Thursday, September 19, 2013

Sept. 19: Ain't never seen nuthin' like it - not since Dr. Goebbels was Hitler's news chief...

First, I'm sorry that my computer is ignoring my paragraph structure, creating long strings of sentences. I'll try to correct it with more spacing.

The big headline on p. 1 is stunning. "Lapierre hounded from jobs". Hounded. The implication is clear. He was treated brutally, unfairly, maliciously chased from his good work. Hounding is the work of the vicious, the hateful, the cowardly.

This is the story as told by Brent Mazerolle and Shawn Berry. I don't know what school trained those two in journalism; but I'll sure as hell bet it isn't bragging about them. This isn't just biased writing. This is deliberate, shameless lying propaganda. It is beneath contempt for any journalist to write this as news, and beneath contempt for any editor to permit it.

A news story is supposed to tell the news - what happened. The news is that Prof. Lapierre resigned his positions, including our chief officer for regulation of the shale gas industry. He resigned because he had lied about his qualifications. He did not have a PhD in ecology. His PhD was in education, in the teaching of ecology. That is really quite different, rather like claiming a degree in automotive engineering when really having one in teaching people how to drive.

Indeed, I am astonished that the government and the shale gas industry (and Brunswick News) never thought to examine Prof. Lapierre's qualifications (or lack of them) when they used him to discredit Dr. Crealy (who does have a doctorate in medicine), and to put him in charge of a project affecting the health and even the lives of everyone in this province.

Professor Lapierre made statements it was clear, even at the time, he was not qualified to make. He then took on a job he was unqualified to do, and did it knowing he was unqualified and that hundreds of thousands might suffer as a result. And he has done that sort of thing regularly throughout his career.  That's the news story.

Nobody hounded him. CBC did what a news agency is supposed to do. It told the facts. Brunswick News lied by omission. It was clear days ago that Prof. Lapierre had lied about his qualifications. It was important that the public should know that. The CBC told the truth. Brunswick News tried to cover up.

That's why Harper and the corporation bosses of this country would love to kill CBC so that we will have to rely entirely on liars and propagandists like Brunswick News. And on hired stooges like Brent Mazerolle and Shawn Berry.

As presented, this story is not news. It's opinion. It's lying opinion. But it is opinion. That's not supposed to be presented as news. It's supposed to be labelled opinion.

Here, we have a piece full of loaded language. He was "hounded". What hounding? What are they talking about? (Don't tell the police if you see those criminals on the run from Halifax. Brent and Shawn will saying you're hounding them.)

In a long and wordy report of what Prof. Lapierre's real qualifications are, the story manages to give the impression that degrees in education are pretty much the same as degrees in science. The story goes on to heap praise on him for filling so many positions that he was quite unqualified to fill. The obvious question now is who chose him to fill those positions - and why. The story doesn't raise these questions.

There are crocodile tears that this will tarnish his reputation. Well, yes. And so it should. His misrepresentation has put lives at risk. Would the TandT weep at news that a bank robber had been discovered?

He was, we are assured, a distinguished teacher. Bullshit. Universities know nothing about education, and are incapable of telling between a distinguished teacher and a pigeon. And what qualifications, I wonder, do Mazerolle and Berry have to pronounce on the skills of a teacher?

And what the hell does that have to do with anything in this case? He lied about his qualifications. If he was the greatest teacher in the world, if he could dance a tango on his knees, he still lied about his qualifications. Worse, nobody in the university or the government or the business world or private news media had the wit or integrity to do a simple check of his qualifications.

The tragedy is that our health and safety were placed in the hands of a man who lied about his qualifications and who, in fact, was used to discredit the reputation of a woman who did know what she was talking about. Dr. Cleary tried to save lives. Prof. Lapierre was willing to risk them in order to please the bosses.

The story closes with a note that those awful anti-shale gas people will probably use this. I expect they will, and with eminently good reason - just as the shale gas companies and the government used Prof. Lapierre to discredit the reputation of our chief medical officer. if anything, Btunswick News now owes her an apology.

Oh, yeah. Mazerolle and Berry note that he was "forthright" in admitting he had "misrepresented" himself. Forthright? That's a nice word. So is 'misrepresented". That's what's called loaded language.

What a miserable, lying rag this is. I plan to send copies of this "news story" to friends who are journalists or who teach journalism. It's a prime example of the newspaper world of "presstitution".

The editorial is another kiss-up for Alward and Mckenna. There can be no doubt about it. Mr. Irving has decided that Alward is his boy. I don't know why. I've seen no evidence that Gallant is any different from the usual run of Conservative and Liberal leaders..


Norbert continues his vague and frequently silly and always pretentious list for his platform of 2014. The only part worth reading is "The last word". It's a quotation from Bertrand Russell. "The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."

Quite possibly true. But isn't Norbert aware that the Irving version of capitalism is based on competition - the opposite of cooperation?  Doesn't Norbert read his own columns in favour of competition?

Rod Allen breaks with tradition to try to write something intelligent and useful. Alas! He fails.

As usual, Alec Bruce and Jody Dallaire are the class acts, the only class acts, in the whole paper.


  1. What I'd like to know: Why hasn't Mr La Pierre been charged with fraud?

    Unless any/all money accrued, by deliberate misrepresentation (and I don't *think* we can argue that) is returned, than fraud has been committed.

  2. 'Presstitution' ... Love it. Love it's pointed finger and love it's accuracy.

  3. I know it's a stretch, but what's the real difference between the application of treason against Corp. Manning (the wikileaks source) and the possibiilty of treason against Mr. Lapierre? If national security is used against one, would the breach of environmental, economic, and humanitarian ethics and morals be as significant?

    If we lose our water, if we are limited in our potential to better our livelihood due to premeditated and predetermined outcomes, and if another real tragedy is eventual, if not imminent (Lac Megantic), how could we not pursue the one single individual who knowingly perjured himself in the court of public opinion, abusing of his power obtained under false pretence, all in order to further a family's agenda to completely skullf@#k this province to smithereens?

    But instead, we have Alward downplaing the importance of his credentials and thanking the high heavens for the "work" he's done for the government.