Angry in the Great White North

Consider this story...

Any blogger who is knows his craft has had moments when they've looked at a post, thought about it, decided it was weak (and maybe wrong depending if there was more to the story), but then posted anyway.

Most of the time, I avoid that last step, but in this particular case, I didn't and now I ought to set the record straight.

When I wrote this story the first time, I almost spiked it before publishing. The linkage was so tenuous that I thought it was untenable. But I was swayed by what others had told me, so I went against my gut instinct.

Like Gilles Duceppe, I ought to have listened to my gut more carefully.

In that post I wrote:

The Globe and Mail has carried two stories in the last two days that depended a great deal on material delivered to them from the Liberal Party research group. The Conservatives have a similar group, but you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence of it based on published news reports. And when you look carefully, the same name comes up over and over again whenever that paper is the first to report on news friendly to the Liberal Party -- Mark Dunn.

Guess what? Mark Dunn was re-hired by the Liberal Party only a week ago to manage communications strategy. No wonder we're starting to see Liberal-friendly stories again.

Why would Mark Dunn's position be significant? Because he is Gloria Galloway's husband, Galloway being the a senior political reporter for the Globe and Mail.

I tied the timing of Dunn's hiring with the emergence of Liberal-friendly stories in the paper. I didn't say that Galloway and the other reporters were somehow acting as propagandists, but suggested perhaps that the link somehow made it easier for the Liberals to deliver information to the Globe and Mail reporters, helping influence the spin.

Turns out I was off. Consider this story from 2001:

Almost all of the 50 or so MPs who made a big splash by voting no in June to a juicy pay hike have stuck their snouts deep into the public trough.

Tory Leader Joe Clark is the only MP Sun Media could find who is sticking to his guns and not taking the raise.

Chretien pockets a 42% raise, bringing his salary in line with the chief justice of the Supreme Court at $262,988.

The increases are also retroactive --meaning MPs will get back pay of roughly $30,000 while Chretien will get a cheque for a staggering $71,000.

Grit MPs signed on to the raises as fast as they were passed in Parliament, while key legislation such as child stalking on the Internet was shunted aside.

Who wrote that for the Toronto Sun? Mark Dunn.

Hardly the writing of a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal apparatchik. In fact, when Dunn was hired by the Liberals the first time in 2002 (working for Denis Coderre), Frank Magazine published this, being surprised by the move:

Dunn, a virulent neo-con and reliable mouthpiece for the CA [Canadian Alliance], was always near the head of the pack when it came time to take a bite out of the PM's heels. His dogged coverage of Shawinigate alone was enough to make poor martyred Lawrence Martin look like Jane Taber.

And I thought Dunn was a conduit for Liberal friendly stories? I can't be sure, but I think I was taking a particularly strong cold medication that day. At least I hope I was.

Gloria Galloway has also written plenty of harsh pieces taking strips off the Liberals after Mark Dunn starting working for the Liberal Party.

But here's the thing I didn't know that really changes the complexion of the piece. When the Conservatives won in 2006, Dunn applied several times to work for the Tories. The Liberals made the first offer, though, and as a hired gun, he followed the money.

A mercenary. I like mercenaries. You can trust them. They work for money. Why would Mark Dunn risk his job and his paycheque playing games with the media? A partisan would take the chance, knowing that if got caught in an embarrassing situation, he could resign and be hailed a hero by other partisans. A mercenary would look at that praise and wonder just how you would pay the mortgage with it.

I've been told Galloway and Dunn never talk business, and that if Dunn needs to talk to a Globe and Mail reporter, he makes sure it's someone else. Professionals are careful about stuff like that.

So to Gloria Galloway and to Mark Dunn, I'm sorry. Half the facts gave entirely the wrong impression to me. Worse yet, I had a feeling that I was seeing only part of the picture, but went ahead anyway. I know today I would not have done that (I can think of a half-dozen story ideas people have sent me that I rejected since the only crime the principles were guilty of was that of knowing each other). Hopefully that sets the record straight.