Margaret Wente's sincere flattery

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Oh come on.

Just as the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Christian Scientist Monitor are nationl newspapers in the USA, so too are the National Post and the Globe and Mail national newspapers in Canada.

The Globe and Mail has a section every day for BC alone in its paper, and often the coverage in that section is much more accurate than the local press. Wente by-the-way, doesn't write in that section. Wink

You want regional or city papers in the print media go to the Gazette or La Presse for Montreal region, the Toronto Star for the Toronto area, the Calgary Herald for Calgary, the Edmonton Journal for Edmonton, and the Vancouver Sun for Vancouver or the Lower Mainland. 

Of course due to the advent of the 'net most of these publications can now be read online from your living room.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Not to mention The Ottawa Citizen. Back when Ottawa had two newspapers (The Journal and The Citizen) our family delivered both.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

*donning gear appropriate to wading in between participants in a pissing contest*

For years I have been suggesting that the Globe change the motto on their flag from "Canada's National Newspaper" to "Toronto's National Newspaper".

@kropotkin: how many times do I have to warn you, our Central Canadian Overlords are very ticklish down there... poking them just gets them upset... and don't you have wood to hew and water to draw?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

moved 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

bagkitty wrote:

@kropotkin: how many times do I have to warn you, our Central Canadian Overlords are very ticklish down there... poking them just gets them upset... and don't you have wood to hew and water to draw?

Oh well in my defence I have been poking fun at Centre of the Universe comments regarding Hogtown on this board for over a decade. Never in over TEN years has one of my jokes about Toronto attracted a moderators negative response.  Maysie and Old goat used to laugh along but I understand that I should adapt to new realities or move along so I will adapt.

Memo to self:  No poking fun at Toronto or Puerto Rico stick only to China and other approved targets.

Jacob Two-Two

For god's sake. Of course the G&M is Toronto-centric but it doesn't change the facts. I have no allegience to Toronto (having grown up in Newfoundland and lived the last 16 years in Vancouver) and I like to poke fun at the COTU attitude as much as the next guy, and I understand that it's a cute rhetorical flourish of yours to deny it, which I have no issue with, but the G&M is a national paper, to the extent the phrase has any meaning. There's no need to insult the moderators over it. It's not like you were reprimanded or anything, just disagreed with. Get over it.

6079_Smith_W

Plus, calling the G and M a national disgrace carries a bit of weight. A Toronto disgrace is, well, not really that out of the ordinary at all.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Toronto has the Ford brothers - haven't they suffered enough?

Unionist

The Globe and Mail is a powerful instrument for national unity.

Just look at this thread.

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Toronto has the Ford brothers - haven't they suffered enough?

Hell NO

*waves to Maysie*

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

There's no need to insult the moderators over it. It's not like you were reprimanded or anything, just disagreed with. Get over it.

I did not insult the moderator except apparently by posting a smile she didn't like.  I apologized because until she complained about my rudeness I had no F'ing idea that is was against babble policy to post a LMAOROF emoticon and that a moderator would thus feel compelled to put a stop to it. 

As I said above since I still want to play in this neighbourhood I accept that babble is not a place that one should make fun of Toronto centric "facts" using an emoticon.  I can adapt no problem.  I understand that this is a proprietary site and what the moderator says is the voice of the owners.

 

 

onlinediscountanvils

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Jacob Two-Two wrote:

There's no need to insult the moderators over it. It's not like you were reprimanded or anything, just disagreed with. Get over it.

I did not insult the moderator except apparently by posting a smile she didn't like.  I apologized because until she complained about my rudeness I had no F'ing idea that is was against babble policy to post a LMAOROF emoticon and that a moderator would thus feel compelled to put a stop to it. 

As I said above since I still want to play in this neighbourhood I accept that babble is not a place that one should make fun of Toronto centric "facts" using an emoticon.

You're still not getting it. [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1363753#comment-1363753]Own it.[/url] 

DaveW

somehow, Margaret Wente disappeared from this thread ... anyone?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I own it. i posted this image and have apologized to the owners representative for inadvertently being rude.  Why are you continuing to attack me for something I have apologized for.

NorthReport
Unionist

Please stop this bullshit. All of you. Thank you very much.

As for Wente, the "plagiarism" charge is questionable and in any event diversionary. It truly is analogous, in more than one way, to the attack on Bev Oda for her $16 glass of orange juice. In both cases: 1) The abuses they have committed against ordinary folks and progressive organizations is ignored ("that's not the subject we're discussing!"). 2) It's not accidental that both are women (I'm coming reluctantly to that conclusion). They're both "dispensable". They both allegedly show weakness in personal habits. Gee, what stereotypes does this fit?

Why should progressive people jump up and down about "plagiarism"? I can understand, in school, that we want to be able to assess and assist young people based on their real work. But Wente isn't trying out for exams or jobs, so far as I know. If someone is upset about seeing their words come out of her pen unattributed, let them plead their case. My problem with Wente, I repeat, is her siding with the most regressive forces in the world and mocking and trying to crush anything progressive. If she borrows from others to feed her onslaught, does that make her worse?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Please draft a suitable apology for my perusal and I will consider posting it.  I am truly sorry that my apologies for posting the smilie sound a little jaundiced.  

Oh and by the way I make no apologies for my belief that the Globe and Mail is not a national newspaper but a Toronto paper with an inflated ego problem.  I apparently chose the wrong way of making that point and am sorry for that but not for refusing to accept the validity of that marketing canard as a "fact." I consider the statement to fall somewhere on the scale between gross exaggeration and ridiculous absurdity.  So far many here tend to think it is more gross exaggeration than absurdity but none can fully defend the G & M's claim to national status except to say they claim it so, so it must be true.

This is a thread about a nasty woman who has become a regular not only in a Toronto newspaper but on the CBC.  She has been given a bully pulpit on our public airwaves because of that lie.  Not many here would dispute the fact that the MSM is controlled by its rich owners and Wente serves those interests.  Giving the Globe a national mantle when its actual circulation does not warrant is means that nasty right wing jerks like her are given a bigger bully pulpit and the ability to claim they speak for most of us.  The "national" newspaper claim is what got her a seat on the CBC panel so adopting that corporate slogan as reality does in fact have repercussions on the level of debate in Canada. 

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

Well it is, and it isn't.

I agree with you completely that propagandizing, and offenses in fair coverage are more important than copying others' work, and I also think much of the furor over this may be due to frustration over some of those other offenses. And especially frustrating when not just the writer, but the paper as well, fail to come clean.

But it isn't just something that should only concern people in school (though it isn't always the end of the world there either). I am less concerned with passing off other writers' turns of phrase as her own than I am about misattribution of sources - implying that one source's words are actually those of someone else.

All media have their slants, but I think we should at least expect a bare minimum of getting the facts right and not misleading us regarding sources and events. Do they always do that? Of course not; but they should be called on it - EVERY time. Interpretation is something many of us aren't likely to agree on, but if you can't trust that a writer is interested in getting the bare facts straight you have no place to even start.

You see it all the time on the internet - someone throws quotes around something that a person didn't actually say, then it takes off like wildfire and many people assume it really happened.

I couldn't find a source for this apocryphal story, but I was told once that bards in Ireland had to memorize huge epics and geneaologies for their clan. The penalty for making even the slightest error - death - because at the time they had no written language and no original source to go back to. So they needed to know they could count on the person entrusted to pass on the information.

 

 

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Toronto has the Ford brothers - haven't they suffered enough?

Indeed we have suffered. And continue to.

Wente lives in Toronto too ya know.

Oh, the pain of it all. I need to go sit in a cafe and have a mochaccino to recover.

Maysie Maysie's picture

And, bagkitty? Shark-seagull's gonna GETCHA!!

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I'd like the drift to end please. Moderators can take rudeness to a certain extent and as long as kropotkin's apology pleases kropotkin, I'd say that's about all we can ask for. But I think there's lots to talk about with regard to Wente's carreer as a journalist, the perception and consequences of plagiarism in mainstream media, and possible red herrings used to dispose of replaceable right-wing mouthpieces. So let's get on with it, shall we?

Unionist wrote:
Why should progressive people jump up and down about "plagiarism"? I can understand, in school, that we want to be able to assess and assist young people based on their real work. But Wente isn't trying out for exams or jobs, so far as I know. If someone is upset about seeing their words come out of her pen unattributed, let them plead their case. My problem with Wente, I repeat, is her siding with the most regressive forces in the world and mocking and trying to crush anything progressive. If she borrows from others to feed her onslaught, does that make her worse?

This is about the long and short of it for me.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Now, back to the Wente-bashing. My favourite topic.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't know whether this has been posted above but I liked a lot of this column including the conclusion.

Quote:

This country has real issues to worry about. In the last year alone, we have been presented with documented evidence of large-scale electoral fraud, our environmental protection and climate change regimes have been ripped to shreds, and the federal government has laid aside the Canada Health Act and thus ended, at least in principle, universal healthcare. More evidence continues to emerge that it plotted a systematic course of deception with regard to the cost of a multi-billion dollar military procurement project. And our media is so breathtakingly incompetent that they can’t even agree on whether someone in their ranks was copying and pasting without attribution and, if so, whether it was very wrong of them to do so.

http://backofthebook.ca/2012/09/27/wente-apologists-dig-press-in-deeper/...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Darn you Maysie you beat me too it by under a minute.

Wink

 

6079_Smith_W

I still wouldn't downplay the importance of basic accuracy, and it doesn't have an either/or relationship with ideological bias (though personally, I think accuracy is more important).

I don't know about the rest of you, but I value a right wing publication - even one which tells only part of the facts, so long as I knew I could trust those facts  - more than I would a left wing publication which was based on dodgy sources. After all, I can make up my own mind on facts; but if I can't trust the source, I have nothing to go on.

That's why I think the G and M's action around this is important. Hell, even a soft media program like Q ended their relationship with her over this.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

"NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!"

The scene was a plain, bare, monotonous vault of a school-room, and the speaker’s square forefinger emphasized his observations by underscoring every sentence with a line on the schoolmaster’s sleeve. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s square wall of a forehead, which had his eyebrows for its base, while his eyes found commodious cellarage in two dark caves, overshadowed by the wall. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s mouth, which was wide, thin, and hard set. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s voice, which was inflexible, dry, and dictatorial. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s hair, which bristled on the skirts of his bald head, a plantation of firs to keep the wind from its shining surface, all covered with knobs, like the crust of a plum pie, as if the head had scarcely warehouse-room for the hard facts stored inside. The speaker’s obstinate carriage, square coat, square legs, square shoulders, - nay, his very neckcloth, trained to take him by the throat with an unaccommodating grasp, like a stubborn fact, as it was, - all helped the emphasis.

"In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!"

The speaker, and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, all backed a little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim.

The One Thing Needful

6079_Smith_W

Well.... is anyone here aware of a media source which tells the whole truth all the time? I have yet to find one, nor do I expect one exists.

Anyone who doesn't read the news with a critical eye, and check and double check the basic information is a fool IMO.

So while I certainly think perspectives and editorial opinions are an important part of journalism, trying your best to get the facts straight is the bones on which the whole body is built. Without a dedication to that, it's fiction.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I guess this is a bit of a thread drift, but I think this allegiance or fetishization of "fact" is itself an ideology. So when we hope to discredit Wente on the basis of plagiarism rather than poisonous and deleterious motivations, we are setting up a court with rotten foundations that could turn on us anytime consensus changes over who decides "the facts." That article posted by Maysie and kropotkin seems dangerously ignorant of that.

Let me know when journalism schools start making ethics courses mandatory and then we can decide what the ethical "fact" is to which journalists must adhere.

NorthReport

Journalism schools might as well close their doors - they have no future.

6079_Smith_W

@ CF

Accuracy in reporting IS ethics at its most basic level. And its not drift at all, since it is precisely what she is being called on.

And I'm sorry, but I think your first paragraph has it backwards.

If I were someone who had words or actions falsely attributed to me by a media which many people assume to be The Truth I'd take it very seriously.

I'm not arguing that there is some absolute objective truth, but neither is it all jello. When people speak there are actually specific words which come out of their mouths, and if a reporter doesn't care whether he or she gets that wrong, or consciously twists it, I have a big problem with that. It's not a rotten foundation at all. 

Unless... again, we'd be happier just reading fiction.

I mean go ahead and hang her for her political biases; from what I have read of her I largely agree. But that doesn't cancel out the fact that this is a matter serious enough to stand on its own, whether some here agree or not.

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

All news is fiction. This: g=9.81 m/s2 is a fiction. [/troll]

Maggie Wente is certainly a fiction, even the columns she thought up all by herself.

 

Also, always relevant to this discussion: "The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism," by Jonathan Lethem

Unionist

How, exactly, did this get to be about "facts"?

Wente is accused of plagiarism. The G&M is accused of not trying hard enough to assess the accusation. I think, personally, that both these accusations may or may not be well-founded, but I find them uninteresting at best and diversionary at worst.

When the New York Times repeated the lie about Iraq having WMD, that was a serious distortion of fact - and they even published some lame apology too late. Such questions of "fact" and fact-checking and journalistic responsibility are vital IMHO. An employer lazily brushing off charges of plagiarism against an employee? Pardon me, but who cares. I wish some of the employers I have had to deal with were so protective of their employees.

 

onlinediscountanvils

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

How, exactly, did this get to be about "facts"?

Because the accusations include not just taking other people's words and ideas, but cutting and pasting characters and presenting them as real people. While the seriousness of the former offense is debatable, I see the latter as a real breach of trust, expecially if we are to think of the news as part of the public record, and in essence, history in the making.

I got onto it because although yes, her slanted editorial style is good cause for criticism, some of the accusations here (and the G and M's lack of clarity in dealing with them) are also serious. As I said, I expect more.

 

 

onlinediscountanvils

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqtJXLoo7_Q&feature=related]Anyone else catching Propagandhi this tour?[/url]

Unionist

About 175 years ago, three mathematicians - Karl Friedrich Gauss, Janos Bolyai, and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevski - elaborated the principles of non-Euclidean geometry. They published more or less simultaneously. All three were brilliant. But human nature being what it is, idle minds long speculated over who was "first" and who plagiarized from whom. As if it mattered. The contributions were immortal. Just as was the case when Isaac Newton and Wilhelm Leibniz created, independently and simultaneously, the principles of calculus.

Wente's contributions, by contrast, are mortal.

In any event, the non-Euclidean geometry plagiarism debate was satirized in the form of a song, about 50 years ago. If you haven't heard it, do yourselves a favour right now:

http://youtu.be/IL4vWJbwmqM

 

MegB

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqtJXLoo7_Q&feature=related]Anyone else catching Propagandhi this tour?[/url]

Fucking awesome! Thanks for the link.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

wow great stuff

Quote:

Some of my otherwise brilliant and productive friends
(like scoundrels and their flags)
take final refuge in character assasinations;

onlinediscountanvils

Rebecca West wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqtJXLoo7_Q&feature=related]Anyone else catching Propagandhi this tour?[/url]

Fucking awesome! Thanks for the link.

 

You're quite welcome, RW! They put on a brilliant show last night.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Catchfire wrote:

I guess this is a bit of a thread drift, but I think this allegiance or fetishization of "fact" is itself an ideology. So when we hope to discredit Wente on the basis of plagiarism rather than poisonous and deleterious motivations, we are setting up a court with rotten foundations that could turn on us anytime consensus changes over who decides "the facts." That article posted by Maysie and kropotkin seems dangerously ignorant of that.

Did you read  the article?  I may even agree with most of the paragraph above especially that Wente deserves to be vilified for being an evil right wing shill but I don't understand how it relates to the article which is taking the rest of the MSM to task for its lame defence of this undeserving media icon. 

Dangerously ignorant seems an odd way to say that the topic was not addressed by the writer.

Unionist

What a breathtakingly wrongheaded and self-righteous article. ([url=http://backofthebook.ca/2012/09/27/wente-apologists-dig-press-in-deeper/... one.[/url]) What tripe. Excuse my lack of diplomacy.

 

onlinediscountanvils

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I own it. i posted this image and have apologized to the owners representative for inadvertently being rude.  Why are you continuing to attack me for something I have apologized for.

 

I called you on something. I don't think I've attacked you. In fact, I bit my tongue for the last day, debating whether it was worth continuing with this drift in a thread that I created, or whether I should just let this board be what it seems so determined to be. You've apologized, but even in your apologies you've continued with the passively aggressive insults.

Michelle

Unionist, love.  Are you being intentionally contrarian?  ;)

Seriously, I don't see anything wrong with that blog post.  I agree with it.  I don't understand people who are minimizing all the instances that Media Culpa found where entire passages and paragraph/argument structures were lifted from other people's work. 

I don't love Maclean's Magazine, but I agree with Colby Cosh on this one here and here.

And I don't think you have to believe in "objective facts" or "objective reporting" in order to believe in the idea that people should give attribution and not pass off other people's writing as their own.  This is why I don't understand why so many mainstream journalists are doing backflips trying to make the idea more complicated than it is - oh, what is the deeper meaning of plagiarism?  Come on.  If someone else wrote it, use quotes and say, "As so-and-so says".  And don't imply that you've interviewed people that you haven't, or that other people have interviewed.  It's just that easy.

Is this all Wente's fault?  No, I don't think so - there is clearly an insular editorial culture at the Globe where writers get crap like this past editors all the time.  I mean, how else do you explain Leah McLaren, and her mother Cicely Ross before her, using column space in the real estate sections to SELL THEIR OWN HOUSES?  (I couldn't believe it when I saw those links - they've been posted a number of times by commenters on the various Wente stories going around, and Media Culpa now has a blog post about it too - hey, see how easy attribution is?)  These "stories" would have to have gotten past editors.  And the public editor and publisher who are now minimizing Wente's infractions and attacking the blogger who brought them to light is more evidence of that.

I don't understand people who are saying that the Globe's real crime is their political slant and that this plagiarism is just incidental.  Seriously?  We all know there's no such thing as objective reporting, and I would go as far as to say that objectivity in reporting CAN'T exist as long as humans are reporting the news.  There will always be a slant.  At least rabble, for instance, is clear about theirs, and I do realize that mainstream media outlets aren't, and that's a breach of media ethics too.

But I think that can be recognized, AND it can also be recognized that columnists using column space for advertising things that benefit themselves financially, and writers lifting entire passages from other people's work and passing it off as their own writing is pretty ethically bad.  I don't think that recognizing both needs to be mutually exclusive.

Do I want to see Wente fired?  I don't know.  There are so many incidents previously that she never been called on before, and I do believe in progressive discipline.  On the other hand, plagiarism is kind of like the ultimate writer's crime, so maybe it could be considered a firing offence first off.  But if there is a whole organizational culture of loose ethical guidelines for their columnists (which seems to be the case since Carol Waino has brought so many other Wente gaffes to the attention of the Globe and no one seems to have done much to sanction Wente other than put little correction notes under a few of her columns), then firing one person could be seen as scapegoating her and brushing the institutional issues under the rug.  So I'll leave that question to her, her union if she's a member of one, and her boss to figure out.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think you have laid it out very well in this paragraph. 

The other angle to this story is the institutional bias. If she had been a CEP activist with a slight left slant to her writing there would be no doubt in my mind what the employer's response would be.

Michelle wrote:

Do I want to see Wente fired?  I don't know.  There are so many incidents previously that she never been called on before, and I do believe in progressive discipline.  On the other hand, plagiarism is kind of like the ultimate writer's crime, so maybe it could be considered a firing offence first off.  But if there is a whole organizational culture of loose ethical guidelines for their columnists (which seems to be the case since Carol Waino has brought so many other Wente gaffes to the attention of the Globe and no one seems to have done much to sanction Wente other than put little correction notes under a few of her columns), then firing one person could be seen as scapegoating her and brushing the institutional issues under the rug.  So I'll leave that question to her, her union if she's a member of one, and her boss to figure out.

[/quote

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist I find it reprehensible that you would taint those two women authors with this stench.  My response to your innuendo is I presume they have integrity so bring on the computer program to prove me wrong.  I for one refuse to speculate on the character of left wing writers just because a right wing shill's professionalism has been proven unethical.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Why does a journalist who copies without attribution merit a national outcry, but not one who (say) writes columns supporting warmongering or misogyny?

Has no one ever criticized Wente for her writing? Here's just the first example to the contrary which popped up in these pages when I did a search:

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-news-features/what-wente-wrote

I understand that you feel her bias is more important than her false reporting, but I fail to see how it is an either/or situation. I feel quite capable of walking AND chewing gum on this one.

Why we're talking about this? Because she DID get caught on a technical point - one which not only is a breach of trust to readers, but also may be an issue for the people she took from without attribution. It is also a black eye for the newspaper.

Political bias may be more of a bugbear for some, and in the long run do more damage, but opinion - even offensive - is not necessarily grounds for dismissal. After all - they hired her. A clear breach of journalistic standards, however, may be. That's why we are talking about this.

And as I said already, I take the breach of standards more seriously because - unlike bias -  that is something I won't be able to pick out of her writing unless I do the kind of detective work Carol Wainio has done.

And whether she is fired or not, the more important problem for me is that we don't know if she can be trusted, rather than the actual breach of the rules.

But really, I don't know why we are talking about any of this. We all know the real crime is that haircut of hers.

(or can I say that?... I mean the real absurdist crime is her being a Torontonian)

 

 

 

 

onlinediscountanvils

Plagiarism makes this bunny sad.

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

Unionist, love.  Are you being intentionally contrarian?  ;)

Aw, Michelle, you know I'd never do that!

Seriously though, my point has been simple (maybe too simple), and people can agree with it or not. Let me formulate it simply:

Why does a journalist who copies without attribution merit a national outcry, but not one who (say) writes columns supporting warmongering or misogyny?

Why does Bev Oda get fired over lavish expenses, but not for forging a document and lying about it in order to defund Kairos?

That's my point. It's about priorities, and diversions.

And I tell you honestly, if some media monitor website dedicated its existence to finding examples of plagiarism in the works of Naomi Klein or Judy Rebick etc. - and if they found some - I would have no more respect for that media monitor's efforts than I do for the article which I dumped on above. Would you respect those efforts?

ETA: Edited to clarify, see boldface.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist I find it reprehensible that you would taint those two women authors with this stench.  My response to your innuendo is I presume they have integrity so bring on the computer program to prove me wrong.  I for one refuse to speculate on the character of left wing writers just because a right wing shill's professionalism has been proven unethical.

I can't tell if you're kidding or not. If you're serious, I apologize, because you seriously gravely misread my previous post. I am saying I have no respect for someone who spends their time searching for plagiarism, whether it is in right or left wing journalism - and that my respect or not for an author is based on their substance and content, not on whether they're repeating something someone else may have said in similar or identical words. Nor on whether or not they lied on their CV or overpaid for orange juice. That's what I meant.

lagatta

Pssst, if we want to be catty, it would be about the fact that she looks about 20 years younger in her current photo than in earlier ones...

Getting back to our usual rabblian (or Rabelasian) standards, the Globe went downhill very quickly upon its slick-and-shiny redo a few years back (hmm...). It stopped being much more than a lifestyle, real-estate and business touting rag.

Imagine getting Wente, of all people, to write about cycling - she of the SUV in TORONTO (this is not a Toronto-phobic comment; I don't like bashing anywhere, it is simply absurd to drive such a thing in a major city unless you have some strange type of trade-related requirement; and most tradespersons prefer vans and such).

Cycling is not interesting to that rag as a form of healthy, affordable and environmentally-sustainable transport, or as a way one can take a cheap holiday - it is only interesting if it can sell glitz.

People have been cycling in Tuscany for many decades. Even old villagers - and if the hill is too high for them with their old knees and old biciclette, they simply get off and lean on the bike, pushing up the hill.

Pages