This piece by @alexboutilier is a great example of "scandal journalism".

It is not a good example of journalism.

I will go through the parts I have highlighted and explain why.

*thread*

https://twitter.com/alexboutilier/status/1284482844618891266?s=20

1. “the idea of WE’s involvement with Canada’s COVID-19 response was already floating around the prime minister’s inner circle.”

The connection between WE and the PM’s “inner circle” is set up, with no evidence. The word “floating” sets a tone and implies the PM was involved.

2. “WE made an unsolicited pitch to multiple senior officials and ministers in Trudeau’s cabinet to run a “social entrepreneurship” program for Canadian youth.”

This is true – and the proposal has nothing to do with the program that was ultimately rolled out.

Boutillier does not name anyone – he just uses “multiple senior officials and ministers” and tries to connect the public service with the political side, without evidence.

3. “Only one minister has been publicly named as having received the proposal”

This language implies a) other Ministers received the proposal b) they are trying to keep that secret. He uses the words “only” and “publicly named” to give this a nefarious tone imply someone is hiding something.

4. “a close associate of Trudeau’s inner circle, especially chief of staff Katie Telford.”

He uses “inner circle” without defining what it means, who he thinks is a member, and why he thinks she is a member. The naming of Telford is odd – why was she named here?

5. “the Trudeau government was under pressure on that front”

From whom? For what? This statement is out of the blue, without any supporting evidence.

6. “WE was facing pressures of its own.”

Ah, now we know why Boutillier said the government was under pressure! He is linking them to WE, we were also “under pressure”. The implication? They worked together to relieve the pressure.

7. “WE made its pitch to cabinet ministers”

Made its pitch? That is an interesting way of characterizing what happened. They sent a proposal – you can read it here: https://staticsb.we.org/f/52095/x/7e1059b097/we-social-enterpreneurship-concept-paper_april-09-2020.pdf.

The word “pitch” implies a level of activity far greater than sending an email to some public servants and Ministers – without any evidence.

8. “funnel”

The word “funnel” has pejorative implications, and its use is deliberate – to frame the proposed spending as illegitimate.

9. “When Wernick called WE co-founder Craig Kielburger on April 19 to discuss the program, WE saw an opportunity.”

Boutillier does not specify to which program he refers. Is it the WE proposal? Is it the completely different program that the public service had put together?

Who knows?

He says WE saw an opportunity – implying that something fishy is going on. What opportunity? He does not say what was discussed or provide a source for this contention.

10. “There are outstanding questions about how WE’s revamped April 22 pitch for the CSSG”

Framing WE’s response to Wernick’s request as a “revamped pitch” connects the unrelated proposal from WE to the CSSG program – even though they are completely unrelated.

Calling it a “pitch” instead of a response to a request further implies that something shady is going on – and there is no support for that whatsoever.

This story is typical “scandal journalism” – relatively fact-free, full of insinuations and implications, and sinister framing.

Boutillier does nobody any favours when he pumps out these stories – he just fuels further performative outrage and grievance amplification, diminishes the work of the public service, and implies that everyone is corrupt.

We deserve better than "scandal journalism".

I forgot one thing re: #10.

Boutellier called WE’s response to Wernick’s request a “revamped pitch”.

He should have called it a “solicited proposal” after calling the first one an “unsolicited proposal”.