February 26, 2008
Campaign Confidential: Relationships
Torontoist Environment Editor Chris Tindal is currently engaged in a federal by-election campaign. This weekly column is an attempt to offer a behind the scenes glimpse into what it's like to be that mysterious Other: a politician.
As you read this I'm somewhere in the Centre Block of the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, likely between the House of Commons visitors' gallery where I will have just finished watching question period and the Railroad Room where I'll be absorbing the budget speech and offering my reaction on behalf of the federal Green Party. While most people are obviously examining today's events through the lens of its national significance, it also has very local significance for me. If enough opposition parties decide to vote against this budget, then the by-election campaign I'm currently engaged in will come to an abrupt end within the week, to be replaced with a general one. It's a big day.
Meanwhile, the campaign continues back home. One of the things I always wondered before becoming a candidate was how the candidates relate to each other on a personal level during the campaign. Do they talk to each other at all? Are they candid or guarded? Do they get along on a personal level? The answer varies dramatically depending on the personalities involved. Here's a brief snapshot.
Mark's Flowers
Ever since Mark Warner was fired as my Conservative opponent for being too focused on progressive and urban issues (and not focused enough on the national "cookie cutter" campaign), we've met to chat over some pints every few weeks at a politically-active pub on Parliament street. It's an interesting relationship. When Mark was still the candidate, we traded barbs with some frequency and generally treated each other as sworn opponents. We even had a few debates via email, even though no one else was able to observe them (at least, I wasn't BCCing anyone). As soon as he was no longer the candidate, however, our conversations suddenly transformed and now resemble more closely those of old friends than political adversaries. (My understanding is that Mark has had similarly friendly conversations with Bob Rae and El-Farouk Khaki.) A few nights ago Mark apparently felt guilty for keeping me out so late and away from my fiancée Claire, so he bought a rose for me to give her as an apology. Half a year ago, neither one of us would have seen that coming.
El-Farouk's Rings
Over the past year, of all my opponents, I've gotten along with El-Farouk Khaki the best. He has been the most genuine and friendly. We've made it clear to each other that we don't have any particular desire to specifically go after each other's support base or attack each other's campaigns. Our sights have been set higher than that. Unfortunately (and, perhaps, inevitably), that appears to have started to change. Right before our first candidates debate a week ago, El-Farouk, Liz White (the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party candidate) and I were having a discussion about El-Farouk's many large metal rings. I made some (admittedly awkward and not very funny) joke about how they must come in handy when he gets into fights. El-Farouk looked genuinely offended that I'd even joke about him getting into a fist fight. Then, when he made his opening statement, he begun by recounting our conversation to the whole room, except the words he attributed to me were much more violent than the ones I'd actually used (he quoted me as saying the rings were for when he wanted to "beat someone down," among other colourful imagery). It seemed like an attempt to paint me as someone who advocated violence. Over the course of the debate he took a few more swipes at me, so I guess the truce is over. Oh well, that's politics. Hopefully it only lasts the duration of the campaign. On my end, I'll still continue to tell people that I think he would make a good MP (which I do).
Bob's Distance
Most of my friends are very interested to know what it's like to meet and debate Bob Rae. I don't really have a good response. In a strange coincidence, I continue to feel like I know his daughter (we have some mutual friends and have hung out a few times) better than I know him. The first time I met Bob was by chance, outside the Starbucks on Church near Wellesley. I introduced myself as his nominated Green opponent, but he kept moving almost as soon as we finished shaking hands. Later, I'd hear from one of his campaign workers that the rumor going around the campaign office was that the Green candidate worked at Starbucks and had served Bob a coffee. (I'm unclear as to whether Bob started that rumor himself, or if it was the product of a game of broken telephone.) The next few times I spoke with him (at his nomination meeting, at a community festival, at Bill Graham's farewell party) he never greeted me by name, leaving me to suspect that he couldn't remember it. The above photo was taken at one of those events, and I have no reason to believe he thought I was anyone other than a random supporter. So, unlike with my other opponents (and Bill Graham during the last election), I can't say I've ever had a conversation with Bob. I'll keep trying, but he doesn't seem that interested.
|
This is a really interesting side of elections that no one really hears about. This is a great series, Chris.
I'm not all that surprised by Rae's distance. Perhaps he feels that he's a "big ticket" candidate and doesn't need to make that kind of effort. Or maybe he's just a bit scatterbrained.
El-Farouk's use of what seems to be a lighthearted (albeit awkward) conversation to attack you is a bit odd to say the least.
Nice to hear you made a friend out of a political opponent, though he had to get canned first.
It's great that you have the opportunity to express your political voice on Torontoist, but while a fellow author simultaneously takes stabs at your opponent's campaign in his article? Dicey dicey.
Dicey is posting under an alias, quest, when readers don't know who you really are so they can add context to your comments, which are consistently critical of Torontoist's editorial policies. I'm not telling, but how about you letting them in on that pretty important and relevant secret? It would behoove you if you're going to be taking such a moral high ground.
Rumour. Come on, if you want to be a Canadian federal politician, at least practice Canadian spelling ("our", as in colour, neighbour, labour, etc.)
Marc, it would be soooo flipping awesome if you'd lose the grudge already and start responding to me as you would any other reader. I don't know why this is so hard for you.
My choice of username isn't dicey. I wasn't aware that I was obliged to use my real name and job title as my Torontoist account username. Half of the people with accounts on here have aliases, and are not holding secrets.
The truth is, Marc, that I've never made any attempts to conceal my identity or keep it, as you say, secret. My comments are made as a reader of Torontoist, but for some annoying reason you refuse to respond to my comments here as a reader of Torontoist. Instead, your grudge for me gets the better of you and you take personal jabs at me. It's more annoying than I care to describe.
If you want to use your editorial powers to change my Torontoist account username to "Jerrold Litwinenko, co-editor of blogTO" feel free. If that's what it will take to stop you from responding to my comments out of context, and start treating me like you would any other regular reader of this site, then go for it. But I'll continue to be critical and voice my opinions whenever I feel like it. That's my right. And you should be able to respond to criticism since you're so quick to deal it.
So... back to the totally relevant issue I raised in hopes of getting a relevant response... Care to comment on what I see as a conflict of interest?
Is providing Chris Tindal an opportunity to speak about his political campaign and you (on the same day no less) creating a post to criticize his opponent's campaign fair editorial practice? Do you and Chris not see the potential for problems with this questionable editorial practice? Or do you not see it as questionable at all?
These are the totally fair questions I have, and they have only to do with what I saw on Torontoist today. I found it rather surprising that you'd choose to do this.
It makes me fondly recall those halcyon days when Torontoist moved to a sign-in only comment system and the editors made full disclosure that they would seek to identify anonymous users by their IP address, and if they were critical of the site, work to undermine the substance of their comments by drawing attention to a "hidden identity" or "agenda", and even goad you to out yourself.
You are the editor of the site; if you want to make it so you need a social insurance number to comment, so be it, but as long as you permit anonymous commenting, what you did here to quest is way offside, unprofessional, and likely against the spirit, if not the letter, of your terms of use that governed when quest surrendered his identity in order to gain access to the comment box on this site.
Think your traffic will suffer now that they know they are being watched?
Bob Rae - what a disappointment.
He came to my door last month, and when I told him he ought not to be counting on my support, put on a great show of putting my mind at ease: "oh - that's fine - that's totally ok" - to which I responded "Oh, I *know* it's ok".
Man, what an asshole, coming to your door personally to meet you and then politely acknowledging that you weren't interested.
I guess you showed him!
x_the_x: I don't know what you're talking about.
quest/Jerrold: Campaign Confidential is intended as a behind-the-scenes look at the election process, and though Chris was a staff member before the election run, the issue has been discussed at length in previous Campaign Confidential posts. Chris is very much aware of this perception, and is tailoring his entries to maintain a balance and still make the column useful and interesting as an insider report. Readers can certainly feel free to continue discussing it, although there doesn't yet seem to be anything recent to the discussion.
As for my post earlier on fringe candidate Doug Plumb's election signs, it is entirely disconnected from Chris' post, and is hardly "taking stabs" and "criticizing [Chris'] opponent's campaign," neither of which I am connected with. If you read the entry, it's pointing out the quaint charm of his low-fi, hand-made signage—not ripping him to shreds and undermining his credibility as an election candidate (though some may think some of his own more extreme views already do that).
Many Torontoist staff members were brought on because of their writing ability and expertise in a certain area (Chris Tindal is our environment editor, for example), which we feel outweighs potential conflicts, which are always disclosed to the reader (Kevin Bracken and Newmindspace, Jonathan Goldsbie and TPSC, Chris Tindal and his campaign). To use one of your own staff members as only one example, a column on real estate might be useful and informative to the readers, even though the author may be a real estate agent—but the readers need to be aware of that fact in order to choose their grain of salt.
It's an interesting question because we both somewhat straddle the independent blogging world and mainstream media, and it's something that we, like BlogTO, are constantly monitoring so it ultimately serves the readership as a number one priority. We always have our eye on this, and like I said, we will always disclose any possible conflict (for example, my article on Song BMG's MusicPass cards).
When it comes to your dual identity, I think it's contextually relevant when so frequently criticizing our editorial content (or making snarky, antagonizing remarks) that readers should know that you are the editor of our competing blog, especially when you slammed us over protecting our copyright when plagiarized (whether it was unintentionally copied or not) yet cheered on Spacing when they were protecting theirs, for example.
My comment history is here for anyone to vet, and aside from this comment perhaps (in response to yours above it), if you go back through old posts, you'll notice that any replies to you have always been polite, neutral and addressed your questions (for example, here or here)—"as I would any other reader."
I have zero problem with you leaving your thoughts in the comments, or criticizing Torontoist at all, so please continue, but if you're criticizing what you view as our conficts of interest or moral deficiencies, it certainly makes more sense in the spirit of integrity that people know the context of your criticism as BlogTO's editor and a Torontoist competitor (whatever that means). Right?
But really, I think you're looking too far into what you see as a phantom grudge, which doesn't exist and is something I am actually neutral about.
"Dual identity"? That's quite a selective (demonizing) spin on the concept of a registered account username.
Marc, you fail to understand the basic premise that my criticisms of what I read here on Torontoist have absolutely nothing to do with my affiliations and everything to do with my role as a Torontonian and reader of Torontoist. Your notion that it's essential for me to reveal my affiliations when critical of your content is completely silly. I've been reading this site for years (long before I joined blogTO, and long before you joined Torontoist), and have encouraged my friends and family to do the same because there's a lot of info and great writing here. I would like to think that if I (or anyone else) feel that the Vandalist and DiManno columns are horrible (for example, and I do really think they both are), then I should have the same opportunity to voice my opinions on their annoyances and shortcomings, without having to disclose that I'm an astronaut for NASA, an economist at RBC, a graffiti expert, or a blogger at blogTO.
Your dissection and posted audit of my comments above (especially comparing my support for Spacing being blatantly plagiarized of ideas in 2006 to my questioning of how David so poorly handled the Sun's copy/pasted itemized list here on Torontoist in 2008) is actually kind of creepy, and once again irrelevant. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that you'd benefit greatly if you stopped being so defensive of criticism and so obsessed with tracking commenters on this site (and I'm not alone on this one).
Anyhow, at this point I don't even know how toremedy this problem. If you're not able/willing to change my username, or accept me as an everyday reader with the username I've chosen (and my comments that come with my membership) then I suppose I'll have to stop reading and commenting (although I'd prefer not to have to do so because I generally enjoy doing both).
Man, what an asshole, coming to your door personally to meet you and then politely acknowledging that you weren't interested.
Bob Rae is an asshole for a great many reasons, none of which have anything to do with him coming to my door.
But the fact that he felt he had to be so obsequious after being informed he wouldn't be getting my vote was also a little bit insulting...
You know, as these comments came over my Blackberry yesterday I was sitting in a House of Commons committee room while Bob Rae was down the hall in the foyer of the HoC talking to national media. I was not permitted by security to enter the foyer of the HoC or go anywhere the national media. It was therefore hard not to be amused by the idea that I was somehow getting an unfair media advantage in this election campaign. If you're concerned about such things, you might want to start by writing a letter to CTV, whose Craig Oliver has not only had Mr. Rae on numerous times (while never inviting any of his opponents), but also ended one interview by saying "we [CTV?] look forward to seeing you in Parliament."
@ McKingford ... what did you want him to do? Get on his knees and beg for a vote? Spit in your eye? Walk off sullenly, vanquished forever by your sharp tongue?
@ Chris Tindal, though I commented negatively about the inclusion of Campaign Confidential in Torontoist (I think it's journalistically a bit unseemly, the Torontoist disagrees, c'est la vie) I have to say that I enjoyed this posting (and your comment) very much. I'm a sucker for the gossip.
Allow me to step in here for a second, with sincere apologies to Chris; Campaign Confidential often gets hijacked and I'm sorry to be one of the ones doing it this time.
To get this out of the way, the suggestion that we track users is a tad paranoid. Yes, comments that people make under the usernames they register with are stored, publicly, under those usernames––no different than most other sites that require users to register to participate. (Here are all my comments on Gawker Media sites, for instance.) Commenters on Torontoist––no matter what the content of their comments, positive or negative––should not feel that we're away in a back room somewhere trying to uncover their identities or sifting through their past comments trying to create a criminal profile of them; we've got a site full of content to worry about, first and foremost.
Jerrold, I absolutely agree––and I'd bet that Marc agrees––that you should be able to come onto Torontoist and express your opinion, as any other reader is encouraged to. I don't particularly mind that your almost always negative comments are quite often negative towards me, specifically, and definitely seem to constitute more of a "grudge" than anything Marc has ever said to you. That's fine.
The big problem is that your opinions are coloured by your prominent association with BlogTO, a fact which is not publicly disclosed in the comments you make and really, really should be, especially because of the contents of those comments. (We make every effort to publicly disclose any potential conflict of interest with respect to our staff here in our articles––as you're a regular reader, you'd know that we have a public letter that addresses those concerns and that we regularly discuss those concerns with readers when they come up.) It is hypocritical for you to come on to Torontoist and accuse us of having a conflict of interest when your own anonymous and very critical participation in discussions about Torontoist's editorial policies constitutes a far worse breach. It's really quite unfair; it's like a pot calling the flour black.
This is not a knock on BlogTO. It'd be just as inappropriate and unprofessional if someone from Spacing or The Globe was coming on here and slamming us every opportunity they got under a name chosen to be as anonymous as possible ("quest" is just like "guest," the name that all anonymous comments were published under when we still allowed completely anonymous comments). You may recall that when Macleans writer Andrew Potter took issue with a past post of Chris's, he participated in the discussion under his full real name. In all of my comments on BlogTO before I stopped reading it over a year ago, I also commented under my full name. (Even then, I felt that it was weird and inappropriate and dickish for me to comment on or in any way criticize BlogTO on their turf, so I stopped, aside from when I thought you guys made a mistake about Torontoist in an article, and then I just got all confused anyway.) If you want me to change your commenter name on Torontoist, that's your decision, not Marc's or mine; e-mail me and I'll make it happen. I think it would be a good move.
That's all I have to say about this. I hope that everyone reading this, Jerrold included, can understand why the editor of a competing blog coming onto Torontoist and regularly writing negative comments under an anonymous account might constitute a serious conflict of interest, something that is unfair and misleading not only to us but to our readers and commenters.
I don't think, Chris, you're entitled to media coverage just by having your name on the ballot and showing up in Ottawa on budget day. Whatever your opinions of Bob Rae (and through your quote-unquote non-partisan columns here I can tell you don't like him), he's accomplished quite a bit in Canadian politics. And through those accomplishments he's earned enough respect to be invited on national media for commentary. You have nowhere near that level of respect.
Plus, I find it a bit rich that you're critical of CTV for only inviting one candidate to comment, when your media organization, ie this site, only has...blah blah blah. You know where I'm going with that.
Both of the editors missed the sarcasm in my post.
I was pointing out that when addressing the gripes that accompanied your change to a sign-in comment system, it was sold (1) as an even "awesomer" (or some other annoying written superlative tic) way to read torontoist; and (2) as a way for the editors to privately scold those who breached the comment standards that are occassionally referenced when the editors defensiveness is not remedy enough to a preceived breach. I do believe that all were assured that these by addressing the issue privately, the site would flow better and everyone's anonymity would be protected.
Here you called out a commentator, raised the spectre that they had some great secret identity (I'm sure I am not the only one who mistook the accusation for a revelation that quest was on a competing campaign), and encouraged (successfully) the commentator to out themselves. More to the point, it is clear you had private contact details for the individual in question (either via that person's sign up on this page or otherwise) and could have taken this up privately and as a personal matter. Instead you sought to embarass and out the individual.
I don't like the idea that if my comments are negative or get the ever-defensive editor upset he will seek to discredit my comments through innuendo or (as seen in one post that the editor linked to) allusion to something that might reveal my identity. As traffic is highest during the working day, you at the very least have access to each commentators place of employment via IP address, which I am sure many would not want disclosed for a variety of reasons.
I haven't looked, but I imagine both are against the terms of use that govern the disclosure of information when you create a user name here.
On a more basic level, you allow anonymous comments, so to criticize someone for doing so is a bit stupid. That it is justified because it is entirely related to a navel-gazing pissing match between websites that are virtually identical to the neutral reader isn't really a good defense.
Josh please tell us where you are going with that. Each time, Chris has posted his columns, it's always been about the behind the scenes stuff, that most of us not really involved in politics, do not get to see.
Chris, in Bob Rae's defense, he was brought on the show as the Liberal's Foreign Affairs Critic and was asked in his area of expertise about the current government's approach in Afghanistan. Yeah it was stupid of the reporter to make the comment at the end but it happened. Don't worry I'm not a Bob Rae crotch-jockey or anything. It just seems from the transcript that it was not anything having to do with his political race.
Also, maybe it's just me but it, seems like some of you are really grasping for straws to paint this post in a bad light.
"The big problem is that your opinions are coloured by your prominent association with BlogTO, a fact which is not publicly disclosed in the comments you make and really, really should be, especially because of the contents of those comments."
Really, David? I've told you that my role as a reader here and the opinions I express here are my own, as a reader of Torontoist, and you continue to insist otherwise?
The "big problem", as I see it, is that you've bestowed upon yourselves the right to be judgmental, decide for yourselves how my opinions are formed, what my motivations are, and how I "really, really should" go about commenting here. It's this kind of judgmental attitude and overly controlling behaviour you force upon readers (particularly those that comment critically) that's frustrating so many readers here. Your comment policing tendencies have been overbearing, intrusive, and even creepy, and this hasn't gone unnoticed by us (me and my fellow readers of Torontoist).
The problem is not that I don't sign my comments with my employment at blogTO disclosed. The real problem is that you and Marc can't separate my role as a critical reader of your site from my role as a contributor on a "competing" blog.
The end result is that you've deemed the critical nature of comments to be problematic, and now that you've both demonized me here it's become my problem.
Essentially you've made it impossible for me to read and comment on your site, as Jerrold Litwinenko, Torontonian. And that really sucks.
Has quest/Jerrold's criticism of TOist editorial policy ever been peppered with plugs for blogTO? If so, I've never noticed. If not, then I can't fathom why anyone else here needed to know about his affiliation. He's not alone in taking issue with TOist on various things, so are his opinions less valid because he runs a different Toronto blog? If his criticism is tainted, what about that of the people who have agreed with him?
Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but it seems to me his 'prominent association' with blogTO was only prominent to the few who have access to private account information.
Yeah, to be honest, I didn't need to know who the heck quest is, nor do I need to know who anybody is who writes comments here.
it seems Marc has a habit of abusing his power as a staff member for this site. He's actually the only 'on-staff' troll I've ever seen here.
As pointed out when he attacked my friend & co-worker a few while ago...
http://torontoist.com/2007/05/onestop_beyond.php#comment-1084817
This guy gets dirty and seems to like to get personal when he can't back up his points or when someone doesn't agree with him. In Eastern Europe we call these people 'snakes'.
Hey Marc, look up my IP now! c'mon, you know you WAAAAAAANNNNNNA!
now back to the topic...
This is a great article. I realized I criticized Chris a few days ago for his bland debate 101 article but this is the sort of thing I'd like to see more of.
Really gives me good insight on the candidates in my riding. Insight that bites a bit deeper than their pamphlets.
Thanks Chris. I enjoy reading your articles here and on your website.
Good luck in the byelection.
torontothegreat: Keven had his full name and URL viewable in his public profile.
@Marc Lostracco
Well he used openID to post his comments here, so no shit, captain obvious. So why copy/paste it as though it's some great epiphany? Obviously he wasn't trying to 'hide' anything.
1. The site you copied/pasted his info from HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TORONTOIST OR OpenID.
2. When I click on his profile it doesn't tell me anything about him other than his username. (your abuse of power).
3. You used your admin 'powers' here to firstly look up his OpenID account (your abuse of power).
4. You used OpenID to find his email address -- creepy.
5. Then, you actually Google'd his name and found information about him on the internet (on ELGG, where he is a volunteer contributor of code for education). -- creepy.
That's fucking CREEEEEPYYYY!!!!!
Nope, it was in his profile previous to the new system, which was eliminated in July. I didn't look up anything that he hadn't made publicly available.
So why was the link you posted pointing to Elgg Spaces (http://elgg.org/kevenages/), not his profile?
That's rhetorical question btw. You know damn well the ONLY way you could have gotten that information is by Googling him.
CREEEEEPPPPYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!