CBC Ombudsman to do Internal Investigation

[Canuck E Stan]

CBC reviewing claim

The CBC has begun an internal investigation and possible disciplinary process after one of its parliamentary reporters suggested questions to a Liberal MP on the Commons ethics committee.

This will be the third time CBC has had to do an internal investigation about anti-conservative reporting.

In 2004 an email from Stephanie Matteis of CBC's The National exposed the CBC's search for Canadians that would not vote for the Conservatives because they were "scared, freaked out or worried about the Conservatives, the Conservative agenda or its leader."

The CBC was also forced on August 21, 2006 to express "regret" over a story by CBC reporter Christina Lawand that misrepresented an answer given by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

[Shakeyhands]

how is that Anti Conservative? I fail to see the issue with it. Trying to keep an open mind and see it from the other side but who cares where a question comes from?

[August1991]

From link:

A Liberal party official denied there was anything untoward, saying the party gets "bombarded" daily with comments and ideas for questions from Canadians and from reporters.

"We get people suggesting questions all the time, that's just life," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Exactly.

So what if the Liberal PM got his questions from a CBC reporter? So what if the CBC reporter deliberately gave the questions to the MP?

This internal investigation is triggered by the Conservative complaint and so I wouldn't read anything into that either.

----

Two other points: First, IMHO, the CBC has a leftward bias (but that's not the issue here). I'm not alone because the Left itself often says, "There are enough corporate, for-profit media sources around. The CBC provides a balance." Uh no. The CBC can only function because it doesn't have to answer to listeners/customers.

When the CBC hires someone of the calibre of Mark Steyn to balance off people like Anne-Maria Tremonte, then I'll believe that it's non-partisan. I have no problem with left-wing journalists but I would like to hear occasionaly the other side of the medallion.

Second, we can't be too far from an election now. The Liberals and Tories are sniping at each other.

[Michael Bluth]

Pablo Rodriguez is symbolic of all that is wrong with the Liberals.

Long-time party hack who has no ethics and can't see a problem with being fed questions by Canada's Public Broadcaster.

No news organization should be feeding questions to Parliamentarians. The fact that this is a publicly funded broadcaster is doubly odious.

Rodriguez should do the honourable thing and resign. But then he wouldn't have a job.

Do you think Steph has the cojones to kick him out of caucus?

So what if the Liberal PM got his questions from a CBC reporter? So what if the CBC reporter deliberately gave the questions to the MP?

The role of the media is to report the news. Not create news.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Shakeyhands]

so again, what does it matter where a question comes from? How is this evil?

[jdobbin]

When the CBC hires someone of the calibre of Mark Steyn to balance off people like Anne-Maria Tremonte, then I'll believe that it's non-partisan. I have no problem with left-wing journalists but I would like to hear occasionaly the other side of the medallion.

Perhaps if and when Harper gets a majority he will put an end to the CBC.

As for counterbalance, it seems to me that if you watch their political panel, there are a lot of voices from the right there. And Steyn doesn't seem to have much interest in the back and forth of Canadian politics to have interest in a weekly panel. He writes more on the international right wing nowadays.

As far as the investigation goes, I'm sure it won't silence the critics in the Tory party who want to CBC put to an end.

The future of the CBC, the CRTC and broadcasting and film in general should be the subject of a Royal commission. My opinion is that all regulation should end, the entire market opened up, ownership restrictions dropped and commercial substitution dropped. As far as Canadian content goes, if there is a demand for Canadian news, sports, drama and comedy, then we should weigh out the best way to support it. The present rules are not working in a fragmented market.

[Michael Bluth]

so again, what does it matter where a question comes from? How is this evil?

The role of the news media is to report the news not make it.

Nobody said it was evil.

Just dishonest, unethical, unfair and an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

Are you fine with that?

[Shakeyhands]

The role of the news media is to report the news not make it.

Nobody said it was evil.

Just dishonest, unethical, unfair and an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

Are you fine with that?

No, because I really don't see it as unethical, unfair or an inappropriate use of taxpayers dollars.

Not being biased here but really, why would anyone care where a question came from? After all, its just a question... Isn't it?

I was being facetious with the evil part...

I guess I just don't see it. Thats ok, we'e proven a few times we don't all agree with each other.

[Carinthia]

As far as I'm concerned the CBC should have given them more questions. Reporters have the expertise in interviewing. That Committee hardly asked any of the pertinent questions that Canadians wanted answered. Especially when Schreiber was on the stand.

[Topaz]

Do some of you people think this government is pure in heart and has never done anything dishonest since they took over??? Well, most people know they are not and I'll give you one example. Thursday, over on Yahoo, they had the story of Russ Heibert emgering from the committe after questioning Mulroney going to talk to the media. After reading his notes he said HE had drafted them during the four hours inside the committe room. They were computer-printouts with highlights and circles. The only problem was, its reported there are no computers inside the committee room. When one of the press said something about it, he immediately turned and left! So were did he get his questions??

[jefferiah]

Two other points: First, IMHO, the CBC has a leftward bias (but that's not the issue here). I'm not alone because the Left itself often says, "There are enough corporate, for-profit media sources around. The CBC provides a balance." Uh no. The CBC can only function because it doesn't have to answer to listeners/customers.

The CBC is a publically funded government run broadcaster. It's job should not be to provide a balance against so-called Conservative reporting. It should be in the center and non-partisan. If it were a private, for-profit network then that would be acceptable.

Edited December 15, 2007 by jefferiah

[Michael Bluth]

The CBC is a publically funded government run broadcaster. It's job should not be to provide a balance against so-called Conservative reporting. It should be in the center and non-partisan. If it were a private, for-profit network then that would be acceptable.

Perfectly stated.

Spin them off and make them private. Then they can go ahead and officially partner with the Liberal Party of Canada if they want.

[August1991]

The CBC is a publically funded government run broadcaster. It's job should not be to provide a balance against so-called Conservative reporting. It should be in the center and non-partisan. If it were a private, for-profit network then that would be acceptable.

Centre, non-partisan? Doesn't exist. Give me the gamut and let me decide.

In the private sector, the only viable current broadcasting technology requires advertising. To receive a TV signal, I would prefer to pay higher taxes rather than pay higher prices. When technology allows focussed advertising, or cable TV is more sophisticated, then maybe I'll change my mind but for now, I hate watching dumb ads and paying higher prices for advertising I don't see.

So, if we are to have State-financed TV, then it should provide all viewpoints across the spectrum. The CBC doesn't do that. The CBC has a token Rex Murphy. It invites Andrew Coyne for political discussions. An articulate expression of the opinions of many posters on this forum is not heard on the CBC. In addition, the CBC suffers that irritating high school teacher syndrome: eat your vegetables.

No, because I really don't see it as unethical, unfair or an inappropriate use of taxpayers dollars.

Not being biased here but really, why would anyone care where a question came from? After all, its just a question... Isn't it?

My feeling too. If it was a good question, who cares where it came from.

Apparently, Rodriguez asked about cell phone wavelength auctions which strikes me as a dumb angle for questioning but that's not the issue, anymore than the compalint that a CBC reporter fed him the questions.

If Rodriguez woke up in the morning, read this forum in his pyjamas and then decided to ask a question from someone's MLW post, would that merit a political investigation? Would it matter whether it was a MikeDavid or BlackDog post?

Edited December 15, 2007 by August1991

[Michael Bluth]

Would it matter whether it was a MikeDavid or BlackDog post?

Only if MikeDavid or BlackDog are working for a publicly-funded news agency.

What Rodriguez did was merely sleazy. No more or less.

The problem lies with the actions of the CBC.

[August1991]

Only if MikeDavid or BlackDog are working for a publicly-funded news agency.

Maybe they do, and who knows?

Which is kind of my point.

----

Let's separate the CBC's obvious bias (paid from our taxes) from the source of questions of an MP. Apples and oranges.

[Michael Bluth]

Maybe they do, and who knows?

Which is kind of my point.

----

How is that your point? We know that some of Rodriguez's questions came from a CBC source.

Let's separate the CBC's obvious bias (paid from our taxes) from the source of questions of an MP. Apples and oranges.

I never mentioned the obvious CBC bias, because it is rightfully conventional wisdom.

Apples and oranges isn't really correct here because no comparison was being made, but....

We have two participants in this story.

Rodriguez was sleazy. Not illegal, just sleazy.

A journalist feeding questions to an MP on a 'story' that journalist is covering is unquestionably unethical. Even the CBC recognizes this and have launched an investigation, as any responsible news organization should. Kudos to them for that.

Regardless of the organization the reporter should get in suspended, if not fired, if the accusations are true.

The source of the CBC's funding is very important here.

What we have is a case of an employee of the bureaucracy actively disregarding the internal code of ethics relevant to their profession in an act that definitely has the appearance of government resources being used to put in ill-repute the Government of the day.

So our tax dollars are potentially being used to subvert the democratic will of the Canadians for political means preferred by an unelected cadre of officials within the bureaucracy.

Rodriguez's actions will backfire on him. The fact that the Liberals couldn't show a unified face of restraint and decorum in these committee hearings gives Dion, Harper, Layton and Duceppe very good reason to agree on one of two things. Either the inquiry will have a very limited scope. Or there will be no inquiry at all.

Even though it was unintended, Pablo has done a great service to Canadians by his actions of today.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[scribblet]

Say it isn't so, oh my alleged collusion between the Liberal Party and the CBC - suspicions confirmed !

OTTAWA - Today, former Liberal Cabinet Minister and current TVA journalist Jean Lapierre made shocking allegations about strategic collusion between journalists at the CBC and Liberal Members of Parliament at the House of Commons Ethics Committee.

According to Lapierre Liberal Members of Parliament asked former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney questions written by journalists at the CBC regarding any involvement in the spectrum auction for cellular and wireless devices.

"I knew all about those questions. They were written by the CBC and provided to the Liberal Members of Parliament and the questions that Pablo Rodriguez asked were written by the CBC and I can't believe that but last night, influential Member of Parliament came to me and told me those are the questions that the CBC wants us to ask tomorrow." (CTV Newsnet, December 13, 2007)

If proven true these allegations would mark the third major case of orchestrated anti-Conservative bias from a broadcaster that is financed by all Canadians for the benefit of all Canadians.

In 2004 an email from Stephanie Matteis of CBC's The National exposed the CBC's search for Canadians that would not vote for the Conservatives because they were "scared, freaked out or worried about the Conservatives, the Conservative agenda or its leader." (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003009.HTML )

The CBC was also forced on August 21, 2006 to express "regret" over a story by CBC reporter Christina Lawand that misrepresented an answer given by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. (http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000645.HTML )

"This is a very serious allegation that the CBC must provide an answer to," said Conservative Dean Del Mastro.

[trex]

Boy, you right-wingers are just dieing and hoping for anything out there, aren't you. You know what the enquiry means anyway, regardless of any and all outcomes...

Harper will be blasted from the Hill in the next Federal Election!

The Canadian people have spoken. We have had enough.

Poom!

And Next goes Peter Mackay...

Poom!

And a few more will be added on that list, to be sure.

Oh Yeah Bring Em On!

[Argus]

how is that Anti Conservative? I fail to see the issue with it. Trying to keep an open mind and see it from the other side but who cares where a question comes from?

Suppose you're on trial and you learn that the judge has been coaching the prosecutor in what to ask. Would you consider that judge to be fair and unbiased? Hardly. The CBC - though it never has been fair and unbiased - is funded by the taxpayers and is required to be neutral in party disputes. The hearing is clearly nothing more than an opportunity for partisan snipping between the two sides, and for the CBC to take sides, and, in effect, assist the Liberal Party in its efforts to make the Tories look bad is more than unethical and unprofessional. Even if one didn't do this already one would now question the honesty and integrity of every political report the CBC does, knowing the purpose of that report is not to provide information but to aid the Liberals.

The CBC is an incompetent agency in almost everything it does. It's bloated, lazy, and filled with second raters who'd never get on a national forum with any other organization. It takes ten CBC staffers to do the job one person does with private broadcasters. Its reporting is biased and dull.

[Michael Bluth]

Suppose you're on trial and you learn that the judge has been coaching the prosecutor in what to ask. Would you consider that judge to be fair and unbiased? Hardly. The CBC - though it never has been fair and unbiased - is funded by the taxpayers and is required to be neutral in party disputes. The hearing is clearly nothing more than an opportunity for partisan snipping between the two sides, and for the CBC to take sides, and, in effect, assist the Liberal Party in its efforts to make the Tories look bad is more than unethical and unprofessional.

Perhaps if the CBC included the fact that they were feeding questions to the Liberal member when it reported the story it wouldn't be quite so bad.

[August1991]

Suppose you're on trial and you learn that the judge has been coaching the prosecutor in what to ask. Would you consider that judge to be fair and unbiased?

That comparison is incorrect.

The committee is not a law court and the MPs are not judges. Rodriguez can get his questions from whatever source he wants. I just don't see this as an issue at all.

[Michael Bluth]

The committee is not a law court and the MPs are not judges. Rodriguez can get his questions from whatever source he wants. I just don't see this as an issue at all.

The greater issue is the CBC's role in this fiasco. I'll repeat since you are conveniently ignoring this side of the issue.

A journalist feeding questions to an MP on a 'story' that journalist is covering is unquestionably unethical. Even the CBC recognizes this and have launched an investigation, as any responsible news organization should. Kudos to them for that.

Regardless of the organization the reporter should get in suspended, if not fired, if the accusations are true.

Care to comment on this?

[Shakeyhands]

I can see what Bluth is saying if the intent of the questions was to assist the CBC with writing an unrelated story. However, if the question was one that came naturally, meaning there was something that a member of the press or public came up with, I see no harm in asking an MP to ask it.

The analogy with the court is erroneous as this isn't a court of law, but I get the gist.

[jdobbin]

It is inappropriate for a journalist to pose questions for a member of Parliament to ask. I don't know that it represents CBC policy. It is likely that the journalist involved will be disciplined in some manner.

As far as the Conservative party using this to hammer the CBC, it seems the story is only big on the blogosphere and in forums such as this.

[Michael Bluth]

I can see what Bluth is saying if the intent of the questions was to assist the CBC with writing an unrelated story.

You can't judge a person's intentions. Journalists shouldn't be involved in creating the news. Their job is to report it.

The problem I do have with Rodriguez getting his questions from a journalist is that it definitely leads to the possibility of favouritism between the journalist and the MP.

There is more than a little irony in a present-day MP acting in a manner that has the appearance of impropriety in trying to investigate a former MP whose actions have the appearance of impropriety.

Yes, the analogy to a court of law is erroneous.