the vapid complaints in the poster -- tailor-designed to appeal only to the far-left base -- is one argument that literally holds zero relevance to Canadians.

This among various racially-tinged comments from CK, as well as from some of her co-bloggers.

Simply put, the Catch .22 Conservatives would really like Canadians to take them seriously. Unfortunately for them, between their Twitter activities and their secret membership, there's no reason in the world for anyone to do so.

#Elxn41 Brings Out the Twittertards

With the 2011 federal election taking Twitter to new heights of political activity, one thing was absolutely certain:

Twitter would give some people an opportunity to highlight the depth of their complete ignorance.

There's something about giving absolutely anyone a political soapbox 140 characters at a time that has really managed to scrape the bottom of Canada's political talent pool.

Easily at the shallowest end of that talent pool is an individual by the name of Stephen Shakeshaft, who Tweets under the handle @Shanker420.

Wading into an exchange about Senate reform, Shakeshaft declares that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a little too close to the USA for his liking.

Pushed a little further on precisely why Canadians should think that Harper's coffee mug is a serious issue, Shakeshaft claims that Harper's choice in coffee mugs is very deeply calculated.

To support his argument, Shakeshaft eventually produced the following video, shot during an "occupation" of Harper's office in Calgary:



The first impulse of any rational individual is to offer a facetious "oh noes! Stephen Harper uses the 'wrong' souvenir mug at his Calgary office!" Where he... almost never is.

The detail that seems to elude Shakeshaft is that the Conservative Party ad cited in the video in question was shot in the Prime Minister's office in Ottawa.

For anyone counting, that's 3,330 km away from where the allegedly-damning US government sovenir mug is located. (It's 1998 if we want to mock Shakeshaft in miles instead.)

Yet despite the fact that Shakeshaft has offered the emptiest anti-American remark of the campaign to date, he claims that he's "by no means anti-American".

Which is very clearly complete and utter bullshit. Of all the Twittertards polluting the #Elxn41 discourse, it's very clear that Stephen Shakeshaft has the absolute least to offer. Even less than your standard Chickenwanker.

Considering Shakeshaft's "420" handle and his PotTV sources, it's just another reminder for all the kids out there: drugs are really, really bad for you.

This is Nothing a Sheeny Curse Wouldn't Fix

Antonia Zerbisias tips her anti-Semitic hand

This post should probably start off with an apology to any Jewish readers -- or just Jews in general -- if they're offended by the title. Please forgive.

Recently, Toronto Star columnist and blogger Antonia Zerbisias sparked another blogosphere controversy when she twittered the following:

"MP Irwin Cotler's children join IDF. http://bit.ly/1Ttsq0 Which country are you loyal to, sir?"

Irwin Cotler, as Kay notes, is known around the world for his work fighting anti-Semitism. He has also been instrumental in highlighting Canada's past failure to detect and deport Nazi war criminals.

As many Canadians would also know, Zerbisias has been far from quiet on the topic of Israel. Recent screeds against Israel include a column applauding a Toronto LGBT group protesting "Israeli Apartheid" (despite the fact that Israel has a far superior record in regard to its treatment of homosexuals than any other Middle Eastern country) and applause of the insipid boycott of the Toronto International Film Festival over its "city to city" program with Tel Aviv.

So it's clear that Zerbisias is a critic of Israel. There's actually nothing wrong with that -- there's plenty of room for constructive criticism of any state, especially Israel.

But to target Irwin Cotler and challenge his patriotism because his children -- who are dual Canadian-Israeli citizens, by virtue of Cotler's marriage to an Israeli woman -- is far, far beyond the pale.

To impugn Cotler's citizenship based on the actions of his children is nothing short of irresponsible.

It could even be interpreted as a form of neo-McCarthyism, as Dr John Baglow accuses Kay of in noting that Zerbisias' comments at least reinforce the impressions of Zerbisias' well-known anti-Zionism.

The problem for Zerbisias and her thinly-veiled threat to sue another blogger (who has actually taken quite a trip over the matter) is that her rhetoric seems to suggest that her anti-Zionism has bled into anti-Semitism.

As Kay notes, Zerbisias recently noted, on her Facebook page, that "it doesn't seem possible for Jewish people to have a RATIONAL discussion about Israel!"

So it would seem that Zerbisias insists that Israel is the problem. But more than that, she infers, the real problem is the Jews.

As the aforementioned Backseat Blogger notes, accusations of mixed loyalties have often been levied against Jews.

At a certain point, a spade just has to be called a spade. Zerbisias' criticisms of Israel themselves are far short of malignant. But when mixed with the kind of rhetoric she's indulged herself in, it becomes clear that there are darker motivations underlying her criticism.

Which brings one back to the Sheeny Curse.

Who knows? Perhaps Antonia Zerbisias would be surprissed to learn that the Sheeny Curse doesn't actually exist. Stranger things have been published in the pages of the Star -- often by Zerbisias herself.