Sun News' Ford Nation: Carnival Sideshow? Network Setup? Illegal Campaign Contribution? Or All Of The Above?

Tonight marks the debut of one of the all-time world champion assholefests you or I are ever likely to see in our lifetimes.  Ford Nation, Sun News Network's "reality show" starring our hopefully-soon-to-be-erstwhile mayor and his hopefully-soon-to-be-struck-with-a-permanent-case-of-laryngitis brother, kicks off this evening at 8 PM.  This will be some kind of something.

What can we look forward to on this intersection of hubris, crass commercialism, spectacle, and freak show?  Well no one outside of the Fords and Sun News seems really sure about that.  SNN has kept details extremely close to the vest.  They've billed it alternately as a continuation of the Fords' defunct CFRB radio show, as a talk show, as a reality show, as a confessional, and as a pulpit from which Ford can "fight back on his own terms."  But they've been scarce with details about the exact format, saying only that it's pretaped (so no call-ins) and that other Sun News "personalities" (ironic quotes mine) may appear.  They're milking the mystery for all its worth.

The question on a lot of people's minds, of course, is why any "reputable" (very ironic quotes still mine) news network would touch the toxic Ford brothers at all?  Obviously there is a ratings angle to all of this.  But, as Sun News' employment page states, they consider themselves Canada's "stronger, better, bolder news and information network."  Where an hour of barely intelligible Ford ranting and bullying and lying fits into all of that is a question for the ages.  Especially considering that SNN's sister entity, the flagship print arm of the Quebecor/Sun Media empire, the Toronto Sun, has loudly and unambiguously called for Rob's resignation on the grounds that "he can no longer provide leadership" and that he "no longer deserves the public's trust," how can SNN claim that allowing Ford and his brother unfettered airtime to bloviate serves anyone's interest but their own?

The first place to look for an answer to that question, at least from SNN's perspective, is their own "news" (my irony muscle is getting tired) website/promotional outlet.  Here's former Toronto Sun senior associate editor Lorrie Goldstein:

The Toronto Sun’s editorial position that Rob Ford should step down as mayor isn’t going to change because our friends at Sun News Network have given the mayor and his brother a new talk show on Mondays at 8 p.m.

Notice he referred to Sun News Network as "our friends" as if there is some sort of divide between the two entities.  This is ploy number one to draw attention from the gross hypocrisy of offering the Fords a forum with the left hand while spanking them with the right.  It's also wholly disingenuous.  Yes, Sun News and the Toronto Sun are run separately, and in theory have different editorial mandates.  In practice though, the two are a fully conjoined operation.  If you go to the Toronto Sun's website right now you will see several links to Sun News video reports.  On the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail websites you will see links to Toronto Star and Globe and Mail video reports, respectively.  Sun News Network functions as the video arm of the Toronto Sun.  Beyond that, Sun News Network's own site not only reprints columns by Toronto Sun and other QMI Agency columnists, it also regularly features content written by Toronto Sun writers specifically for the SNN site.  As well, they regularly share employees back and forth.  Sun columnists like Joe Warmington and Warren Kinsella regularly appear as talking heads on SNN.  Conversely SNN talking heads like Michael Coren and David Menzies regularly contribute columns to the Sun.  My point is that to claim that they're not joined at the hip is prevarication of the highest order.  This isn't an affiliate situation where, say, an independently owned Fox affiliate in Buffalo can claim to be a separate entity from Fox News.  The Toronto Sun and SNN are both owned by Quebecor and obviously share a close working editorial relationship.  For one to say of the Fords "off with their heads" and the other to say "come speak your minds" is a fundamental display of commercial interests trumping editorial integrity.  That they try to hide behind a flimsy position like "well we're not technically the same company" just makes it more cowardly.

Goldstein continues:

We will not, editorially, support a chief magistrate of Toronto — the mayor’s formal title — who, by his own admission, smoked crack, bought illegal drugs and drank himself into “drunken stupors” where he says he couldn’t even remember smoking crack. 

We will not, editorially, support a mayor who associates with thugs and gangsters.

I like his repeated use of the word "editorially."  As if Ford television content is somehow not "editorial."  As if giving the mayor airtime to speak his side without the benefit to us of fact checking, or even penetrating followup questions, is not supporting his position.  By a narrow technical definition yes, they're not supporting Ford with the Editorial column in their newspaper.  But that's the sort of semantic word parsing Ford himself tried to use when he claimed he "doesn't smoke crack" rather than that he "never smoked crack" during his initial press conference when the crack story first broke back in May.

More Goldstein:

That said, since he won’t resign, and council has no way of removing him from office, Ford is still the mayor and it would be foolish to pretend that what he has to say isn’t significant. 

No doubt some of our colleagues in other media will tut-tut about Sun News giving the mayor and his brother a new talk show.

 This is pure Toronto Sun playbook.  Claim they're only acting in service of the public, and then retreat into a defensive crouch by reverting to the populist language and posture they love.  "Oh, those hoity-toity, fancy media elites will no doubt cluck their tongues at our impertinence, but we're just giving you regular folks what you want."  Nobody does this better than the Sun.

Goldstein then concludes with this missive, which is laughable when you consider that this is being presented as "news and information":

Finally, given all we know about the Fords, I’d suggest that a healthy skepticism is warranted when it comes to whatever they plan to say on their new Sun News talk show ... which I will certainly be tuned into next Monday.

What he's basically saying is "everything they say will probably be bullshit, so regardless of how significant I've already told you what they say is, and how important it is that Sun News provide relevant news and insight, you probably shouldn't believe a word that comes out of their mouths on this show that we've given them."  This position negates every word written before that final sentence.  All of the talk of them being newsworthy and that it's important to listen to them goes right out the window when we're then told they're probably going to lie to us.  This is entertainment, pure and simple.  Not that there's necessarily something wrong with that on its face.  Context matters here though--Rob and Doug are, respectively, the sitting mayor and a sitting city councillor.  No, they're not being paid to do the show, but to participate in a purely entertainment capacity for a profit generating entity is at best icky and inappropriate and at worst pushes the boundary of propriety.  If they talk about reelection there's also the possibility that the providing of free airtime to essentially let the Fords campaign could be viewed as an illegal campaign contribution.

How so?

Well, take a quick perusal of the City of Toronto's contribution and fundraising rules.  They define campaign contributions as "monies, goods or services given to a candidate for his or her election campaign."  Hard to argue that free airtime to talk about reelection doesn't qualify as a service rendered.  The rules continue by stating that "free political advertising provided it is done in accordance with the provisions, regulations and guidelines of the Broadcasting Act (Canada) and is available to all candidates" is kosher.  Is Sun News willing to give all of the candidates their own shows?  It also defines the contribution limit as being $2500 for mayoral candidates and $750 for councillor candidates.  I would imagine that Sun News's advertising rates would put the value of a weekly infomercial for a mayoral and potentially a council candidate far above those benchmarks.  Finally, the rules state that a contribution must be received only during the campaign period, which begins after the candidate files.  If we can agree based on the above that Sun News providing the Ford brothers a forum from which they discuss reelection fits the definition of a campaign contribution, then it would be illegal for them to talk about reelection on the air before the campaign period begins.  I guess we'll see how closely they adhere to those regulations.

Not insignificant to the implications of this television farce are the ways in which the network and the Fords are promoting it.  Here's Sun News' press release:

It’s the story the world has gone wild over. The Rob Ford follies. A mayor under siege, city hall in chaos, confessions about crack cocaine and drunken nights splashed on headlines around the globe. And now the next chapter, as Sun News scores the most wanted man in news. 

The embattled Toronto mayor and his brother City Councillor Doug Ford kick off the Ford Nation show on Sun News Network, Monday night at 8pm eastern. 

It’s Rob Ford up close and in depth on the drugs, the booze, and his fight for redemption. We hear new confessions, as Ford bares his soul like never before. What will he reveal? Will there be more bombshells? It’s a worldwide exclusive. It’s must see TV. And its only here on the Sun News Network, Canada’s home for Straight Talk and Hard News.

Still have any illusions about this being news and not entertainment?  This isn't a forum to debate issues or a provision of information pertinent to the governance of the city (two things, as fucked up as it often was, that the CFRB show could at least at times claim to be).  It's a televised menagerie.  Come and watch the circus animals perform for your amazement and amusement.  Watch the dancing mayor spill his guts and bare his soul.

And then we have the way the Fords are selling it themselves.  Here's the definitive quote from Doug Ford:

"Rob is like Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh," said Councillor Ford. "You just never know what he is going to say."

Think about that for a second.  Really think about it.  This is a sitting city councillor comparing the sitting mayor not to political, social or community leaders but to arguably the two most controversial and polarizing broadcasters of their generation.  This is troubling in so many ways.  It's an implicit admission that the show being hosted by two public servants is in no way in service to the public but is in fact a purely entertainment-based enterprise.  This is backed up by the Rob & Doug US Media Tour that the brothers have embarked upon over the last week or so, one in which Doug has referred to Rob as the "White Obama" and Rob has claimed that he plans to run for Prime Minister one day.  That neither brother seems to realize that they're being patronized and/or outright laughed at by these news organizations and their respective audiences only underscores the point that they're far more interested in the celebrity they're now enjoying than in what it means for their future, or that of the city they have been elected to represent.  Stern and Limbaugh may each be ridiculous in their own ways, but the last thing they are is unself-aware.  They know exactly who they're speaking to and how to speak to them.  The Fords are too dim and oblivious to even know that they're a joke, much less able to find a way to turn that gawking-at-a-car-accident/laughing-at-two-clowns dynamic in their favour.  They're just enjoying the ride, man.  And their Sun News show gives them the perfect outlet to continue doing so each week.

That Sun News may profit immensely from this is no small incentive to throw editorial uniformity to the wind and actively promote the Fords whilst simultaneously decrying them.  But is there another motivation?  One that promises to give Sun News viewers a television experience they won't ever forget?

I reached out to Sun News, as well as several Quebecor employees who do work for both the Toronto Sun and SNN, to get their perspective on the seeming incongruence of the Fords getting a show on the network partner of the paper that wants nothing more to do with them.  The only one to respond was Warren Kinsella, who writes a political column for the Sun and who appears regularly on Sun News (and will actually be doing so tonight after the Fords' show airs).  He feels that the show will provide a public service, although it's not the one that the Fords believe it to be.  Here's what he had to say:

Because Ford has said that he will be registering as a candidate in the first week of January, their new program can really only last six weeks. I do, however, look forward to both of these idiots falling flat on their face, and potentially providing more ammunition for those who are seeking their ouster. 

Given the legal circumstances in which they find themselves, I predict that their participation in this program will end very, very badly for the Fords. That makes me very happy.

 Now the question becomes whether this is simply a byproduct of what Sun News and the Fords are attempting to do, or whether this is in fact the network's motivation.  Kinsella was unambiguous as to his feelings regarding that:

They're setting [Rob] up to fall. Only he's too stupid to realize it.

If this is in fact the case, if Sun News is purposely supplying the rope with which Rob Ford can hang himself, and if both Fords really are too dumb or too starstruck to realize it, then the dearth of intelligent leadership atop city council at the moment is gobsmacking.  It's certainly plausible--SNN employs an army of professional trolls (those "personalities" mentioned above) ready, willing and able to encourage the Fords to run their mouths in all kinds of interesting directions.  And as history has shown, it's not like that encouragement needs to be extensive.  Is Kinsella correct in his assessment?  The man was one of the chief architects of Jean Chretien's 1993 election campaign.  The guy is no stranger to making political analyses.

Regardless, say what you will (and what I have) about all of it, Kinsella's assertion undoubtedly makes the entire concept a compelling viewing invitation.  That it might be illegal, that it certainly skirts the line of unethical, and that it crosses way over into the territory of vulgar notwithstanding, it would take an impossible strength of will for me not to watch this first episode to see what the Fords have to say.

And that might be the biggest indictment of them all when it comes to this exhibition: we may hate everything about it but we absolutely can't miss it.  It exploits the Fords' positions and proclivities perfectly.  That the inept, clueless tools of that manipulation also happen to be those chosen to lead us is what makes this such a sad enterprise.

The Fords continue to be their own worst enemy.  Sun News is now complicit in the cheapening of our mayoralty.  And we'll be right there, watching it happen.  Huzzah.

UPDATE: It's been suggested that by having a third party interviewer on the set asking questions, the Fords will have negated any issues about it being illegal campaigning by virtue of it thus being a news interview show rather than a campaign commercial.  While I understand the technical reasoning behind this, I can't imagine that a show promoted by both Sun News and the Fords themselves as entertainment, that breaks all of the rules mentioned above, would somehow pass scrutiny because there's another guy in the room.  It's either a "reality show" confessional as SNN has said, with the Fords chiming in with comparisons to obvious entertainers like Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh, or it's a news show, in which case branding it with the Fords' name and promoting it as they have would be totally inappropriate in its own right.  No, I don't take a third party presence as somehow making what they're doing permissible.  Otherwise such an easy loophole could be exploited by any candidate at any time in order to skirt campaign laws simply by having someone asking questions.