Reilly states "Since then, Bratina has chosen not to comment to the Spectator. He has told several of my colleagues that he's the mayor-elect, not the mayor, and as a result, doesn't have the authority to comment on issues." Reilly further points out that Bratina has spoken to other media, namely, The Bay Observer, which Reilly points out is home to Peggy Chapman, Bratina's new Chief of Staff.
Reilly concedes "Some people will dismiss this as sour grapes on the Spectator's part. Fair enough. But one of the most important tenets of journalism is independence of the press, and right now, it seems that the lines between the Observer and Bratina's office are somewhat blurred."
John Best from the Bay Observer stated " A few days after the election Peggy advised me that she was
accepting the position of Chief of Staff for the mayor-elect. Accordingly, I wrote all of the stories related to the Hamilton election. I did the sit-down with Bob Bratina. Peggy was not even present.
I would have been happy to provide this information before you had drawn your conclusions and posted the blog. Regrettably this is not my first experience with the Spectator writing first and asking questions later. Id appreciate it if this were posted on the blog."
Reilly's post can be found here.
In terms of our experience at The Hamiltonian, we have found Bratina to be approachable throughout his tenure as councillor, both online and off. This is simply a factual statement.
It appears as though Bratina is being cautious. From his previous interview in The Spec, referenced above, he certainly appears attuned to the fact that he must seek guidance and counsel from the rest of council before declaring any definitive future directions.
Do you think Bratina is simply playing it smart, or do you think Emma Reilly has a point?
Please understand fellow The Hamiltonian bloggers - I really do not get any pleasure from criticizing Mayor Bratina.
ReplyDeleteI actually hope that his tenure in office is not characterized by tempestuousness and pettiness...for his sake as well as the city's sake.
That said, it is firmly my belief that there are no principles of journalistic integrity involved.
Nor do I feel that the mayor-elect would have any qualms speaking about anything to anyone before December 1, nor should he.
The refusal to speak to the Spectator by Mr. Bratina is, I believe, nothing more than a thin-skinned reaction to the bad light shone on his behaviour manifested during the question-and-answer referenced in the introduction.
We can only hope that this will not be a pattern to be repeated again and again.
In three weeks we will see the real Mayor Bob in action at the first new council meeting, should set the tone for the future!
ReplyDeleteOh please the biggest joke paper in Canada is pissed off about getting the shaft??
ReplyDeleteHey Spectator why don't you ask the other Mayoral Candidates what they think of FAIR REPORTING and the coverage that they got??
Good for BOB for not giving in to biggest JOKE in Canada. THE SPECTATOR.
The Spec BACKS FRED, then wants to talk to BOB. Get a life losers.
" one of the most important tenets of journalism is independence of the press"
ReplyDeleteWow. How out of touch has the Spectator become? Maybe it should look itself in the mirror
It was easier for me to post here what I posted on Hallmark.
ReplyDeleteHere are my thoughts to this matter, one letter to the editor ( hoping that the Spec would have published it) and an email to Berton editor of the Spec.
From: Yves Dubeau
Sent: October-30-10 10:54 AM
To: 'pberton@thespec.com'
Subject: supporting our new mayor
Mr. Berton
From the letters published in today’s Spec I am glad to see that others are like minded to myself. I do not know what the purpose of the Spec to publish all of articles and column on the subject of Bob Bratina to be negative in nature ( The Star is doing the same thing regarding Rob Ford) we the readers of the Spec are well aware of which candidate your paper supported and what I detect is sour grapes since your candidate showed an abysmal 3rd in the race. The electorate has spoken by electing Bob with a clear majority not a 500 vote spread like last election. Actually you must think that people are dolts and the newspaper is smarter but your negative practise of publishing negative articles is actually pissing off your readers, this put in simple terms. Below is a letter that I sent that went unpublish.
Regards
Yves Dubeau
From: Yves Dubeau
Sent: October-29-10 8:23 AM
To: The Spectator
Subject:
Will The Spectator ever accept and respect the choice that the electorate has made in our last municipal election? The Spectator has backed many loosing municipal issues such as the west harbour site (without a tenant) and Eisenberger as mayor among others . Since Bob Bratina was elected not one article or column published has been positive regarding the choice that taxpayers have made. The city has not have any mayors ,since amalgamation, last more than one term. It is long been recognized that city council to be dysfunctional and Andrew Dreschel’s column tells us about the upcoming challenges that Bob will face in dealing with councillors.
The common denominator over the years has not been with the mayors but effectively the councillors. The same councillors have lasted longer than the mayors and as such have to take responsibilities for lacking in the delivery of a working council. During Bob’s campaign he has warned council that he will stop the high jacking of council by councillors, this is good for the city, bad for councillors who most of them think of themselves as mayors of their own ward and act as such. I applaud Loyd Ferguson who said that he will work with the mayor while most other councillors are saying don’t screw with us or we will set you up to look like a fool.
If I can ask the question, is there any human being alive that our council will stand behind unanimously?
If the answer is yes then this person would be able to herd cats. Why don’t the Spectator start this new term for council by accepting the choice that voters made? By the way if Eisenberger think that he lost the election because Bob wants to revisit amalgamation, Fred is in denial of the real reasons.
Yves Dubeau
Emma
I know that you are not telling the whole story regarding your interview with Mayor elect Bratina. Maybe you should tell us regarding an undisclosed "recording action" that you undertook while not disclosing it to Mayor elect Bob.
Mr Bratina. You have my full support in expressing your negative reaction to Spectator questions. More than any politician, I blame the Spectator and the 260,000 sheeple whose ideas it manipulates and misleads for the sorry shape Hamilton is in. In this day of internet access, I urge you to go further and just post your thoughts online where all citizens can access them directly. Cut out the middleman. Grant no further interviews, at least to the Spectator. If you think they call the shots, remember its a two way street -- without access to leading citizens, they lose all credibility.
ReplyDeleteAs it is the Spectator is a disgrace - even by the low standards of the sorry trade it is in. Frankly, the Hamiltonian, RTH and our local commenters and bloggers tell it like it is - we no longer need the Spec and its vile distortions. Good riddance to it, the sooner the better.
Well said Mr, Innes!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteCarl
Haha, the joke is on The Spectator. They should keep printing the negative and mocking (that's how I interpreted Dreschel's column after a quick scan today) articles and columns, that should help them with their access to the Mayor's office.
ReplyDeleteReally, The Spec provided p*ss poor Election coverage. Heck in one day's paper they listed all the candidates, and deemed it necessary to put all incumbents in bold text. They chose to ignore the records and lack of accomplishments of the previous council. There's a reason all, but 1 incumbent who were running, got re-elected.
The Spec had an opportunity to report and set the tone of the Election, and they chose to ignore it. Now the crows are coming home to roost. Haha.
-- “But one of the most important tenets of journalism is independence of the press…” ~ Emma Reilly --
ReplyDeleteIt sure is! Emma, thank you very much for finally acknowledging this in print. Glad to see you reconnect with the 'core principle' of your profession.
Now, if you can work on bridging theory and praxis at the Spectator, you could well become the hero that Hamilton needs so badly.
You do know that you could start the bridging process anytime, with some honest conversation at: ( http://ideas.typepad.com/hall_marks_emma_reilly/2010/10/whos-on-first.html ) -- an old and lonely blog post, that has been quietly awaiting your feedback on the very core principle which you have highlighted here.
I am an eternal optimist, and firmly believe that someday soon, when times are more kinder, the Spectator will pick up the broken pieces and rebuild a nobler enterprise once again.
Until such time, I leave you with these two equally compelling quotes that may help you in understanding the dilemma of your current enterprise:
"I am sick and tired of the hollow parrot-cry of “Apartheid!” I’ve said many times that the word “Apartheid” means good neighbourliness." ~ President PW Botha, as quoted in Country of My Skull, Antjie Krog.
"I never have the nagging doubt of wondering whether perhaps I am wrong." ~ President PW Botha, as quoted in Dictionary of South African Quotations, Jennifer Crwys-Williams.
I think even Dreshel's become entertaining rather than informative. Sometimes not even that. It's all gotten old.
ReplyDeleteYou folks sure have short memories. The Spectator endorsed Di Ianni in 2006, and continued to be highly critical of Eisenberger throughout most of his tenure, and yet he did not behave like a spoiled child and refuse to speak to them, and if he had you would have all been outraged at his arrogance and pettiness.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not you like the Spec, the fact is they are our only print daily, and our most influential media outlet at the moment, so refusing to speak to them is equivalent to refusing to be held accountable in a public forum. Whether or not you approve of this particular forum is beside the point. Bratina's refusal to talk to our largest media outlet is arrogant, high-handed, unaccountable, and a danger to our local democracy, and we would not have tolerated it from either Fred or Larry.
I didn't vote for Bob, but he was my second choice, and I actually had alot of hope for our city when he was elected. That hope is diminishing on a daily basis. Bratina will have no incentive to rein in the worst aspects of his behaviour if he knows that he has slavish followers who will defend him at all costs and blame his victims. I fear for our city.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it is my understanding that Mr Bratina didn't refuse to talk to the Spectator but cut the interview short when they tried to lure him into an area he didn't want to go before he had the opportunity to speak to each councilor one on one.Personally I don't think of this as arrogance but rather think of it as wisdom! Since the election I can't recall reading anything positive in the Spec about our newly elected Mayor & it seems like they want to sink the ship before it sails! The election is over the decision has been made by the 40% & it is now time to rally around the new Mayor & council!Lets get back to work & make this city a place we can all be proud of!!!
ReplyDeleteMr. Butani - I quibble on one point - the use of the word 'profession' when discussing journalism. Journalism is not a profession, neither in law, nor in practice. Unlike other professions (doctors, lawyers, engineers) they are NOT held responsible for any damage they cause, save for libel. The only tenet they hold to I am aware of is to protect their sources - a far cry from the many other demanding requirements of professionalism.
ReplyDeleteAs to their independence, we might ask independence from what? Political and pecuniary interests wrap them in their Machiavellian chains - no disparagement of that great thinker intended.
Possibly the best example for Canadians is the description of journalism given by Pierre Burton in his book "Marching as to War". A real indictment of this trade and the destruction it causes, all for the sake of money.