[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

I'd like to see a mandatory minimum number of months that any deal would be subject to public review before it is voted on. That snake Davison managed to sneak through a deal in less than a week with no public consultation whatsoever in the middle of summer 2019.

Public consulting is good when it comes to figuring out what you want in a project, but when it comes down to the financial component, it's best not to take the public word too much. Otherwise nothing would get built at all. Look at how controversial the peace bridge was due to it's price tag.

[Alpha_Q]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Anyone else having voters remorse for choosing her in the last election? It’s no secret how much I despise Flames ownership, but this new mayor is shaping up to be a massive dud.

No. It was her or Davison, who would have tried to get council to cave in to any CSEC demand to preserve his project at the expense of the city, or <<shudder>> Farkas, whose potential for pandering to Kenney would far outweigh anything Flames/City related.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Alpha_Q

No. It was her or Davison, who would have tried to get council to cave in to any CSEC demand to preserve his project at the expense of the city, or <<shudder>> Farkas, whose potential for pandering to Kenney would far outweigh anything Flames/City related.

So you’re saying cancelling the arena was the best move?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

I'd like to see a mandatory minimum number of months that any deal would be subject to public review before it is voted on. That snake Davison managed to sneak through a deal in less than a week with no public consultation whatsoever in the middle of summer 2019.

So the public are going to get involved in negotiations now??

Is that what you’re asking for?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Lol, does Murray tell you what to write here directly?

You've picked a side. I respect that.

But show a little more respect for those that disagree. He doesn't have to be a parrot for the team to have an opinion different than yours.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Seriously?

If he's a shill for anyone it sure as hell isn't the city.

I don't think he's a shill for anyone.

But people need to stop hiding from what they don't want to hear by calling writers shills.

It's possible to be on one side in writing and still have some facts in the piece. Plenty of blame to go around on both sides of this mess.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't think he's a shill for anyone.

But people need to stop hiding from what they don't want to hear by calling writers shills.

It's possible to be on one side in writing and still have some facts in the piece. Plenty of blame to go around on both sides of this mess.

It's also possible that they are, in fact, shills(and not at all in reference to Ryan, but clearly some articles we are seeing written in the Herald are heavily, heavily slanted).

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's also possible that they are, in fact, shills(and not at all in reference to Ryan, but clearly some articles we are seeing written in the Herald are heavily, heavily slanted).

Not debating that at all.

Just saying there are some facts in there that don't need to just be ignored simply because you don't like the writer.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not debating that at all.

Just saying there are some facts in there that don't need to just be ignored simply because you don't like the writer.

And how do you know what to accept as facts (unless you already know) when it is full of non-truths? Sure, Fox news has some facts, too, but I'm not going to try to figure out which parts those are. It's a fair position to disregard an article if you can't trust the messenger.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And how do you know what to accept as facts (unless you already know) when it is full of non-truths? Sure, Fox news has some facts, too, but I'm not going to try to figure out which parts those are. It's a fair position to disregard an article if you can't trust the messenger.

So you're telling me the entire article is false?

All I'm saying is that it's easy to dismiss facts by saying the writer is a shill, but that doesn't taint every point brought up.

Seems like the mayor may have made a mistake or two, doesn't matter to me who brought it up.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So you're telling me the entire article is false?

All I'm saying is that it's easy to dismiss facts by saying the writer is a shill, but that doesn't taint every point brought up.

Seems like the mayor may have made a mistake or two, doesn't matter to me who brought it up.

I'm saying if you don't already know the facts, how are you supposed to tease out the true and false bits? You can verify it through another trusted source, but then you already trust that source, so why take anything from the tainted one?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm saying if you don't already know the facts, how are you supposed to tease out the true and false bits? You can verify it through another trusted source, but then you already trust that source, so why take anything from the tainted one?

Many are just eliminating said articles with a waive of the hand though. There are plenty of issues in even a shill piece that are part of the conversation.

Recognizing a bias and taking it with a grain of salt is one thing; completely disregarding information that doesn't fit your view is another.

[Wormius]

Are we still talking about the Corbella piece where she later tries to gaslight a member of council on twitter afterwards even in the face of contradictory statements?

[Mattman]

Originally Posted by zamler

This thread is just like the CSEC/City negotiations one giant pissing contest.

You piss on me, I'll piss on you back buddy guy!


wait..

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Are we still talking about the Corbella piece where she later tries to gaslight a member of council on twitter afterwards even in the face of contradictory statements?

Not debating that either. Glad she was called out if something was erroneous.

I think you know what I'm getting at.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bingo

...
It's possible to be on one side in writing and still have some facts in the piece. Plenty of blame to go around on both sides of this mess.

What a ridiculous statement! All conservative-leaning writers are shills for Kenney, Harper and Trump. All left-leaning writers are heroes and experts. It's a well-known scientific fact.

[PeteMoss]

There's no heros or villians here. If you believe one side or the other isn't just trying to get the best deal for their side then you're just falling for the PR.

The city or mayor aren't idiots. They put the deal falling out on twitter to beat the Flames side to get the story out and to try to frame it how they want it to be framed that the city/mayor is doing reasonable things and the Flames keep wanting more from them.

The Flames then put out their little press release but they also have the Postmedia opinion columnists put out their PR about how the city is going to cause the Flames to leave because they are cheap or screwing something out.

There aren't any Liberal papers in Calgary but the Toronto Star opinion columnist returns fire on the city size.

I'm not saying the Postmedia papers or Toronto Star are being directed to release these articles by the Flames or the city, but no matter what happened, you know Postmedia papers were to support the Flames and the Toronto Star would be against the billionaire owners.

The Flames could say they are dropping out of the deal because they didn't like the mayors haircut and the Calgary opinion columnists would spit out a piece about the how the mayors bad stylist choice is sign of her ineptitude.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not debating that either. Glad she was called out if something was erroneous.

I think you know what I'm getting at.

There are some columnists who are so over the top in their bias that you can help but feel trolled by the audacity and zeal they emanate. Articles by Corbella, Bell, Conrad Black, Don Braid all have that quality.

I don’t know if there are any facts in the Corbella article, and as commented earlier she’s already lied outright so what else is a lie? Now the burden is on me to fact check?

I’d be curious to hear about some over-the-top shill articles that try to puff up the City’s position in a similar vain.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

There's no heros or villians here. If you believe one side or the other isn't just trying to get the best deal for their side then you're just falling for the PR.

The city or mayor aren't idiots. They put the deal falling out on twitter to beat the Flames side to get the story out and to try to frame it how they want it to be framed that the city/mayor is doing reasonable things and the Flames keep wanting more from them.

The Flames then put out their little press release but they also have the Postmedia opinion columnists put out their PR about how the city is going to cause the Flames to leave because they are cheap or screwing something out.

There aren't any Liberal papers in Calgary but the Toronto Star opinion columnist returns fire on the city size.

I'm not saying the Postmedia papers or Toronto Star are being directed to release these articles by the Flames or the city, but no matter what happened, you know Postmedia papers were to support the Flames and the Toronto Star would be against the billionaire owners.

The Flames could say they are dropping out of the deal because they didn't like the mayors haircut and the Calgary opinion columnists would spit out a piece about the how the mayors bad stylist choice is sign of her ineptitude.

I'm curious if things would've played out differently if Gondek didn't come out aggressively on social media saying the Flames are ending the deal because of 20M. She didn't have to mention that she didn't like the arena deal in the first place in her posts.

CSEC/Bean said the day after that after the deal was going to die, there was the intention for the city and Flames to do a joint statement, like they did with previous announcements on the status of the project. If Gondek didn't do what she did, and the joint statement was done, the messaging could be a lot different from the media, and the general public. It could be a lot more amicable; with the focus primarily being not the right time to start digging.

Gondek started this fire publicly, and she's burned herself by doing it. She made it easy for CSEC to be quiet, and let the media carry out the narrative that it's hers and the city's fault the previous deal died.

It's the first time in all of this that you could say that the city is the one on the defensive. It was generally CSEC ####ing up the PR game pretty much the whole time.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't think he's a shill for anyone.

But people need to stop hiding from what they don't want to hear by calling writers shills.

It's possible to be on one side in writing and still have some facts in the piece. Plenty of blame to go around on both sides of this mess.

It’s the easy way out of a debate. Name calling.