Erza Levant Business Model

[fish_e_o]

if you lie you're going to get sued. don't lie, what's the issue?

[wildwoods]

Originally Posted by hal53

so, if the accredited media splashes a picture of a drowned 3 year old boy on the other side of the world and blames it on someone from canada, is that a fact?, or an opinion?....or maybe slander?

.

[fish_e_o]

unless they're speaking about the outcome in court then it's certainly not fact.

[agentsmith]

Depends. If they merely report that the kid's father apparently blamed Canada, then that's factual.

If they appear to support his claim, that's perhaps different. Regardless, who's going to sue them for it, since I presume you'd have to prove that you suffered damages from this "libel"?

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by JimPS

His practicing status with the Alberta Law Society may be inactive because he isn't paid up on his liability insurance premiums, which means he's a member - but is not insured and not entitled to practice law.

I think that it will be a long time before Ezra wastes away from lack of food too - because he's saving a bundle in insurance premiums.

A blog mouth like his wouldn't be cheap to feed or to insure.

His practicing status is "inactive", because he has elected to select that status, as any qualified member of the Law Society of Alberta may do. There are hundreds of such people, who are not practicing law per se, and thus elect this so they do not have to pay the substantial active member and insurance charges, etc., but can retain the ability to go back to full practicing status if they so choose, without a major process of reinstatement.

[midgetwaiter]

They're running travel programs now. How would you like to go on a special Rebel Caribbean Cruise? Spend a week stuck on a ship enjoying special events and panel discussions with all of your favourite Rebel demagogues!

http://www.therebel.media/join_me_on...r_rebel_cruise

BARF.

[chasingtail]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

But the Govt already vets "accredited journalists" who are allowed to attend Govt briefings and new releases.
The question remains, are bloggers news people or opinion pieces? By any definition, Levant is a blogger. Rarely news, mostly opinion.
Good thing or bad, I haven't a clue.
Appeals to some.


Don

Pick a story on the Rebel right now that isn't true.

[JimPS]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

His practicing status is "inactive", because he has elected to select that status, as any qualified member of the Law Society of Alberta may do. There are hundreds of such people, who are not practicing law per se, and thus elect this so they do not have to pay the substantial active member and insurance charges, etc., but can retain the ability to go back to full practicing status if they so choose, without a major process of reinstatement.

It may not be that simple for him to practice law in Alberta.

Paying off the outstanding insurance charges etc to his governing professional body may get him back to practicing status.

He still has the on his record with the Law Society the behaviour that is unbecoming of a lawyer findings.

Whatever his game plan is I suspect it is mostly self serving. It is probably not a good strategy to get positive advertising in order to to drum up law business.

Levant is a mere fly weight for the freedom of speech cause compared to the late Doug Christie.

Perhaps he has no intention of practicing law anymore and feels he can make a better living as a blogger and a sponsor of National Review type cruises catering to the converted.

Perhaps that is what the ultimate Ezra Levant Business Scam - I mean Plan is all about.

[deerassassin]

I don't really agree with everything he says. But what the ndp did to them was still wrong.

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by JimPS

It may not be that simple for him to practice law in Alberta.

Paying off the outstanding insurance charges etc to his governing professional body may get him back to practicing status.

He still has the on his record with the Law Society the behaviour that is unbecoming of a lawyer findings.

Whatever his game plan is I suspect it is mostly self serving. It is probably not a good strategy to get positive advertising in order to to drum up law business.

Levant is a mere fly weight for the freedom of speech cause compared to the late Doug Christie.

Perhaps he has no intention of practicing law anymore and feels he can make a better living as a blogger and a sponsor of National Review type cruises catering to the converted.

get in the way of what you want to convey, do you?

He has NO "outstanding" insurance or other charges. They are not payable by anyone with non-practicing status, period. It is an elected status, not imposed. Anyone who fails to pay the relevant charges and fees becomes suspended or disbarred, not non-practicing.

There is nothing whatsoever on the record of the Law Society as to any "findings" of any such conduct. I think that what you refer to is his upcoming hearing on allegations of such made by the same Muslim Imam that unsuccessfully tried several other avenues (such as the Human Rights Inquisition) to squash free speech - it is a completely bogus waste of time and costs and will be dismissed in very short order.

Ezra has never represented any serious intent to practice law as such at all. He did so only insofar as articling to get admitted to the bar, and later a brief stint in a constitutuional law practice. He has always avowedly aspired to do just what he is doing, and was previously doing with Sun News. His remuneration is probably no where near what a lawyer with his abilities and intellect could potentially take home.

He is not a "blogger" really at all. If you actually go to the RebelMedia on the web, it is in effect an online TV news channel, complete with daily shows along with the reportage, opinion, and satire pieces. It employs a number of journalists and technical/admin staff. It is supported by donations from members and supporters, and by the advertising you will see there - just like any braodcast media (well, except for the trough sucking CBC). But I very much doubt that you understand the concept of creation of one's own business at one's own risk (?).

All of which you would discover easily by actually searching out and reading the relevant items and sites easily available on the web. But I guess that wouldn't serve your purpose as well as spouting a lot of speculative and distractive rhetoric (?).

[JimPS]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

He is not a "blogger" really at all. If you actually go to the RebelMedia on the web, it is in effect an online TV news channel, complete with daily shows along with the reportage, opinion, and satire pieces. It employs a number of journalists and technical/admin staff. It is supported by donations from members and supporters, and by the advertising you will see there - just like any braodcast media (well, except for the trough sucking CBC). But I very much doubt that you understand the concept of creation of one's own business at one's own risk (?).

All of which you would discover easily by actually searching out and reading the relevant items and sites easily available on the web. But I guess that wouldn't serve your purpose as well as spouting a lot of speculative and distractive rhetoric (?).

There's no shame or anything wrong with being a blogger reading blogs to obtain information and to help form opinions.

Levant just one of many "internet cowboys" trying to make a buck at it by expanding into cruises and therapy for the converted.

This is just a thread about the speculation about what his bisiness plan coulld possibly be.

[Twist]

Originally Posted by JustMe

Agree, however the press has the responsibility to report only honest facts, never personal feelings or opinions unless they qualify those reports with the caveat that they are opinions. It's known as responsible reporting.

Not taking sides, but freedom of the press is governed by being honest. If that is so in this instance or not is obviously what the debate is about....

bahhhha ha ha like the CBC reports "facts"?

[JustMe]

Originally Posted by Twist

bahhhha ha ha like the CBC reports "facts"?

Exactly. LOL

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by agentsmith

Levant has lost libel suits and/or been forced to apologize and retract statements multiple times. The great irony here is that only two years ago part of his defense in one of those cases was to insist that he's NOT a journalist.

And yet Mr. Levant, by his own admission, is not a journalist. “I’m a commentator, I’m a pundit,” he explained to the judge. “I don’t think in my entire life I’ve ever called myself a reporter.”

So he alternately claims and denies the title of journalist as it suits the moment. That combined with the fact that he's a former lobbyist for the tobacco industry should tell you a lot about him.

Nice try, some "reporter" editorializes a quote to make it look like Ezra claimed not to be a journalist. Yet he actually said he was not a REPORTER. You obviously fail to see the difference, but a reporter is expected to report news. However a journalist is a writer:

definition of journalist

1
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2
: a person who keeps a journal

Note that this means someone who editorializes is a journalist and Ezra certainly is. Furthermore the whole concept of "government certified" and approved journalists is the antithesis of a democracy.

[mgvande]

The Rebel gives an alternate avenue to get info. Just like any other online source. I for one do not mind the right wing bias as we are stuck with a Gov't funded, pro-Liberal money pit as a national news source. If Ezra can make a go of it without my money he can fill his boots and I wish him luck with sincerity. BUT when I just have to get the latest juicy gossip on the Syrian refuge family's response to Mohamad Jr's first taste of cotton candy, CBC is my goto place. Even when little Al Kabob gets walked to school for the first time or the Burka wearing lady gets her fist new pair of closed toed shoes... CBC is my source definitely!! I gotta go they are sizing up on a blog report the sizing up of a new explosive belt. Fabulous! Go with the aqua blue!

[From The Hip]

No I dont because the MONEY does not come from the taxpayer teet.He does what he does with no MONEY that the leftist CBC gets.

He says what he has to say and it is unvarnished and not painted over with Political Correctness....if he has an angel on his shoulder it is the angel of the departed George Carlin whispering into his ear the words that SHOULD be spoken by people that have woken up and say "This stuff is Fu^$ed UP".

FTH

[agentsmith]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Nice try, some "reporter" editorializes a quote to make it look like Ezra claimed not to be a journalist. Yet he actually said he was not a REPORTER. You obviously fail to see the difference, but a reporter is expected to report news. However a journalist is a writer:

definition of journalist

1
a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b : a writer who aims at a mass audience
2
: a person who keeps a journal

Note that this means someone who editorializes is a journalist and Ezra certainly is. Furthermore the whole concept of "government certified" and approved journalists is the antithesis of a democracy.

Pardon me you're right, reporters are a subset of journalists who report "just the facts". We don't have the full court transcripts, but since claiming to be a journalist rather than a reporter doesn't excuse one from libel, I really doubt he made that particular distinction at the time. But he is now, so it's still a semantics game.

Meanwhile, Holly Nicholas, one of the Rebel employees who was initially kicked out, played it the other way on Twitter:

where have I ever stated that I'm a journalist, Steve? I'm a commentator.

So they're both merely commentators, which are apparently neither reporters nor journalists. Perhaps only reporters are allowed in?

Seriously though, while The Rebel is playing a BS game here, that doesn't mean they should be banned from the Legislature. As I said in this other thread, a "legitimate journalist" is hard to define these days, and this was another inevitable issue that the NDP managed to totally mishandle.

[rugatika]

Well, the NDP fans can play it however they want. The fact of the matter remains that Ezra Levant exposed Rachel Notley and the NDP for the tyrannical freedom of the press squelchers that they are. And that is what the Canadian Media ran with and was printed in almost every newspaper across Canada.

The Notley NDP just elevated TheRebel with tons of free publicity and kicked themselves in the head, and it's good to see it happening here on AO as well. No way Ezra could have afforded the amount of advertising old Notley just gave him. All for the price of getting a lawyer to draft a letter. Well played Ezra...well played.

[fat cat]

CBC are tit suckers. eza is telling us, what cbc get paid not to

[Don Andersen]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

Good to see your opinions are in alignment with your understanding.....consistent with the days of typewriters.

And whatever that means.

[Don Andersen]

Originally Posted by Twist

Your spelling is atrocious.

Your agenda is clear.

I don't need government recognition to be allowed to report on activities. Freedoms guaranteed by the Charter say so.

So what is it to you, if he is funded by donations? People are free to do with their money as they see fit.

Ah, living in a perfect world are ya'!

And my agenda is .............. clear to you? Please explain it to me.

[Dakota369]

Whether you like the conservative slant or not, The Rebel is one of the largest independent news sources around right now. There are plenty of bloggers and whistle blowers out there fighting the good fight, but very few if any have the stroke or connections that The Rebel does. They are also very experienced, with a number of previously employed professional "Journalists" so you can bet that much of what you see/get there will be very well presented, and unlike many online news sources ....... vetted. Being both a lawyer, (I know not acting) and a Journalist/Commentator (potato/potahto) I am sure that Ezra and his crew are very diligent on making sure that what they present is accurate. How they slant it is maybe questionable, but the content is true. I find it amusing how many times I have watched reports on The Rebel, only to have mainstream media report them days later, after the online buzz has forced them too, and how watered down the mainstream media report is.

[fargineyesore]

Of course the left is complaining about The Rebel. Since when did the left not try to silence dissenting opinions?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by fargineyesore

Of course the left is complaining about The Rebel. Since when did the left not try to silence dissenting opinions?

Bingo. That's what the left does. They lose in honest debate every single time. All they can do is hope to fool enough of the low info people and silence any dissenting opinion from the rest. It's the operational model they've been following for decades now.

[mooseknuckle]

I'm no more a fan of Ezra then I'am of the CBC. The difference being I'm forced to pay for one.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Bingo. That's what the left does. They lose in honest debate every single time. All they can do is hope to fool enough of the low info people and silence any dissenting opinion from the rest. It's the operational model they've been following for decades now.

AND shout down anyone who disagrees, usually calling them a racist, sexist or some other "ist"

[histyle]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Bingo. That's what the left does. They lose in honest debate every single time. All they can do is hope to fool enough of the low info people and silence any dissenting opinion from the rest. It's the operational model they've been following for decades now.

Too true. Don't forget about separating, marginalizing, and then vilifying anyone, or group with a dissenting opinion.
Saul Alinsky 101

[Crankbait]

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/steph...rom-his-events

The phrase "photo opportunity only (cameras and photographers only)" appears 90 times in my inbox.

All 90 emails are from the Prime Minister's Office regarding upcoming events with Stephen Harper.

That line means that if ever an enterprising print, online, television, or radio journalist were to dare enter the event, security would prevent them and, if need be, remove them from the premises.

I know, because I've tried.

I've driven a half hour to go to an event with Harper in the hopes that I might be bestowed the grand honour of asking the Exalted One a question (I wanted to know why we weren't providing weapons to our Kurdish allies). But after hearing a 20-minute speech, I had a friendly PMO staffer instruct me that I was to leave. I tried to resist—I slipped off my bright-red "MEDIA" badge—only to be confronted by security a hot second later. I was escorted from the school gymnasium.

We've all just given up, at this point. We've, metaphorically, put on a housecoat and pulled a half-eaten carton of Chunky Monkey from the freezer.

Which is why it was so adorable to watch American journalists recoil in horror when staffers for president-to-be Hillary Clinton guided them around on ropes. Such simple disdain for the media feels almost quaint by Canadian standards.

A day later, journalists in Alberta were bullied by PMO staffers at a joint event between the Prime Minister and Premier Rachel Notley. The advance team instructed the journalists that cellphone pictures were verboten. They later relented. Questions were still banned, though.

Update: A reporter from the event has contacted to inform me that reporters were, in the end, banned from the event altogether. The PMO was kind enough to send a recap of the meeting to reporters in the Press Gallery, however, because they're so ****ing helpful.

Why? Because why not.

When you hold all the power, why not abuse it? If you run an event, why not ban the pesky media? If you control the flow of information, why not decide how it goes out?

It's been a problem since time immemorial. Whether it's editing Joseph Stalin's executed allies out of his photos or Barack Obama cherry-picking friendly media to roll out carefully packaged news stories, leaders always want to control the message.

But most leaders recognize that there's a balance between message-strangling and the public's right to know.

Not Stephen Harper, apparently. Not anymore.

I began working in the Parliamentary Press Gallery in September 2013. Since then, Stephen Harper has done fewer than six open media availabilities in Ottawa.

Every single one has been when an elected head of state has come to visit. You know why? Because we don't want to make our leader look like a goddamn control freak in front of our foreign allies.

When Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott came to visit, Canadian media were permitted two questions—one in English, one in French—at a joint media availability. Australian media were given two others. I asked the English question (on whether it was odd for Canada to be decrying the legalization of sex work when Australia, its leader on stage next to Harper, had some relative success after partly-decriminalizing the sex trade.)

One of the Australian journalists leaned over to me: "Hey, mate, is it normal for you guys to only get two questions?"

"No," I said. "We normally don't get any."

He began laughing. Then realized I wasn't joking. Then he stopped laughing.

At events in other parts of the country, Harper has sometimes taken open questions. PMO staffers have tried to create lists of who will be permitted to ask questions, but local media—who generally don't give a **** about their relationship with some Ottawa-based 20-something media relations czars—resisted, and so that died. Now, events are infrequent, and still tightly controlled.

So how did we get this way?

The easy answer is that we let it happen, but that isn't quite right.

The Press Gallery has fought back in the past. When journalists were banned from an open-door caucus meeting (one of those "photo opportunity only" events), the whole gallery staged a boycott.

"You won't believe what the Press Gallery just did in Ottawa," began the Conservative fundraising email that went out shortly thereafter.

After that, it all fell apart. Television reporters would never again sign on to a boycott that would mean creating holes in their nightly newscasts. Some print reporters became uncomfortable with becoming the story. Some of us, who didn't have to fill column inches or airtime, were a little more activist.

The most that came out of it was a strongly worded motion, adopted unanimously, that I'm sure elicited raucous laughter from the politburo within the Prime Minister's Office.

It's not that the PMO staff are bad people. I know many of them, and sometimes they're actively helpful in providing information, interviews, and details about stories.

But more commonly, they are actively trying to pile-drive Canadian democracy through a four-inch table as a stadium full of blood-thirsty partisans hoot and holler from the sidelines.

It's like there's a real fear that, given the chance, the Canadian media will walk onstage with Stephen Harper and tear-up a picture of the Pope, or begin yelling "BABA BOOEY" into the microphone.

We really just want to ask some questions. Reasonable questions. Questions about how our country is being run.

Instead, the only real opportunity we get is when Harper stands up to mouth off in Question Period, or when a stray minister wanders into the foyer of the House of Commons to answer questions.

There's a good chance that, by writing this, my future calls to the PMO will go unanswered. (Virtually every media request made to any department, MP, or minister ends up in the hands of a PMO staffer.)

If so, **** 'em.

It's probably our willingness to accept these occasional handouts from the PMO that's keeping this system alive.

I spoke on a panel at the Canadian Association of Journalists conference last month, where my entire point was that making friends and contacts in control-freak governments such as this one is a good way to get around roadblocks to access. Which is true. But at what point is it contributing to the decay of a once-pretty-good system?

Because, while we in the media are notoriously guilty of inflating our own self-worth to mind-boggling proportions, we are still an integral part of the democratic process.

No matter how many episodes of 24/Seven the PMO produces, or how many infographics ministers send out, you still need the media.

No more of this bull****. I'm done. Whether it's this summer, during the campaign, next year: I'd rather get tasered than put up with this nonsense anymore.

But also, please don't taser me.

Follow Justin Ling on Twitter.

[Crankbait]

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015...ostility-media

Vancouver journalist Shelby Thom was unceremoniously booted out of a Conservative Party rally attended by Stephen Harper simply for asking his supporters if they supported legalizing marijuana.

“Just got kicked out of @pmharper campaign rally for talking to supporters post rally about marijuana. #elxn42,” said Thom, a reporter for CKNW, in a tweet that also included a shot of the door shut behind her after she was kicked out of Richmond’s Pacific Gateway Hotel on Aug. 11. This was yet another chapter in Canada's 2015 federal election in which the Prime Minister's Office has gone to extremes to control the message.

Thom started asking Conservative supporters about marijuana legalization after Harper’s campaign speech was over, which the prime minister himself has consistently opposed, despite a number of US states voting to ‘free the weed’. Earlier that day at a campaign stop in Markham, ON, the PM once more spoke against legalization.

A staffer asked Thom to leave after her first interview but she carried on regardless, only to be intercepted again by security and ushered out through a side door, blocking her attempt to reach the lobby to speak with more people.

“For record: dozens of people mulling [sic] about room I was attempting to speak with. I was the only one escorted out in such a fashion. #elxn42,” tweeted Thom, but other journalists were already leaving.

Thom however decided to stay, searching for a different angle, other than the usual topics of national security, balanced budgets, and the economy that featured heavily in Harper’s Richmond speech.

Nonetheless, Thom’s fellow Twitter users quickly rallied round her she was hustled out.

“Nothing "overly sensitive" in @ShelbyThom980 reports after Harper rally. Why didn't #CPC staff COMMUNICATE instead of using trickery [?] #elxn42,” said Charmaine de Silva.

Thom’s experience in Richmond echoed similar treatment suffered by the National Observer in Toronto on June 18, when security staff prevented a reporter from asking Harper about Senator Don Meredith, less than 24 hours after allegations emerged of an inappropriate relationship with a teenage girl.

In that case, a National Observer reporter avoided ejection but was unable to get Harper on the record about Meredith, while attempts to speak with other guests were blocked by security in a manner similar to Thom before she was ordered out.

“I did feel, essentially, that I was kicked out. I was interviewing supporters after the rally and I was continually interrupted by Conservative campaign staffers,” Thom said in an interview on CKNW after the rally.

Such treatment is in keeping with a pattern of hostile behaviour shown by Harper towards journalists that emerged soon after he was first elected PM in 2006.

Just a month before Thom’s ejection, eight reporters were ordered to leave a photo-op with Alberta premier Rachel Notley last month, an incident tweeted about by Calgary Sun reporter Rick Bell, one of those who were ejected.

In 2013, the Prime Minister’s Office tried to ban CTV reporter Dave Ellis from boarding Harper’s plane to Malaysia where he planned to cover the week-long trip, but eventually relented. The PMO sought to bar Ellis for asking a Harper a question on a breaking news story.

During a visit to the Vimy Ridge battlefield in France, Harper pointed at two TV cameramen filming him and said, “In those days the enemy had guns,” according to a Toronto Star article dated July 21.

Back in Ottawa, Harper’s government ended the tradition of informal scrums with the prime minister and other ministers after the Tuesday morning cabinet meeting, deploying security guards to keep reporters away from the cabinet room and no longer making the timings such meetings public, soon after he was first elected in 2006.

Ottawa journalists are now roped off into waiting areas outside weekly party caucus meetings to stop the getting in the way of MPs.

When travelling around Canada, the PMO only informs media of events at short notice, unlike the Mulroney or Chretien eras where national reporters with sound knowledge of current events were always present at press conferences and could grill past PMs on major issues. Harper effectively bypasses major outlets and usually faces questions from local reporters who often were not so knowledgeable about national affairs.

Since he was elected, Harper has held less than six open media sessions in Ottawa, while his office has often restricted press covering his appearances to photo-ops only, pre-screened any questions journalists wish to ask the PM, and has strictly limited the number of questions reporters can ask.

Journalists seeking to enter an event attended by the PM must also submit to police searches of their equipment using sniffer dogs and bomb detectors. Such measures resulted Veteran Ontario reporter Susanna Kelley being denied entry to one such appearance, on the pretext of officers and dogs being unavailable to search her, despite the fact she arrived early.

Seeming hostility towards media from the Prime Minister’s Office has gone hand-in hand with evasiveness, such as that seen at the Aug. 6 Macleans Leaders Debate in Toronto when both Harper and spokesperson Kory Teneycke dodged the post-debate scrum, despite early indications that the latter would fill in for the PM.

The Conservative Party even tried preventing its own supporters from using social media during rallies, only to back down in the face of criticism, but Harper events remain invitation-only.

[rugatika]

Those weren't media events like the NDP were seeking to ban Levant from.

Trying to keep a reporter off of Harper's plane is hardly congruent with kicking Rebel reporters out of NDP media events.

Searching reporters for guns and weapons at media scrums seems like total common sense. Some left wing reporters are among the craziest people.