Rumors are rampant in official Ottawa. Silly season arrived weeks ago.

What must Canadians think of all this talk of mergers, coalitions, fake lakes, and bailiffs chasing political staff around town? The ruckus on Rideau has drowned out some pretty legitimate debates: spiralling costs of the war, the environmental debt we are creating on the back of Conservative inaction on climate change, and millions being wasted on PMO PR while the public service is under threat.

One debate I didn’t think we would be having is about Fox News North.

In case you live outside of Ottawa, “Fox News North” is the nickname given to a new television venture by Quebecor’s Pierre Péladeau to be developed by his new VP, former PMO Communications Director Kory Teneycke.

It’s up for its official unveiling tomorrow and recently picked up two long-time Hill journalists to add to the Sun Ottawa bureau.

A number of people seeming to declare this the end of Canadian media as we know it. One columnist said this network was being brought here by people who don’t, “like Canada as it is and [want] to make lasting changes.” Another suggests that Fox, “mainly spews out propaganda that is dangerously misleading and often factually wrong.”

Predicting it’s entry into the market would create a seismic shift in Canadian politics and declaring the people behind it to want to change the very fabric of the media landscape these columnists and big-thinkers are giving a lot of credit to a station that doesn’t even have approval yet.

It’s all a little apocalyptic. Canadians brains are about to be turned to mush by a libertarian anti-environmentalist? I think not.

I’m mostly amused by the assumptions.

The knee-jerk reaction to the word “Fox” is no worse than the 2002 knee jerk ruling by the CRTC requiring Al Jazeera to be set on a delay and monitored 24/7.

Kory is a very smart communicator. Using the political show at CBC’s Power & Politics – which as many of you know I debated him on a few times–afforded him a way to demonstrate to the Quebecor executives that this style of brash
TV works. But I think reviewing that experience points us to the understanding that any “Canadian version of Fox” would be playing in a very different market.

Overall, the picture of news in the US is bleak. CNN isn’t objective. MSNBC isn’t either. Their local news has been sliding downhill for years–was this the fault of Fox? Or is this simply an American cultural trend driven by ratings and inherent commercial needs?

It hasn’t happened here. By and large our local news is pretty good, CBC maintains a high ethical standard, as do the folks at CTV stations. This is the market the new “Fox-style” station enters.

Plus, with all of the assumptions being made about how this would strengthen conservatism in Canada, has anyone looked beyond the American context?

Look only to the UK for a real-live example of how this can work. The media outlet that ostensibly pushed New Labour into Downing Street? The Sun.

Who was it owned by? Rupert Murdoch. Not a noted lefty. Oh, he also owns Fox?

What I’m trying to say is that this is a lot more complicated than some talking heads want you to believe. Do I like or believe anything Kory and Conservatives say? No. But, do I defend his right to say it? I certainly do. I’m not saying I know what it is this station will look like or stand for; but it seems pretty clear to me declaring it against the public interest is going too far.

Freedom of speech and open access to airwaves can’t simply be an ideal to uphold when you agree with the content being broadcast.

Mark Kingwell delivered a talk on our place as citizens in “capita democracy”.

Kingwell claims that capitalism is in its third stage: post-modern capitalism. This stage is marked by the commodification of status (or coolness), the proliferation of desire, and our acceptance of our selves as consumers. We live in a time of the American Dream, he explained, where we vote against our own interests in the dubious belief that we will one day be rich and successful.

He painted the modern citizen as someone who is envious of the success of others, instead of understanding of their relative placement in society. It reminded me of yesterday’s session on the Laconian fear of our neighbours.

To wake ourselves from this over-consumptive stupor we have to become engaged, informed–and most importantly–sympathetic citizens. As Kingwell said, we have to “give ourselves the gift of democracy”.

That is, of course, an oversimplification of a talk that spanned decades of history, but it raised some interesting discussion. The first question posed to Kingwell was, “how do we reach the new level of citizen engagement?”

“That’s always the question,” he responded. “Just not always the first question.”

There were no concrete answers but Kingwell explained that talking about being engaged and sympathetic is the first step towards becoming it. There won’t be a massive paradigm shift, but a slow shift in mentality marked by accessible discourse.

During the discussion, one student mentioned his campaign to make Concordia a bottled-water-free campus. His idea was to include a donation box on the side of every public fountain, “if people want to pay for water, they can.” It’s an interesting way to frame the debate, and I’m guessing that’s the kind of novel (not to mention sympathetic) thinking that Kingwell would root for.

(“This bottled water was here before I got here,” Kingwell said, motioning to his own bottled water. “Isn’t that it always the case?” the student responded.)

The above picture is Kingwell’s slide of an eBoy pixel mosaic of every social media service. He explained that he wasn’t sure of the relevance of it, but that he felt it factored into the solution. I think he’s on to something. Social media has access to the masses, and its been used as a tool for social change–or at least awareness–more than once.

What do you think? Are we lost in a see of self interest? Or is the new era of citizen engagement imminent? Does social media have a place in the discourse? -@TravisBoisvenue

Flip flop.

Truly an evocative word, isn’t it?

It’s a helpful symbol for a lot of politicians. Crowds can hold up sandals on sticks and boo when their candidate mentions all the times the opponent has changed her mind. It’s a common call and response.

I’ve used it in political debate many times. Just yesterday, in fact.

I’ll be straightforward: I’m personally outraged that the Premier hasn’t decided to fight for his new sex education curriculum. A few months back Stephen Harper ticked me off too–even more than usual–when he pulled support and the promise of an anthem revision from the Throne Speech.

I screamed “flip flop”.

But, at the same time I wonder, am I too quick to pull out the gimmick?

If we can’t let politicians listen to Canadians and change their minds, can public policy, civil discourse, and collaborative government take root?

There are times when elected people should hold firm to a position that’s unpopular because changing the course of action would be wrong. In other words, we can’t stand for the most vocal in society–either in the majority or minority–drowning out those with a weaker voice, but with no less a right to speak.

It’s a fine balance. Where does flip flopping end and listening start? When is “listening” really a flip flop?

Official Ottawa is abuzz this morning. The Toronto Star front page features one of the most revealing pieces of investigative journalism Canada has seen in recent years.

Allegedly exposing the intimate details of the hours leading up the the arrest of former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer’s arrest for driving under the influence and possession of cocaine. The article makes a strong link between a person known to several police departments and the husband of a sitting cabinet minister.

To many observers, even more shocking than Jaffer’s attendance at a lavish dinner party replete with hired escorts, seems to be that investigative journalism is alive and well in Canada.

Scoops happen all the time in Ottawa. Exclusive interview too. Real live investigative reporting – with this many rich details and characters – this is rare in Canadian politics (there are notable exceptions of course). Reporters from competing outlets will be forced to reference the Star this AM – there is no way around it. The reporting of Kevin Donovan is being talked about almost as much as the contents of the article.

Here is one quip from Ottawa Citizen investigative journalist Glenn McGregor:

“Totally in awe of Tor Star investigatve reporter Kevin Donovan today. Yeah, we still need newspapers. I’d post link but you’ve seen it.”

Today will be a fascinating case of damage control from the Conservative government.

The clever writing style helps mask the lack of direct quotes. And, even though the reporter took pains to explain why:

“Former and current associates of Gillani were granted anonymity for this story for several reasons, primarily because they fear physical retribution from Gillani and his associates”

Expect the Conservatives to trot out some variation of the  “we are not commenting on anonymous sources” line.

Thus far, the Minister of State has stood by her man. Berating reporters, ignoring questions and offering flip rebuttals in the House of Commons to opposition queries. Do the facts as presented by the Toronto Star change her position at all? This saga will last just as long as she remains in Cabinet and there are stories to tell about Rahim Jaffer.

Which will run out of steam first?

Photo credit

This past weekend I spoke at the FairChance 2010 workshop for prospective municipal candidates in Ottawa.

Sandra Blaikie, formerly of A Channel News, is the instigator behind the initiative. Essentially, it’s a committee of engaged Ottawa business owners, philanthropists, and academics looking to provide educational opportunities to people considering running for council, but need more information.

My bias in the upcoming municipal election in Ottawa is towards change, collaboration, and conversation. As I wrote in my first Spacing Ottawa City Vote 2010 column, I think our civic leaders have kept us in a status quo rut that self perpetuates each time an ineffective incumbent is elected.

I promised at the session to answer any technical political questions the group had–and I’d like to expand that offer to my blog readers as well. Also on the panel were mayoral campaign manager David Small, former Liberal MP (and city councilor) Marlene Catteral, and Walter Robinson (my partner in radio each Wednesday AM on Live 88.5 FM); I’ll be asking for their input on some of the questions and seeking out other strategists and tacticians in Canadian politics to weigh in with their thoughts.

I’m looking for questions about:

• political communications
• campaign strategy as it relates to media
• media skills
• other “process” questions related to communications

Please send over your queries via the comment section below or by emailing me, ian [at] mediastyle.ca, and over the next few months I’ll take some time here and at Spacing Ottawa to answer your questions.

Here are a few interesting news stories I’ve seen this morning that deal with the  intersection of social networking and politics:

Tweet breaks Commons rarified rules?

House of Commons procedural wonks (Full disclosure: I’m one!) are amused and bemused by the Speaker being forced to rule on a possible violation via Twitter by a Conservative MP. Long standing practice (and precedent) is that you can not point out the absence of MPs in the House of Commons. The Bloc is arguing that’s exactly what Royal Galipeau did when he tweeted about the numbers of MPs in opposition seats.  As the Citizen reports:

I suppose this was bound to happen when you take away the team of highly trained producers, but could anyone have guessed Mike Duffy was going to fall on his face this many times?

The Canadian Press reports:

“Senator Mike Duffy has attacked the University of King’s College and other Canadian journalism schools for exposing students to Noam Chomsky and critical thinking….

“When I went to the school of hard knocks, we were told to be fair and balanced,” Duffy was quoted from his speech in yesterday’s issue of the Amherst Daily News. “That school doesn’t exist any more. Kids who go to King’s, or the other schools across the country, are taught from two main texts.”

“According to Duffy … those two texts are Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky’s book on mainstream media, and books about the theory of critical thinking.”

Atlantic radio host Rick Howe responded to the recently appointed Senator’s assertions better than I ever could, and he says what a lot of people in Ottawa have been thinking:

“Speaking of blowhards, I see where Senator MIke Duffy was spewing his dribble again. In a speech to Conservative party faithful in Amherst (who else would waste a night on Duffy) the former CTV News employee slammed journalism programs, like that offered at King’s here in Halifax, for turning out what he called leftist graduates. Duffy claims he went to the school of hard knocks where he was taught to be fair and balanced. If I correctly recall his nightly interview show on CTV, there was little fair and balanced about it. And of course today Duffy enjoys his reward for his pro-Tory bias.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Rick.

(h/t @nationalnewswatch for the Howe bit)

Photo credit

Ryan Taylor is a fair trade jeweler. No, it’s not an oxymoron. It’s just really not that common.

The standard business model in the mass-market jewelry business is to design your wares to appeal to the lowest common denominator, source and buy materials as cheap as possible (regardless of the long-term social impact), then sell the jewelry at the highest price point.

Ryan’s business model at The Fair Trade Jewelry Company reverses the unsustainable model.

Ryan sourced his materials. That’s not easy, considering there are only a handful of artisanal mines left in the world. His research lead him to the Choco rain forest in Columbia. He uses only certified Canadian diamonds for his engagement, bridal, and custom rings.

As he builds his business–literally renovating much of the Parliament Street store himself–he does it in an open, sustainable, and transparent way using the internet to open his workshop to the world.

Philanthropy runs to the core of his business, so much so that people volunteered to help him renovate his shop. His community of Cabbagetown loves him and he rains thousands of dollars on the Daily Bread Food Bank (along with his other HoHoTO cohorts) and War Child.

Why do I tell you all of this?

Because, Ryan didn’t vote in the Toronto-Centre by-election.

You might be getting a touch pissed off at our fair trade jeweler. Or maybe, like some some in Ryan’s online community, you are downright angry. You might be saying to yourself, “He is so socially conscious, so committed to his vision, so cute, so smart–but he didn’t vote? What’s wrong with him?”

Be careful before you write him off as a democratic laggard. Ryan is a highly engaged citizen. Politics isn’t engaging him. And this isn’t just Ryan. It’s the demographic that academic Richard Florida has defined as the “creative class”.

Perhaps the problem isn’t with Ryan. Perhaps the problem is with politics. The robust partisan pugilism turns off voters. The goal of some political strategies is to turn off voters–perhaps not entirely intentionally–but it’s most certainly the outcome of playing “wedge issues” and dividing to conquer a majority in the House. Negative ads work, but not on all people. Most often they work to keep voters home, depressed about the state of discourse in politics.

Jesse Hirsh’s work has informed my ideas and opinions about technology, politics, and how the intersection of both sits a deeply rooted orthodoxy. I’ve learned that you need to look past your own personal beliefs and long held “truths” to ask if there is a better way.

I’ve long been an advocate of voting reform. I prefer mixed-member proportional systems. I think they work more often that not. This isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Why not? Sadly, Ontario, PEI, and BC have all rejected voting reform. So this means people who want change in politics need to be open to incremental voting change.

In Australia they force you to vote.

Greece, Serbia, Ukraine, all have variations of “none of the above”.

A political party exists in the UK for the sole purpose of recording the votes of the disgusted.

The Globe’s Doug Saunders pointed me to trends coming from Switzerland and India showing lowering voter turnout as average income rises. Both, as he called them, “relatively successful democracies”.

This post is ostensibly about voting, but perhaps my real message is that we are informed by the people who surround us. Wherever they are.

If you want to know more about why Ryan didn’t vote, visit this post on his personal blog. Join in the conversation there by submitting a response to his query at the end of the post. Ryan is attending ChangeCamp Toronto armed with this human data from the creative class.

Breaking down my own personal orthodoxy I’ve reconsidered my own long held view on non-voters. I now understand why some people aren’t voting. But, the rights of a citizen come with obligations as well. Voting isn’t the only measure of a persons commitment to democratic society. It’s only one expression of it.

Just engage. Vote or don’t vote. Commit to engaging with your community.

Personally, I know that not voting isn’t an option for me. But. it might be a legitimate option for others. Who am I to judge?

Should people be forced to vote? Should people refuse their ballots, spoil their vote, or join a political party?

Adam Giambrone, seen above with partner Sarah McQuarrie, has apologized for his relationship with university student Kristen Lucas. He is no doubt mortified–but that won’t be enough to stop the questions about the future of his campaign.

This isn’t over by a long shot. Why? As evidenced by last week’s casual outing of a Conservative Minister, it’s often the case that elected-people will simply refuse to comment on their “private lives”. As a result, the story simply goes away. It happens more than people would think.

However, when the private life and the public life collide there is bound to be an issue. Like with Maxime Bernier. His issues with Julie Couillard only became a full-fledged scandal when she went “public” about her time with the Minister, and in the course of those interviews she revealed that secret-level documents were left at her home for weeks.

Giambrone stands accused of staging the announcement of his partner to benefit his campaign (and attempting to keep an ongoing fling with Lucas), telling her about TTC fare increases and, as the Toronto Star reports, several more salacious details:

Giambrone told Lucas that he hoped they could continue seeing each other,and assured her, “I had to have someone political.” In recent interviewswith the Star, Lucas said she’s been involved with Giambrone sincelate 2008 and, on several occasions, had sex late at night on a couch in his City Hall office.

In short, watch out: it’s going to be a feeding frenzy. The private and public just collided.
Giambrone was already in for a rough ride. “Troubled” is the most frequent adjective attached to the Toronto Transit Authority–of which Giambrone is chair. The Toronto media, egged on by frustrated transit riders, have been sticking it to the troubled TTC’s service “issues” for a few weeks now.

But the real problems are right in the facts as presented in the Toronto Star. The two parties are kilometers apart. He says the relationship “consisted of text messages and conversations in public places only.” She says it was a year-long, intimate affair.

His campaign needs to sort out the truth, get him onto the most sympathetic TV set (with partner Sarah) and tell the whole story. All of it. The only real hope is being more human than the people who are gloating gleefully about the scandal.

Whether or not he can recover from this depends less on his team orsupporters and more on his partner’s reaction.

So, is this what you sign up for when you are elected? What do electors have the right to know? How much should a citizen need to know before casting a ballot? Please comment below.

Photo credit: Tsar Kasim

As Jack Layton battles prostate cancer he will continue to have his strong hand on the rudder of the New Democratic Party of Canada.

I’ve traveled the country with Layton, his stamina and personal endurance lives up to the legend and far outpaced my own. His daily workout regiment is not a product of spin – it’s a real and important part of his life.

Layton is a strong athlete. And a strong political strategist. He realized early on that opposition without proposition is useless and that to keep up his brutal pace – he had to be strict about what he ate, how he exercised and having his medical team regularly check him over.

As a strategist he knows New Democrats are strongest as a team when presenting reasonable, costed and measured changes to public policy.

Make no mistake, Layton has been the New Democrats’ single strongest asset for the past seven years. He may, on the rare occasion, step into controversy, but overall the party could not have found a stronger steward. The bilingual leader spends real time working; mastering his French, stressing always that he wants to learn how regular people would speak the language. It’s perhaps why he sounds more forthright in French some days. But it also speaks to how much attention to detail he has as a leader.

Rightly, many in Ottawa have been recently pointing to just how often Layton has been proven right in the long run. The war in Afghanistan, pensions for Canadian workers and the need to reform the auto industry stick out as three major issues where Layton’s pragmatic and affordable solutions were out ahead of the other political parties.

Layton is first out of the gate with solutions to issues.

Renegotiating an entire federal budget as he did in 2006 was no small feat. The way Layton and his finance critic Thomas Mulcair, have been able to push around the Finance Minister is unprecedented: on everything from ATM fees to bank fairness, the NDP calls for solutions have at least been responded to by the government. More than the Liberals can say.

Layton has taken the New Democrats from a side show in the House of Commons to the single largest influencer of public policy in Canada. Conservatives make the policy, Opposition Liberals oppose it and all the while Layton’s New Democrats tinker, change and massage bills to fit a social democratic ideal – or as close as it’s going to get.

As leader of one of the traditionally most unruly groups of Parliamentarians, Layton also performs extremely admirably. Deftly balancing the rural and urban split, the left and right divide and regional disparities. He leans on party elders to help chart his course; knowing it’s harder for the party to disagree with many of its’ luminaries at once.

The groundbreaking work with Greenpeace, the Canadian Autoworkers and New Democrats could have saved thousands of jobs in Southern Ontario. His first book could easily form the back bone for a proper public policy initiative to end homelessness and his second book highlights local solutions for climate change.

Some in official Ottawa may speculate that Layton’s illness may accelerate the pace of leadership preparations in the various camps eyeing the top job. They are right; but don’t expect a Liberal-leadership-race-style bloodbath of crossfire and spin in the media. Social democrats just don’t politic that way. We have too much respect for the people we elect to play those games.

The leader of our party has turned the New Democrats into a political force. And nothing – not even a bout with cancer – is going to dissuade Layton from his ultimate goal of seeing New Democrats govern the country.