Watching the Muskrat Wriggle - Wangersky defends Media

Russell Wangersky has a piece in the editorial section of the Telegram today titled "Watching the Muskrat". Essentially it deals with critics of the media and its coverage of the proposed Muskrat Falls development. Unfortunately the conclusion is predictable and is able to be quoted by the Premier when next she attacks citizens voicing opposition to the deal. Press HERE to read it.

The first line of the column reads, "Shoot the messenger." As you can surmise - although you should read it for yourself - the messenger is the media. I for one do not require any more messengers. I read, see, and hear enough of them in the Tory caucus, the self-interested corporate community, and the employed spin-doctors. What I want is a genuine attempt to dig out and reveal information on what must be considered the largest renewable resource deal (that the province controls) since the Upper Churchill fiasco.

We can refer to the Upper Churchill as a fiasco now as all hands finally agree it was and is a very crippling deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. As opposed to be emotional about that mess - I choose instead to try and learn from it. Clearly Quebec made an ironclad exceptional deal while we made what could be considered the most naive, emotionally charged, and desperate deal imaginable. So my desire is that we not do it again.

Mr. Wangersky - as many of you know - is a journalist I respect and promote - did not do media critics justice when he lumped all of them in a pile and suggested that critics will shoot the messenger to deflect from their own shortcomings respecting their position. Further along Wangersky also states
"I don’t think it’s correct to say that investigative work isn’t being done. Perhaps it just hasn’t led to what some people want to hear."

That particular statement is weak and unsubstantiated. I as one critic or concerned citizen am concerned that the Premier and her government has been unable to convince me that this proposed deal is anything more than a corporate play which will gouge ratepayers while diminishing our future potential for such a resource. The media that I criticize in my posts are are not those attempting to weigh through the "tonnes" of information - they are those who have little to no interest in understanding enough about this asset to ask relevant questions.

Then Wangersky adds, "The thing that always fascinates me about those who call for more investigative reporting is that, invariably, they’ve never really done any themselves." This is completely unreasonable as most citizens who are attempting to get answers on the deal and call for more investigative reporting are not journalists but are employed in other professions and industries. To say however that these individuals or groups of critics have not researched this deal, the history of the resource, other energy potentials, the workings of Nalcor, other proposed Lower Churchill deals, hydro deals made by other utilities, development financing, potential conflicts, and the findings by the PUB and others, is factually incorrect. What fascinates me is when defending en masse his colleagues he must unjustly belittle those who are filling the information void the media and government has left.

By far the most unjustified and petty comment made by Wangersky was,  "But you’d have to lever yourself out of the comfy critic’s armchair to actually realize that, so it’s easier just to sling out innuendo about “work not being done” instead of actually doing a bit yourself." 

First of all he knows better and he understands that many citizens have provided him and other journalists critical information that otherwise they would not have had. He understands that most of these people are active in their careers (not journalism) and spend very little time in a critic's armchair. He must understand that unlike he and his colleagues these critics are not paid to do this work but rather most do it as a contribution to public awareness, debate, and out of concern. Unfortunately despite the critics commitment to other employment as a going family concern - it is they - not the vast majority of journalists who are paid to do this research that are coming up with most of the meat.

I commend Russell's accomplishments in his field and his latest recognition by the Giller committee. His writing is exceptional but I seek no work of fiction when it comes to something as important as the development of Muskrat Falls.

What Russell did not do is mention any possibility of flaw or inadequacy within his own profession and did not commend any one critic for the investigative work they obviously have done. As a result we have yet another message of shut your mouth or you too may be condemned by media or government.

The one accolade and badge Mr. Wangersky may wear - is one of acceptance by Dunderdale and company and is likely to hear his condemnations of citizens used by the Premier and her caucus to diminish the well researched voices of citizens who have very real concerns about this project.

Russell has any one of those "armchair critics" ever delivered a smoking gun to you or any of your colleagues? 

While the government may be amused at the media and critics going at one another - they should not become too comfortable - the critics will remain absolutely determined not to be silenced for fear of reprisal.