Bruce Dowbiggin
The Apple Interview: Pierre Poilievre Makes The Media Party Crazy
“You don’t pull on Superman’s cape. You don’t spit into the wind. You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. And you don’t mess around with Jim.”— Jim Croce
In modern five-second sound-bite journalism viewers seldom hear the reporter’s question (often it’s just an assertion) that prompted the clip. Whether a cornered politician or a humbled athlete, the game’s the same. Get a clip, score a click. So gotcha’ journalists rarely are exposed for the inadequate job of news-generating they often do with their closed-end, cliché-riddled efforts.
(Everything we know on the subject of interviewing we owe to the brilliant John Sawatsky who for decades has coached proper interview techniques —all of them ignored by the subject of this column.)
The job in gotcha’ journalism is to draw blood and win the applause of your peers. This goes for right-wing journalists, too. But mainstream media is saturated by left-wing, progressive water carriers, so the overwhelming army of CBC insinuators and Toronto Star whaddabout’ scribes have a disproportionate effect on the issues. Seeing as how they only talk among themselves they can’t imagine a parallel universe where PMJT is not a beneficent, wise leader.
To wit: the apple exchange gone viral between CPC leader Pierre Poilievre and Don Urquhart, editor of the Kelowna Times Chronicle. Mr. Urqhart went hunting for a big game with the CPC leader and wound up the main dish himself. Here’s the tale of the tape:
URQUHART: Uhmm, on the topic, I mean, in terms of your, sort of, strategy currently, you’re obviously taking the populist pathway …
POILIEVRE: What does that mean?
URQUHART: (nervous chuckle) Well, appealing to people’s more emotional levels, I would guess
POILIEVRE: Whaddaya mean by that? Give me an example.
URQUHART: Certainly you, certainly you tap, ah, very strong ideological language quite frequently.
POILIEVRE: Like what?
URQUHART: Uhh, left wing, y’know, this and that, right-wing, they, you know, I mean, it’s that type of (unintelligible) —
POILIEVRE: I almost never talk about — I never really talk about left or right. I don’t really believe in that.
URQUHART: A lot of people would say that you’re simply taking a page out of the Donald Trump, uh, book —
POILIEVRE: A lot of people? Like which people would say that? (puzzled chomp)
URQUHART: Well, I’m sure — a great many Canadians, but …
POILIEVRE: Like who?
URQUHART: Haha, uh, I don’t know who, but …
POILIEVRE: Well, you’re the one who asked the question, so you must know somebody.
URQUHART: He-
heh, okay, I’m, I’m sure there’s some out there, but anyways, the point of this question is, why should, why should Canadians trust you with their vote, given … y’know … not, not just the sort of ideological inclination in terms of taking the page out of Donald Trump’s book, but, also —
POILIEVRE: (incredulous) What are you talking about? What page? What page? Can you gimme a page? Gimme the page. You keep saying that …
URQUHART: In terms of, in terms of turning things quite dramatically, in terms of, of Trudeau, and, and the left wing, and all of this, you make quite a, you know, it’s, it’s quite a play that you make on it. So. I’m. Just wondering…
It continued on this way for a short while longer when a dazed Urquhart finally ran out of PMJT talking points to hurl at Poilievre, and Poilievre moved on. It was cold. It was spontaneous. Like the making of sausage, it was something the public rarely sees.
A clip of the interview was quickly shared by Poilievre’s comms team. “How do you like them apples?” was the caption on Poilievre’s post. Within days the interview had gone global, a rebuke around the globe for earnest-but-inept Jimmy Olsens and Lois Lanes of the liberal press corps. Conservatives cheered. “Can we get him in our country?” asked U.S. podcaster Meagan Kelly.
In the friendly confines of liberal 416/613 media, however, Poilievre was quickly labelled a bully for exposing one of their fellow travelers. In the Globe & Mail Shannon Proudfoot played the sad trombone for Urquhart, declaring it bad form for Poilievre to not assist a guy who was looking to skewer him.
Proudfoot’s moist G&M colleague André Picard also mounted the “punching-down” defense. “Getting to the core of @PierrePoilievre’s biting B.C. interview. Kicking a journalist in the shins over and over then turning the exchange into a social-media flex is telling on yourself…” Venerable CBC panelist/ Star columnist Chantal Hébert (who should know better) echoed the pauvre p’tit take about Urquhart. “Agreed”.
Naturally the sob-sister line brought huzzahs from the wettest wet in Wet Town, Bruce Arthur of the Star. He embraced the bully pose even as he bullied Poilievre. “Kick-ass piece. “Making yourself a far-right hero by crapping on a small-town reporter is petty, and pathetic.” (So’s he defending someone who just disgraced his profession? Have we got that straight?)
Former Edmonton journalist Bill Doscoch also defended the indefensible. @billdinYEG “Picking on a local reporter when you’re a national political leader is like pushing around a junior high student when you’re a high school senior. It was great entertainment for mean-minded conservatives, but telling for the rest of us.”
There were plenty more crying towels for Uquhart from the usual suspects. All ending with predictable Trumpian screeds against the UPC leader going after a small-fry in the hinterlands. What they spackled over is that Urquhart was the adult editor of the paper, not an errand boy out of J-School. He went looking for a home run on the national, not local stage. He’d have scored a national scoop if Poilievre hadn’t schooled him.
Instead he struck out on three straight fastballs. He was neither innocent. Nor was he prepared to do his job. But he cashed in his Pity Party points to win sympathy from the fainting goats of the left— who normally remind us that journalism is a blood sport.
If CPC comms folks had tried to stage an episode to expose the herding instincts of Canada’s cloistered legacy media trying to stay relevant on the public purse, this was it. 1) Assumption that his back was protected if he just used approved “far-right-wing” buzzwords 2) Assumption that everyone hates PP already. 3) Incompetence tolerated by corrupted, failed outlets. 4) Truth its dependent on what jersey you wear. 5) Lather, rinse, repeat.
Unsurprisingly, Urquhart himself thought he’d done a swell job. When time came to write up his fateful orchard convo, he had his own self-serving take. “When asked why Canadians should trust him with their votes given his demonstrable track record of flip-flopping on key issues and what some consider his use of polarizing ideologically-infused rhetoric suggesting he simply takes pages out of the Donald Trump populist playbook, Poilievre became acerbic.”
No, Bill, he ate an apple. Proving he learned nothing and will pollute younger journalists with this bilge. So it’s no shock that recent polling contains what should be a surprise— but isn’t. Despite a decade of Justin Trudeau the abysmal-polling Liberals are still expected to win 90 seats of the 335 seats in parliament. That speaks volumes on the loyalty of his base.
A base that still sees Poilievre’s “polarizing ideologically-infused rhetoric”— in Urquhart’s infelicitous description— as a right-wing Trumpian intrusion into Trudeaupia . And will use any means— even their own professional failure.— to protect their jobs and worldview.
Sign up today for Not The Public Broadcaster newsletters. Hot takes/ cool slants on sports and current affairs. Have the latest columns delivered to your mail box. Tell your friends to join, too. Always provocative, always independent. https://share.hsforms.com/16edbhhC3TTKg6jAaRyP7rActsj5
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his new book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via http://brucedowbigginbooks.ca/book-personalaccount.aspx
Bruce Dowbiggin
CHL Vs NCAA: Finally Some Sanity For Hockey Families
In forty-years-plus of covering sports you develop hobby horses. Issues that re-appear continuously over time. In our case, one of those issues has been pro hockey’s development model and the NCAA’s draconian rules for its participants. Which was better, and why couldn’t the sides reach a more reasonable model?
In the case of hockey the NCAA’s ban on any player who played a single game in the Canadian Hockey League created a harsh dilemma for hockey prodigies in Canada and the U.S. Throw your lot in with the CHL, hoping to be drafted by the NHL, or play in a secondary league like the USHL till you were eligible for the NCAA. Prospects in the CHL’s three leagues — the OHL, QMJHL and WHL —were classified as professional by the NCAA because they get $600 a month for living expenses, losing Division I eligibility after 48 hours of training camp. The stipend isn’t considered income for personal tax purposes.”
Over the decades we’ve spoken with many parents and players trying to parse this equation. It was a heartbreaking scene when they gambled on a CHL career that gave them no life skills or education. Or the promised NCAA golden goose never appeared after playing in a lower league for prime development years.
There were tradeoffs. NCAA teams played fewer games, CHL teams played a pro-like schedule. The NCAA awarded scholarships (which could be withdrawn) while the CHL created scholarships for after a career in the league (rules that players getting NHL contracts lost those scholarships has been withdrawn). There were more contrasts.
As we wrote here in 2021, it might have stayed this way but for a tsunami created by the antitrust issue of Name Image Likeness for NCAA players who were not paid for the use of their NIL. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 2015 it warned the NCAA that its shamateurism scheme had to change. That created revolution in the NCAA. Athletes now receive healthy compensation for their image in video and digital products. They can also take million-dollar compensation from sponsors and boosters.
Portals allow them to skip from team to team to find millions in compensation. One of the many changes in the new NCAA was its prohibition against CHL players. To forestall future lawsuits costing millions, it recently made hockey players eligible for the same revenues as football and basketball players. Now the NCAA has voted to open up college hockey eligibility to CHL players effective Aug. 1, 2025, paving the way for major junior players to participate in the 2025-26 men’s college hockey season.
Which, we wrote in 2022, would leave hockey’s development model vulnerable. “As one insider told us, “The CHL model should be disrupted. Archaic and abusive.” NIL won’t kill the CHL but it could strip away a significant portion of its older stars who choose guaranteed money over long bus rides and billeting with other players. It’s early days, of course, but be prepared for an NHL No. 1 draft pick being a millionaire before his name is even called in the draft.”
As we wrote in May of 2022 “A Connor McDavid could sign an NIL styled contract at 16 years old, play in the NCAA and— rich already— still be drafted No. 1 overall. Yes, college hockey has a lower profile and fewer opportunities for endorsements. Some will want the CHL’s experience. But a McDavid-type player would be a prize catch for an equipment company or a video game manufacturer. Or even as an influencer. All things currently not allowed in the CHL.”
Effectively the CHL will get all or most of the top prospects at ages 16-19. After that age prospects drafted or undrafted can migrate to the NCAA model. Whether they can sign NHL contracts upon drafting and still play in the NCAA is unclear at this moment. (“On the positive side, we will get all the top young players coming to the CHL because we’re the best development option at that age,” one WHL general manager told The Athleltic’s Scott Wheeler.
One OHL GM told the Athletic “As the trend increases with American players looking for guarantees to sign, does a CHL player turn down an opportunity to sign at the end of their 19-year-old year with the hopes that a year at 20 in NCAA as a free agent gives them a better route to the NHL?”
The permutations are endless at the moment. But, at least, players and their families have a choice between hockey and education that was forbidden in the past. Plus, they can make money via NIL to allow them to stay for an extra year of development or education. The CHL will take a hit, but most young Canadian players will still see it as the logical launching pad to the NHL.
Now, for once, families can come first on the cold, nasty climb to the top hockey’s greasy pole.
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. His new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.
Bruce Dowbiggin
The Pathetic, Predictable Demise of Echo Journalism
It can be safely said that the 2024 U.S. presidential election couldn’t have gone much worse for legacy media in that country. Their biases, conceits and outright falsehoods throughout the arduous years-long slog toward Nov. 5 were exposed that night. Resulting in the simultaneous disaster (for them) of Donald Trump winning a thunderous re-election and their predictive polling being shown to be Democratic propaganda.
Only a handful of non-establishment pollsters (Rasmussen, AtlasIntel) got Trump’s electoral college and overall vote correct. Example: One poll by Ann Selzer in Iowa—a highly-rated pollster with a supposedly strong record—showed a huge swing towards Harris in the final week of the election race, putting her three points up over Trump. He ended up winning Iowa by 13.2 points (Selzer now says she’s retiring.)
Throughout, these experts seemed incapable of finding half the voter pool. By putting their thumb on the scale during debates, the representatives of the so-called Tiffany networks and newspapers signalled abdication of their professional code. Their reliance on scandal-sheet stories was particularly glaring.
Just a few lowlights: “the brouhaha over a shock comedian at a Trump rally calling Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage”. Unhinged outgoing POTUS Biden then called GOP voters “garbage”. So Trump made an appearance as a garbage man, to the snarky disapproval of CBS News chief anchor Nora O’Donnell.
Then there was Whoopi Goldberg on The View predicting Trump will “break up interracial marriages and redistribute the white spouses: “He’s going to deport and you, put the white guy with someone else… The man is out there!” Media ran with this one, too.
Worse, disinformation and lying reached such a proportion that Team Trump turned its campaign away from the networks and legacy papers down the stretch, creating a new information pathway of podcasts and social media sites (such as Joe Rogan, Theo Von and Adin Ross) that promise to be the preferred route for future candidates looking for non-traditional voters. A few prominent media owners sought to save themselves by refusing to endorse a presidential candidate, but the resulting tantrum by their Kamala-loving staff negated the effort.
In the past, poor performances by the Media Party might be dismissed or ignored. But the cataclysmic ratings drops for CNN and MSNBC paired with collapse in sales for blue-blood rags such as the New York Times, Washington Post and L.A. Times spoke to the public’s disgust with people they’ve always trusted to play it straight.
(Now Comcast has announced it’s spinning off MSNBC and its news bundle to save their profitable businesses. Staff members in these places are now panicking. As such the new administration promises to be indifferent to the former media powers-that-be as Trump mounts radical plans to recast the U.S. government. )
As noted here the disgraceful exercise in journalism was cheered on by their compatriots here in Canada. “In the hermetically sealed media world of Canada, natives take their cues from CNN and MSNBC talking points both of which employ Canadians in highly visible roles. (Here’s expat Ali Velshi famously describing on NBC that the 2020 George Floyd riots that burned for weeks— destroying billions in damages while resulting in multipole deaths— as “generally peaceful”.)
The narratives of Russiagate, drinking bleach, “fine people” to Hunter Biden’s laptop— long ago debunked down south— are still approved wisdom in Canada’s chattering class. Especially if America’s conflagration election can be used to demonstrate the good sense and judgment of Canada’s managerial and media class.
The clincher for star-struck Canadians was the overwhelming Kamala love from the Hollywood crowd. Virtually every high-profile actor/ singer/ writer embraced the woman who was parachuted into the nomination in a coup— even as the same glitterati raved about anti-democratic Trump. From Beyoncé to Bilie Eilish to Bruce Springsteen, their support was been a winner in Canada’s fangirl/ fanboy culture.”
Talk about backing a loser. Which leaves us asking what to expect from formerly respected media in the upcoming (it will come, won’t it?) defenestration of Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh, probably in spring of 2025. One Toronto Star piece might provide a clue to the bunkered approach of Canada’s globalists. “Europe is leaving Donald Trump’s America behind. Should Canada do the same? As American democracy dives into darkness, Canada is facing difficult choices.”
CPC leader Pierre Poilievre has made it abundantly clear his thoughts on the bias of media. To save billions, he is making a major overhaul— even closure of CBC (not Radio Canada)— as a campaign pledge. He’s also said he will remove the slush fund now propping up failed establishment news organizations that employ unionized workers bent of crushing the Conservatives.
His scorn is obvious after watching media’s reverential treatment of Trudeau’s fake “murdered” Rez children stunt or the silence accompanying PMJT’s sacking of his indigenous Justice minister Jodie Wilson Raybould. Lately, a deadpan Poilievre humiliated a callow CBC reporter quoting “experts” by asking her “what experts?” Her unpreparedness leaves her floundering as Poilievre calls her question another “CBC smear job”.
Perhaps the classic Poilievre humbling of a reporter occurred in 2023 in a Kelowna apple orchard when a reporter seeking to score points with his Woke colleagues saw the bushwhack rebound on him. After numerous failed attempts at belling the cat, the local reporter played his ace card.
Question: Why should Canadians trust you with their vote, given … y’know … not, not just the sort of ideological inclination in terms of taking the page out of Donald Trump’s book, but, also —
Poilievre: (incredulous) What are you talking about? What page? What page? Can you gimme a page? Gimme the page. You keep saying that … “
No page was produced and the cringeworthy interview collapsed.
Needless to say, the reporter was absolved by his water-carrying colleagues. Here was Shannon Proudfoot of the Toronto Star: “Kicking a journalist in the shins over and over then turning the exchange into a social-media flex is telling on yourself…” Venerable CBC panelist/ Star columnist Chantal Hébert echoed the pauvre p’tit take. “Agreed”.
For these press box placeholders it’s all too reminiscent of the acid-drenched style of former PM Stephen Harper, a stance that turned them to Trudeau cheerleaders in 2015. Which is to say we shouldn’t have high hopes for balance when the writ is finally dropped.
Poilievre has several more ministers (Melissa Lantsman, Garrett Genuis) skilled in exposing media imbalance, so we can expect full-blown pushback from the paid-for media from the usual suspects when Trudeau finally succumbs to reality. One drawback for the Conservatives could be the absence of national podcasters such as Rogan or Von to which they can pivot.
But make no mistake, However much Canada’s press corps denies it, the public has turned away from Mr Blackface and the politics of privilege. They’d best anticipate a rough ride ahead.
Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. His new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Economy2 days ago
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Another Mass Grave?
-
ESG11 hours ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Alberta1 day ago
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
-
Energy1 day ago
Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale
-
Alberta1 day ago
On gender, Alberta is following the science
-
International12 hours ago
Elon Musk praises families on X: ‘We should teach fear of childlessness,’ not pregnancy