One of the nice things about blogs, as opposed to Twitter, is that blogging gives you a lot more room to express yourself. Which is one of the reasons why I like Liberal MP Glen Pearson’s blogging; more space to express yourself means less likelihood to get into trouble.

And it’s fairly possible that Mr. Pearson may be in trouble, from this Toronto Star column by Angelo Persichilli. Here’s the relevant passage:

Glen Pearson, an MP from London and one of those present for the nightcap with Rae, said that in his opinion Ignatieff was losing the loyalty of the party and Rae was “the only one the party trusts.” Carolyn Bennett, also present at the meeting, said that David McGuinty, Justin Trudeau and others are already planning their leadership runs and it was time for Rae to do something.

Then the conversation shifted to some concrete proposals. In particular, they told Rae that many MPs believe he should become “the deputy leader with authority to manage all the files in the House of Commons,” basically a kind of CEO. They also said that Ignatieff shouldn’t be asking questions in the House but travelling throughout Canada “attending functions.”

Some also said that Ralph Goodale should be removed from his House responsibilities because, they said, he brings no added value to the party, no expertise, no financial wherewithal and doesn’t deliver seats in his own province.

Rae also was critical of the performance of the leader but said he was not interested in a coup d’état. However, he added that his loyalty is solely to the Liberal party.

Ruby Dhalla said that loyalty is a two-way street and accused the party of not doing enough to nurture the next generation of leaders. During the conversation, it was suggested that a group of MPs should meet with chief of staff Peter Donolo and present some of these proposals as soon as possible.

Okay. Glen Pearson now sees the Persichilli column, and is compelled to respond. An excerpt:

Partway through the discussion, Mr. Rae did appear in the lounge but had no idea we were there. It was me that waved to him to see if he wanted to join us. About 15 minutes after that, Ms. Dhalla walked in and she was welcomed to join us as well. Talk of Sudan ended as we spoke of some of the speeches and persons present at the Grafstein dinner. As always on such occasions, things got around to politics. Angelo Persichilli claims in his piece that I stated Mr. Ignatieff was losing the trust of the party. This is profoundly untrue. I did comment that he maintained the loyalty of caucus but that Mr. Rae was a trusted performer in the House. I also stated that with Mr. Ignatieff traveling the country more, it would be good to see Bob take on more responsibility for helping us as the official opposition to hold the government to account in the House, especially during Question Period.

Where Mr. Persichilli got the idea that a discussion was held to seek the removal of Mr. Goodale from his responsibility in the House I have no idea. Not once – nada – was this discussed. In fact, we think we’ve done better in the House lately and that Ralph Goodale has been an important part of elevating that performance. And for Persichilli to claim that it wasn’t an isolated meeting is totally unfounded. It was isolated and the only planning was between Ms. Bennett and myself re: Sudan.

Now comes the question: whom do you believe?

First, you owe it to yourselves to look at Mr. Pearson’s blog as a whole. One thing that becomes obvious is that his level of partisanship is nowhere near the level of a Warren Kinsella, and he’s also fairly candid about the failings of decorum in Parliament. Add the fact that he’s a working MP, and that lends his blogging an air of authenticity that’s matched only by Monte Solberg as an MP. OTOH, you can’t deny that it’s in Mr. Pearson’s best interest that Mr. Persichilli gets his details wrong. About the only thing this posting establishes is that Mr. Persichilli didn’t get the details from Mr. Pearson — but that doesn’t automatically negate the details.

Next, we need to consider Mr. Persichilli. He’s a regular contributor to the Star, the Hill Times, and Corriere Canadese (an Italian-language newspaper covering Canadian news). You might call him the Star’s token Conservative, given that he’s generally been complimentary towards the Harper Government and highly critical of the Liberals, though his tone when describing the latter is “more in sorrow than in anger.” OTOH, as with most journalists covering the Hill, he has sources that he trusts, and he wouldn’t write a piece critical of the Liberals (and Michael Ignatieff in particular) unless he had something substantive to hang it on.

So we know from Mr. Persichilli’s column that an informal meeting did in fact take place, and Mr. Rae was at one point present; Mr. Pearson’s blogpost confirms that. But there is no indication that Mr. Persichilli himself was present at, or within earshot, of said meeting; so we’re forced to assume that his details are most likely from second-hand sources.

Complicating all of this is that this was, by all accounts, a private function happening two or three days before publication of Mr. Persichilli’s column. Because it was a private, unwind-with-wine small social gathering, we wouldn’t expect anyone to be taking notes for actioning. In other words, it’s not the type of event that Mr. Pearson could — nor should — be expected to remember in detail, because he had no reason to believe that the press would be around to report on it.

So: on one side, a conservative-minded pundit, thoroughly understood to be a professional, reporting a conversation that dovetails with the meme of “Iggy in trouble” which is newsworthy because it names names, but apparently relies on secondhand information about an event that was never meant for public consumption. On the other side, a moderate Liberal MP who was named as being part of the conversation, remembers some details but denies others, but has the motivation of not wanting to cause further trouble for his party leader. In short: a classic “he said / he said” situation.

I put it to you folks. Whom do you believe?

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 6th, 2009 at 08:58 and is filed under Media Watch, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.