Canadian Politics Today

Robyn Urback wrote a column on the subject that makes some interesting points in regard to both Paikin and Brown.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/me-too-paikin-1.4527003

In regard to Paikin:

 -Urback writes that usually when public figures have been accused, more accusers have come forward (hence the name #MeToo...) to support the initial allegations with their own. Nothing of the sort has happened in regard to Paikin. If Paikin were the kind of guy to offer a spot on his show in exchange for sexual favors, isn't it likely that he's made the offer to women other than just Thomson? Nobody has come forward to say so. The absence of more accusers doesn't mean Thomson isn't telling the truth, but it seems odd that Thomson would be the only one he made this offer to.

 -she also says that they in the news business hear far more than gets reported.  She says that nobody in the news business was surprised when claims were made against Patrick Brown, for example.  But Urback says that no such rumors have circulated around Paikin.

In regard to Brown, her points somewhat cancel themselves out. I have also read on social media that nobody who has spent any time in bars in Barrie was surprised to hear that Brown was in the habit of trying to pick up young women.  And yet, at the same time, in spite of the highly public accusations made against him, no additional accusers have come forward.  We still only these two somewhat dubious accusers.

 -k

This is a genetic fallacy, the inverse of ad populum. You’re implying that the accusations are untrue because there aren’t more accusations. That conclusion does not logically follow the premise. Taken to an extreme, it’s akin to saying, “he couldn’t have murdered someone because I’ve never heard about him murdering anyone else.”

This is a genetic fallacy, the inverse of ad populum. You’re implying that the accusations are untrue because there aren’t more accusations. That conclusion does not logically follow the premise. Taken to an extreme, it’s akin to saying, “he couldn’t have murdered someone because I’ve never heard about him murdering anyone else.”

Fair enough, but the rules are understandably being rewritten and one of the *new* rules says that multiple complaints will make a story reportable.  Would you have a single, uncorroborated complaint make the news ?

If so, then you are now talking about zero checks and balances, which to me is going too far the other direction from the fallacy of "innocent until proven guilty" ie. only court prosecutions should be reported.

Would this story be as salacious if the lady admitted he was over 19?

PB's fate was sealed a mere handful of hours after the story was run. And now we're finding out that the story has holes in it. But he probably doesn't get to be leader again. He should sue both women for lost salary and reputation.

This is the problem with this movement. It moves the pendulum in the complete opposite direction and any claim is to believed even if the woman stays anonymous.

Fair enough, but the rules are understandably being rewritten and one of the *new* rules says that multiple complaints will make a story reportable.  Would you have a single, uncorroborated complaint make the news ?

If so, then you are now talking about zero checks and balances, which to me is going too far the other direction from the fallacy of "innocent until proven guilty" ie. only court prosecutions should be reported.

I’m not particularly interested in aspects of reportability. I’m more concerned with the shifting norms that are dissolving the code of silence that victims had been socially regulated into adopting.

I agree that women should be furious about women who make false allegations.   On the other hand, on this story, there is no real proof that PB's claims are true either.  CTV says they did their due diligence to ensure that the reporter didn't know either of the woman. As I understand the story, a friend of PB's takes a guess about who the woman is and based on that guess, says she and the reporter were friends. 

In his response to the accusations last weekend, Brown repeated the earlier claim that the reporter and the accuser know each other.

Clearly Patrick Brown himself knows who the accuser is. Her explanation of her role at the constituency office, how they met, and so on, means there couldn't be two women who meet the description.  Brown's friends would probably know as well. Certainly those who were at the party that night would know who she is. It's not top secret information... it was a constituency office, not a CIA black site. And if you look at my own detective work on the previous page, you can see that the woman named Frank Magazine seems likely.

So it makes you wonder if CTV actually did any research on the relationship between the reporter and the witness, or if they got caught with their pants down and are making the claim that they did their homework as a matter of legal butt-covering.

As for the other woman, maybe she lied deliberately, or maybe the incident happened as she said but she really was mistaken about exactly when.  I don't think its unusual for people to remember something significant, but not recall exactly how old they were at the time. 

Two things about that.  First off, getting significant details wrong-- be it the house they were actually in, or the time of year it happened, brings the whole account into question. And secondly, her age at the time and her being still in highschool is one of the factors that fueled the indignation over the story. Finding out that she had already graduated and might not have even been 18 when this actually happened changes the complexion of the story somewhat.

 -k

Women should be furious that this is what this movement has turned into.

I am getting there.

 -k

  However, that’s the consequence of media being structured by a capitalist economy. What we see, hear, and read are a function of a rationality driven by profit motive.

That is yet to be determined.  What happened with Brown could have been:

1) True, accurate, timely reporting
2) An opportunist springing a trap
3) Profit motive

We may never know.

That is yet to be determined.  What happened with Brown could have been:

1) True, accurate, timely reporting
2) An opportunist springing a trap
3) Profit motive

We may never know.

I based my response on your premise of “single, unsubstantiated claims.”