Doug Craig:The Spawn of Satan?

By  | August 1, 2010 | 40 Comments | Filed under: Editorial, Local News

If you read The Advocate you already know that our Esteemed Mayor is the Spawn of Satan.  When they are not regurgitating (plagiarizing) real news from legitimate sources, it seems to have become somewhat of a game for The Pundits over there to target him and Cambridge Council, but they never contact them to explain their position.

According to The Advocate Doug Craig is personally responsible for everything that residents find wrong with Cambridge. From the trains at The Delta to ground that was contaminated a century ago, it’s all Dougy’s fault.

What a load of shite.

Over the last decade Doug has earned my respect, and I consider him one of the more important influences I have had as an aspiring writer.

In one of  the first columns I ever published in The Cambridge Reporter I lambasted Doug for what I perceived as a snub to Hespeler business owners. Doug phoned me the day after the column appeared and urged me to call him before I wrote about him again. This turned out to be some of  the best advice I have ever had as a writer. If I’m going to write about someone I’ll contact them first. In over 10 years of writing locally I’ve never had Doug, or any member of council, fail to return my calls or emails.

I don’t always agree with their positions, but none of them has ever failed to discuss their reasons for voting for or against any given issue. To write about them without giving them a chance to defend their positions is “yellow journalism,” and gives social media a black eye.

I want to encourage readers to contact their members of council, and the candidates running in your ward, before you write derogatory things about them .

Tags: ,

40 Responses to Doug Craig:The Spawn of Satan?

  1. Jimm August 1, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    Hey, If you check out my earlier column..Is the mayor Satan..you can find some answers!!!

  2. Brett August 2, 2010 at 7:45 am

    I have to agree with you Scot, I’ve been commenting over at the Advocate for a while now, and I’m seeing more biased journalism, not constructive criticism. I hope to see this change, it does not help the citizens of Cambridge to see the ‘whole picture’ when what is being presented is opinions based on inefficient information, and political warmongering.

  3. Sherrie McTaggart August 2, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Or maybe some of it is based on facts…

  4. JMac August 2, 2010 at 9:22 am

    I like this site allot, and enjoy my time here. The conversation is of a higher level than other sites for sure…when i visit that site to see what opinions are out there, its like a non-stop info-mercial based on a select few blogger’s agendas. I dont like the slant of the article above though, as it takes pretty direct shots at the Advocate…for this site to be a true alternative and “safe Haven” for those who want intelligent dialogue, the comments take from that. I see this site as a step up from the mud. That being said, I appreciate the hard work the mods have done here…so far so good…

    PS..there are things I would like to see here…just ideas..where can we direct those comments?

    Thanks

    J

  5. Margaret Barr August 2, 2010 at 11:18 am

    I agree that some Advocate posters take a decidedly angry approach to certain issues and individuals. However, that’s their right. I don’t think anyone there ever claimed to be a ‘journalist’.

    I hardly think that it can be called ‘plagiarizing’, when the Advocate reprints news stories and gives the credit to the writer/publication. The Advocate posts (selected) news accounts and the comments are personal opinions.

    Scot, as far as Doug calling you and asking you to contact him prior to any future writings, well, that’s not a lesson the mayor should have had to teach you. That’s jouranlism 101. I never wrote a column about anyone that I didn’t speak with beforehand. Besides, Doug is a very smart man, he did what any politician would do (by phoning you). He established contact, made you feel a little ‘meek’ for not getting your facts/comments correct before writing about him; he’s returned all your calls since and made you a friend. Good for the mayor. He’s doing his job…that’s all.

    I enjoy this site…… a lot. But the ‘articles’ and ‘tone’ here often make me think that it is simply an ‘answer’ to the Advocate. You know, come here if you have something positive to say about the mayor/council/whatever…Go to the Advocate if you have anything negative to write.

    I really wish Cambridge had a Social Media outlet that provided real news (interviews/comments and all) and then let the comments fall where they may. Positive or Negative. No bias.

    Having said all that, What I should have said was ‘I agree with JMac’…..But I really am tired of writing that. 🙂

  6. scot August 2, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Margaret, The Advocate published one of my columns without permission that I was paid to write. They have also wrote several columns slamming me personally, which they have since removed.
    Also, I wrote this at the request of Jim Hillis, who is also sick of reading the negativity over there.

  7. JMac August 2, 2010 at 11:47 am

    this is your site , and obvioulsy you can write what you wish…but my comment to that is “who cares?”. mentioning them and writing about them keeps them current…and it does make this site look like an anti-advocate site, as Margaret suggests…just move forward and let the chips fall where they may..readers will decide based on content, not anything else.

  8. Jimm August 2, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Some very interesting comments and some very valid points. This site is open to both sides of a story and was never intended to be an anti anything site, nor a rah rah site, but a home for those who felt they had something to say. Yes i have some issues with the way the other site handles things and i stopped writing over there because of that. As for real news, well, that is going to come eventually, and that is what we are looking for from the readers, contributions on what is going on out there. Like our readers we all have full time jobs and this is an outlet to express ourselves. As we grow and the election draws near we hope to improve our coverage and deliver the news on a regular basis. Just one note though, my satire stays…it keeps me sane!

  9. Jimm August 2, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Forgot one thing.Margaret, you brought up a good point about interviews etc..that is something i am working on, but since this is the slowest time of the year and we just launched,it is currently on the back burner until September and then hopefully we will be able to go full steam with that.

  10. Margaret Barr August 2, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Thanks, Jimm. The satire must stay…..or I go. If we can’t always find humour in things, then we are forever lost.

  11. Jimm August 2, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    I agree, we are a work in progress, and oh, the satire that i have waiting!!

  12. scot August 2, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Just wait till you see what I’m working on!

  13. Chris B. August 2, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Picking on the advocate? This site is nothing compared to one that i found the other day. their whole mandate is ripping that site apart!This site at least balances things.

  14. Margaret Barr August 2, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Okay, Chris…..spit it out. What’s the www. for that website? I wanna’ read it……please?

  15. John Caffrey August 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    So Chris, are you saying it is a good site or bad? But really does it matter? This site will allow the folks to be heard, and i have no doubt we will eventually hear both sides of a story.

  16. Jimm August 2, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    I know i should let this die Margaret, but i feel it is important to what Scot and I are trying to do here. I have no problem with posting a story that somebody else wrote for another site, but, and here is my problem, i feel that permission from the author is necessary to do that. I have permission from a few writers in town to print their stuff on here, and i will be doing that in the upcoming days, weeks and months. They have looked at the site and have giving me permission to do it. I have also had a couple say no, that they are not willing to have it put on here and I respect that. A few others have said okay but only a synopsis of the story and that i must include the link to their site. Just posting something even after they object, to me is not the way to go. but that is how i feel. And i hope you and the others understand that! but keep reading us, we are growing every day! jimm

  17. Margaret Barr August 2, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Jimm, permission from a writer (before reprinting their work)is absolutely mandatory! No exceptions…

  18. scot August 2, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    …except at The Advocate, hence my bitching.

  19. Sherrie McTaggart August 2, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    Something you might want to look into……or they might think you are a girl lol

  20. scot August 3, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    lol, if you saw my ugly mug there would be no doubt about my sex,Sherrie.
    Margerat, unless I’m mistaken you posted a story at The Advocate that you attributed to “a little mouse>” How dare you question my integrity?

  21. Margaret Barr August 3, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    I don’t question your integrity, Scot. I did not post a ‘story’ on the Advocate…I posted an ‘opinion’ and made sure that readers knew it may or may not be true (aince I heard it from a little ‘birdie’….not a ‘mouse’ as you quote).

  22. scot August 3, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    A “birdie” a mouse or a rat, the bottom line is you are are publishing unestablished rumours. I expect better than that from you.

  23. Margaret Barr August 4, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Scot, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. It sounds as if you expect me to be a ‘news’ reporter here and over at the Advocate. Sorry. Both sites are for ‘comments and opinions’……I’m allowed to voice mine (so long as I make it clear that it is ‘comment and opinion’). As a journalist, you must know that. Now, go get your pipe, sit down, relax and, please, understand that I am not in any competition with you. You are the ‘reporter’ here. I’m just a reader/poster.

  24. scot August 4, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Margaret, you are both knowledgeable and informed on local issues, and I consider you a worthy opponent.(and there are very few in that group)
    If you take one side I’ll take the other just for the sake of discussion, and I look forward to your continued participation.

  25. Margaret Barr August 4, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Sounds good to me, but what if we actually agree? 🙂

  26. scot August 4, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Let’s agree to disagree just for the discussion.

  27. Margaret Barr August 4, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    I might agree to disagree with you, Scot; but first I have to consider whether you are a worthy opponent for me. 😉

    Someone (or was it The Bible) said that ‘pride goeth before a fall’. Scot, I gotta’ tell you I ain’t never read anyone with such arrogance (and ‘pride’). I’m not sure what you can lay claim to, in the journalist sense, but it must be big.

    Yes, I have written, managed and edited several magazines; and personally interviewed everyone from Actor Tony Curtis to Premier Bob Rae, and many consider ‘that’ journalism. I don’t.

    I’m the first to admit that my only ‘claim’ to real journalism is my Cambridge Times column years ago. And I might add (if it can really be called a ‘claim to fame’) that I was by far, the highest paid columnist the Times’ ever had…..just ask the editor or publisher.

    So…. until you’re ready to provide, at least, a partial list of your accomplishments as a journalist (as I did above)then I will have to reserve judgment on whether I should find you worthy of disagreeing with me 😉

  28. Jimm August 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    I have had 3 story’s published by Lary Turner in the Hespeler Happenings. does that count?

  29. scot August 4, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    The Record, The Times, The Reporter, Echo Weekly and you can take my book out at the library. (I’m also an accredited member of the Canadian Association of Journalists)
    Thanks for asking.

  30. JMac August 4, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    Hi Scot…dont miss the forest for the trees…there are plenty on here who could take you behind the shed…you like to stir it up but walk away when the gettin gets good…or so I have seen..a little humility goes along way to affording you respect..not just words…

    just a humble observer..

    J

  31. Jimm August 5, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Getting a little off track are we not? Don’t make me come in there!

  32. Sherrie August 5, 2010 at 12:30 am

    Boy’s will be Boy’s.

  33. JMac August 5, 2010 at 7:17 am

    yes it did get off track…but I could not find the “Debating with large egos” thread or I would have said my piece there…’nuff said.. lots more important issues to discuss..

  34. Jimm August 5, 2010 at 8:35 am

    agreed

  35. Margaret Barr August 5, 2010 at 9:54 am

    I agree, too. I admit I was being facetious with Scot; But when he wrote “Margaret, you are both knowledgeable and informed on local issues, and I consider you a worthy opponent.(and there are very few in that group)”, well,,,,,,,,,,I just couldn’t leave it alone. I mean, I consider anyone a ‘worthy opponent’ when it comes to discussion/opinions; and I was simply aghast (don’t you know?) that he would write that “there are very few in that group” (meaning whom he considers a ‘worthy opponent”).

    Guess I’m just more insecure than Scot 😉 My bad…I’ll be good now (maybe).

  36. Brett H. Hagey August 8, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    hey scot i just sent you an email to the aforementioned address, lemme know when you get it, ok?

  37. Gary T. August 24, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    I was reading that other site and they said that this site was a doug craig supporters site, can you tell me where all the storys are about him, i see support for Andrew Johnson but not really any for Craig, or is there another site from cambridge?

  38. Harold Fontaine August 24, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Sour grapes perhaps? Personally i don’t see it, but i do not know the publisher or what they are thinking but from what i have read there is not much of a bias to any of the candidates.

  39. Jimm Hillis August 25, 2010 at 1:42 am

    People see what they want to see!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Links