Broadcasting News

by Mark Silva

Now that Newt Gingrich has suggested that "racist'' was too strong a word to apply to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, radio's Rush Limbaugh is standing on a lonely perch.

But Limbaugh's still standing:

"I got a little grief from people for saying that there's no such thing as reverse racism -- just call her a racist,'' Limbaugh says of President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, who is poised to become the first Hispanic on the high court and has suggested that a Latina may have a better perspective on some issues than a white male.

"So, that is a racist thing to say, and it's bigoted,'' Limbaugh tells FOX News Channel's Sean Hannity. "And she would bring, no question about it, racism and bigotry to the court if she is confirmed."

In a two-part interview on FOX's Hannity, the first part airing at 9 pm EDT this evening, Hannity discusses not only his feelings about Sotomayor, but also why he believes Colin Powell supports President Obama.

And once again, race is in play.

""I think two things were a factor in his endorsement of Obama, The first one is race, clearly,'' Limbaugh says of the former secretary of state in the second Bush White House and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the first Bush White House. " Nobody has the guts to say that, but, I mean, what else could it be?... Race is clearly a factor.''

He sees something else behind Powell's support for Obama: "

In February, I found myself bobbing around the Caribbean for a week with about 70 supporters of the National Citizens Coalition and half a dozen other talking heads.

One of the other chattering types was my National Post colleague, David Frum. Over post-dinner drinks one evening, David and a clutch of guests started talking about airlines. Much to the guests' chagrin, David gave a very spirited defence of Air Canada, claiming it was either the finest or one of the finest airlines in the world.

Only in Canada (or at least among a gaggle of Canadians cruising a tropical sea) could a discussion of which carrier provided the most legroom in economy class or the best buy-on-board treats or the most on-time departures become a symbol for a broader political debate.

To this day, conservatives -- especially Western conservatives -- dislike Air Canada. Our enmity comes from the way the former state airline was forced on us in the bad old days of airline regulation. You say you want to fly to Ottawa, Mr. Hick. Well, you'll do it when we tell you and pay what we tell you. And you'll fly through Toronto both ways, even though there's no special need to. And when you get home, you'll pay added income tax to subsidize keeping our head office in Montreal to encourage Quebecers to vote Liberal.

All of this was compounded, too, by the way the shelter of regulation bred sneering indifference for customers among Air Canada's staff. The eye-rolling sigh of the ticket agent at an extra-heavy bag. The perceptible harrumph of the gate agent when posed a simple question. The tongue-click of the flight attendant asked for a drink refill.

We were giddy, then, when we got the chance to fly WestJet instead. Not only was it a point of regional pride, there were leather seats, cheap fares and the flight attendants were like the cool-kid waiters at your favourite hip-casual restaurant. They liked the fact you were on board. You weren't an impediment to them enjoying their day.

And they joked about having to play a recording in French of every announcement they made live in English. (Yeah! Rage against the bilingual machine!)

But come closer now. This is just between you and me: David was right. Air Canada is a pretty good airline.

Having had to make several cross-continent junkets this year on American air carriers, Air Canada looks like limousine service by comparison. U. S. airlines offer buses with wings. They leave late, a lot. They manage to turn a four-hour flight into a 12-hour ordeal by routing you from Edmonton to Las Vegas, Las Vegas to Charlotte, Charlotte to Atlanta or Charleston or Fort Lauderdale. And there's no food on board, not even for purchase and not even if they make you so late there's no chance for even a fast food dinner before your connecting flight.

Meanwhile, on a recent 10-hour, transatlantic flight with my family, Air Canada had an exceptional service crew, fantastic seat-back entertainment choices, a couple of decent meals and even ice cream midflight.

I am still a dedicated WestJet customer, but I would fly Air Canada without hesitation.

Still, that's not why I want Air Canada to survive. As a consumer, I want the competition so prices are kept in check. In fact, there is nothing that says that competition has to be Air Canada. Some successor airline or airlines would do. Open Skies -- a policy in which any airline, Canadian or foreign, could fly all-Canadian routes -- would suffice, too.

Heck, I don't even trust wonderful, funky, casual-Fridays-seven-days-a-week WestJet to stay lean and innovative in the absence of other choices for passengers' dollars.

As a taxpayer, I don't like Air Canada, or WestJet or any other airline enough to bail them out and keep them in the skies. Making you and me give billions to air carriers through our taxes so we can save a couple hundred dollars on our next ticket to Montreal makes no sense.

Still, if there are going to be other options for my flying dollars, I think Frum is right: Air Canada is a good one. And I never expected to say that.

National Post

Fabio Rojas has a theory:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) announced he will seek another term in the Senate, Tulsa World reports.

So John Cole has pretty much addressed this, but last week Jonathan Chait criticized me and others for referring to Jeffrey Rosen's piece on Sonia Sotomayor as "gossip".

"Gossip" is an effective label for those who wish to denigrate Rosen's reporting or the reputation of TNR, but it's an inaccurate one. Gossip is unverified information. Gossip is something you hear all the time--say, Senator X mistreats his staff. No serious publication can pass off gossip as reporting. However, if you actually speak with the principals firsthand--you interview staffers for Senator X who report that he mistreats them--then what you have is reporting. That's what Jeff did. He spoke first-hand with several of Sotomayor's former clerks, who provided a mixed picture. Unsurprisingly, they declined to put their names on the record, but that's utterly standard for people who are speaking in unflattering terms about people they worked with or for.

Chait is one of my favorite writers on the interwebs, but this is less than persuasive. A big publication printing gossip doesn't change the definition of gossip. The issue isn't that the information was "unverified" as in, no one told Rosen these things, it's that it was objectively unverifiable, as in, assertions about Sotomayor's intelligence are unprovable. Rosen, as a well-respected legal expert, could have made that argument himself in some form, but he didn't, possibly because he wanted to present it as an "unbiased" observation. But since the source is anonymous, there's no way to judge the individual's motivations or perspective. There's reason to give people anonymity under certain circumstances to relay unpleasant information about a colleague or a superior, but not when that information can't be verified. Anonymous, unverifiable information is gossip.

Most oddly, Chait suggests I, along with others have some sort of agenda against the New Republic. I can only speak for myself, but in my many posts on Sotomayor and Rosen, I didn't say anything about the New Republic except that to identify the publication Rosen had been writing in.?

-- A. Serwer