Andrew Mitrovica's witchhunt against Rex Murphy continues, and it's beginning to pick up some steam. Today both the Toronto Sun and Murphy himself responded to Mitrovica's charges of what he calls a "very serious conflict of interest."
Mitrovica responded by essentially parroting his own claims -- with no additional evidence -- in another column on iPolitics, in which he feigns outrage that Murphy would cast him as someone out to victimize him.
Mitrovica has been talking an awful lot about this topic -- including in emails to this author -- but he isn't saying much of anything new. And that's what may perhaps be the fun thing about innuendo, if indeed there really is one: innuendo relies strictly on the paucity of substance in the suspicions and prejudices it preys upon. Additional evidence is a burden to innuendo, not of benefit.
Perhaps nothing characterizes this better than Mitrovica's appearance on (what he describes as) the "popular" Canadaland podcast. (If you've never heard of this "popular" podcast, you're far from alone.) He and host Jesse Brown seem to have a very good time agreeing with one another, and Brown certainly at no point bothers to ask Mitrovica any piercing questions.
Yet at one point of Mitrovica's appearance on the "popular" podcast, he and Brown agree that if Murphy's conflict of interest lies in that, should new evidence that the oilsands are unacceptably destructive to the environment -- with or without climate change -- Murphy would have a "powerful incentive" to not change his position. To do so would risk biting the hand that may (or may not, so far as Mitrovica and Brown are actually aware, given the available evidence) be feeding him.
This is an interesting point.
As I've noted previously, Mitrovica has suggested that Murphy has done anything whatsoever that David Suzuki cannot be confirmed to have done. Right down to this incentivized intrangence.
Consider Suzuki's ill-fated TV appearance on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in which he was questioned about the most recent batch of data from various laboratories that collect data for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Suzuki at first seemed to indicate that he didn't actually know what these laboratories were: nor was he aware that their data was indicating that global warming -- Suzuki's pet cause -- had come to a halt during the 1990s.
Many commentators -- such as Ezra Levant -- have attributed this lapse to ignorance. But in applying Mitrovica and Brown's argument, it suddenly begins to appear as if it could be willful ignorance. After all, with the thousands of dollars that Suzuki collects annually to give speeches about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and the millions that the David Suzuki Foundation collects to support and promote his work, Suzuki has a very real incentive to keep the party going, as it were.
Earlier, I wrote that Mitrovica -- who seems to think of himself as quite the avenging angel of Canada's left-wing media -- is leveling accusations that could end up burning David Suzuki. Now, they very much have.
All of this as Mitrovica refuses to address this obvious -- and obviously real -- conflict of interest. Mitrovica has accused Rex Murphy of deploying a "cone of silence" in terms of his alleged conflict of interest. Yet as it pertains to David Suzuki's very obvious conflict of interest, Andrew Mitrovica chooses to say nothing. It's not so much a cone of silence as it is a code of silence.