Thursday, October 05, 2006

A Globe and Mail Conspiracy?

I am not big on conspiracy theories. However sometimes you gotta wonder. I got a Google Search result late last night on the Globe and Mail story on the Hancock Policy Platform Launch yesterday.

This morning I get emails from across the country from friends and clients on the great platform launch and the quality of the media coverage - in particular the reference to the Globe and Mail Hancock piece. I go to my "ALBERTA EDITION," faithfully delivered to my door in Edmonton as usual - and the story is not there!

"What gives," I ask myself? How could the rest of Canada be reading about Hancock's positions and policies as a candidate for PC Leadership and Premier of the province and Albertans not be given the story?

Why is it people, outside of Alberta, who can't even participate in this election - except to give money to Dinning and Morton - get to read about the Hancock Platform and positions YET Albertans who can participate are not even given access to the story in the "Alberta Edition." Am I naive in presuming an Alberta Edition is an Alberta focus from "Canada's National Newspaper?"

Conspiracy? You can draw your own conclusions. But if you are interested in the story - here it is! I think it is a pretty good story.


  1. Anonymous1:39 pm

    Yes, sometimes you have to wonder. Obviously, if one is supporting a particular candidate, one is especially sensitive to slights - actual or perceived - by the media.

    I remember one example in the Calgary Herald where they listed all of the candidates in an article and "mistakenly" placed a picture of Dave Hancock under Ed Stelmach's name. Interestingly, they had a different picture of Dave placed under the name Dave Hancock. The copy editor must/should have known better.

    Just a thought on your comment about anonymous posters. Yes, some do throw mud from the shadows, or "from-the-mountains" ;-). Others like to comment, but there can be good reasons to remain anonymous - real/perceived risks with respect to employment as an example. I think it is great that you comment under your own name, but not all of us are able to do so. FYI - if you wanted to ban anonymous posts, you could do it. But I assume you prefer an exchange of ideas, albiet in a less-than-perfect forum.

  2. Don't want to ban anonymous posters but what they usually say seems hardly the stuff of lawsuits or disloyalty.

    I know the reality is that too many people "have" to be anonymous because not what they say but the positions they hold.

    I know this because a few of our provincial politicians are bullies and threaten people with consequences if they do certain things or do not "behave."

    I know certain politicians have given out "verbal warnings" that if they want things to happen they should think hard about hiring me. It is rare but it happens.

    Why, I believe it is because - in most cases, I have forced them to do their jobs in more open, accountable and transparent ways.

    Mr. Justice Brandis, late of the US Supreme Court, once said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

  3. I found this strange too. I first saw the Globe & Mail story late last night on the G&M website and was surprised this morning when the story was nowhere to be found.

    But are you sure the story ran in the national PRINT edition today? It could also be that people merel saw the story on the G&M website, and because of the late appearance of the story, they could not squeeze it into the print edition. It may be in tomorrow's.

  4. It was in the B.C. edition of the Globe. An article the other day suggested that Norris is a front-runner, so I'm not sure that the Globe is particularly well informed about Alberta politics!