THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED:
A couple from the CanWest files:
* Jacob Richler has been restored as restaurant critic at the National Post after a year (or so) of not being able to regularly submit his altitudinous resto tabs for expensing. How he manages to fool maitre d's and waiters into not giving him special treatment is a mystery to me. His picture is in the paper all the time.
Maybe it's because they, like millions of people in Toronto, don't actually read the Post? Of course, it makes sense to resurrect the beat as the paper is amping up its local coverage.
But, as I recall, his reviews gave many restaurateurs serious indigestion.
* Trust Maclean's, under editor/publisher Kenneth Whyte, to lay it on the line regarding the Asper family's treasured project, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. "Building Izzy's Dream',' not yet online, is an examination of the case -- or not -- for the feds to ante up some 100 million taxpayer dollars, not to mention another $14 million or so in annual operating costs.
As the article points out, this is not only an unprecedented amount of money, period, government policy is not to fork over ongoing operating funding to any museum it does not fully own.
Across Canada, 2,500 museums and related museums compete for a sliver of the $30 million the federal government spends each year on so-called heritage institutions. "Frankly, just about every museum in Canada is struggling," says John McAvity, head of the Canadian Museums Association. "The Canadian Museum for Human Rights is a wonderful concept but ..."
The article also addresses whether the Post's endorsement of Stephen Harper in the last election was connected to the government cutting that long-awaited cheque. Maclean's quotes Gail Asper saying no way -- and David Asper has said as much to me.
But others insist otherwise.
Anyway, it's always fun to read the Asper stories in Maclean's what with all the ex-Posties, Whyte included, now there.
UPPITY DATE: I hear that both Gail and Leonard Asper went way way up over Whyte's head to influence the publication of the article. But Rogers Communications said that's not how it conducts journalism.