Pipeline Politics - EU wants more North American Oil

[TimG]

So shouldn't he disclose that when he tells people his opinion on the news?

Yawn. If someone takes $50 bucks from an oil company you would likely demand that it "be disclosed" knowing that you could then smear the person as "oil company shill". Rex is a paid speaker at events. He talks at many different events. What is so special about oil companies that they would require special disclosure?

Is he on The National ?

He has an OPINION column on the National. OPINION columns are not supposed to be objective. They are supposed to be opinion.

The Nature of Things is supposed to be an objective science show but its credibility is completely undermined by the long standing lobbiest who is the host of the show. Why don't you have a problem with this?

Hint: the reason you don't have a problem with it is because you are perfectly fine with conflicts of interest as long as the conflicts means the news gets reported in ways that you approve of. You only care when people say things you don't like.

Edited November 30, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sorry, did I bring up Rex Murphy?

No, I did. I'm always stumped why a minor media person such as Suzuki is held up as the scarecrow of everything that people love to attack about environmentalism. Meanwhile, there are people accepting money from groups, and giving opinions on the news that helps opinion on these groups.

I think that people should give that more attention than a cartoon cut-out of a hippy...

[Michael Hardner]

What other cites are you looking for which make you think that I'm making this personal?

Talking about his cars...

[Michael Hardner]

Yawn. If someone takes $50 bucks from an oil company you would likely demand that "be disclosed" knowing that you could then smear the person as "oil company shill".

Even if I do that, nobody else will. As we've seen on this thread, Suzuki can already be discredited for owning a CAR.

This is what is known as a double standard.

Did Rex really get $50 ? That doesn't seem like much, and yet whatever he did received triggered an ethics review.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/02/18/rex-murphy-oil-sands-cbc_n_4810517.html

They are supposed to be opinion.

He should have declared the conflict, nonetheless, hence the review.

The Nature of Things is supposed to be an objective science show but its credibility is completely undermined by the long standing lobbiest who is the host of the show. Why don't you have a problem with this?

Suzuki is a lobbyist ?

[TimG]

Did Rex really get $50 ? That doesn't seem like much, and yet whatever he did received triggered an ethics review.

There is no evidence the money received was material (meaning a significant portion of his income).

He should have declared the conflict, nonetheless, hence the review.

The review is CBC management pandering to all of the religious wackos who go nuts anytime someone says something positive about the oil industry. That does not mean there is any merit.

Also you have not answered the question: why are oil companies so special? why don't you care about all of the other organizations that Rex was paid to speak at who also have various political interests? There is no rational reason to disclose anything other than Rex is a freelancer and a paid public speaker.

Suzuki is a lobbyist?

He pushes governments to adopt policies which benefit his benefactors. Edited November 30, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

There is no evidence the money received was material.

A very odd defense there, in that it admits guilt.

The review is CBC management pandering to all of the religious wackos who go nuts anytime someone says something positive about the oil industry. That does not mean there is any merit.

I think that it likely has more to do with how freelancers are treated, and a general mismanagement of journalism which is prioritized under ratings in many cases.

Also you have not answered the question: why are oil companies so special? why don't you care about all of the other organizations that Rex was paid to speak at who also have various political interests?

Like I said - it was in the press as an example of lax journalism ethics.

There is no rational reason to disclose anything other than Rex is a freelancer and a paid public speaker.

... who has been paid by the oil industry. That could/should be said if The National wants any credibility within a journalistic tradition.

He pushes governments to adopt policies which benefit his benefactors.

That's a loose definition for a lobbyist. I'm a lobbyist by that account. But I'm not a lobbyist.

[eyeball]

Even if I do that, nobody else will. As we've seen on this thread, Suzuki can already be discredited for owning a CAR.

That's nothing, we have threads where simply exhaling can imply that one's concerns about AGW are incredible.

[Michael Hardner]

That's nothing, we have threads where simply exhaling can imply that one's concerns about AGW are incredible.

Or in Neil Young's case: how can he be an environmentalist when HE TOOK A RIDE IN A PLANE ?!?

[TimG]

A very odd defense there, in that it admits guilt.

Guilt implies he did something wrong. He did not.

... who has been paid by the oil industry. That could/should be said if The National wants any credibility within a journalistic tradition.

You have not provided rational basis for singling out the oil companies. In fact, by singling out oil companies you create a false perception of bias when there is none given the fact that Rex is paid to speak by many different organizations.

There is no lapse in ethnics. You are just a partisan who is jumping on a excuse to silence someone who expresses opinions you don't like.

That's a loose definition for a lobbyist. I'm a lobbyist by that account. But I'm not a lobbyist.

Paid political activist then. Edited November 30, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Guilt implies he did something wrong. He did not.

By saying "it wasn't that much" then you're admitting he took money while advocating for interests, and not admitting so. It's journalistically incorrect, although I am reluctant to apply a moral lens here since moralizing leads down to a bad path.

You have not provided rational basis for singling out the oil companies.

I have no other examples at present - does that help ? If you catch somebody breaching ethics, do you have to wait for another offense ?

In fact, by singling out oil companies you create a false perception of bias when there is none given the fact that Rex is paid to speak by many different organizations.

Unless he speaks towards their goals and we have an example, then we have no examples of bias to give do we ?

There is no lapse in ethnics. You are just a partisan who is jumping on a excuse to silence someone who expresses opinions you don't like.

I had no idea of his politics until this came up in the press.

Paid political activist then.

I don't think so. Paid environmental advocate would be more accurate, as I don't think he follows political lines in a straightforward way. For example, his take on Immigration is at odds with all parties.

[eyeball]

Paid political activist then.

Paid environmental activist, you're the one making that all about politics.

Edited November 30, 2014 by eyeball

[Argus]

I don't think that's apt. Would you rather he be like Rex Murphy, taking money from the Oil Lobby while acting as a reporter ?

It's okay to take money from environmental groups to speak, though, right?

[Argus]

The lesson is clear: if you stand for money, you're already dirty so nobody will expect anything better from you. If you stand for something better, then they will resent you and go after you with all you've got until they've convinced themselves that it's all about money for you, that is to say that you are just like them...

How is that different from a family-values conservative being expected to live up to those values? I mean, nobody laughs and jeers a liberal when they wind up screwing the babysitter or playing footsie with gay men in a public bathroom. But when an arch conservative does it, well, that's so much more delicious.

if you go around lecturing people on environmental issues, like, say, Al Gore, then it behooves you to live by those values.

I don't believe Rex Murphy goes around lecturing people on their behaviour the way Gore and Suzuki do.

[Argus]

By saying "it wasn't that much" then you're admitting he took money while advocating for interests, and not admitting so.

Murphy took money for speaking to oil company meetings. His own opinion is his own. Suggesting it's influenced by oil company money is pretty crudely insulting of you. As has been noted he's an amusing guy and gets paid to speak at many events.

[Michael Hardner]

It's okay to take money from environmental groups to speak, though, right?

Yes. Environmental groups pay for speakers all the time. So do oil companies. There's nothing wrong with it.

[Argus]

Yes. Environmental groups pay for speakers all the time. So do oil companies. There's nothing wrong with it.

Except when Murphy does it?

[Michael Hardner]

I mean, nobody laughs and jeers a liberal when they wind up screwing the babysitter or playing footsie with gay men in a public bathroom. But when an arch conservative does it, well, that's so much more delicious.

Yes, that seems to be the case.

[Michael Hardner]

Except when Murphy does it?

That's a different question.

[TimG]

By saying "it wasn't that much" then you're admitting he took money while advocating for interests, and not admitting so.

Again: you are editorializing. He is a paid public speaker. He has many gigs. A minority of them are oil companies. So what? What basis do you have to claim that the interests of a minority of his clients has any effect on his opinions? The rational assumption is that his opinions came first and the invitations to talk came because of his opinions.

If you catch somebody breaching ethics, do you have to wait for another offense ?

Suzuki is a much worse offender but he gets a pass because people like you ASSUME that his opinions are his own and he is paid by like minded organizations because of his opinions. I am saying the same presumption should apply to Rex. Now if you were to also call Suzuki to disclose his numerous financial interests in organizations that benefit from his presentations of the science on his show then you would be consistent. But you are not doing that. You are only complaining about Rex and whining about breaches of ethics when the exact same breeches have been going on for decades with Suzuki.

I have no other examples at present - does that help ? If you catch somebody breaching ethics, do you have to wait for another offense ?

Because you are not looking. Every freelancer who is a paid public speaker is going to end up taking money from people who benefit from his/her opinions. Yet you are not demanding that all such paid engagements be disclosed - only those from "evil" oil companies. If you want disclosure it should be for everything for everyone - not just people who happen to say things that annoy the eco lobby.

I don't think so. Paid environmental advocate would be more accurate, as I don't think he follows political lines in a straightforward way.

He is a political activist because he wants government to adopt specific policies. The words do not imply he is a member of a single party. Edited November 30, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Suggesting it's influenced by oil company money is pretty crudely insulting of you.

The actual point is that he didn't declare the conflict when giving the opinion.

[Argus]

Can I have a cite on that one ?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Corbella+Neil+Young+chooses+comfort+over+convictions/9406082/story.html

[Argus]

The actual point is that he didn't declare the conflict when giving the opinion.

Where was the conflict? He's a paid speaker. Clearly they wouldn't hire someone liks Suzuki to speak to them, so his known opinions were much more likely to influence his selection as a speaker, as opposed to his selection as a speaker influencing his opinions.

Do you have any idea what percentage of his annual income is made up of paid speaking arrangements with oil interests in particular?

If it's pretty small then there isn't really any kind of conflict.

[Michael Hardner]

Again: you are editorializing. He is a paid public speaker. He has many gigs. A minority of them are oil companies. So what?

I think we answered that above.

Suzuki is a much worse offender but he gets a pass because people like you ASSUME that his opinions are his own and he is paid by like minded organizations because of his opinions.

Is that the difference ? That Suzuki may not actually be pro-environment ?

I am saying the same presumption should apply to Rex.

If Rex was on a show called "Let's all Help Big Oil NOW !" then I would allow for the premise of the show as admission of intentions and I would excuse any conflict due to accepting oil company money.

Because you are not looking.

No, I'm not. Nor do I have to.

Every freelancer who is a paid public speaker is going to end up taking money from people who benefit from his/her opinions. Yet you are not demanding that all such paid engagements be disclosed - only those from "evil" oil companies.

I do expect that paid engagements be disclosed to keep staff of The National within some bounds of "journalistic ethics", yes.

For all such engagements.

He is a political activists because he wants government to adopt specific policies. The words does not imply he is a member of a single party.

No he's not a "political activist" based on that. Again, it's far too broad a definition. He's a one-issue advocate.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Corbella+Neil+Young+chooses+comfort+over+convictions/9406082/story.html

No, that's just a personal attack.

[Michael Hardner]

Where was the conflict? He's a paid speaker.

Question. Answer.

Do you have any idea what percentage of his annual income is made up of paid speaking arrangements with oil interests in particular?

No idea. But if Suzuki has a car, or Neil Young flies in a plane then we have hypocrisy. If this guy only took (how much?) from the Oil Industry then he can go on the news and tell everyone they're great, is that it ?