Taking on Mike Del Grande's Message

Photo by Christopher Drost/Torontoist

In today's Sun, Mike Del Grande guest-writes a column that's very critical of the CBC and Toronto Star. He essentially accuses them of agenda-based character assassination against the mayor. Those are strong accusations to print, so they deserve a close and thorough look. In that vein, I'll look at some key passages in Del Grande's article:

“If you cannot derail the message, derail the messenger.” That is the essence of the continuing harassment of Mayor Rob Ford by certain journalists and media outlets in this city.

 Del Grande begins his article with an ironic argument. After all, he's attacking the messengers in the media, the CBC and Toronto Star, that he deems are unfairly critical. Presumably this is because members of the CBC and Star  cannot adequately and fairly criticize the policies of the Ford administration, but this hardly seems to be the case. It is true that these outlets have gone after Ford, but they have gone after him for inconsistency in statements or genuine concerns over the direction of the city. 

Ford said he was alarmed and concerned for his young child, whom he was taking to school, so he called 911.Many in the media ignored the fact someone showed up at the mayor’s home, uninvited, invading his personal space.  

Del Grande has a fair point here, that This Hour Has 22 Minutes showing up on Ford's driveway was crossing a line most people would deem unacceptable. Initially, this was in fact the story, with political science professor Nelson Wiseman saying that Ford should get (and deserves) a lot of sympathy for the incident. 


However, when more details about the incident emerged it became not about THH22M going after Ford, but the honesty and judgment Ford used in dealing with the situation. As the Star pointed out on its front page, Ford's statements about his daughter 'retreating into the house,' it being 'dark outside,' and the number of 911 calls placed were all either inconsistent or wrong. To be fair, THH22M's claim that they were at the edge of Ford's driveway was also incorrect. 


As Edward Keenan points out, Ford's false initial claim, and subsequent pseudo-apology and re-positioning are part of a pattern for him, and that's a problem that deserves investigation, including from the CBC and Star.  

The media have a responsibility to act with integrity and professionalism, which some media tend to forget.Let me remind them: They’re supposed to have standards for factual, accurate reporting.

Del Grande is also correct that media must act with integrity and professionalism as it's fair and not doing so could erode the public trust placed in the important institution. That statement goes equally for politicians, including Rob Ford. He and his administration have not shown a good track record for the truth. Politicians deserve to be called on this; it's part of the job and strengthens our discourse. 


As for acting with integrity and professionalism, I would suggest that Giorgio Mammoliti setting up a Facebook page and filtering out 'communist' voices is unprofessional and the administration's cavalier attitude with the truth lacks integrity. 

Often, when I’m interviewed by the media — and here I would single out papers like the Toronto Star — there is an obvious “agenda” indicated in the questions.  

I can think of another newspaper which would be an excellent candidate for this statement.

Many people believe if something is reported in the media, it must be true. Many continue to believe it even when it is shown to be false.What people often don’t realize is, even when proved wrong, the media are reluctant to say, “We made a mistake”.  

Del Grande is right here, and it certainly is a problem. For both the media and politicians, what gets repeated most often becomes the truth regardless of whether or not it is true. 

The media should take more responsibility and admit its mistakes, in particular the CBC who really, really goofed on this story. But don't single out critics for that standard. The Sun, publishing this article, should be held to that standard too. But they just dropped out of the Ontario Press Council which ensures members adhere to proper standards and procedures. 

Politicians should apply this standard to themselves too. That means when a phony, fear-mongering 34% property tax number floats that you know won't apply, you say so. 

After citing waste as the electorate's motivation for choosing Ford, Del Grande writes:

Apparently they [the Star and CBC] cannot stand to think changes in the way City Hall operates are imminent, and they will do all they can, not to offer any alternative, but to derail them, simply for the pleasure of saying, “I told you so”.

Here Del Grande connects the motivation for critical attention from the CBC and Star as them wanting the 'waste' at City Hall to continue. He doesn't provide any supporting evidence for this rather important claim, instead letting it sit as an essentially personal broadside that runs counter to his article's stated intent. 


The CBC doesn't have as much a presence at City Hall (although Metro Morning does a great job), but the Star does. Between David Rider, Daniel Dale, Paul Moloney, Robyn Doolittle and Royson James (although I have my quibbles with the latter) they do a great job. Regardless of the Star's editorial bent, they are thorough and follow-up, even on the smallest stories. 


Yet the response from the Ford camp hasn't been to address their questions, but to freeze out the Star, as Goldsbie provides the context here. Just yesterday at Executive, a motion came forward to ensure fairness to all media outlets at City Hall. The motion was ostensibly designed to ensure the Star is treated with the same standards and fairness as all other outlets. Not in terms of tips and leaks, mind you- that's fair game to give preferences- but in terms of informing the media on basic facts. 


The motion was unanimously deferred, ensuring that we will not hear from it again. 


There are many genuine, substantive reasons to have disagreements with the Ford administration. People are going to disagree on arguments, and they're going to disagree on which facts are most appropriate. Criticism of this sort is good. 


If there are problems with their facts and arguments, then get into that. Simply dismissing something as, 'oh, it's the CBC or Star' is tantamount to saying, 'oh, it's Rob Ford and he's an oaf'. Both arguments are reductionist and unfair. 


If you want to discuss the message, then show leadership, own up to your flaws as the CBC should to theirs. Standards and principles apply to everyone, not just critics.     

The Macleans-Rob Ford Story: A Media Criticism

This week Macleans has an issue out and it features none other than Toronto’s mayor on the cover. Accompanied by the headline “Crushed”, the image features Ford’s face squeezed. The subtitle reads, “His enemies roused,his brother a liability, Canada’stoughest mayor comes undone.”

The Toronto Star’s City Hall reporter Daniel Dale covered a few inaccuracies in some tweets, including what he felt was a misleading cover, a misrepresentation of how Doug Ford is handled and how the Toronto Star gets its information.

With that said, it’s a fairly interesting piece and not as sensationalist as it could be based on its title.

The article, written by Nicholas Kohler, is most interesting for the rhetorical techniques it uses to frame its narrative. This isn’t to say that rhetorical techniques are necessarily a bad thing; they’re needed to tell a story of any kind. However, the techniques used can inform the reader as to the depth, accuracy and dependencies of a particular argument or narrative.

So with that in mind, let’s look at the article.

The online version begins with “Rob Ford can’t fight city hall: His enemies roused, his brother a liability, Canada’s toughest mayor comes undone.” It’s unlikely this was Kohler writing the headline, but it’s worth taking a look at the assumptions it primes the reader for. 

For starters, the title implies that Ford has been unsuccessful thus far in shaping City Hall, that he can’t do so. To be fair, this is because the headline writer is playing off of the popular phrase, but it’s fitting with the shape of Kohler’s narrative. The subtitle then goes on to identify two sources of Rob Ford’s problems, his enemies and his brother Doug. With these external sources, even Canada’s toughest mayor can’t withstand the pressure. 

The headline here immediately casts Ford in a positive light by being the ‘tough’ politician, a virtue universally admired. By setting Ford up as the tough maverick outsider taking on the establishment, the headline sets up Ford’s downfall solely in opposition to external forces, thus absolving him of his role in his precipitous poll numbers.

Kohler leads his article by establishing the setting at Krista Ford’s inaugural Lingerie Football League game. It’s a place where the ethic of Doug Ford’s daughter- and by extension the family, is on display, “All I care about is: not missing a single tackle & leaving it all,” Kohler cites Krista as tweeting.  The backdrop of red-meat, hard-nosed football- lingerie football at that- is used to frame Kohler’s preferred juxtaposition of  “the intense culture war under way between the Fords and Toronto’s downtown elite.” Lingerie Football, Kohler offers, “is the most powerful symbol of the conflict.”

Putting aside what constitutes ‘the most powerful symbol,’ Kohler’s use of ‘downtown elite’ has a clear agenda. By categorizing an amorphous and undefined group of opposition into an unfavourable term, distance is created between the reader and the perspective that is critical of the Fords. The ‘downtown elite’ is particular and cast as an ‘other’, an identifier by which no person would earnestly portray themselves. 

By contrast, the article gives an intimate and detailed look at the Fords which provides the reader a source of identification and thus sympathy. This is would be more understandable if the article was solely a feature on the Ford brothers but seeing whereas it’s a look a the dynamic of council and the city to the Fords, it would be helpful to further define those elements.

Kohler does make mention of the attention paid to City Hall, but it’s only in passing. He writes that the polarizing nature of the Fords, “[has promoted] a level of civic engagement at city hall not seen in years.” This is true, as evidenced by the intense media coverage, record number of deputations and various civic groups organizing to be heard. However for Kohler’s narrative of entrenched interests v. Fords to work, he disregards that the sources of this civic engagement are new. After all, the unions have always been there and their representatives like Bob Kinnear, Maureen O’Reilly and Mark Ferguson can only give so many deputations. When he does allow for the criticism from moms and crossing guards he dismisses it as a ‘granola backlash’.

The backlash is only described in abstract ways while the Ford mission to combat ‘vested interests’ are given details. The 2600 word article gives just five words to Joe Mihevc and two sentences to Shelley Carroll describing the Fords and one paragraph on the Doug Ford call-in to centrist Josh Matlow’s radio show. The objections to the Ford agenda aren’t given a great voice by the people objecting, but Kohler provides the context:

Ford, who secured an improbable election win by promising to deliver a stripped-down Toronto—one free of graffiti, a Toronto of roads, perhaps some police, lower taxes and little else—has been stopped in his tracks by the city’s old order. His story is a morality tale that plays more like farce. It would be funny if it were not such a powerful lesson in the staying power of civic vested interests and the Sisyphean challenge of changing a city.     

Ford promised a lot of things, among them a city free of graffiti, cancelling the land transfer and vehicle registration taxes and a focus on roads. However, saying he promised a ‘stripped-down’ Toronto is a half-truth. He promised a Toronto free of ‘gravy’, unnecessary things like councillors having the city pay for their own retirement party. His platform promised to find $1.7 billion in ‘waste’ and redirect $416 million of this to improving priority services such as childcare services, services for seniors, affordable housing and other items. Importantly, he said in the weeks before his mayoral campaign that, “Services will not be cut. Guaranteed.”

The objections from the ‘granola crowd’ are largely to these inconsistencies (the governance style too). Services were promised to not be cut and others improved and yet Ford has sought to cut both. Ignoring this part of his mandate and the objections to the city’s direction that are largely fuelled by this conveniently de-complicates the issue to make an easier narrative.

In fact, this information directly undermines Kohler’s story. Rather than being the tough outsider shaking up City Hall, the Fords are like the cynical view of other politicians, tripped up on promising the world to everyone and having no real plan to deliver it.

Kohler’s article is informative on a few levels. To be fair, it’s a decent piece that adds some interesting details like the extent of Doug’s frosty relationship (although other details are exaggerated as Dale points out, so this can be called into question). He also captures the Ford personality and ethic nicely for a general audience.

However, what’s most informative is the range of rhetorical devices and framing mechanisms used to position Rob Ford as the embattled hero of this story. From the start it positions the mayor as the constant and consistent warrior at odds with uncontrollable external forces from his brother to council opposition. When it refers to his opponents, it’s almost always by a derisive and distancing term, like ‘downtown elitists’, ‘the granola backlash’ or ‘special interests’. The concerns of these groups aren’t presented, obscuring any way that Ford brought these problems on to himself.

This isn’t necessarily intentional on Kohler’s part, but it’s an important exercise to look at the shortcomings of media narratives. The mostly pro-Ford story mimics the political narrative presented by the Ford team. It’s framed as an appeal to character, a personal connection to an individual on a vague mission to overcome vaguely villainous groups and vague waste.

In the end its connection to the detailed and nuanced political circumstances at City Hall is tenuous. After all, it's just a story.