Chris Schnurr
Carol Kosowan LL.B., B.A. (Law), B.A. (Policy)
This was a big learning curve for me – recording raw video footage and re-encoding it for web publication while doing shots of NyQuil Cold and Flu.
Not a great combination – trust me – but in my defence, I didn’t think working on the computer was “operating heavy machinery.” :)
But as promised, here is the 1 hour 18 minute presentation given by Ken Lewenza Jr. detailing in context the council motions behind the strike.
For reference, here is the councillor’s PowerPoint presentation which accompanied his discussion.
The Ward 4 Meeting Video
I will be selecting 3 or 4 segments of the above presentation to go into further detail during the next few days.
In the absence of any detailed analysis or discussion by our elected representatives or the mainstream media for that matter, I can only discuss the information Ken Lewenza Jr. provided.
And in my first blog entry, I wish to discuss the issue of the Windsor Star’s silence.
The Messenger’s Jumbled Message
Frankly, given Mr. Beneteau’s opinion pieces in the Windsor Star, I am shocked they have failed to date to report upon the content of Mr. Lewenza’s presentation.
Consider what Mr. Beneteau wrote on April 11, 2009:
Are we perfect? Not likely when the bread you bake bears a different recipe each day. We make mistakes (and correct them). We want to do more investigative journalism (but have to manage our limited resources). And we’d love to have thicker papers (to come, hopefully, when the economy recovers).
To expect ‘perfection’ would be ridiculous. We’re human – as are the journalists and editor’s at the Windsor Star.
But considering Mr. Beneteau stated they “want to do more investigative journalism;” combined with the fact the Star essentially ridiculed Councillor Lewenza through Mr. Graston’s cartoon - it behooves the Windsor Star to report Mr. Lewenza’s detailed presentation to truly move our city forward by acknowledging and working to correct our own collective mistakes of the past.
Especially considering Mr. Beneteau’s words of July 29, 2009 in a column entitled, “CUPE’s jumbled message”:
The union response was to slam The Star, which Ryan in a speech to union members called “that rag of a newspaper.” His assertion that “there’s absolutely no impartiality whatsoever” failed to make the distinction between opinion writers and news reporters, people paid to check their points of view at the door. And in doing so he paddled his 1,800 members out on to an island.
A strategy of demonizing the mayor and shooting the messenger was dubious given the strength of the adversary: Eddie Francis is a media savvy, calculating, some argue Machiavellian mover of political chess pieces, with many influential people, including journalists, on his speed dial.
Are we supposed to not answer the phone? Doesn’t Sid know our number?
What is Mr. Beneteau’s rationale now?
The only labour relations “news” being put forth by the Star is through their “opinion” writers, one of whom wrote on his blog in response to allegations the Windsor Star was intentionally prolonging the strike:
As for prolonging the strike, I think that might be true, and it’s a compliment to the Windsor Star for representing the interests of its readers. If the Mayor and council didn’t know public opinion was so strongly behind them they’d throw in the towel and cave in like previous councils did. We are doing our job well, I’d say.”
Here I naively believed Mr. Beneteau’s desire to do “more investigative journalism.”
But apparently, according to Mr. Vander Doelen, the Star’s goal during the strike appears to have been manufacturing consent, or more simply, manufacturing public opinion through the exclusion of “investigative journalism.”
And in the case of Councillor Lewenza, the powers that be decided to not answer the phone.
Now let me be clear – I am not suggesting the Star reprint everything the councillor presented without question. That is not responsible journalism either.
And it is something I don’t believe the councillor would want – afterall, he has been consistent in calling out for the debate of the issues.
The hardliners look like cowards for not taking him up on the challenge to explain their rationale as he has done.
But in the absence of any critical analysis of the present deal reached, in contrast to what was proposed, can the Windsor Star honestly say it is ”doing” its “job well?”
I have to admire Ken Lewenza’s courage to stand up against the city’s official line.
He admitted his mistakes; proposed solutions to move forward by recognising the opportunities they rejected and what city council could have done better and should do in the future to prevent a repeat of the overly dramatic ordeal endured by all residents and employees.
That will do more to heal wounds and rebuild relations with city employees than the ravings of certain opinion columnists with an obvious ideological bend.
And that is fine – but opinion pieces are not news nor should they supplant the reporting of all the facts.
Filed under: Uncategorized
The Windsor Star’s decision to make the Ward 4 meeting into a non-event negates every excuse that the editorial board has put forward regarding their so called “objective” stance with this municipal regime. This is proof positive that they are sweeping the mine fields for Eddie Francis. Their opinion of their readership is obviously very low. One “yellow” rag.
Influenza was the only councilor to suggest reducing the interest/extortion rates charged by the mob bosses, er, I mean tax collectors. The other heads of the five families dumped all over his idea, they even tried to rationalize the extortion rates with comical little speeches. And I’m sure they dumped all over his suggestions at the union negotiations.
I give the guy credit for reaching for higher principles. Of course the press, our own version of Eddie’s Pravda, will portray him as the bloviating union goon.
Most all strikes are losing propositions to the membership – they will never recoup the lost wages of 100 days with a 3 percent raise, or whatever they got. Why do they do it? Why did our union forefathers face the thugs, brickbats, cops with firehoses and night sticks…they must have known they were gonna get a beating every time they went on strike? Well, they did it so that hopefully one day, you and I wouldn’t have to get a beating every time we demanded improvement in wages or working conditions. We act like that’s some distant past, no, that was your grandfather.
Yes but, unions are fat and lazy now!
So what?
The whole country is fat and lazy, not to mention the sedentary United States, fattest collection of slow moving slugs in the world. The rich have never been richer, and the poor have never had it better. We’re so rich I don’t understand why we don’t simply eradicate poverty with the stroke of a pen?
Yes but the unions are inefficient, they can’t compete with off-shore slave labour!
So what?
Nobody can compete with slave labour/child labour, that’s why we made such things illegal.
Yes but unions are unskilled labour collectives – I have higher education and get paid for my vast knowledge of…well, some stupid specialization backed by a certification industry.
I am smart! S.M.R.T.
I’m an ‘expert’ in social, psychological, legal, economic, occupational professional therapy.
Sure you are.
Got’s me a sixth grade edumacashun, shore nuff.
While you’re right to point out Beneteau’s defensive “Are we not supposed to answer our phone?” comment, I think the statement which immediately follows is also worthy of closer examination:.
“Doesn’t [Insert name of anyone who can be considered a political foe of the Mayor] know our phone number?”
I can appreciate that limited resources affect the Star’s ability to do the type of investigative reporting they, so they say, would otherwise like to do. Are resources so limited that THEY can’t pick up the phone? Beneteau tries to justify the paper’s inability to provide an objective story with “the other side to this story didn’t call us”. Fascinating.
[Granted, this is not the case with Ken Lewenza Jr.'s situation - I think even the Star can't say they didn't know about this, with or without a personal call from Junior.]
The fact remains that if the only information that gets reported or relied upon by the Star comes directly from a call initiated by a source (not to mention a “politically savvy” one), how can the resulting narrative be classified as anything but biased?
Pretty simple stuff: the Star is either biased wilfully or through incompetence. Either way, it’s a rag.
The Windsor Star is not interested in supplying “the other side” of the story despite Beneteau’s objections to the contrary. Of course the Star’s editorial board could make the phone call to get the opposing view. You just have to look at the published comments to articles during the strike. Overwhelmingly in support of the mayor when we know that wasn’t quite the case. A clear indication that the one-sidedness at the Star is systemic in the policies of the paper and to suggest otherwise is deflecting from the real issue.