rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

You tell me, Dear Readers: Did I unfairly beat the Wildrose finance critic like a piñata?

Derek Fildebrandt

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Have I been unfairly beating Derek Fildebrandt, the Wildrose Party's finance critic, like a piñata for his now-famous observation that Alberta's NDP government misled voters by actually implementing its campaign promises?

Moreover, was the Globe and Mail unreasonably sensationalizing Fildebrandt's point with its characterization of his comments as meaning the Alberta NDP had "hoodwinked voters into believing it would lean only slightly left and is now implementing 'hard-core ideological' policies"?

The now-famous headline on the Globe's story read: "NDP duped voters by implementing its promises, Wildrose finance critic says." This seems to have caused general hilarity around the entire small-g globe, in addition to bringing record numbers of readers to this post, for which I am grateful.

"The NDP platform was never intended to ever be implemented," Fildebrandt told journalists during a scrum outside the ballroom where Premier Rachel Notley had just spoken to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce on Oct. 9.

He continued immediately: "The NDP platform was a hardcore ideological document which was meant, in opposition, to pull who everybody expected to win the election, at least when the writ was dropped, in a particular direction. It was meant to make an ideological point, and to pull the government in a direction. It was never actually meant to be implemented as real policy."

That Fildebrandt has been ill used by the brouhaha that followed reporting of this statement is the considered view of the Wildrose Party, as a party official has made clear to me. You must forgive me, though, for not being displeased by the image of me, a mere blogger, beating Derek Fildebrandt like a piñata.

Nevertheless, I am a fair-minded person and my intention is to outline the Wildrose defence of Fildebrandt clearly in the context of what transpired, as his supporters would, and leave the judgment to you, Dear Readers. That said, I assure you, I will not deprive you of my opinion.

So, my understanding of the Wildrose take on this matter is as follows:

-    The Globe's reporter, Carrie Tait, sensationalized Fildebrandt's remarks in her paraphrase and explanation of his comment

-    That none of the most sensational words in her report, such as "duped" and "hoodwinked," were actually spoken by Fildebrandt

-    That the portion of Fildebrandt's comments reported by the Globe was only a small part of a much longer disquisition by Fildebrandt

-    That none of the other reporters who attended the same scrum reported the story in the same way

Among the reporters there, I am reliably informed, were the Calgary Sun's Rick Bell, the Calgary Herald's James Wood and a passel of nameless radio hacks.

On the day the Globe's report appeared, Fildebrandt himself angrily Tweeted that Tait was a "B-list reporter who wrote an intentionally torqued … story."

I am confident that the Wildrose Party has pressed the Globe for a retraction or clarification, and, as you can see by going to the story online, no such statement has been published by the Globe. This would indicate the Globe is confident Tait got it right.

The Wildrose Party provided me with a transcript of the group interview, as well as a recording. The red passages in the PDF, indicating reporters' questions, were highlighted by the Wildrose Party, not by me. The reporters are not identified, but the most controversial passage appears to have been made in response to a question by Tait.

Now, I promised you my own opinion, and here it is: The Wildrose Party's complaints about Tait's report fail on all counts.

Fildebrandt, in my opinion, blundered and said something foolish. He ended up with egg on his face. The fact he said what he did in a convoluted way is no defence, or at least not much of one.

First, it is said here that the passage from the story by Tait summing up Fildebrandt's comments is a reasonably accurate summation of his argument and intent.

Second, that using words like "hoodwinked," while colourful (a quality generally admired in journalism), was not sensationalistic given the intended meaning of the speaker. Had I been writing the story, I likely would have summarized the comment in question, quoted at length above, in much the same way. Moreover, you simply cannot write journalistic accounts of what people say without explaining the context, and sometimes the meaning, of what someone has said.

Should the reporter have asked, "did you really mean to say …"? Perhaps. But scrums do not lend themselves to thoughtful supplementary questions. Fildebrandt's inference was obvious.

Third, the fact that the comments were only a small part of a long discourse is irrelevant. It's a reporter's professional duty to report the news, that is, what's new. Most of the rest of the interview is boilerplate Wildrose argument. It's entirely appropriate and expected in such circumstances for journalists to take unexpected comments "out of context."

Fourth, it's no argument to say that other reporters missed the story, or ignored it. The Alberta media is notoriously timid when it comes to reporting on right-wing parties and their views. As readers can see and hear, one male reporter is practically feeding Fildebrandt his lines. I would commend Tait for her effort. It should come as no surprise the publication that published her story was not based in Calgary.

Finally, it was not very graceful for Fildebrandt to insult Tait as a "B-list reporter" for the way she did her job. As any A-list politician should know, even if you're privately very angry, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Fildebrandt is playing in the big leagues now. He's been elected to one of the most important jobs in our Constitutional system, Member of the Legislative Assembly. He's been promoted by his party leader, not just to the front benches, but to arguably the second-most important job on the front bench.

He is not bloviating for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation any more, and he can't count on the media to respectfully parrot everything he says as if it were a CTF press release. Typically, Canadian media assign their best reporters to cover political stories, so if a politician is going to get asked tough questions, that'll be the place.

I'd say Fildebrandt needs to up his game! One way for him to do that would be to think carefully about what he's going to say before he says it.

As Opposition finance critic, he'll be in the spotlight on Tuesday, when Finance Minister Joe Ceci tables the NDP's first budget. So this might be a good time for Fildebrandt to think about this.

If the Wildrose Party has a complaint, it's with the headline in the Globe's print edition, which (intentionally, I suspect) reduces Fildebrandt's argument to absurdity. As folks in the news business know, and "civilians" generally don't, reporters rarely write their own headlines. But was even the headline really that unfair? You be the judge.

Indeed, I encourage readers to read the transcript and listen to the tape. It's an unusual opportunity for non-journalists to delve into and think about a situation reporters and the people they report on confront almost every day.

Am I right about this? Or is the Wildrose Party? You tell me. (And them.)

This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, AlbertaPolitics.ca.

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.