BLOGExtra: Basse Report

And Councillor Jones was smeared for this!


basse
Note this email from City Hall:

• "Mr. Arditti,
  
  As promised earlier in the week, attached in PDF format is the report you requested.
  
  This item has also just been posted to our website as a communication item for Monday, November 23, 2009."

Who would ever think of looking there and after Monday, it is gone!

I would like to know what he was asked and what answers he gave since this report tells us nothing. I would also like to know his explanation about doing the second report too.

But we'll never know...it was in camera.

Another Reason I Am Glad My Star Subscription Is Cancelled

I will be honest.

I lost my respect for both Roseann Danese and Don McArthur after the recent "Online chats with The Star." I am sure that they do not care.

Their performance was horrible as far as I am concerned. However, they certainly did demonstrate the necessity for BLOGs in this City that provide an alternative perspective on the news and why they have been started.

After the way the Star reported on the CUPE strike and still is doing so especially by not reporting the Lewenza Ward meeting, it bothers me that Roseann can say:

• "Roseann Danese: Political affiliations? No one is saying that reporters and editors are robots and don't have political leanings. In fact, most of us are political junkies. But reporters are paid to check their politcal viewpoints at the door. A news story would not make it into the paper if it leaned one way or another."

No? Take one simple but important news story "Council's closed-door strike strategy revealed." We see

• factual errors re the introduction of a Motion re PRBs and a so-called reversal
• a false conclusion especially clear after the recent Ward 4 session: Lewenza "who consistently sided with CUPE positions during the 101-day strike"
• inflammatory language: "pleaded for time," " he railed Monday night," "had I decided to cave and ignore the wishes of the residents of Windsor...you don’t go into a strike saying this is your core issue and then cave after a week"

Chris Schnurr has already written about his experience with the Chat with his question not being posted even though it was asked several times. It was only posted when a supposed "union President" asked it and then that person was allowed to be slammed as you shall see below.

http://chrisschnurr.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/why-the-star-didnt-cover-ward-4-meeting/

I just wanted to touch on a few small matters to demonstrate how the Star is trying to destroy Lewenza because he is too dangerous to the Establishment with their agenda.

The Star admitted that they chose consciously NOT to cover his meeting. There is no issue about that now. That in itself is a political statement:

• 12:38 [Comment From Gary TaylorGary Taylor: ]
  Why wasn't the Lewenza/Maara Ward 4 meeting covered by the Star. Surely there was enough information to warrant coverage...
  
  12:42Roseann Danese:
  The night of the forum, there were two major stories our night reporter had to cover: an accident that involved a 50,000 pound roll of steel that fell on top of an SUV, nearly killing the driver and the annual memorial vigil for victims of crime. Both were compelling stories...
  
  12:53Roseann Danese:
  Gary, like I said earlier, we cover events based on their news value. Considering how much coverage we had already given to this topic and the fact there were two breaking news stories, we didn't go to Lewenza's meeting.

Gee, the Star needs a better scheduler considering they knew about the meeting in advance! The "annual" vigil is hardly "breaking news." The SUV incident took place at 3:45 PM while the Ward 4 meeting started about 3 hours later. Hardly "compelling" excuses from Roseann.

Perhaps the Star's City Hall reporter could have been assigned to cover the meeting since it is part of his beat. Does the Star still have interns who could have been sent out? Oh sorry, telling us that the hardliners cost us a fortune and why has no news value whatsoever.

Where has that been covered in detail with numbers and the reasons in the Star? Or the flipflop on the June 17th in camera meeting with the explanation? Or the City's negotiating Committee's hands being tied as the file was being micromanaged by Council that can mean bad faith bargaining?

Since the Star was not going to cover his meeting, then why the hypocrisy of inviting Lewenza to express his point of view on an online chat when few would know what he said or what he was talking about! What was the point since the story was not going to be covered and clearly had little "news value" to the Star anyway?

• "12:53Moderator Donald McArthur:
  And to Gary — I asked Ken Lewenza to come on for a live chat. I asked him on the day of his ward meeting to come in the morning after his ward meeting. No strings attached. We gave him a platform. He declined."

Did the Star have an ulterior motive, a hidden agenda?

Donald, do not tell us he had a platform. Rather the Star had a platform which was going to allow him to be smeared! You see, dear reader, the Star has a Moderator who ensures what goes on and what does NOT go on the chat. Chris Schnurr told us his experience of trying to get his question asked and it never saw the light of day.

McArthur showed us the power he has with the chat:

• "12:13 Moderator Donald McArthur:
  Here's a question from someone with an inappropriate nickname: "Why is it that when reading almost any article in The Star that one could easily draw a particular political affiliation from each and every story?"
  
  Thursday November 19, 2009 12:13 Moderator Donald McArthur
  
  "12:14 [Comment From What The?What The?: ]
  Funny a question showed up for almost a minute in regards to the political overtones purveyed by stories that run in The Star. I'm glad that at least it was shown for a moment and then removed. No reply was as good as getting a reply. I guess the answer is based in the question now.
  
  Thursday November 19, 2009 12:14 What The?
  
  12:16 Moderator Donald McArthur:
  Hi What The...I posted that question and then took it down when I realized the poster had snuck an inappropriate nickname by me. Kind of a Bart Simpson phoning Moe's Tavern sort of thing. I reposted the question sans the name and Roseann is typing away as we speak."

In other words, he has complete power over the chat and can control the questions asked and what is said. The Star is angry because Lewenza outthought them and declined to be suckered in by them!

Now take a look at these comments:

• "12:54[Comment From QuestionerQuestioner: ]
  Can I thank the Star for NOT going to that meeting? Thank-You this reader apprediated that!
  
  Thursday November 19, 2009 12:54 Questioner
  
  12:54[Comment From GringoGringo: ]
  Gary, give it a rest already!
  
  Thursday November 19, 2009 12:54 Gringo
  
  12:54[Comment From CrankCrank: ]
  If Lewenza wants something in the paper that bad, he should buy an ad."

Why was the "flaming" allowed ie "An online argument that becomes nasty or derisive, where insulting a party to the discussion takes precedence over the objective merits of one side or another."

What purpose did it serve other than to discredit "Gary Taylor" even though McArthur had already said

• "HI CAWmember -- This is important for everyone to understand. The names on here aren't necessarily the real names of real people and we have no way of ensuring that they are. That means that Gary Taylor could be Joe Smith or Rocket Bob or Stephen Harper. That's why our soundoffs aren't supposed to be include last names.

and then to discredit Ken Lewenza.

What was the need to do this? Why weren't the comments deleted just as Don did with the inappropriate name?

Why didn't Roseanne jump in and say

• "Comments like these would not make it into the online chat if it leaned one way or another."

Rather, in came Marty the Editor out of the blue to put the knife in by repeating what had been said before. I guess that we were supposed to be impressed or does the Star think its readers are too stupid so they have to repeat things over and over again:

• 12:57 [Comment From Marty Beneteau, editorMarty Beneteau, editor: ]
  Hey Gary, do us a favour and ask Ken Jr. why he declined to take part in a live chat with us. Surely he could have used this forum to get his message out."

What was this Online Chat really about: Marty Beneteau and the Star trying to justify why it did not cover a key story for this City because of its own political agenda and to protect the Mayor and the other hardliners from the criticism and blame they deserve for failing us, with the Star as their willing accomplice.

A late arrival just like this one, remember:

• "12:33 The Windsor Star: Subsequent to closing, Tim at 11:53 asked, "So does John Coleman have a connection to the mayor's office? Yes or no?" The answer to the question is yes.

Obviously, the paper has been taking the heat for its failure to the Community and rightly so.

It does not have the guts to allow the other side of the story to be told in its pages for fear that people will understand its role in our City and its destructive force and what the facts are! So it smears its opponents and ignores them.

Just watch the Star play like a broken record when anyone complains about their journalistic failure:

• "Surely he could have used this forum to get his message out."

Hardly.

How many people participated in an online chat at noon or would have read it after compared with the number of people who would have read a Star story about the Ward 4 meeting published and online. Imagine the number of letters and posts that would have generated!

That is the point isn't it. The Star did not want letters or posts because that would mean that people would have read an alternative perspective!

I guess the Chat was supposed to convince me and many others to subscribe again. I actually got a call from one of the Star's telemarketers to do so .

Sorry, I have no interest in giving the Star my subscription money! Now you know another reason why.

Shhh Don't Let CUPE Workers know

Oh my, Anne Jarvis seems to imply that a union has value in her Star column today:

• "No wonder the CAW has to resort to storming the plant. This isn't just the CAW, either. Non-union members were left with nothing, too. And if the largest private sector union in the country has to storm the plant to get its members' money, heaven help you if you don't have a union and you have to fight this alone."

Off with her head!

Next thing she will say is that Junior was right since the CUPE strike went on too long because the City bargained in bad faith and the hardliners screwed Windsorites.

Be Nice Matty And See What You Get

Kicked in the you know where. Is it any wonder now that the Bridge Company is litigious!

I am angry at what the Michigan Governor has written since it conflicts completely with what she said in her interview on the Detroit radio station. It is clear the border war is not going to end soon. That is to the detriment of both sides of the river.

Mind you, I have never understood how the Governor can speak out on the border file and has not recused herself. I am certain that you recall that the Governor's Hubby, Daniel Mulhern, received a nice fee from one of the competitors of the Bridge Company and an organization that is actively opposing their efforts to build their Enhancement Bridge: the City of Windsor.

Oh well, I guess the rules on the other side of the river differ from ours.

I suspect that I understand now this ranking of the Michigan Governor. She ranked 47 out of 50 a few months ago.

Jack Lessenberry from Michigan who writes in the Star had this to say about the Governor:

• "Even though the election is nearly a year away, the race for Michigan's next governor is well underway.
  
  Yet when moderate voters begin paying attention, they may find themselves frustrated. Outside of her immediate circle, Jennifer Granholm's two terms are largely viewed as a disappointment.
  
  "This is the worst and the weakest governor that our state has ever had," U.S. Rep. Candice Miller (R-Macomb County) said recently at a GOP gubernatorial candidates' forum. That was, granted, a partisan attack. Yet there are many independents -- and even a few Democrats -- who agree."

Let me give you some background on the latest brouhaha with the Governor and the Bridge Company.

As an example, in 2007, I BLOGGED:

• "there was a Senate Resolution "to support the plan of the Detroit International Bridge Company to establish an enhancement span to the Ambassador Bridge and to urge the Michigan Strategic Fund and U.S. and Canadian authorities to take certain actions regarding this project"
  
  That Senator "Cropsey also asserted that as part of the deal Gov. Jennifer Granholm expressed her support for the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge."

On WJR, a few weeks ago, the unscripted Governor said in answer to a question posed:

• "Gov Jennifer Granholm speaks about the Ambassador Bridge and a new Detroit River crossing to Canada – WWJ Newsradio 950 10/8/09
  
  JOE DONOVAN: Governor we would have more money in the state treasury if we refocused the Michigan D-DOT priorities away from spending on whether or not we need a new Ambassador Bridge. Why not just allow Matty Moroun build it with his own money? We have plenty of laws for oversight to make sure that he does right by the citizens of Michigan. And we need to put that money into the school aid and fund or use it to patch up some potholes. Why are we doing this, a duplicate bridge project here?
  
  GOV. GRANHOLM: We need another crossing. If Canada, and if Canada would allow Matty Moroun to do it, I think everybody would be in favor of that as the first priority. They are opposed to his bridge. So the question is, is there a joint process that can occur between Michigan and Canada, the U.S. and Canada, that allows for that crossing. So until Canada gives permission, he can’t build a bridge that’s halfway across the river."

If you were Matty and heard this, it was a remarkable change of position out of Michigan and something to get excited about. So Matty invited the Governor out for a coffee to discuss:

To be fair, Matty was being a nice guy and trying to be very co-operative to re-establish a relationship with Michigan after all of the lawsuits flying between them. He was also trying to tone down the nasty rhetoric especially after MDOT dumped tons of dirt on the access to the Bridge so traffic could not use it.

He did this even before the Free Press wrote in an Editorial:

• "Moroun still does not fully appreciate that the bridge, even as private property, has compelling and unique public interests that override normal business operations.
  
  It is an understanding Moroun must acquire. In the matter of public relations, his attempts to keep inspection information private will hardly strengthen his bid to build a parallel span and prevent the construction of a public bridge downriver...
  
  Moroun continues to show a troubling disregard for the very public nature of his private international border crossing."

The Free Press can now admit that it was wrong. It is Moroun who understands his role a lot better than the Governor and MDOT understand theirs and what his Bridge can contribute to Michigan's well-being. How about $2B in federal matching grants as an extra added attraction!

Again the Free Press wrote subsequently:

• "But it only works if the owner recognizes the intense public interests tied up in the bridge (not least of which are commercial and security concerns) and respects the public scrutiny that necessarily attends those interests. The owner has to be a partner with government, not an adversary. And therein lies the problem with the bridge's current owner, Manuel (Matty) Moroun.
  
  Moroun is one of the richest and most powerful men in Southeast Michigan -- and he sometimes acts as if that somehow exempts him from the public obligations that come with ownership of the bridge...
  
  By all accounts, the bridge company continues to do an excellent job of maintaining and operating the Ambassador. Company officials say they perform annual inspections, instead of one every two years, as required by law.
  
  That's the basis for a strong private-public partnership."

Pretty powerful language except it is completely misguided if one reads his letter. He wants to move forward together with Michigan and help create jobs. He is angry as you should remember at Michigan for breaking their partnership arrangement with him as set out in the Ambassador Gateway Project deal which was designed to accommodate his second bridge.

Who is the partner at fault is easy to answer.

Moreover, I could take the paper more seriously if they ran a story on the release of the Bridge Company's 2008 Report, the second one, or what the Bridge Company said to the Canadian Senate re health and safety issues but why do that and have to say nice things about Matty.

To be fair, I think the Free Press needs to address the Governor now because here is what she wrote. It only took her about a month to reply. I guess she was busy sending out her CV since she is term- limited:

The Governor needs to stop letting MDOT do drafts of letters that make her look like a fool for reversing her position. What would a new employer think? This won't help her rise above 47 when it is clear she has no idea what she said before.

If that is not a kiss-off letter, then I do not know what is. She would not even go with him to Starbucks for heaven's sake. There was no request to talk. She tells him to go and talk instead to the party that she said previously is trying to beat him up!

NOTE: Why didn't she mention the City of Windsor in her last paragraph on Page 1 and in the penultimate paragraph on Page 2, her husband's client!

Seriously, after she owed Canada one after they let her get away with killing the possible Downriver crossings, could we expect anything more from her!

Perhaps if the Free Press wants to make it up to Matty, they will have one of their investigative journalists ask her why she will not fulfill her legal obligation to help out the Bridge Company get their approvals from Canada. There is a document signed after all that says she must do so.

No one wants to report this, ever. I wonder why not.

Perhaps MDOT has not told her about it. It would be sooooo embarrassing after all of this time that there is something more that she does not understand. She might have to fight the Governor of New York for last place then.

In the end though, do you really believe that Matty will finish last, even if he is a nice guy.