Below is the email exchange thus far between me and Christopher Bird, blogger at The Torontoist, a mainstream liberal news/culture zine which proudly touts the praise they receive from Canada's establishment press. Bird's coverage of the other media covering the G20 and of the protests (and not the summit) in Toronto has ranged from talking about the expensive HD screen set up at the press centre to elitist dismissals of everything and anything protest-related while constantly siding with the police. I wrote to Bird to challenge an ironic story he wrote about, effectively, why you can't trust protestors' "narratives" because they're crazy and unreliable.
By publishing this exchange I hope to give a small glimpse inside the thinking of the establishment press in Canada, keeping in mind that this is just one blogger at just one site, and the potential reactions we face when we challenge the authority of the press. This is a relevant example as Bird's writing largely follows the line of the CBC, Globe and Mail, CTV, National Post and the other big players in the Canadian media - which should make clear the dire need for a mass alternative media movement in the country (and, of course, globally, as these issues are not unique to Canada). I will post any further responses that I receive from Bird here and gladly welcome any critique of my own criticisms, tactics and assumptions.
In chronological order, from the original email to the latest reply:
From: Andre Guimond
Sent: June-26-10 4:52 PM
To: christopherbird (at) torontoist.com
Subject: RE: G20 Dispatches: This Is Narrative
Mr. Bird,
Your June 26, 2010 story on the Torontoist, “G20 Dispatches: This Is Narrative”, referred to a Youtube video in which, at 1:59, a man is clearly punched in the back of the head by a police officer. You commented that, “The cop clearly isn't hitting the guy or even trying to be violent: he's trying to push people out of the way and he accidentally shoves a guy in the head. But that doesn't matter—what matters is the narrative.” I would encourage you to watch the video again as it’s quite clear that you didn’t take the time to examine it closely, and thus produced your own “narrative” contribution to the whitewashing of the seriousness and brutality of police violence in Canada today.
Frankly, though, it’s not surprising that you have either A) not done your homework, or B) taken a cowardly pro-power stance in favour of increasing state policing and against our inalienable right to free speech, free association and free protest, given that you are writing for a blog partnered with the crème de la crème of the Canadian establishment press, the Globe and Mail.
I won’t speak to the rest of your article at the moment, shameless as it is in its blind dismissal of other “narratives,” but I would like to give you this opportunity to review the video in question, reconsider your position on it, and make a public correction. Regardless, I will follow up with a blog post as to your response – so make it a good one!
Regards,
Andre Guimond
From: Christopher Bird [mightygodking (at) gmail.com]
Sent: June-26-10 9:35 PM
To: Andre Guimond
Subject: Re: G20 Dispatches: This Is Narrative
Andre:
1.) I'm not sure what I'd have to do to establish cred with you, since you start out with attack-the-source logical fallacies. Are the tickets I've gotten from cops while on my bike enough? How about this article I wrote arguing how a recent Supreme Court decision unfairly disadvantages minorities in police detention situations: http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/08/14/its-not-a-post-racial-world-r-v-suberu-and-the-failure-of-objectivity/ ? Please, let me know. Your good opinion of me is vital and I am desperate to be seen as a proper liberal in your eyes.
2.) Amount the Globe and Mail has paid me as a stringer for Torontoist: zero dollars. Hell, Torontoist itself only pays me about fifty bucks a month most months. I resent the implication that I am a cheap whore. If I'm gonna whore out, it will be for a lot more than fifty fucking dollars.
3.) I note that you fail to address the fact that in the article I EXPLICITLY say that the cops have exactly the same problem that the protesters do, namely epistemological closure and a failure to engage the other side of the line. It is oddly convenient for your screed that you miss this.
4.) In regards to the video, I watched it multiple times and repeatedly rewound the key strike before coming to my assessment. It's an open-palm strike, not a closed fist, and it looks to me like his hand first strikes the shoulder and then slides up to the head fast. Hence my opinion that it's a push that got fucked up, which happens. I saw actual police brutality today and I'm going out in a few minutes to likely witness a lot more; I really don't have any sympathy for the whining of a self-important wannabe victim when there are people who are actually suffering out there.
In conclusion: fuck off.
--
--
Christopher Bird
mightygodking (at) gmail.com
http://mightygodking.com
From: Andre Guimond
Sent: June-28-10 1:36 AM
To: 'Christopher Bird'; christopherbird (at) torontoist.com
Subject: RE: G20 Dispatches: This Is Narrative
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my concerns. Do you prefer to be called “Mighty God King” or “The Explosively Talented Christopher Bird”? I’ve seen you use both monikers online, and I just want to be sure to use the right one so I don’t offend you any further than I obviously have.
However, I still don’t feel as if you have actually addressed the concerns I presented, or made any corrections public, for that matter, so I do have a few more questions and comments. (I re-pasted my original email at the bottom of all this to be sure we are both referring to the same thing.) I have to say that I’m also struck by the tone that you’ve taken in your response and that you’ve gone as far as to tell me to “fuck off” – do you really feel that my original email justified such a crass and aggressive reaction?
Anyway, since we’re using numbered lists now, we might as well continue:
1) Why do you feel you have to establish credibility with me, especially as a “proper liberal”? And what do you consider to be “liberal”? To me that means a pragmatic view of freedom and equality, free market economics, association with the Liberal party or the Democrats, and so on. I do not identify with this perspective in the least, although I’m guessing that you do, considering your assumption that that was what I was looking for in you. Otherwise, the only thing that it seems you might be referring to in regards to “cred” is when I brought up your blog’s association with the Globe and Mail. In that sense, perhaps I should have taken more time to explain why I brought it up and spent less time attacking you, for which I apologize. Basically, if you write for a blog partnered with the establishment press, then it’s not surprising that your writing would also align with the (classist, racist, sexist, xenophobic, war-mongering, state-worshipping, administration parroting – the Globe, not you) views of that institution. Not that it’s your fault, really; it’s only natural that the Globe would select a partner blog that fits their institutional mentality, and I’m sure that you yourself are subject to those pressures in some way, shape or form, too – unless you came pre-loaded with this perspective, which I guess is possible, though unfortunate.
I’m sorry that you got ticketed – though, to be fair, I assume you weren’t beaten, pepper sprayed, shot with rubber bullets or arrested on Saturday, if a few tickets were the worst you got. But, no, I don’t see any logical correlation between getting fines and being credible. All it proves is that you were on a bike when, for some reason, you shouldn’t have been… which might actually suggest poor judgment on your part, or more likely, on the police’s – but again, nothing to do with credibility. Whether or not I approve of you doesn’t matter, though, and that’s not what this is about – although it’s an effective way to sidestep the real issues here. This is about your responsibility as a member of the media to present a fair and honest and rational view to the public, to accurately present the facts and make logical conclusions based on them, and to publicly admit to and clarify your errors. I do think you’ve failed on all counts, as I’ve been trying (and will continue) to explain.
As to the article you wrote a year ago about a completely different topic and on another site altogether – ok, great, you wrote a non-principled liberal analysis of a court ruling that, at worst, you called “disappointing,” when (gasp!) “wrong” or some other kind of harsher (principled) criticism might have been more appropriate. (Not to mention your suggestion that minorities only feel persecuted by the police, although you give evidence earlier in the article that proves that minorities are subject to systematic profiling and harsher police treatment.) Is that meant to be impressive somehow? Does that build your “credibility”? And how was I, or any reasonable person, supposed to be expected to seek out your views on the Supreme Court of Canada when searching for information on the G20 summit, and why would that information be relevant to understanding your reporting on the G20? Hoping to answer the latter myself, I read the other article that you referred to and, as expected, it had nothing to do with what we’re actually talking about.
2) I never referred to payment or implied anything of the sort of you being a “cheap whore” (and I resent your usage of such sexist language) when I brought up the Globe and Mail. Your lack of awareness around the potential issues associated with writing for the establishment press is striking. (See second half of first paragraph in section 1, above.)
3) I assume that you are referring to the following “EXPLICIT” statement in your article that the shows that “the cops have exactly the same problem that the protesters do, namely epistemological closure and a failure to engage the other side of the line”:
“Cops do it, too, of course; we've heard stories from cops about freak protesters, naked protesters waving their bits at cops, protesters blowing pot smoke in cops' faces. Again, in fairness, some protesters really are whacked-out freaks. But most of them are just well-meaning do-gooders, which isn't satisfying.”
The only other references to the police in your article are an assumption that “Ben” and his friend were lying about their encounters with the police, a broad dismissal witness accounts on the basis that their stories are invalid because witnesses always just tell police what they want to hear, and how paranoid protestors are when it comes to the cops, so I assume the above quote is what you’re referring to. So, this is your grand, explicit expression of your opinion that cops are just as bad as protestors at being honest and trying to understand “the other side’s” point of view? You’re right, couldn’t be clearer. Those 48 uncompromising words you use to denounce the police really stand out among the 591 others that you’ve used to paint protestors in such a rational (“paranoid”) and favourable (“’lying’ doesn’t do [the kids’ stories] justice”) light. As I composed my terrible diatribe, consumed by blind anger and uncontrollable rage, I completely forgot to mention your delicate balance of issues and principled dedication to fairness and accuracy!
4) I have absolutely no problem questioning your credibility when it comes to being able to honestly analyse the evidence and present the facts. If you download the YouTube video (try using the Firefox extension “DownloadHelper”) and use a decent media player to freeze and step the video at 2:01, you can pretty clearly make out both the closed fist of the officer and the direct strike to the back of the man’s head. And judging by the amount that his head snaps forward, it actually seemed quite forceful. Remember, too, that officers are trained in combat and are usually very, very strong – these are not your average citizens throwing a punch. Who are we, though, to sympathize with a peaceful protestor who gets donkey punched by a poor officer just trying to protect himself from the man’s threatening back?!
It was not accidental by any means, as you claimed, and the officer was quite clearly trying very hard to be violent. However, your story has still not been corrected, even though you admit below to being wrong about it just being a “push,” and even though others have called you out in the comments section of your post. And, again, your analysis doesn’t line up with the facts: having admitted that it wasn’t a push, but an actual strike, you still imply that incident wasn’t “actual police brutality.” What, then, is considered “actual brutality” in your mind, and what is not?
Hopefully the vulgar irony of your criticism and dismissal of others’ “narratives” and your own “narrative” treatment of this story isn’t lost on you.
When do you plan to make the corrections to your post and add a statement explaining them? How do you plan to follow up to your coverage of the G20? Do you have it in you to do the right thing and side with the people who so clearly and painfully need siding with, considering the all-out attack on the credibility of the protesters (which you contributed to, like it or not) and the complete media ignorance of their very valid demands? It’s not a matter of credibility or politics or self-interest or anything like that. It’s much simpler: it’s about decency, common human decency.
Thanks,
Andre
Right on
By Jauhiainen, Antti at Jul 05, 2010 09:45 AM
Just excellent. Let us know if there is follow up, or you might even point this discussion out to the journalist in question, as a chance for him to participate.
I'm sure most are aware of the gargantuan work that the british Media Lens has done, but linking to their site in case someone hasn't followed their work before: http://www.medialens.org/
Their method is very similar in approaching journalists and asking for corrections and clarifications in a respectful and truthful manner.
Another similar theme is the callousness of the liberal journalists they've encountered, who pride themselves in being seen the very end of the sensible political spectrum, the defenders of journalistic standard and values. This type of questioning seriously challenges this image, and it isn't profitable for them to start pursuing and discussing this matter seriously, as that would soon provide difficult questions about the nature of their work, their employer and the field within which they work.
Again, thumbs up for writing about this!
Reply this comment
people
By notme, at Jun 28, 2010 23:48 PM
One thing we can't forget is that the people on the other end of these exchanges are human beings just like us. If we got an email from a right-winger who was just openly attacking us for expressing our views, would we care? I say that because there's a point where I know I would just ignore the email and go on.
If you are engaging with someone, its always good to treat them with the same respect you'd want to be treated with. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree with them or point out our problems with their coverage.
I thought the first email started very well along those lines. It was a fair and honest discussion of what the video showed. But, it would have been better to either continue on those lines, or to just stop there. The last couple of paragraphs of the first letter probably didn't help.
He did leave a very large opening for a civil reply in his email, when he talked about seeing police brutality in the streets. A good counter to that would be to ask why he isn't writing about what he's seeing? Or if he is writing about it in a muted way, then ask why that police brutality isn't getting the same emphasis as what he's saying about the protesters. If he says he's seeing this, then isn't he concerned about this?
One good question to talk about with such a writer is to ask 'what are their sources?' Where are they spending their time? Are they talking only to the police? Of if they like to talk about whacked out protesters, there are always lots of very well informed representatives of groups and spokespeople around such events like the G-20 summit and its protests. You could try to point out the articulate and well-informed people he could be talking to about the protests. Just trying to get such 'reporters' or 'bloggers' out of the G-20 hospitality tent is a good idea some times.
One question to ask ourselves, at the end of this exchange, do any future protesters have more of a friend reporting on this blog? Or is he now more hostile to the protesters because of emails like this? Have we gained ground or lost ground because of this exchange? Maybe we were never going to win him over? But a more respectful exchange challenging specifc points in his blogging might move him a step closer to us ... or at least a step closer towards more fact checking and listening to both sides.
Don't get me wrong, I like to vent sometimes! But, its good to keep in mind the larger picture that we are trying to build a movement and support. Sometimes its better to reign in the venting a bit and try to focus on specific facts or issues that can be more reasonably discussed. That's why I thought the exchange started well enough in talking about the specifics of the video.
Reply this comment
Re: people
By Guimond, Andre at Jun 29, 2010 00:48 AM
Thank you, Samson (or is it Marc?). Not only did you very helpfully point out that being more effective in communication often simply means being more mindful and respectful of others as fellow human beings (which I agree is fundamental, for more reasons that just communicative ones), but you did it in a manner completely consistent with what you were advising me on, e.g. respectfully and honestly. It's definitely something I'm grappling with when it comes to heated conversations and exchanges - as seen above, haha! (Although I did go back many times to edit out sarcasm and tried to balance respect with jabs where I thought they were due. Still some work to do!) Your practical advice around asking about where the information is coming from, what circles they operate in, etc., and thinking about potential future impacts is really helpful, too. I admit I didn't see that opening at all - hopefully it comes with experience!
Again, thank you. I really appreciate your comments and the time you took to make them.
Reply this comment
Re: G20 blogs and the media
By Quesinberry, Steven at Jun 30, 2010 15:09 PM
Andre,
While you certainly did not provide the deference that one should naturally show to someone connected to establishment institutions, I would say that the purposeful inclusion of "fuck off" at the end of the blogger's response to your intitial letter hints at his institutional bias and his probable parochial attitude relating to issues of state/corporate control of life in general. Of course, anyone who has risen to the level of Torontoist Staffer should have enough professionalism and confidence to deal with some criticism. However, your simple, and accurate, critique of his blog must have wounded his already fragile ego, ending in a respectfully articulate invitation to participate in some form of carnal pleasuring.
I just read Mr. Bird's blog post and watched the video and was impressed with Mr. Bird's intrinsic ability to distrust the stories from those in the streets, while innately seeing a violent outburst from a police officer as a shove, and a well-deserved one at that. It reminds me of my experience with the "Battle of Seattle" back in 1999.
I was in the streets of Seattle that day with a few people I knew, having taken a union negotiated Personal Day off from work in order to get involved. The same sort of chicanery took place downtown that seemed to occur in Toronto. At some point during the morning, before the actual marches/protests took place, a group of black clad anarchists, numbering no more than 30 to 50 from what I remember, rambled around the business district smashing some windows and doing some property damage. A convenient target for local media to focus on instead of the peaceful marches that took place. As with Toronto, I couldn't help wondering, "Where were the police?" Really, they were stationed all over downtown in order to set up for the protests, yet they could not organize themselves in order to chase down a small group of hooligans, or worse yet, agent provocateurs. I know the same questions about in Toronto - where were the police, when this group of 'anarchists' decided to do some property damage? Why weren't these people targeted and tracked down? Instead, hundreds of innocent citizens and others had to arrested in a show of force.
That brings me to the police cars on fire - once again a convenient symbol/image for the mainstream media to focus on as a means of justifying the $1 billion dollar cost of hosting businessmen and dignataries, who could accomplish the same goals via skype, or email, or teleconference. However, they must meet in person at taxpayer expense in order to establish further control and hegemony, or the new "global financial architecture", as I believe a S. Korean govt. official deemed it. In Seattle, we too had our street fire which became an image emblazoned on tv screens throughout the night after the protest and the week the followed. A week in which in the downtown area, all civil liberties were suspended in order to protect the well-being of the most powerful people on earth at the time.
I remember at the end of the protest, maybe around 3:30 or 4:00pm, we were meandering down the streets of downtown and in the middle of the street was a large trash bin, you know, the big kind used by businesses. Obviously, it had been moved from an alley into the middle of the street. At this point, the major marches were over and the direct actions to prevent the WTO from taking place had already ocurred. The official union marchers had dispersed mainly as they had to stay to the official route, but many other citizens and visitors still gathered and marched down various downtown streets. At this point, there was no visible phalanx of police officers. We decided to go home, which was a relatively short walk away from downtown in a part of Seattle called Queen Anne Hill. So, we slowly made our way home and then turned on the tv to see what had happened. The time was about 5:00 pm maybe. In the hour that it took us to get from the march to the apartment, things had turned chaotic.
At the same spot where the trash container had been, there was now a fracas. At one end of the street were a battalion of police officers, black clad themselves with armor and weapons, including tear gas, and at the other end were the remnants of the marchers and other citizens, including my roommate, who had to start work at a restaurant at 5:30 or 6:00 pm. In between the groups was that same trash container, now set aflame and this drove the news people on the television stations crazy. They blamed the fire on the protesters and bemoaned the lost day of shopping. I remember one media personality, who was almost in tears, wishing that "the beautiful shopping day" had not been lost due to this protest. The police riot that ensued has since cost the City of Seattle millions in settlement money paid to innocent people who were attacked by the police at the behest of President Clinton, who, if I remember correctly, ordered the police, through our Police Chief, to move so that "order" could be re-established and the world could be shown who was really in charge.
Later on that night, when I talked to my roommate, he explained that the fire in the trash bin started when a tear gas cannister fired by the police landed in the trash can. He told me he was right there and saw the police start the attack on the people. It was only after the police first started shooting tear gas that the citizens started to make any move in retaliation. My buddy worked at a first class steak house that was just around the corner from where the police riot took place. It was soon after the police instigated chaos began that a second round of 'anarchist' mischief (i.e. - property damage) took place at a Starbucks and some other locations.
Naturally, the early morning property destruction, the fire in the trash can, and the late afternoon property damage were the main story on local media, with some reporting about the rally, the march and the message. Yes, at least 50,000 people marched peacefully through the streets and, yes, the powers that be got the message and at every protest since then, the response of the elites and their institutions has become more draconian and surreptitious.
Two or three days after the main march, while the WTO still met and protests were banned, my friend that I had marched with took some signs and stood outside of the local ABC affiliate in order to signify our disgust with the media coverage. While we stood outside on a main thoroughfare in Seattle, most people honked in support. Of course a couple flipped us off and nobody from ABC would come outside to talk to us. Who were we, of course? Just a couple of crazy school teachers. My sign read, "No More Lies." The same as the shirt of the man in the Chris Bird blog post. Apparently the lies continue and Mr. Bird helps to promulgate them with the fallacious idea that if only the two sides could talk peacefully then all could be well. The pattern was set in Seattle, when authorities decided that the citizens were the enemy and needed to be kept at bay. Mr. Bird thinks that in the negotiation that the parties have equal bargaining power, but the citizens are not invited to the table, except throught their "democratically elected representatives", who we all know, are beholden only to the interests of the citizens who elected them, and not to the powerful institutional organizations that perpetuate themselves throught the corporately controlled election process.
So, please continue to speak truth to power and learn along the way. Some people were meant to be a part of the struggle to change the world and some were meant to blog about it. I think we know where both you and Mr. Bird stand with respect to that idea. Stay strong!
Reply this comment
Re: Re: people
By Garrigues, Chris at Jul 05, 2010 04:24 AM
I prefer using the 'Guimond Method' as described June 13: write some caustic reply... wait an hour... edit with civility... post.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: people
By Lapinel, Elliott at Jul 10, 2010 02:03 AM
You're all missing the point. It's all about epistemological closure, and the tickets he received.
Reply this comment