Actually Born to Run

Papineau, Que MP Justin Trudeau is officially running for the leadership position of the Liberal Party of Canada. Although he did not formally announce it himself nor will he do so during the caucus retreat, Warren Kinsella broke the news on his website in August. On September 26, the Liberal Party tactfully leaked the announcement to Radio-Canada where Trudeau would make the bid official a week later in his riding. Remarkably, Trudeau's staff will only comprise of people under the age of 40. Trudeau, who is the Liberal Critic of Youth, Recreation, and Sport, has been rumoured to run for Liberal leader for a while now, ever since Bob Rae broke the news that he wasn't going for the top bid. In many ways, Trudeau is everything the Liberal Party could ask for in a leader: he's young, energetic, and is popular among Canadians. Like his father before him, Trudeau is charismatic and candid.

As many newspapers are wont to point out, Trudeau stands alone in this race and it is his and his alone to win. However, if the Liberals are going to make Trudeau shoulder all of the party's burdens, then they can forget about reclaiming the government on their own. For the sake of the Liberal Party, they simply cannot re-enter another phase of Trudeaumania, especially when it's all style and no substance. They tried to make saviours out of leaders twice already and both times ended up in abysmal failures. If the Liberal Party wants any chance at defeating the Tories come 2015, they need to form a coalition with the NDP (duh). Much to the left's chagrin, it's hard to believe this will happen anytime soon.

Now, for Trudeau as leader, his bid is an interesting one. First, it will be especially hard for the Tories or even the NDP to define Trudeau through their attack ads since Trudeau has done an adequate job of doing that himself. You can look no further to his bout with Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau as proof. Although for charity, the match probably meant more to Liberals than anything they accomplished in Parliament. For the first time in a long time, people were rooting for a Liberal and they were excited for a Liberal and a Liberal delivered even when expectations were low. It drove momentum oddly enough, and guaranteed Trudeau as a star within Canadian politics. Even though he has done fairly little as an MP in his 4-year career, he still had the political courage and mettle to win and hold his riding in Papineau, a riding that was held by the Bloc Quebecois and was easily susceptible to the Orange Crush in 2011.  And of course, he probably said what we were all thinking to Conservative MP and Environment Minister Peter Kent during Question Period.

Second, Trudeau does have alternance by his side. Thought of as an antiquated and weak unwritten norm, alternance now is anything but with the Liberals completely wiped out of Quebec. In the Federal Level, the incumbent Liberal MPs were unseated by new and inexperienced NDP MPs. In the Provincial Level, the Liberal Party is embroiled in scandal and draconian measures as well as incompetent leadership. Therefore, when April rolls around and the Liberals head to the polls, they're probably going to feel more inclined to select a Francophone -- especially a popular Francophone like Trudeau -- to reestablish the party once again in Quebec.

But, what do we know about Trudeau, really? We know that he thinks calling honour killing 'barbaric' is wrong. And, we know that he thinks Environment Minister is a piece of shit. And, we know that he was once an actor and had facial hair once that was met with the displeasure of many Canadians, oddly enough. What his campaign can do is flesh and unpack his positions on issues that affect the country.

While I'll admit that the press has covered Trudeau abundantly, his entry is still something that Canadians need to reconsider. Will a fresh face mean a fresh, bold attitude for the Liberal Party? Will his youth propel the party to take more leftist ideologies? Where does Trudeau even stand on national security, the economy, and foreign policy? Canadians are already willing to give the Liberals a victory if it means Trudeau is at the helm even though we don't know how he feels about any of those things. Granted, there is still lots of time for us to find out.

The Globe and Fail, Part 2: Wentegate

What blogger and University of Ottawa professor Carol Wainio is doing is completely right and valid and should be given the praise it deserves and then some. She not only exposed serial Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente of plagiarism but continually shows the blatant laziness and lack of integrity of the national newspaper she writes for. Despite Wente's inconsistencies and "slip-ups," she remains a vital part of the Globe and Mail editorial team. She doesn't get excused nor punished nor questioned by her editors at length. Why? Well, she actually was "punished" by editor John Stackhouse. However, nobody is sure what Wente's punishment entails and if it will actually teach her a lesson. If Wente was a starting journalist making these mistakes -- failing to attribute, stealing quotes, etc. -- she would be finished, as Jonah Lehrer himself discovered this past summer. Hey, even a veteran seasoned journalist with an abundant amount of respect like Fareed Zakaria can get docked for plagiarism. It doesn't matter that he's the Editor-at-Large at Time Magazine, or the author of The Post-American World, or the host of CNN's Global Public Square. He cheated so he gets punished.

Wente wrote a defensive column about Wainio's "allegations" today in the Globe. I must say, what she says boggles my mind and not just because I'm studying journalism. It mostly boggles my mind because, like a lot of people, I read the news. As consequence, it's completely egregious to read a journalist passively dismissing their mistakes as if it happens all the time: "It's just the way it is." Moreover, Wente references the content of her articles, that she gets unfairly targeted sometimes because people disagree with what she says. Yes, Wente is notorious for spouting unfavourable opinions but her content is besides the point. I can disagree with Wente -- and I often do -- but if she conducts her journalism with the highest standards, meaning upholding accuracy, then I can't say she's doing anything wrong, per se. According to Wente, anybody who calls her out on her plagiarism must hate her already because of her opinions. According to Wente, Wainio must've read too many of her infuriating columns and launched this personal vendetta against her. In her "apology," Wente comes off as hostile, defensive, and haughty instead of modest and remorseful.

Yes, mistakes are made in the papers. However, the onus is on the journalist and the editor to ensure it never happens again. It not only engenders a sense of distrust in the paper and in journalism as a whole, but it completely tarnishes the reputation of a writer and the paper he or she works for. This is obvious. This is fact. I don't see why The Globe and Mail is exempt from this rule.

If the Globe and Mail's decision to keep Wente on board is purely based on financial gain, then as far as I'm concerned the Globe is just as bad as the National Post.

It's pathetic that in Canada, we can't even have a national newspaper that we can trust 100% of the time, that is all encompassing of all viewpoints while at the same time having top-notch reporters covering each beat with enthusiasm, clarity, and accuracy. As I've stated before in the past, the only reliable and tolerable newspaper we have in Canada is The Toronto Star. Speaking of newspapers, I heard on The Current today that the mainstream media has not been taking a more active role in covering this story which is true. Only now has Wentegate stretched out of social media and into the media institutions within public life. If journalists really are the fourth estate, then they need to afflict the comfortable here, even if that includes their own colleagues. Media institutions -- like the Globe and Mail -- are still companies with a business motive and should therefore be scrutinized routinely so that people understand the truth. For a newspaper, understanding the truth about where you get your news is of vital importance.

But, newspapers are no longer becoming the only source of information. In fact, they're one of the last sources ordinary people consult when it comes to gathering data and opinions. According to Poynter Institute, more than half of Americans use the internet for news while readership in media has dropped significantly. The Wente case elegantly and effectively shows the problems of print media and why journalism should be striving to use more digital platforms for sharing the news. With digital media, it's much easier to hold writers accountable since online readership is larger therefore more people with different areas of expertise would be readily available to point out inconsistencies. By having a simple Google search at the fingertips, anyone can just copy and paste a questionable statement into the search engine and see if results pop up showing similar if not identical stories. In addition, it's much easier for the host website to make adjustments to the original story, not to mention less embarrassing since they don't have to run a Correction Notice in thousands upon thousands of newspapers.

The Globe and Mail used to be a centrist and sensible newspaper and, occasionally, they still have bursts of insight. Where else but the Globe and Mail could ordinary Canadians read about ending Canada's Mexican myopia? Where else could they have read the Globe's interview with Enrique Pena Nieto, the President-elect of Mexico? They could've gone online, or they could've read it in their favourite newspaper on the commute. The Globe and Mail has already started to rectify one particular issue: the Public Editor, which was recently created, now has to report to the publisher not the Editor-in-Chief, a change that will streamline this whole process and will avoid any further complications.

But, this is not enough.

The Globe and Mail needs to either 1) Work out a better arrangement with Wente if they're so keen on keeping her on. An arrangement could consist of lightening Wente's load so that she doesn't have to write 3 columns a week, if that's the underlining problem to her carelessless. Instead, she could do more investigative and feature work. Or 2) Fire Wente.

If she's fired, then the Globe wouldn't have to worry about this ever again. If she's fired, then Wente couldn't do more damage to her career since it would be effectively finished. If she's fired, then maybe The Globe and Mail would smarten up next time.