Murray Mandryk has a column in today's Leader-Post slamming prairie dog columnist (and author, and school board trustee, and U of R dept. head in sociology) John Conway's criticism of the provincial budget's change to school board tax collection--specifically that school boards can no longer set their own mill rates, which determines the amount of taxes they can raise.
Mandryk on Conway:
"But the problem with Conway ... is you never quite know where his personal political agenda ends and his concern for educating children begins."
I like newspaper columnist feuds, they're fun. And actually I often enjoy (and have even been known to agree with) Mandryk. So there.
Nevertheless, allow me to contribute my own offering to the squawking:
If Mandryk is implying my columnist has some kind of sinister "political agenda" for this province and is putting this "agenda" ahead of children, then Mandryk can go [deleted] [deleted] his [deleted]with a honey-buttered egg-beater. [Deleted].
But seriously, I think the difference in the two columnist's opinions comes from differing levels of trust in the provincial government. Murray Mandryk thinks the new system will be fine because his default position is trust in the government's numbers and more sinificantly in their intentions.
Conway thinks the new system sucks because if the province's numbers are off, school funding is [screwed] and the boards will be powerless to do anything. He doesn't trust the government's numbers. Or their intentions.
Who's right? We'll see, won't we? Me, I give more weight to the opinions of a political sociology Ph.D with a deep knowledge of Saskatchewan history and a demonstrated commitment to social justice issues than to a Leader Post political writer who portrays my columnist as a privileged extremist (privileged because he has public platforms, unlike Mandryk who's on CBC radio every Friday and has his LP column, but those don't count I guess, and an extremist because Conway's political views are out of sync with current corporate news propaganda fashion, though that seems to be changing as capitalism continues its meltdown taking corporate news with it).
To sum up: Mandryk seems to think others have agendas while he (and presumably his business) do not. Booo.
It is a good thing the province is directing more cash to schools. How about a compromise: they give school boards more cash but school boards keep their mill rate powers? Huh? Huh? Anyone?
Anyway.
The news story on Conway's budget criticism is here.
Mandryk's column is here.
And also: it's just prairie dog, not the prairie dog. No "the".
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
.jpg)
Twitterdog Updates
Prairie Dogs
.jpg)
- Stephen Whitworth
- The editor of prairie dog, a news and entertainment magazine published every two weeks in Regina, Saskatchewan. Really.
3 comments:
It's ironic prairie dog and its writers think that just because someone works for a corporate media outlet they automatically parrot whatever the perceived political agenda of that corporation is. It's kind of like how the prairie dog and its writers attack anything that isn't leftist or in line with their own agenda. Weird!
I wonder what could've happened to your collective staff to make them think that anyone who works for the media and gets paid for it is always wrong. The CBC is the most notorious news network in the province (likely the country) for allowing its news coverage to lean to one end of the political spectrum, but you sure seem to complain about them a lot less than any OTHER news corporation.
Murray Mandryk isn't a shareholder in CanWest, he just has its name on his paycheque. If you actually knew the guy or spent any time with him (or read his column on a consistent basis) I think you'd realize how far from the truth your read on this is.
John Conway, on the other hand, is practically a far-left extremist (and that's coming from another lefty, by the way). He has an inherent distrust of everything that doesn't align with that viewpoint. He's combative with governments at all levels, seemingly because he doesn't think they're smart enough to see that he's always right on every conceivable issue. That's someone I'm more likely to distrust than what I consider to be a well-informed, even-handed political commentator like Mandryk. I think Mandryk and I get the same read from Conway (and yes, his column in your print mag) and that's why he takes what John says with several grains of salt. I doubt it has anything to do with who he works for.
Mandryk doesn't have CanWest execs breathing over his shoulder every time he sits down to write his column. He works most days out of an office at the legislature and I doubt has that much contact with the larger corporation.
Your perception of corporate media comes off at best as jealousy and at worst as petty. This blog entry isn't doing you any favours.
Thank you for the comments, Tim.
I think you're implying I started tossing around the word "agenda". Actually Mandryk brought that loaded word to the discussion.
To clarify, I don't think "that just because someone works for a corporate media outlet they automatically parrot whatever the perceived political agenda of that corporation is." But I do think journalists--like everyone--organize their perceptions of the world in ways that lead some to careers at the LP and others to columns at the PD.
Of course, people need paychecks and have to take what opportunities come along. That's a factor too, though not so much for John (especially considering what we pay him).
I hope that clears things up a little.
I have to draw attention to your ridiculous sentence: "The CBC is the most notorious news network in the province (likely the country) for allowing its news coverage to lean to one end of the political spectrum?" Uh, no. You are wrong. You, sir, have biases and some seriously flawed perceptions of your own.
Words like "bias" have been wielded like cudgels with increasing viciousness against reporters at least since the Thatcher/Reagan revolution in the '80s which got this fun-filled era of poverty, food banks, environmental degradation, growing gaps between the wealthy and the poor, union-busting, corporate excess and whatnot rolling.
And admittedly goofy, old-school centrists like me who want entirely reasonable things like social safety nets, well-funded health care, environmental conservation and fair taxation (all of which, Tim, are as likely to benefit you as me) have noted the rhetorical tactics and developed thin skins.
So if I seem a little over the top, that's where I'm coming from.
To conclude; Conway's analysis about the changes to school board taxing powers might well be wrong. Mandryk might well be right. But Mandryk is a jerk when he says "you never quite know where his personal political agenda ends and his concern for educating children begins."
Of course, Conway isn't a fan of Mandryk, either, and he's been known to say some bombastic things about Murray. Maybe that's why Mandryk attacks his integrity. He's nursing some injuries of his own.
At least it makes for a fun newspaper feud.
Personally I like them both. But at this point, as I said, I'll take Conway's analysis over Mandryk's.
You're free to differ.
Post a Comment