Professionalism, Punditry or PMS?

Well it was quite a day for Jane Taber on the latest installment of Question Period.
While the spectacle was interesting it left me scratching my head. I'm not sure what to make of "Jungle Jane's" performance in guerilla journalism . Was that supposed to be a professional journalist in action? Has Jane given up journalism to join the ranks of political pundits? Or was Jane desperately in need of a handfull of Midol?

Understandably, the last question may get me into some trouble, being as how it may imply a certain bias on my part. But then again I'm not a professional journalist and I don't think it's any more personal than the gem Jane fired off at recently rejected Appointments Commissioner Gwynn Morgan. Jane opened her interview/interrogation/inquisition of Mr. Morgan with:

Mr Morgan are you a bigot?

Ouch!!! I'm not sure, but I don't think holocaust denier Jim Keegstra has ever been asked that question directly. To Mr. Morgans credit he laughed off the question and gave a direct answer. No. Brilliant work Jane. I mean really, how to pose a probing question designed to root out some kernel of information to enlighten the viewing public. Just a thought Jane, but you might want to start an interview with an open ended question. You know, ones that start with What or How and allow the guest to expand on their thoughts and feelings regarding the issue of the day. On the other hand maybe Jane expected the answer to be yes. I suppose that would have made for a short interview.

On this one I have to rule out professionalism for obvious reasons. That leaves me with punditry or pms and I'm leaning towards the latter.

Jane then went on to editoralize on Mr. Morgan's statement that cronyism and patronage have been an ongoing problem in the appointment process.

"You were considered a patronage appointment Mr. Morgan.....you're the bagman for the Tories....You helped set up the Alliance."

Once again Mr Morgan acquitted himself well and pointed out that 1$/yr. Was hardly a patronage payoff. But what the hell, Jane managed to get "bagman" into the sentence and invoke the specter of the Canadian Alliance. The only thing Jane could have done better would have been if she could have tied Mr. Morgan to the Canadian Reform Alliance Party. You know the spiffy acronym and all. Clearly I have to come down with a conclusion of punditry on this one.

Ahhh, but Jungle Jane wasn't done yet. As any good guerilla journalist knows it isn't really a party until you're throwing around balls of your own shit. Hence her next question.

Are you still in favor of the process? It's something the Tories seem to like... this transparent or congressional (emphasis Jane's, complete with a quotation gesture) type of process. So are you still in favor of this process??

Way to go Jane!!! Imply Mr Morgan has an "American Style Hidden Agenda". So to recap, Jane hit the smear trifecta. Implications of racism, corruption and American style politics. I gotta go with punditry once again.

One would figure that Jane had done enough for one day, but this was just a warm up for her interview/interrogation/inquisition of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose. I sensed that there may be fireworks when they appeared on the split screen wearing the same outfit. The topic of the day was Canadian participation as the chair of climate change talks underway in Bonn, Germany. So what is Jane's opening question?

"Is it not hypocritical and dishonest of you to continue as chair of these talks in Bonn when your strategy is to basically kill Kyoto.?"

Hmmm. I sense a pattern emerging here. Could it be Jane is attempting to set a comfortable tone for her interviews by asking a closed question that the guest will find easy to answer?? Naw. PMS.

Minister Ambrose remained professional, pointing out that the previous government had signed on to commitments and then failed to follow through with any strategy to implement the same. Essentially wasting ten years on this file. The Minister went on to say that Canada, under the current government, was prepared to earn our 'Boy Scout badges" on the world stage. Jane damn near leaped through the screen and shrilly interjected with the following:

You talk about a made in Canada solution, you know earning badges....It means nothing because you haven't put anything in the window for Canada on an environmental strategy!!

Quite an observation Jane. The previous Liberal government commits Canada to unattainable reduction targets and then sits on it's ass for ten years and you righteously come down on the current Environment Minister of four months for not putting forth clear policy!!! Punditry and PMS.

Minister Ambrose went on to explain that Canada would be open to taking on new commitments under Kyoto if an international consensus was found. This caused Jungle Jane to hurl this final ball of shit:

"What do you mean new commitments? I don't understand all this jargon!!

Jargon?? What the hell Jane? Wasn't the object of this interview to explore the options for Canada to meet our Kyoto commitments?? You know Jane.... Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels......The one ton challenge and all that. I have to call punditry and PMS once again because it sure as hell wasn't professional.

Fer Christ sake Jane please look up objectivity and professionalism in the dictionary and get some Midol!!!

I know, I know, I'm a chauvinist pig. Better that than a pre-menstrual monkey hurling balls of rhetorical shit.

Syncro