The Shotgun Blog
« Quantifying Election Promises | Main | Crediting The Source »
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Press Review
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR(where the articles are hotlinked).
Unlike the Post, USA Today at least has the decency to stuff what I’m absolutely, positively certain is not yet a done deal. But, hands down, the New York Times has today's best headline: "Quake Hits California 11 Years Late."
In the UK , the Italian hostages are big but Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Brighton speech is bigger. The Times’ lead says it all (“Fallible Blair admits 'I am Labour's trust problem'.”)
The French, with their two hostages still sitting in Iraq , seem envious of the Italians, who participated in the Iraq war.
They also seem to be making a big deal about—and are busily setting pre-conditions for--an international conference on Iraq proposed by Colin Powell that doesn’t seem to be getting much attention in any of the papers I read, with the exception of Le Devoir.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board accuses the CIA of waging an insurgency against President Bush. The New York Times’ editorial board weighs in on global warming.
Nicholas Kristof, who’s been in Pakistan looking for Osama, has not found him but “did encounter a much more ubiquitous form of evil and terror: a culture, stretching across about half the globe, that chews up women and spits them out.”
William Safire stands up for freedom of the press. Al Gore offers his advice on how to debate George Bush; I kid you not.
The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board offers advice to the debate moderator, and looks at Colombia. Doug Schoen says the spin, not the debate matters.
The Washington Post’s editorial board outlines the issues it would like to see the candidates debate tomorrow; another editorialist considers the rhetoric to date.
Anders Aslund wades in on Ukraine , Kate Martin on reform of intelligence agencies.
At home, documents released yesterday at the Gomery Commission reveal that (Liberal Party) political and (Chrétien government) policy goals coincided neatly in the sponsorship program.
(Here’s my take back in May; you’ll find an expanded version next week in this book on the Airbus affair.)
The Montréal Gazette fronts Jean Chrétien’s “panic” after nearly losing the 1995 referendum, and the imminent loss of the Expos. The editorial board sees a good side to high oil prices.
L. Ian Macdonald says Paul Martin and his ministers are having problems staying on message about the health deal, which “is in provincial jurisdiction…[and] the Constitution Act of 1867 is highly asymmetrical in nature.” (I think the problem is the ill-thought-out federal position itself.)
The Ottawa Citizen fronts the same sponsorship story as the Gaz under the headline: “Liberals created sponsorship scandal by trying to sell Quebec on 'a Canada worth keeping’,” along with the latest installment in its defence series.
The editorial board congratulates our Paralympic athletes. The Citizen has today’s best correction; runner-up goes to the Gazette.
The Toronto Star misses the real news on the sponsorship story and fronts Tim Harper from Florida, chases a Margaret Wente column that fretted a sushi ban, and another by Bill Curry in the Ottawa Citizen about Gilles Duceppe boycotting a meeting with the GG.
Harold Levy reports on the UCC trial. (Where’s Rosie?) Sandro Contenta reports on the Blair speech. The editorial board pans the MP pay raise, and Paul Martin’s anti-missile dodge.
Carol Goar writes about converts to conservation. Ian Urquhart says Ontario ’s health minister cannot win his war with hospitals.
Richard Gwyn wants John Kerry to win, and the former adviser to Eric Kierans (who, by the way, supported the Iraq war) offers advice that is guaranteed to torpedo his dwindling chances.
After touting the health deal initially, Chantal Hébert is catching up with the confusion in the Paul Martin camp, which her colleagues Tom Walkom and Jim Travers have been onto from the beginning. (You can see for yourself here.)
The Globe and Mail stuffs the sponsorship story, and fronts Doug Saunders’ idiosyncratic interpretation of Blair’s speech along with the stalled Canada Corps.
The front page then goes full tab--Christie Blatchford at the UCC pederasty trial, the Montréal mère who assisted her son to commit suicide and a dancing Toronto mum who assisted the crib death of her infant daughter. (The Toronto Sun banners the story.)
Inside, Tu Thanh Ha reports from Montréal’s “schmatta district” on the Expos, and Stephanie Nolen reports on AIDS from Johannesburg . Marcus Gee is in Taiwan reporting on a government that keeps hitting its head against a wall called China .
Jeff Simpson, who used to be a fan, eulogizes the departing Expos: “The demise…has its own detailed history, but it can be also seen as part of baseball's decline in a country that's just lost interest in the sport.”
John Ibbitson serves up an incoherent piece on Alberta , Ontario , equalization and a whole bunch of other things. On the other hand, Bruce Little correctly notes that we’re in the midst of a commodity squeeze.
Arthur Shafter writes a fine piece on the ethics of euthanasia. Konrad Yakabuski dishes up an excellent piece on the asymmetric society’s distinct television market.
Shira Herzog says it’s time to clear up the fog in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute; after reading the maundering piece, I can only say Amen. And inshallah.
The editorial board surveys the implications of $50/barrel oil, and warns Ottawa against an NEP redux. Another editorialist explains the bizarre process of MP pay raises.
A third considers the Montréal assisted-suicide: “We would not wish to prejudge whether an assisted suicide occurred; but in general, assisted suicide without a public system of safeguards may be a tragedy for all involved.”
In CanWest land, the Vancouver Sun, Calgary Herald and the National Post front Imperial Oil’s move to Calgary (the Calgary Sun banners the arrival), and Ottawa’s failure to clean up EI.
In Post commentary, Andrew Coyne serves up a fine piece on the US campaign. Don Martin says Fox news, which has been “banished” from Canada , may be coming to Canada ; funny, I could have sworn that his own employer already holds a licence for the service.
Lorne Gunter explains why the Alberta-Québec alliance always breaks down; viewing Québec as a teen-ager, as he does, might be part of the problem. The editorial board draws the line at giving Québec special status in international affairs.
Another editorialist unloads on the Globe and Mail for not correcting made-up George Jonas quotations that were published on its comment page.
In the Toronto Sun, Salim Mansur explains why John Kerry will defeat himself; in the London Free Press, he pans Paul Martin’s performance at the UN.
In Winnipeg , Tom Brodbeck poops on Gary Doer’s two-tier smoking ban. In Calgary , Roy Clancy reports on a smoking ban in Alberta prisons.
In Edmonton , Mindelle Jacobs reflects on assisted-suicide, and Paul Stanway writes about the rich Albertans the Globe and Mail has discovered.
TOP STORY
Ottawa 's 1996 approach to unity was partisan
The Globe and Mail’s DANIEL LEBLANC reports:
“The federal government's confidential national-unity strategy after the 1995 referendum explicitly called for the "substantial strengthening" of the Liberal Party in Quebec , documents released yesterday at the sponsorship inquiry said.”
Posted by Norman Spector on September 29, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83432c1a553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Press Review:
Comments
I don't understand how strengthening the Gracious Mother of all the Canadas and the One True Light Party in Quebec was partisan. Is there another party? Wouldn't the existence of, and support for, such a "party" be inherently anti-Canadian? Your words are strange, my friend. Are you not one with the Party? The Party is all. Blessed be the Party.
Posted by: Alan | 2004-09-29 12:22:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.