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.

Dunderdale - Cochrane - Cashin - Bloggers "FEAR"

Democracy: new definition

A right of people to elect dictators.

The continual flow of apologists for government and media should bother us.

One blogger noted:

"For a guy who called the press conference pleading for openness and transparency, I find it peculiar for him to attack the medium through which such transparency could be taken advantage of by the public. As Paddy Daly noted, it was akin to biting the hand that feeds."

Here we go again speaking out must be highlighted by fear.

Biting the hand that feeds it?

What does this mean?

One cannot and must not criticise or question the media?

One cannot and must not criticise government?

Shut your mouth and you will be rewarded?

Shut your mouth or bad things will happen?

If one believes the media is being soft on the most significant resource deal of the century for our province - what should they do? If one believes that this is part of the reason the government is acting so arrogant while spending our money - what should they do?

The pedestals must fall - people - politicians and media alike must be placed with the people and for the people. This constant attack on citizens who buy papers, watch and listen to news and ultimately pay for things like the Emera deal must end.

Speaking freely and publicly should not achieve an outcome of punishment. What exactly are we living under?

Dunderdale and Harper are reason enough to question and criticise till one is exhausted - now we have the media suggesting they are above question.

Gate 1: return power to the people

Gate 2: chastise and punish all politicians who do not understand who they work for

Gate 3: start decrying the punishment mentality of both government and some media with respect to people expressing an opinion or belief.

Gate 4: understand that politicians and some media do an awful lot of power plays behind the scenes as they pass out their punishment.

Gate 5: stop all progress of the Emera deal until a referendum process is undertaken and complete.

If this is a democracy - the threats of retribution to citizens who speak out must stop.

Our history is filled with examples where neither elected representatives nor media have done due diligence and we have and continue to pay the price.

From the United Nations: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 

When a citizen is discouraged from direct involvement through use of fear or intimidation - he/she does not live in a democracy. 

It was only a short while ago that Premier Dunderdale stated that Tom Osborne did not do enough to build a relationship with her. For this reason and not for reason of competence or ability he did not make Cabinet?

Prime Minister Harper is a liar - straight up - yet the media does not only avoid the factual situation but also accepts his direction with respect to when he will answer questions and who he will answer in the media.

The race to the bottom is heating up and whether it's Cashin, Osborne, or any other soul who dares question, critique or oppose government or media - they are under threat of some sort of reprisal?

The same blogger mentioned earlier said the following:

"So why did Cashin put forth such a ridiculous claim? Well, it’s simple really. Cochrane asked him a question that made Cashin uncomfortable.  In the press conference, Cochrane basically restated Premier Dunderdale’s position on not allowing expert witnesses in the House of Assembly for the special Muskrat Falls debate as they were going to follow the template set out in the Voisey’s Bay debate from years past. Cochrane probably knows full well all of the things that are wrong with Dunderdale’s assertion, but he clearly put it in front of Cashin for him to refute, if he could. THIS IS WHAT GOOD REPORTERS DO.

Cashin is right, comparing Voisey’s Bay to Muskrat Falls is like comparing apples and oranges. The fact that the premise for Cochrane’s question contained the assumption that it was okay to compare the two appeared to really piss him off. Cochrane premised a question with a notion that Cashin believes to be preposterous, as he appears to think it’s irresponsible to even suggest that Muskrat Falls is similar to Voisey’s Bay."

The question that comes to my mind is did David Cochrane question Dunderdale's premise in the same manner he asked Cashin to do?

Did he place before the Premier the facts of the Voisey's Bay debate and the factual differences between the two?

Did Cochrane drag out the factual assumptions of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro over the past 25 years ans ask Martin or Dunderdale to explain the errors?

Did Cochrane chase Premier Williams around after his resignation to find out what's up?

Oh there are so many questions that could and should be asked by Cochrane and I assume that Cashin along with many others are exasperated by the soft approach on Dunderdale while leaving the tougher more aggressive questioning to citizens voicing their concerns.

Why will we pay Emera for any part of delivering domestic power?
Why will we pay Emera to maintain any part of our pole infrastructure?
What is Emera's record in Nova Scotia or the Grand Bahamas?
Does former Premier Williams have any investments that could benefit from this deal?
Why are the ratepayers/taxpayers paying for this mess?

Developing any part of the Lower Churchill should equal thousands of long-term jobs in Labrador and should be paying a significant dividend to the ratepayers in order to keep prices lower not higher.

How about Cochrane does a straight comparison between this proposed deal with Emera and the two last attempted deals by Tobin and Grimes. Let's see the information. Let us - the citizens make a call based on REAL information.

How about the Quebec card? How about we have some answers on that. How about we ask if Quebec companies will benefit greatly from this deal? How about we establish a fact that Quebec could buy into Emera?

This deal and all its dirt must be exposed and then stopped.

The only people who are really being chastized, marginalized, scrutinized and punished regarding the Emera deal are citizens who are not being paid to either govern or report.

The Cashin - Cochrane Files Will the Media act like Government?

In March of this year I posted the following:

Cochrane and Simms do not control Muskrat Debate

It is not only Cashin who has a problem here and if we do not strengthen the investigative research of our local media the Upper Churchill will be repeated. The final paragraph and it's assumption may well have been proved to be wrong.


Over the past couple of weeks some members of the media - commentators, reporters, and pundits appeared to have been dissuading people and politicians alike - from continued opposition to Muskrat Falls.

I have heard statements like - "nothing new" - which of course was the spin being promoted by Dunderdale and company.

I have a question for David Cochrane who carries himself like the head honcho of Newfoundland and Labrador "journalism". Have all the previously noted concerns been resolved?

The problem is that if a question - the same question - goes unanswered (satisfactorily) should one just stop asking?

From where I sit many questions asked from day one - have never been answered. The fact that Kennedy or Dunderdale open mouths and spew rhetoric does not mean an issue is resolved.

We are talking about 6-8 billion dollars of our money, the money of our children and grandchildren; we need to know if this project is the right one.

Some of the Unanswered Concerns:

1. What happens in 2041 and does this project have the potential to harm us in future dealings?

2. The need for power.

3. Alternatives.

4. Lowest Cost Alternative.

5. Labrador benefits.

6. Cheaper power for Nova Scotia.

7. Subsidization by Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayers.

8. The need of a partner.

9. Long-term jobs.

10. Potential for alternative industrial development.

The problem - as I see it - is the media who are demonstrably frustrated by the ongoing debate are those individuals who are not educated enough on the issue to ask the right questions or lack the guts to take on the governing PC's.

I have watched most of Cochrane's material and in my opinion - he lacks information or the desire to really challenge the "facts" the government puts forth.

Randy Simms - in my opinion does not have the knowledge to determine if something regarding the project has been answered satisfactorily.

If they are going to use the media power available to them - they must also appreciate the responsibility that goes with that. I do not see that concern in them - and therefore - in my opinion they are doing the province and its people a disservice.

Now of course I am assuming here that the media will not act like Dunderdale and Kennedy and condemn somebody for speaking up. I do know better however.

Rudderless at a Critical Hour in our History

The formation of a new company by concerned Newfoundland and Labrador citizens regarding the Muskrat Falls proposed development is a positive addition to the debate. It also points out a very negative reality that at a critical time in our history - our future is being debated and voted on by people who are disinterested or ignorant or partisan or dictatorial or hoping for personal gain.

The BBQ and festival season is in full swing and MHA's are shaking hands, passing out or eating hot dogs, having a dance, or rebuilding/building their respective political clubs.

The lawyers of 2041 Energy Inc. displayed anguish, concern, and frustration when trying to discuss what each political party stood for on this crucial issue. That's because the parties are all over the place or stuck inexplicably on very detrimental policy.

The Provincial Liberals are speaking from both sides of their mouths - with Dean MacDonald promoting the deal while elected Liberal MHA's say they are opposed. The NDP seem to be spinning at a dizzying pace while screaming they don't have enough information. Both parties have federal counterparts that confuse their non-position even more.

The Tories are "full steam ahead" torpedoes be damned - despite what the consequences may be. They are acting like steroidal zealots - most not having any real clue what they are following. The main reason some of them are accused of having personal interest in the project is that nothing else makes sense. There is no reason for the rush and there are numerous real reasons to slow down but the Tories will not listen.

This could be our finest or worst hour and our leaders have left the room. Even though this "new" group has publicly weighed in - they too are couching their position and surprisingly attempting to protect Danny's reputation while taking on Kathy Dunderdale.

Sadly we are - at this most critical time - rudderless in a house of mariners.