How biased is the CBC?

[shoop]

On Thursday the story broke of Michaelle Jean's possible separatist ties. As of the writing of this post the CTV, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and Montreal Gazette web sites all have stories about the issue. Nothing can be found about it on the CBC web site. NOTHING.

I understand that the CBC is in the wringer on this one. After ceaselessy trumpeting Jean as a great selection, and an inspired choice for GG, they are left looking foolidh. Honestly though, doesn't the Canadian public deserve to hear more about this story?

What motivates the CBC's breach of professionalism on this topic? Are they protecting one of their own? Is it because Jean's appointment so neatly fits in with their agenda that they can't fathom doing their job by actually reporting the real news of these accusations?

[August1991]

As of the writing of this post the CTV, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and Montreal Gazette web sites all have stories about the issue. Nothing can be found about it on the CBC web site. NOTHING.

Good point, Shoop, with some precision.

As of the writing of my post, those sources (GM, NP, CTV, Toronto Star) are all carrying the same CP story. Nothing of their own. Neither the CBC nor R-C has anything. Google Canada-English doesn't have the story either.

But Google Canada-French has it in its Top-Two, from Canoe (click now) with a photo of Harper:

Le Canada anglais risque de mal réagir après la publication de deux lettres dénonçant le passé indépendantiste du conjoint de Michaëlle Jean, le cinéaste Jean-Daniel Lafond. Déjà, Stephen Harper, qui servait des cornets dans l'ouest de Montréal pour une œuvre charitable, attend des explications du premier ministre.

«Il y a des choses que nous sommes en train d'apprendre et je me demande si le premier ministre connaissait ces choses et quelles sont ses réponses», a-t-il déclaré.

Harper's French me fait boiter... But the other parts of the article are worth reading:

Dans Le Devoir, c'est l'écrivain René Boulanger qui dénonce surtout Jean-Daniel Lafond, un homme, dit-il, qui vient tout juste de renier ses convictions.

«Monsieur Lafond, c'est un indépendantiste, puis c'est pas un indépendantiste de pacotille comme Jean Lapierre, qui revire de temps en temps ou un politicien professionnel.»

Huh? "...pacotille comme Jean Lapierre..."?

Dans La Presse, l'ex-felquiste et ex-éditeur Jacques Lanctôt dit à quel point il n'a pas aimé les films de Jean-Daniel Lafond et le travail de Michaëlle Jean.  «Quel pauvre journalisme, dit-il, ont pratiqué ces deux prétentieux. Loin de célébrer cette nomination, je m'attriste de voir encore une fois le crétinisme triompher.»

Wow! "...ces deux prétentieux..."?

Le couple n'a pas réagi mais le lieutenant politique de Paul Martin au Québec, Jean Lapierre, l'a fait. «Je me dis, si tout ce monde-là sont obligés d'essayer de salir Mme Jean, c'est parce qu'on a eu une sacrée bonne nomination, et ça les fatigue royalement.»

Lapierre makes the save, sort of.

Ils ont ouvert la boîte de Pandore. Sauve qui peut.

----

BTW, here's what Paul Wells had to say about the appointment:

If the rumours are true, then Paul Martin has made, in Michaëlle Jean, an absolutely spectacular choice for Governor General.

Here's what Small Dead Animals had to say:

All of her commendable talents aside, this marks the first time in Canadian history that the most symbolic patronage appointment in government has not been bestowed on a person who has, as in the words of the late US President John Kennedy, demonstrated "what you can do for your country."

Instead, it has gone to an individual who brilliantly showcases the new Liberal Party version of citizenship; "What your country can do for you!"

At one of her first news conferences a reporter asked Michelle Jean if she thought she was a "token". Well, that she isn't.

She's a poster child.

The writing is on the wall for journalists. Say what you truly think or get out of the way.

[shoop]

Finally the CBC posts the story.

Only 14 hour time lag. Better late than never I guess....

[Riverwind]

Finally the CBC posts the story.

Only 14 hour time lag. Better late than never I guess....

The CBC is the first to report other stories. The National Post frequently ignores news items that other media outlets cover. Each media outlet has to make certain editorial calls that may see unreasonable after the fact.

[shoop]

The CBC is the first to report other stories. The National Post frequently ignores news items that other media outlets cover. Each media outlet has to make certain editorial calls that may see unreasonable after the fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So your defence of CBC's unprofessionalism and bias in this case is the schoolyard classic "He started it!"

This 'editorial call' was unreasonable the moment they made it.

[Riverwind]

So your defence of CBC's unprofessionalism and bias in this case is the schoolyard classic "He started it!"

This 'editorial call' was unreasonable the moment they made it.

No my defence was all media outlets make 'wrong' editorial calls about stories all of the time.

[shoop]

No my defence was all media outlets make 'wrong' editorial calls about stories all of the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what should be the punishment for the editor who made the wrong editorial call on this one?

[Black Dog]

Curse the CBC for not reporting on this non-story!! *shakes fist*

[shoop]

Curse the CBC for not reporting on this non-story!! *shakes fist*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is it a non-story? Cause you say it is?

Why isn't the possibility that the Queen's representative to the country may in fact favour the breakup of the country newsworthy?

Ohhh I get it. It isn't newsworthy because it goes against the CBC's political agenda. Oh well, that's OK. It's not like the CBC is a publicly funded organization. Or is it?

[scribblet]

What motivates the CBC's breach of professionalism on this topic? Are they protecting one of their own? Is it because Jean's appointment so neatly fits in with their agenda that they can't fathom doing their job by actually reporting the real news of these accusations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Librano $$$$$$ or should I say taxpayer $$$$

[shoop]

Librano $$$$$$  or should I say taxpayer $$$$

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before Sheila Fraser it was the same thing. Wasn't it?

PS. Black dog your silence on my questions is deafening. The 'shakes fist' thing was pretty cool. uh huh

[Bakunin]

Im wondering why she isnt doing any statement at a TV station to clarify her position on the issue.... The only thing i can think of for the moment is it would be true and she doesn't want to lie so she let the professional PM PM do the job for her.

[mirror]

Here is what one Liberal, WK has to say. According to him it sure sounds like PM Martin has made a drastic mistake:

August 12, 2005 - At the little Warren-Is-An-Old-Fart party last night, there was discussion of Lindros, and extraordinary newspaper screw-ups, and David Miller's ceding of the mayoralty to John Tory, and George W. Bush's final confirmation he is no free trader.

But the big talk was about Michaëlle Jean, the new Governor-General. A few days ago, I gushed about the appointment, calling it "inspired" and "brilliant." But, knowing too well the rank incompetence of much of the crew around Paul Martin Jr., I also threw in a qualifier: it was inspired and brilliant "unless I am missing something."

Well, it may be that I, we, did "miss something." The stuff about her having dual citizenship is no concern to most Canadians, I suspect. France? Big deal. Hell, it's not like she was a member of the Taliban or something. And how she voted in the referendum? We'll never know, I suspect, because she'll never say. As is her right.

But these revelations about the allegedly cozy relationship between she and her husband and FLQ murderers - revelations which Pierre Bourque has been bringing to English Canada, and revelations which include (as-yet unproven) suggestions that Jean's husband hired Pierre Laporte's killer to build a place to stash guns - are extraordinary. If true, they spell big, big trouble.

If true, there will be a lot of people in Ottawa asking who knew about the connection between the Jeans and the FLQ, and when did they know it. Personally - and this is me trying to be fair, so take note - I don't believe that Martin's crew knew about these allegations, and then appointed her anyway. I, the big anti-Martin guy, can't believe that, even if churlish others do.

So what happened, then?

Well, there are two possibilities. Either the allegations were thoroughly checked out by RCMP/CSIS, and disproved. Or, two - and this one is frightening - RCMP/CSIS knew, and let it happen anyway, because they (like plenty of other non-political types in Ottawa) dislike the Martin crew, and wanted to embarrass them.

I enjoy egg on the faces in Langevin as much as the next guy, believe me. But knowingly and maliciously handing the keys to Rideau Hall to a couple who allegedly cavort with FLQ killers? Christ Jesus, that's extraordinary. Can you imagine something like this ever happening under any administration in the United States? Me neither.

If I were Martin - and, speaking on behalf of both of us, I'm delighted I'm not - I would haul in the Mounties and CSIS onto the carpet, and demand to know how the Hell this (allegedly) got past them. Is it true? And, if so, how in the name of God did they not tell anyone in PMO?

Will any of that happen? Beats me. But one thing's clear: this story is getting bigger every day.

[August1991]

Im wondering why she isnt doing any statement at a TV station to clarify her position on the issue....  The only thing i can think of for the moment is it would be true and she doesn't want to lie so she let the professional PM PM do the job for her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think she's in "GG School" learning how to be GG and meet the press (!!). The course lasts a week or so.

BTW, I don't think the swearing in ceremony is until Sepetember. (Does she have to go to London?)

[Guest eureka]

What a childish display this is. How she voted is her business and the ballot is supposed to be secret. Who cares as long as she is now willing to carry out the duties of the office.

Remember Joseph Howe? He was a "Separatist" before he came to his senses and rook federal office.

CBC was right if it chose not to carry the story. It is a particularly sleazy attempt to discredit Jean. And, very few at Radio-Canada would care to put on the record their opposition to the Separatists." It is a hotbed of xenophobic Nationalism.

[Guest eureka]

What a childish display this is. How she voted is her business and the ballot is supposed to be secret. Who cares as long as she is now willing to carry out the duties of the office.

Remember Joseph Howe? He was a "Separatist" before he came to his senses and took federal office.

CBC was right if it chose not to carry the story. It is a particularly sleazy attempt to discredit Jean. And, very few at Radio-Canada would care to put on the record their opposition to the Separatists." It is a hotbed of xenophobic Nationalism. Ask why the English service is stuck in cramped, inadequate quarters to be found after passing through the French service appointments.

[shoop]

What a childish display this is. How she voted is her business and the ballot is supposed to be secret. Who cares as long as she is now willing to carry out the duties of the office.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The story is about much more than how she voted in the referendum.

These allegations about the husband having a storage place for a gun stash built sound ridiculous. But what if they are true?

Should the CBC have run with the gun stash part of the story? They have a valid argument for saying now. Should they have ignored the entire story for hours? Not really justified in the age of the 24-hour news cycle.

Kinsella is 100% right with this quote.

"But one thing's clear: this story is getting bigger every day."

[August1991]

In 1994, Jean-Daniel Lafond published (Hexagone) the script of his film Liberté en colère. In the book's intro, Lafond wrote this about Francis Simard (one of the kidnappers of Pierre Laporte):

« Notre complicité fut immédiate, comme si nous partagions depuis longtemps la raison secrète de son exil, la blessure profonde que l’histoire avait laissée en lui et le grand silence qui entoure ce moment de collision en soi du politique et de l’intime, celui qui conduit un jour à décider de la mort d’un homme »

In the same introduction, this is how Lafond describes his attachment to Quebec:

« Quand je remonte à la trace le parcours de La liberté en colère, je retrouve plusieurs rencontres. La première est déjà lointaine. C’est la lecture, en 1969, dans l’édition Parti pris de Nègres blancs d’Amérique de Pierre Vallières. Ce livre d’un écorché vif, à la fois autobiographie déchirante et manifeste exalté, a contribué à ma découverte des réalités et des aspirations profondes du Québec. Avec quelques autres, avec la poésie de Miron, de Godin, de Chamberland, avec les romans de Ferron, pour ne citer que ceux-là, le livre de Vallières a eu un effet magnétique important sur ma boussole d’exilé en passe de devenir un Québécois de plus en 1974 »

Le Québécois

Lafond is a leftist, and favours the independence of Quebec. I have no problem with that. I just don't think he should be the spouse of Canada's GG.

How she voted is her business and the ballot is supposed to be secret. Who cares as long as she is now willing to carry out the duties of the office.

That logic may apply to you or me but anyone who accepts the public spotlight must play by different rules.

Remember Joseph Howe? He was a "Separatist" before he came to his senses and took federal office.

Heck, Gilles Duceppe sits now in the HoC. But Howe was never GG, and I'm certain Duceppe would turn down any offers.

----

Why did Jean accept it? I suspect vanity and ambition. She and her spouse probably thought his public opinions would not be a problem.

Kinsella suggests that CSIS/RCMP set up the PMO by not red flagging this nomination. (Huh? All of this information is easily accessible.) Rather, I think Lapierre is genuinely surprised by the reaction and probably thinks it's a tempest in a teapot. The instructions are out (to the CBC abnd so on) to downplay this because Lapierre believes it will soon die out.

IME, many English Canadians take the Queen seriously and the role of the GG just as seriously. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think they are happy to see a GG or spouse with questionable loyalties.

[mirror]

Que savez dire: FELQUISTE"?

[Bakunin]

Que savez dire: FELQUISTE"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ce sont des membres du mouvement du "Front de libération du Québec", FLQ

Its hard to translate, it mean something like members of "the coalition to free quebec". a 1960's terrorist group.

So members of the FLQ are Felquist. The husband of Michaelle Jean seems to have many well known Felquist friend, He made a few movies about them and worked with at least one of them. Another one of them (who was part of the cell that kidnapped Pierre Laporte) renovate a part of his house...

I think that if he had for friend someone like Gille duceppe or any evry day sovreignist, who care ?

But the few he knows... They are the one that where active terrorist in the 1960's... They are Radicals ppl, worst id say the top 10 most radical we ever had... that where arested or sent to cuba... They where all implicated in the 2 kidnapping that brought us the mesure of war in october 70's...

[newbie]

The story is about much more than how she voted in the referendum.

These allegations about the husband having a storage place for a gun stash built sound ridiculous. But what if they are true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This reminds me a bit of the "what if" scenario of Saddam's WMO. Seems to me it's only some of the outspoken Quebec separatists, Bernard Lord, and a few anti-Martin agitators who are interested in pursuing this poppycock.

Even Harper and Klein are okay with Martin's choice (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=12b86474-ea3d-46c4-8c20-875b7221518e)

and I think they'd be the first ones all over this if it had any merit.

Let's let Michaelle Jean do her job, and leave the conspiracy theories to Hollywood.

[shoop]

This reminds me a bit of the "what if" scenario of Saddam's WMO. Seems to me it's only some of the outspoken Quebec separatists, Bernard Lord, and a few anti-Martin agitators who are interested in pursuing this poppycock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those stories are still newsworthy until discredited.

So the CBC is the only news outlet that serves the vast majority of Canadians who don't fall into the category of "Quebec separatists, Bernard Lord, and a few anti-Martin agitators"?

[shoop]

Yet again the CBC is trying to bury the story.

As of this post the story pops up on the first page of the CTV, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail web sites.

CBC, no........

ps. For this isn't newsworthy jackasses get over yourselves. It is now!

[mcqueen625]

So your defence of CBC's unprofessionalism and bias in this case is the schoolyard classic "He started it!"

This 'editorial call' was unreasonable the moment they made it.

No my defence was all media outlets make 'wrong' editorial calls about stories all of the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The truth is that the CBC owes it well being to our tax dollars and if they know what's good for them they had better not publish anything anti Liberal, including this inappropriate appointment. The fact is that now this appointment is tainted with the stick of not only separatist links but alos links to former FLQ members, including Paul Rose. Therefore this appointment should be repealed, since it doesn't seem to even have the support of the people of Quebec.

It is quite common for the CBC to slam every other political Party but, they seem to take a kid-glove approach with any story involving inappropriate actions by the Liberal Party of Canada or any of it's members. Are they biased? I think so!

[newbie]

Those stories are still newsworthy until discredited.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess that's the difference between you and me. I don't consider rumours newsworthy.