Bill Tieleman Redux!
I meant to get this reply to your comment up sooner, but was delayed thanks to problems with our fancy, snazzy, new semi-privatized 'lectricity stuff for a day or so. I really do appreciate your taking the time to comment on my blog, but wish you demonstrated an understanding of what I was trying to say. Maybe I just can't express myself well enough.
I was very favorably impressed with your coverage of the November 14th judgment hearings. The part I liked the best was it was so much about what the Judge said and not what you think. It's not that I don't care what you think Bill, it's more like I resent the fact that unless I live in range of the courthouse my sources of information seem to be limited to nothing or what you and Vaughn or somebody thinks about whatever actually occurred. Opinion pieces are fine, I love 'em in fact, but do appreciate some actual reportage with a minimum of spin as well - sort of like Knowlton Nash maybe.
The only thing I might take issue with in that article is your view of winners and losers and not just whether you are choosing the correct parties. Although at this point the access to the "room" is a victory for the defense, more than that it is a victory for the people of BC and Justice. The people of British Columbia are the true victims in this "crime" and the only horse I'm backing in this race is Justice herself.
So once more with feeling, I will attempt to clarify my response to the original comment and the resulting comment from you. I certainly don't think for a minute that your job is easy or a "cakewalk" by any stretch of the imagination and hope to read much more of your coverage of this vital but maddenly confusing legal equivalent to WW I trench warfare.
You started by saying:
Sorry to burst your bubble, kootcoot. but you are shooting at the wrong guy.
Thanks Bill, for bursting my bubble and all, and here I didn't even know I was drooling. I wasn't really shooting at you either, though I do feel that the the press (of which rumor has it you are a part) has been extremely remiss in the coverage of this case with the possible exception of the few days immediately following the virtually unprecedented raids themselves. I would expect a crime possibly involving the improper transfer of a One Billion dollar "public" asset to earn at least the same amount of attention from you and your colleagues as say... a $3,500 deck in East Van. Oh yeah, how could I forget the guys that looked like extras from the Sopranos doing something as suspicious as actually walking out of a card room in North Burnaby. If you think about it, you might understand why that image sticks in my brain so long after they walked out that door, not once, not twice, but every friggin' day for how long?
And it's not condescending to point out the facts, even if it upsets your paranoia or conspiracy theories.
Actually I wasn't discussing any facts, I was referring to the condescending attitude that emanated from your comment on Mary's blog. If you read a little slower, or even, gasp!, the whole post, maybe that would be clear. Forgive me for not expressing myself more clearly in this regard. If we were on old Unix work stations communicating in 'talk' I could even type slower, but that won't make any difference here. But then I remind myself that your column in 24 Hours is called, after all, NewsOpinionAttitudes
for full post click below
The only thing you said, and what I took issue with was that " ...but you have to be more accurate on the Courts." Aside from being an incredibly awkward and semi-literate way to say what I think you were trying to say (especially for a "professional" writer), to the casual reader, this statement, coming from you after all, celebrated media/political pundit, casts a cloud of doubt on everything written on Mary's blog. With one casually tossed off, almost Bu$h quality, phrase (no facts mind you) you make it likely that other readers will say "tin-foil hat people over here, let's go see if any white women are missing anywhere!"
Whoops, I almost was inaccurate. You did state one fact, that an article had been published over a week before the court date in a paper in a city at least 4 hours away from the courthouse (for people who can't commute by air) and even father away for about half of the population of the province. Then you were so kind as to paste aforementioned article into your comment. I'll admit there may have been some facts in that article, but where and when they were made available just proves my point about how scarce information is about this issue. Perhaps an article from the Sun from Sunday the 28th or Monday the 29th or even ideally Friday the 26th would have been more effective at "bursting my bubble."
re: conspiracy theories - How's about this one - the whole thing was the result of a bunch of hyperactive mounties with too much time on their hands and thus it's much ado about nothin'. No Bill, I don't think the "Soup Nazi," the AG and Chief Justice and media barons all get together at midnight in a secret compartment off the Deas tunnel to work out their nefarious schemes. People with common interests know who they are and what to do. It might not be a bunch of hand greasing themselves behind a curtain and pulling a fast one on the yokels. It could just be third rate journalism. Part of journalism is deciding what is important and why, and then there's public relations, a whole 'nother sea-lice infested kettle of fish.
First off, a wide range of media were in the courtroom October 30 - The Globe and Mail, CKNW, 24 hours, the Vancouver Sun, the Province, Global TV and others.
Great - so what was that four people? The G&M, CKNW, you and one person wearing three hats? The other question I have is - what were they doing there? I hadn't noticed that the Province even remembered this was going on and left this file for the occasional mocking piece by Keith on Global or Vaughn in the Sun. I'll admit Bill, you're the best of a bad lot, not counting the reporters from TO (you know - the center of the universe far away), maybe you could follow them and see where they get their information. Of course maybe its just a matter of what they decide to actually.....you know...share with their readers.
How on earth did they get there?
Assuming that the answer isn't by cab or skytrain and the question is how did they know when and where to go - that's what reporters are supposed to do, find out stuff. Jimmy Olsen knew that! I imagine they even get paid for going to the trouble, unlike say... myself or Mary!
They are following the trial despite it's confusions and length.
I knew and they all knew about the disclosure application.
You obviously have better sources than me. All I have is yourself and your colleagues and oh yeah, the Court Online Information Services that LIES and/or chooses to withhold information for no apparent reason - assuming of course that there are no unseen players, un-indicted participants or conspiracies!
I don't disagree for a moment that there should be more coverage, better coverage, more informed coverage.
See Bill, we can agree, wasn't that easy!
But if you want to advance this story and be taken seriously, the facts have to be accurate - it's the same criticism you lay at others' doors.
As I pointed out, I wasn't disputing any facts or presenting any facts and neither were you.
I don't need to pout, I'm not threatening anything - I'll keep reporting the story regardless.
I was responding to the tone in a facetious manner - I'm bad for that, get used to it or ignore me.
I understand you don't read the Victoria Times-Colonist - neither do I. But I found the article because I track the story.
I don't know if or where else it was reported but it's also possible the media didn't find a disclosure application with no details an interesting story, as opposed to a vast media conspiracy to silence the trial.
Well Bill, I beg to differ with anyone that thinks anything about this case is on no interest to the public. I can think of people who might benefit from a dearth of truth ever being available on the other hand. By the way, I would like to remind you about a small deck in East Van.
Lastly, as to my opinion, it is solely my own.
Glad to hear it.....
And in my opinion, shooting at the media with blanks isn't getting us very far.
I think the media is too often shooting blanks at us, or projectiles filled with cotton-candy.
Sorry - you'll probably find that condescending again.
Well I guess I kinda did.........
P.S I read your B-word piece in 24hrs and I'm in agreement with you on the Belinda issue and the lack of class, vocabulary etc. of Norman Spector, Peter MacKay and King Ralph. I must say I was surprised you didn't mention Ralphie's "boner" in your column. I was especially amazed when I found out it wasn't an off the cuff remark, but that he was reading from a prepared and vetted speech. No wonder Stephie Wonder has to muzzle most of his members most of the time.