Mediacheck

Elizabeth May's War of Words

The Tyee was first to try to get to the bottom of her 'stupid' remarks. The blogosphere erupted.

By Geoff Dembicki, 16 Sep 2008, TheTyee.ca

Elizabeth May

May: 'Swear on a stack of bibles.'

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

For a couple of days it seemed the political fate of Green Party Leader Elizabeth May hung by a few words contested in cyberspace.

Had she really called Canadians "stupid" during a televised political debate on TVO's The Agenda last year?

And if not, why was a news website closely read by politicos now running big headlines saying she did?

Had it been faked? A plot emanating from Conservative party headquarters as May's lieutenant claimed, threatening a law suit?

Or was May simply done in by a viral campaigner working with an authentic, if somewhat garbled, bit of incriminating audio?

Last Friday, vowing to "swear on a stack of bibles," May appeared again on The Agenda to try and put the issue to rest. And all of Canada got another taste of political warfare 2.0.

Speaking to interviewer Steve Paiken, May blamed a faulty microphone and her fast style of talking for what has been widely interpreted by bloggers across the country as a condescending slight on the voting public.

There is no doubt her comment was an important response to an issue that has the potential to put a dampener on the Greens' historic inclusion in next month's televised leaders' debates.

But the fact that May even had to defend herself at all is also important, for it is a testament to the power of blog-driven politics during an election campaign.

From right to left, across the blogosphere

The Green leader's controversial remarks first came to light when Stephen Taylor, a well known right-wing pundit, posted audio from a 2007 episode of The Agenda on YouTube, overlaying it with images of May and Stephane Dion. Taylor then linked the video his blog.

In the clip, May sounds like she is putting down the intelligence of the average Canadian.

Left-leaning Canadian blogger Leftdog stumbled onto the post later that day during a routine query on Google's blog search engine and decided to include the link on his own site, Buckdog.

Within hours, the item appeared on Bourque.com -- a popular news aggregator read by political insiders and media pundits -- where it was given huge play on the site's front page.

A large-font headline that linked to Buckdog stated the allegations against May as fact: the Green leader had called Canadians stupid. (E-mails sent to the site inquiring about how it found the blog and whether it verifies the accuracy of its online content have not been met with a response.)

What had started as a brief remark by May during a virtually forgotten episode of The Agenda now looked poised to break into a national story.

And that's exactly what happened.

The Tyee seeks facts, flames erupt

On Sept. 11, after viewing the clip via the link on Bourque.com, The Tyee phoned the Greens' national headquarters to elicit May's side of the story and was informed by spokesperson John Bennett that the video was a deliberate act of campaign sabotage orchestrated by Conservative Party insiders. We broke that news shortly after on The Tyee's politics blog, The Hook.

As a result of the call, Bennett wrote a threatening e-mail to Leftdog, in which he promised legal action if the YouTube link was not removed immediately.

The blogger posted that correspondence online and Canada's political blogosphere went crazy. Across the country, online commentators from the National Post's Kevin Libin to Kady O'Malley from Maclean's weighed in the controversy. And we at The Tyee posted our own follow-up, trying to decipher the riddles.

Were the Greens justified in threatening legal action? What pronoun -- "I" or "They" -- did May use in her remarks? And most importantly, did she actually call Canadians stupid?

In the 2007 footage, some bloggers -- including Agenda producer Alan Echenberg and Taylor himself -- argued that May clearly said "they think Canadians are stupid," while making reference to politicians who fear voter reprisals for carbon taxes.

'Agree' or 'disagree'?

Not so clear, however, is the intent behind May's follow-up statement: "I fundamentally agree with that assessment."

During her Friday appearance on The Agenda, May told Paikin that what she actually said was "Disagree."

"But I thought I heard you say 'I fundamentally agree...," he replied.

Back-pedalling slightly, the Green leader blamed her fast style of talking and then shifted gears to a technical explanation. She stated that when she started to speak, she was not being miked properly. And when the levels were adjusted, the mike raised the volume on her voice just as she responded -- mid sentence it would seem -- to a statement made by another panellist.

May also claimed if she'd actually called Canadians stupid, the audience would have responded in kind, a response that does not appear in the footage.

"I swear on a stack of bibles," she told Paikin.

(The Green leader also downplayed any legal controversy by pointing out that Bennett had made an official apology for his threatening e-mail, adding that the spokesperson would be not dismissed for his actions.)

Who won?

Was May's explanation enough to satisfy the voting public? To answer the question, The Tyee conducted an informal online survey to see what Canada's bloggers had to say on the issue.

Like the Green leader's alleged comments, the impact of May's Friday Agenda appearance has been ambiguous.

On the right-wing Western Standard's blog, a recent post by P.M. Jaworski expressed a reluctant acceptance of May's defence. Elsewhere on the web, prolific blogger Paul McKeever picked apart May's explanation clause by clause and attacked what he perceived as her elitist arrogance towards ordinary Canadians.

Whether a strong verdict for either position ever becomes clear is hard to say. But according to Taylor in a recent CBC interview, a strong message has emerged from the controversy:

"It almost seems to be the first lesson of doing damage control on a viral campaign is that you just don't feed it -- and that's exactly what the Green party did by threatening legal action against (Buckdog)."

His statement demands a corollary: in today's online media landscape, blog-driven politics matter.

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Geoff Dembicki is a staff reporter for The Tyee and blogs regularly on The Hook.

25 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • sanamark

    3 years ago

    It is so easy....

    It really is so easy. Anyone who doesn't vote the way I do is "stupid."

  • PeteL

    3 years ago

    Credibility and Integrity

    I'm afraid Ms. May has become used to having it her own way bullying politicians and bureaucrats up on the Hill. She will have a more difficult time convincing the public that she's not just another opportunistic politician who will stop at nothing to gain political advantage. I highly doubt her commitment to either Canada or the environment. She's just spinning a living.

  • alive

    3 years ago

    fit for the job?

    Quote:
    I'm afraid Ms. May has become used to having it her own way bullying politicians and bureaucrats up on the Hill.

    She does come across as being a kindergarten teacher that pushes her flock along on a daytrip, in a "mother knows best" attitude.
    Her general appearance and casual behaviour is not fitting to one seeking high office.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    MY GOD!

    The current Prime Minister has a long standing history of disrespecting anyone who disagrees with his assessment of Canada and Canadians (especially ones who don't live in Alberta).

    You can find a short list of his statements and slurs here:
    http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/09/10/StrategicVotes/

    Look for posts by G West and Lynn about one quarter of the way down the comments line-up.

    The suggestion that Ms May is somehow unsuitable because of a slip/misunderstanding in her syntax and her personal appearance and 'casual' behavior is offensive.

    The Prime Minister's repeated slanders are ignored and Ms May is being called down for reacting!

    Please remember the PM is also in the middle of a 3 million dollar lawsuit over something that appeared on a 'website.

    I'm no supporter of the Greens, but this kind of double standard is appalling.

    A national leader of a party with support all across the country was being blackballed by the other party leaders until Canadians spoke up...she has, in my view, the right to be a little testy.

  • realisticman

    3 years ago

    Quite.

    A bit testy, yes. American, yes that too. Unsuitable. No.

    She did go to the right schools, including Miss Porter's School in Connecticut.

    An illustrious alumni including;

    Barbara Hutton (1930) - American socialite.
    Dorothy Walker Bush (1919) - Mother of the 41st President of the United States, George H. W. Bush.
    Eliza Kimball (1969) - Senior political affairs officer, United Nations.
    Gloria Vanderbilt (1941) - Fashion designer and American socialite.
    Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis (1947) - First Lady of the United States.
    Ruth Hanna McCormick (1897) - First woman to run for the U.S. Senate.

  • Dave2

    3 years ago

    "The blogosphere erupted."

    The blogosphere erupted.... lol, it tends to do that a lot.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Even her schooling - that's some bunch

    Doesn't disqualify her.

    Personally, I'd have preferred Allenswood School under headmistress Marie Souvestre.

  • cocean

    3 years ago

    They and Agree

    That's what she said when the show originally aired, which I watched at the time.

    It was "they" and "agree".

    But the agree in "and I fundamentally agree" was in response to something which someone off-camera and off-microphone had said.

    If you view the video, you can see May turning toward that person as she said that phrase and then turning back and picking up her original thread.

    I'd liken the situation to this written example:

    Many voters think that politicians are well-qualified to do their jobs - and others suspect the majority of politicians to have no more than a couple of years of post secondary education, a view with which I fundamentally agree - and so expect that they will make the right decisions.

    In the case of May, I've frequently seen her do this; where she doesn't complete a statement/thought before starting a new one. It's as though her mind is racing and she can't get the words out fast enough - hence the reason she tends to talk so fast.

    It was remarked by Steve Paiken on her visit to The Agenda a few days ago that she was speaking more slowly. That can only be a good thing.

  • Dr Alexander

    3 years ago

    How do you measure political leaders?

    Actually, I should hesitate to use the term "political leaders" as no politician is my "leader". OK I digress, back to the point.

    What is relevant to making an informed choice during an election? Are a few gaffes, or a few nice soundbites, worth more than a decade's or more worth of good or bad public action?

    And why, for Heaven's Sake, are the blogs doing the work that the Asper Cartel and others are supposed to be doing?

  • runner

    3 years ago

    the rasor

    soooo - could we step back a second and ask why any sane leader of a party (let alone any politician) would ever publically refer to the electorate as "stupid"? Especially in this case, where May was being interviewed by a known right-winger who would love to fry her?

    Aside from the fact that the supposed comment may be correct ;-)
    - it may be better to investigate who stands to gain from making this allegation.

    Temptest + teapot = media distraction from real issues. How about a focus or criticism on her policies instead?
    These facts lend more credence to the "diversionary right-wing conspiracy" conspiracy than anything else.

    Agreed - the Green's threatening response didn't help the situation. But then again, there is some inexperience on their part at dealing with such things at this level, since they have historically not been given as much attention as they are receiving this year.

  • sanamark

    3 years ago

    Greens

    I love the Green Party. They are shaking the tree of both the Liberals and the NDP. That is a good thing for both parties.

    The Carbon Tax the Liberals advocate was largely taken from the Green agenda. The Liberals like to ignore the Greens while taking on major parts of their policy,just like they did with Reform and balances budgets. For the NDP they are the Anti-Christ.

    Green social policy is the most progressive of all the political parties. How about 3 weeks' vacation and a 35 hour work week? Canadians work ridiculous hours, something like 2200 a year now, which is about 500 too much in my opinion.

    Greens also support an immediate end to corporate welfare, something I am completely in agreement with.

    The Green share of the vote will grow and they are attracting the right demographic, too.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    sanamark

    Income splitting is pretty right wing, wouldn't you say?

  • RickW

    3 years ago

    Canadian ARE "stupid".....

    ....if they (we) insist on voting either Tweedledee or Tweedledum into power, then watch the country sink yet further into the miasma of NAFTA.

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Lehman Bros,& Green Agenda

    May, Dione and Layton all support a scam.
    http://www.climateprotect.org/board
    Lehman Brothers Close Ties to Gore, Hansen and Carbon Trading

    Al Gore’s carbon trading business GIM was banked with Lehman Bros. It will be interesting to see how this will play in the future but I suspect that this increases the risk of participating in Carbon trading. Merrill Lynch, was also deeply involved in this business.

    Last year Lehman Brothers released a long and highly publicized report about climate change in which they preached about decarbonization, trying to make their investors keep getting high profits from the Kyoto carbon trade scheme and the support of huge public subventions. All that, of course, with the applause of the usual choir of politicians, the entire media and the Greens.

    A year ago they couldn’t predict their bankruptcy but were predicting the climate 100 years ahead. Thousands of green militants have been using the Lehman report as a proof of global warming and impending chaos. Lehman Bros said it! sacred words! Its scientific advisor is James Hansen! The report is the basis for policies on climate change in Spain, Argentina and several other countries playing the progress game; it is used by economy professors playing the climatologists; by newspapers editorials, and even by a State Secretary: Lehman Bros, said it!

    Lehman Brothers spoke in his report about the climate in 2100 and its economic and financial projections, about climate change costs several decades away. They dared to recommend their investors what they considered a central value of the carbon ton in 50 years from now. Their sources and support references were taken from the IPCC AR4, AR3, and so on. Really impressive.

    But even with their high ability to peek into the future, they couldn’t predict their demise one year ahead though there were many people that had been warning about this present crash for years. But Lehman Bros were recommending investments 30, 50, 100 years ahead. Some days, reality imitates fiction. Who was Lehman Bros’ ‘scientific’ adviser on climate? You guessed it, James Hansen, the same guy that wants to drive the world to bankruptcy as he did with Lehman’s Bros.

    But the story has some connections with Hansen being the ‘scientific’ adviser to Al Gore, who’s the Chairman of the Board of the Alliance for Climate Protection. As seen in Alliance’s website, the managing Director is none less than: Theodore Roosevelt IV. Managing Director, Lehman Brothers, Chair of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change.

    Theodore Roosevelt IV is Managing Director at Lehman Brothers and a member of the Firm’s senior client coverage group, which oversees the Firms client and customer relationships. Mr. Roosevelt is an active conservationist. He is Chair of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, Vice Chair of the Wilderness Society, and a Trustee for the American Museum of Natural History, The World Resources Institute,

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    continued

    the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming, and a Trustee of Trout Unlimited.

    The Lehman reports in two parts can be found on this site ‘Intellectual Capital’. In “The Business of Climate Change ll”, the following acknowledgement is made: “On the scientific side, we are grateful to Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who, at the end of a particularly informative dinner hosted by Ben Cotton of the Man Group, gave generously of his time to clear up a number of scientific questions that had been niggling us. Dr. Peter Collins and Richard Heap of the Royal Society provided valuable input and brought us up to date on the more controversial areas of scientific developments in the domain of global climate change.”

    Lehman’s failure provides a preview of our future if more companies bank their future on the advice of these advocacy scientists, politicians and environmental groups.

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

    I certainly don't want Harper either, especially with a majority.

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    IMO

    IMO, Ms May is a motormouth, what in my time we'd have called a "fast talker" and all that implies.

  • doggone

    3 years ago

    That would explain it

    I have been wondering just how "well informed" Canadians have arrived in this mess.
    I have no idea what Elizabeth May said or meant to say and I also do not care.
    Canadian Voters have proven consistantly that they are generally ignorant.
    "Silent Storm" was published before I became aware of the environmental impact of our behaviour - guess what? She was correct!
    I'm voting for Elzabeth

  • sanamark

    3 years ago

    A presumption

    Quote:
    Canadian Voters have proven consistantly [sic]that they are generally ignorant.

    I presume that is because said Voters don't vote the way you do?

  • no1important

    3 years ago

    Voting for the Green Party

    Voting for the Green Party is not an option for me. They are way to the right in fiscal matters and their only appeal is their environmental concern.

    It is amazing how the press has suckered people into thinking the Greens are a left party when in fact they are a right wing party with a green plan...

    Plus with the potential vote splitting it could be viewed that a vote for the Greens is a vote for Harper....

  • lynn

    3 years ago

    Environmentalism for Dummies

    Like so many new faces in politics today, May's politics are old...and they certainly are not environmental.

    She was opportunistic in her self-interested heralding of Blair Wilson as the first Green MP.

    Our environment is presently being ravaged by those whose motives are based on that same kind of self-interest and it's-all-about-me opportunism. Elizabeth May reveals herself as no different than the rest of the pack.

    Elizabeth May nominated Brian Mulroney as the greenest prime minister.

    By that truly astounding selection, she reveals she knows nothing of the environmental ramifications of NAFTA....or that if she does her level of genuine caring about the environmental devastation NAFTA has unleashed is superficial at best.

    Through these betrayals, May reveals over and over again how The Green Party and its leadership have been co-opted by corporate interests who believe in easy money.... and easy green.

  • Budd Campbell

    3 years ago

    ELIZABETH MAY AN IRRESPONSIBLE FLAKE

    I am sad to see that Elizabeth May has conned her way into the national Leader's Debate. She's an irresponsible flake, and putting in a fifth debater will only make an already confusing format more so.

    Furthermore, Harper and Layton were right. She has a deal with Dion and is a Liberal owned satellite operation. Coverage in the Quebec press has been explicit on this point. She plans towards the end of her campaign to do a Buzz Hargrove style "vote strategic" announcement, telling every one who likes things green to vote for Dion's party.

  • RickW

    3 years ago

    Quote:Plus with the

    Quote:
    Plus with the potential vote splitting it could be viewed that a vote for the Greens is a vote for Harper....

    AGAINST Harper......If the Greens are true to their platform, they will virtually shut down the Tar Sands. Doesn't matter if their fiscal policies are left, right, up or down.

  • nominalis

    3 years ago

    Ms May thinks we're all stupid planet-killers.

    Ms May assumes that we're all so ignorant as to believe that her Vision Green can save us from that impending doom she preaches with every breath.

    She sees us as stupid planet-killers who have the nerve to send a plastic bag or a coffee cup to one of her precious landfills.

    Apparently all Canadians do is get-up in the morning and pollute, pollute, pollute ,all day, out of sheer ignorance.

    She thinks we're so stupid that we believe that climate change "is the greatest threat facing Canadians today".

    No, her toy political party is.

    She thinks we're such uneducated cavemen that we're cowering in fear from that 333ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and that we're going to see her as the Superhero that flies in to save the day.

    Elizabeth thinks we're too stupid to calculate how much CO2 her jet-plane and SUV dependant campaign is contributing to her CO2 crisis.

    And Ms May thinks we're too stupid to realize what a hippocrite she is and how her party is always internally crippled from in-fighting because nobody has a real clue what the Green Party of Canada stands for except linking their doomsday scenario to every issue.

    Her basic message to us morons is, "If you don't vote for me, all the futures children are going to die with the planet and it will be all your fault."

    I'm not that stupid!

  • Skywalker

    3 years ago

    Consider the news coverage so far.

    When you listen to what the media (that includes the CBC) they all seem to think the public is interested in what happens on a slow news day. May is partially right as she gets coverage far beyond her analysis of issues. Our coverage is getting more like the American superficial coverage. Some days I wish the Media would just say, "Nothing newsworthy in the election happened today so we are covering the politics of world hunger."

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    Skywalker

    Amen, Skywalker, Amen.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.