Paul Jay should stick to the "Real" News

Paul Jay is an experienced journalist and newscaster whose reputation, in some circles, precedes him. He's the founder, CEO and visionary behind the Real News Network, a project that gets out lots of independent journalism, with talented journalists filing stories from Palestine to Toronto.

But supporters of the Real News Network ought to carefully assess Jay's reaction to the anti-G20 demonstrations in Toronto. Since then, particularly with the theme of police infiltration and the black bloc, Jay has repeatedly crossed the line between professional journalism and punditry.

Jay's analysis of the events of June 26 leap from "the bloc is infiltrated" with little to no proof to back that up, to "the cops knew what the plans were and didn't react," again with little to no proof back that up, to "It's not too many degrees of separation to get to the real man in charge – The Prime Minister." This is ideologically driven editorializing. It's not journalism.

Before I examine the fallacies and opinions he injects into his otherwise journalistic commentary, I'd like to quote from the Radio Television News Directors Association of Canada Code of Ethics. This code of ethics sets clear guidelines for reporters, kicking off with perhaps the most obvious one: Accuracy. "Broadcast journalists will inform the public in an accurate, comprehensive and fair manner about events and issues of importance." The code also states "Editorials and commentary will be identified as such." 

It is clear that in his work following the G20, Jay isn't particularly concerned with the accuracy of his reports, specifically with regards to the black bloc tactic, or with being clear with viewers about the difference between journalism and commentary. Here's why.

In a piece called Who Commanded the G20 Commander?, Jay states "We know the police had infiltrated the Black Bloc, we know they had cameras that could see 'everywhere,' so why couldn't they defend their own vehicles?"

I'll admit it, even in the face of reams misinformation, and even followed by a ridiculous statement that the pigs could somehow 'see everywhere', I was intrigued. We know the police had infiltrated the black bloc? I clicked the link, lo and behold another video produced by Mr. Jay himself pops up. In this interview, Jay himself refers to the black bloc as a tactic (not a group), and proceeds to ask lawyer Howard Morton if the bloc was infiltrated.

This line of questioning totally ignores the extremely problematic fact that all kinds of groups are infiltrated by police informants, and undercover pigs (secret police) appear uninvited to events and meetings organized by activists ranging from anti-war to environmental justice groups with an increasing frequency. "What even a decade ago would have been seen as organising, discussing openly about ways to protest, is now being seen as a conspiracy," Jaggi Singh, who was recently jailed on such charges, told the Media Co-op. But instead of shaming the police for infiltrating above ground, community based, grassroots organizations, Jay is keenly focused on the fact that infiltration happened in the black bloc, which (to restate the obvious) is a tactic, not a group that organizes meetings or events.

Morton responds that various groups (but he doesn't specify by saying the black bloc) were infiltrated.

Indeed, organizers with these groups (like Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance) are now facing what are no doubt trumped up conspiracy charges. I say trumped up because their organizing was open and above ground, because these folks were obviously not "leaders" of the black bloc (the bloc did just fine without them), and because nobody tells folks engaging in black bloc tactics when to break off from the march, or what to smash. The bloc, fluid and dynamic, decides.

Morton offers two explanations to answer Jay's next question, about why the police didn't react immediately when the breakaway march started. "One would be that they simply screwed it up, and the other would be that perhaps some of what happened [June 26] justifies the $1 billion spent on security and will turn some people unfortunately against protests of any kind."

The possibility that the police screwed up June 26, and were outwitted and shamed by the bloc, seems completely lost on media personalities like Jay, Judy Rebick, and others who have used denouncing the bloc as a platform to assert themselves as movement managers.

So let's revisit Jay's earlier statement: "We know the police had infiltrated the Black Bloc, we know they had cameras that could see 'everywhere,' so why couldn't they defend their own vehicles?" In earnest, the evidence he presents isn't all that compelling, and I don't think Jay himself "knows" what he claims to know.

Instead, Jay seems hell bent on criminalizing those who engage in militancy, as well as justifying the pig state's charges against our comrades who are still in jail. Believe it or not, this also contravenes the code of ethics mentioned before, which states "In reporting matters that are or may be before the courts, broadcast journalists will ensure that their reporting does not interfere with the rights of an individual to a fair trial."

Let's look at another of Jay's complete non-sequiturs with relation to the black bloc in the wake of the G-20.

On June 28, Jay said: "And I'd like to say to people that participated the black bloc—at least those of you that aren't paid by one of the various police forces in Canada—that if you think you're fighting for social change, how about not helping create the legal framework for such draconian laws and actions as we saw this weekend?"

This is one of the most irresponsible comments I've heard with regards to the excessive police brutality and crackdown in police state Toronto during the G-20 weekend. But it also makes no sense. The black bloc created a legal framework? Ahem, I thought that creating legal frameworks was the work of the courts and legislators. Who knows. Maybe the bloc infiltrated the legislature. But I kind of doubt that.

 I think Jay comes close to answering his own question when he asked: "So if the police had infiltrated the black bloc and they'd infiltrated the demonstration, how on earth could they not have known that when the demonstration march was moving towards the fence and then made a turn and runs up Yonge Street, that's what the plans were?"

If somehow the affinity groups that participate in the bloc tactic were infiltrated to the extent that Jay seems to believe they are, then sure, the cops would have been able to quell the breakaway group before anything was smashed. This leads me to conclude, based on the evidence available at this time, that these affinity groups were not infiltrated or were infiltrated to a minor extent (these tend to be very small groups of friends or close comrades) and in fact that the cops didn't know what the "plans were."

The more I read comments like Paul Jay's, the more I come to grips with the fact that it's hard for authoritarians and corporate media types to understand the concepts of autonomy, spontaneity and affinity that are essential to the black bloc tactic. That said, it is well within the demands of responsible, ethical journalism that many of us expect only from the alternative media that Jay stop trying to create "facts" and force them to fit his version of events.