Because we deserve a national newspaper that doesn't suck

So, you get the idea. I won't focus obsessively on the Globe: they're far from being the only inspiration for snark out there. Who knows -- in the years to come I may share moments of whimsy, limericks and recipes for pie. But so long as the Globe keeps providing my Morning Annoyance day after day with hammer-like regularity, they will be front and center.

It isn't that I hate the Globe. Not at all. They have great reporters, like Stephanie Nolen and Marina Jimenez. They have Toronto's only reliable restaurant reviews. Christie Blatchford and Margaret Wente do what columnists are supposed to do. Russell Smith... I have a bit of a crush on Russell Smith. And I think David Eddie is a great advice columnist even though I remember what he was like in high school. I don't want to cancel my subscription.

The problem is that the Globe is wildly uneven. To be precise, the political coverage sucks, on Canadian and American topics alike. I remember thinking about a decade ago that Jeffrey Simpson seemed a bit past his sell-by date -- now he looks like Thucydides by comparison. I have no real connections at the Globe, but my impression as a reader is that they are trying to be more right-wing than is compatible with reporting interesting stories accurately and allowing the ablest writers to speak their minds. Alas for today's right-wing-toadying newspapers, reality does have a liberal bias.

The column that gave me the idea for this blog was actually one last week by John Ibbitson. It starts off like a everyday exercise in triteness-maximization: Love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton is back. (Yes, that's actually the title.) Political soap opera... intriguing sideshow ... yadda yadda... but that's still only 100 words, so instead of trying to, you know, say something about Clinton-hatred, Ibbitson goes on to note that some people hate George W. Bush. And some hated Ronald Reagan. And some hated Brian Mulroney! And these things are all exactly alike, in the important respect that Ibbitson can't be bothered to think about any of them.

Excuse me while I bang. My head. Slowly. Against. The wall.

Note just a few of the problems here:

The first is the American-style false-equivalence imperative. Barack Obama is very deeply hated by many right-wing Americans right now, but put that together with Clinton-hatred and a pattern might start to emerge. So instead, we get Bush: isn't it mysterious how many people seem to dislike him? Perhaps sensing the incredulous snickers, Ibbitson flails for cover:

It is perfectly reasonable to be deeply disappointed with George W. Bush's legacy. Yet the contempt that many feel for the 43rd president antedated Katrina or the invasion of Iraq. He was derided as "Dubya" and "Shrub" from the day he entered the White House.

Uhh, yes. Because to anyone who was paying attention it was obvious that he was going to be exactly the kind of president who was going to do stuff like that. If you were too slow to catch on before Katrina, Mister I., you really shouldn't be admitting it. Not in your line of work.

Hence the need for more flailing cover with Reagan and Mulroney... which I can't be bothered to go into. Let's just be clear: Clinton-hatred is a unique phenomenon in modern North American politics. It is remarkable in having almost nothing to do with policy (just try naming Bill's scary lefty accomplishments). What's more, unlike 'hatred' as usually understood, it is not a state of mind but a well-documented, powerful social movement involving millions of dollars of expenditures by wealthy obsessives employing professional spies, 'journalists', lawyers, etc. If you can't see that there are some interesting sociological differences between the Arkansas Project and leftist snark about Bush, you really don't belong in journalism.

Oh, and the best bit: Who do you suppose is Ibbitson's great quoted source and example of Clinton-hatred? Richard Mellon Scaife, perhaps, who funded the Arkansas Project? Grand inquisitor Ken Starr? Obsessional sozzled ranter Maureen Dowd?

Why, no -- it's Dick Morris. Because really, who could be more representative of a powerful social movement than um, ... a disgruntled ex-employee of the other side?

Shorter Ibbitson: apples, oranges, pineapples -- they're all vegetables to me! For proof, have a persimmon.