CBC Caught Misreporting Harper Statement

[scribblet]

Is anyone surprised at this blatent and delberate misrepresentation? This is a case for the ombudsman.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/media080706.htm

CBC caught misreporting Harper statement

by Arthur Weinreb

Monday, August 7, 2006

The CBC hasn’t quite come to terms with the fact that there is an alternate media out there and they won’t get away with the blatant manipulation of the truth that occurred last week.

CBC showed a report of the anti-Harper protest that took place in Cornwall where the Conservative Party was holding a retreat. The segment by Christina Lawand shows Elsaadi Daad, a chador-clad woman who was incidentally on her way to meet Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mackay, saying that burning children and killing people on both sides is wrong and "it’s got to stop". Lawand then says that "Harper clearly wasn’t swayed" and showed Harper speaking the following words, "I’m not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think the reaction is very predictable."

The juxtaposition of the two statements, not to mention Lawand’s statement that "Harper clearly wasn’t swayed" clearly showed what the CBC wanted their viewers to see — Stephen Harper saying that he doesn’t give a damn about the killing of civilians in the Middle East and more importantly, he couldn’t care less about the "predictable reaction" of Muslims like Daad.

The only slight problem with Lawand’s report is that it just didn’t happen that way. But why let the truth get in the way of a great piece by the CBC about how bad Stephen Harper is.

As revealed by Blogger Stephen Taylor, Harper’s comments that were aired by the CBC were not a response to Elsaadi Daad at all. A reporter for the Toronto Star had asked Harper to respond to the fact that the Conservatives appear to be getting new support from the Jewish community and negative responses from the Arab community because of the government’s Middle East policies. The Prime Minister gives a lengthy response, only the last sentence of which was cut and then pasted by the CBC so as to appear to be a response to what Elsaadi Daad had said.

It is clear from the question and answer that when Harper said that he wasn’t "concerned or preoccupied in any way with the reaction within individual communities", he was speaking about both the Jewish and Arab communities. In the context of the way the question was asked, it is more plausible that his comments were directed primarily at the Jewish community. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Stephen Harper even knew that Elsaadi Daadi existed, let alone that he was somehow responding to what she was saying.

What the CBC did goes far beyond the liberal bias that we have come to expect from the network. It was a deliberate act of manipulation of statements made by the Prime Minister to put words in Stephen Harper’s mouth to show that he is, as Stephen Taylor noted, "cold-hearted" when it comes to the deaths of innocent civilians in the Middle East.

[BubberMiley]

Nonetheless, he hasn't been swayed by the murder of many innocent children.

[jbg]

Is anyone surprised at this blatent and delberate misrepresentation? This is a case for the ombudsman.

This is a case for making CBC purely an educational channel, for Shakespeare plays and the like.

[betsy]

Is anyone surprised at this blatent and delberate misrepresentation? This is a case for the ombudsman.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/media080706.htm

CBC caught misreporting Harper statement

by Arthur Weinreb

Monday, August 7, 2006

The CBC hasn’t quite come to terms with the fact that there is an alternate media out there and they won’t get away with the blatant manipulation of the truth that occurred last week.

CBC showed a report of the anti-Harper protest that took place in Cornwall where the Conservative Party was holding a retreat. The segment by Christina Lawand shows Elsaadi Daad, a chador-clad woman who was incidentally on her way to meet Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mackay, saying that burning children and killing people on both sides is wrong and "it’s got to stop". Lawand then says that "Harper clearly wasn’t swayed" and showed Harper speaking the following words, "I’m not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think the reaction is very predictable."

The juxtaposition of the two statements, not to mention Lawand’s statement that "Harper clearly wasn’t swayed" clearly showed what the CBC wanted their viewers to see — Stephen Harper saying that he doesn’t give a damn about the killing of civilians in the Middle East and more importantly, he couldn’t care less about the "predictable reaction" of Muslims like Daad.

The only slight problem with Lawand’s report is that it just didn’t happen that way. But why let the truth get in the way of a great piece by the CBC about how bad Stephen Harper is.

As revealed by Blogger Stephen Taylor, Harper’s comments that were aired by the CBC were not a response to Elsaadi Daad at all. A reporter for the Toronto Star had asked Harper to respond to the fact that the Conservatives appear to be getting new support from the Jewish community and negative responses from the Arab community because of the government’s Middle East policies. The Prime Minister gives a lengthy response, only the last sentence of which was cut and then pasted by the CBC so as to appear to be a response to what Elsaadi Daad had said.

It is clear from the question and answer that when Harper said that he wasn’t "concerned or preoccupied in any way with the reaction within individual communities", he was speaking about both the Jewish and Arab communities. In the context of the way the question was asked, it is more plausible that his comments were directed primarily at the Jewish community. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Stephen Harper even knew that Elsaadi Daadi existed, let alone that he was somehow responding to what she was saying.

What the CBC did goes far beyond the liberal bias that we have come to expect from the network. It was a deliberate act of manipulation of statements made by the Prime Minister to put words in Stephen Harper’s mouth to show that he is, as Stephen Taylor noted, "cold-hearted" when it comes to the deaths of innocent civilians in the Middle East.

There should be a formal complaint about the blatant fraudulent, irresponsible and manipulative reporting of CBC.

There should be a formal inquiry....after all, this station is funded by taxpayers' money.

[Michael Hardner]

This article represents journalistic hypocrisy. They decry the inaccuracy of the CBC, and yet they themselves have no qualms about jumping to conclusions:

The Prime Minister gives a lengthy response, only the last sentence of which was cut and then pasted by the CBC so as to appear to be a response to what Elsaadi Daad had said.

... and ...

What the CBC did goes far beyond the liberal bias that we have come to expect from the network. It was a deliberate act of manipulation of statements made by the Prime Minister to put words in Stephen Harper’s mouth to show that he is, as Stephen Taylor noted, "cold-hearted" when it comes to the deaths of innocent civilians in the Middle East.

They did a good job in finding some bad work by the CBC, but then ruined it by injecting opinion into their piece.

[cybercoma]

Nonetheless, he hasn't been swayed by the murder of many innocent children.

Unless you consider wanting to disarm hezbollah and stop terrorism around the world as swayed....

[Shakeyhands]

well stop writing about it on this forum and complain to the ombudsman, simple.

[Wilber]

This article represents journalistic hypocrisy. They decry the inaccuracy of the CBC, and yet they themselves have no qualms about jumping to conclusions:

I read the article and it is obviously an opinion piece or editorial. It doesn't claim to be straight news reporting. Did the same go for the CBC piece? I didn't see it but if they represented it as news, they are way out of line.

[Michael Hardner]

I read the article and it is obviously an opinion piece or editorial. It doesn't claim to be straight news reporting. Did the same go for the CBC piece? I didn't see it but if they represented it as news, they are way out of line.

I didn't catch that from the way it appeared in the first post, so I followed the link. It does appear to be a column, so you're right. I would suggest that Mr. Weinreb be a little less inflammatory, but it is not a news piece so my suggestion of hypocrisy is just wrong.

[kimmy]

Nonetheless, he hasn't been swayed by the murder of many innocent children.

What reaction were people expecting? "Gee, I didn't realize that there would be casualties. Gosh, I didn't realize that people would be sad when people die. Well golly, that changes everything!"

And as for this...

A reporter for the Toronto Star had asked Harper to respond to the fact that the Conservatives appear to be getting new support from the Jewish community and negative responses from the Arab community because of the government’s Middle East policies.

Yes, I can understand where many Canadians would be confused by a prime minister who takes a position and sticks with it, rather than responding to whichever minority is wailing the loudest at any particular moment.

I'm sure that Paul Martin would have blathered on at length without actually saying anything. I imagine that words and phrases like "sensitive" and "challenging" and "work together" would have been repeated over and over.

Harper's great mistake is in believing that Canadians are too smart to buy into that kind of verbiage. In fact, Canadians are by and large awfully dull and eat Paul Martin's brand of crapolla like it was ice-cream.

-k

[scribblet]

well stop writing about it on this forum and complain to the ombudsman, simple.

Done

The Ombudsman, CBC English Services

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

P.O. Box 500, Station A

Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6

e-mail: [email protected]

[Charles Anthony]

awell stop writing about it on this forum and complain to the ombudsman, simple.

Done

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight: you complained to the CBC about the CBC? What do you expect them to say?

Harper's great mistake is in believing that Canadians are too smart to buy into that kind of verbiage. In fact, Canadians are by and large awfully dull and eat Paul Martin's brand of crapolla like it was ice-cream.

I think you are right about that!

[scribblet]

LOL I don't expect much response, but the ombudsman is supposed to be fair and look into accusations of bias. Will he....maybe if enough people write he will.

[Hicksey]

*Yawn*

Do we really expect anything less from them?

I've come to understand that liberals and conservatives often read too far into what each other say and as a result never hear what each other actually says.

[scribblet]

Thought you might like to read the response:

Dear

I will be conducting a review of Ms. Lawand's report. Once it has been completed, it will be available on the CBC website (cbc.ca/ombudsman/findings).

I have attached, for your information, the response of the executive producer of The National to complaints about the report.

Yours truly,

Vince Carlin

CBC Ombudsman

===============================

Thank you for your email to CBC regarding a report aired on The

National. Jonathan Whitten, executive producer of The National asked me

to forward the following to you:

Thank you for your e-mail of August 6th addressed to Vince Carlin, CBC

Ombudsman. As you know, Mr. Carlin asked me to reply.

You wrote to draw our attention to a report on the August 4 editions of

THE NATIONAL that you feel is inaccurate and misleading. Specifically,

you wrote that by juxtaposing a comment by a protestor with what you

feel is an unrelated statement made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in

a news conference, the report misrepresented the Prime Minister's views,

and made him appear insensitive.

The report on THE NATIONAL Friday night concerned the Prime Minister's

reaction to questions he was facing about the Middle East. The report

began with protestors outside the Conservative caucus meeting in

Cornwall, one of whom was seen saying that both sides killing innocent

children is wrong and has to stop.

The Prime Minister, meeting behind closed doors, did not hear her

message (although, as we reported, she was invited to meet with the

Minister of Foreign Affairs), but reporters did ask him about civilian

deaths in a news conference held after the caucus meeting. He did not

reply to the question directly, but he told reporters - including the

CBC's Christina Lawand - that his policy on the Middle East remained the

same and would not change because of public opinion surveys or protests.

He said that Canadians are not neutral on terrorism and that he would

not call for a cease-fire until the right conditions were in place. And,

he said, when properly understood, his views represent the views of most

Canadians. Ms. Lawand clearly stated those views in her report.

She also included a statement from the news conference - the one to

which you referred - where the Prime Minister said he is "not

preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities."

This statement was in response to a reporter who asked specifically how

he felt about what seemed to be growing support in the Jewish community

for his government and ended his question by asking whether he was

concerned about the negative response among some in the Arab

community. Mr. Harper replied that he agreed the Middle East conflict

had a pretty strong resonance in some cultural communities, but that the

government "can't take positions based on polls, we can't take decisions

based on reactions within certain domestic communities."

In the bulk of his answer, however, he explained that the issues were

far larger than the concerns of some communities. These are "serious

international issues, he said, "there are not only many lives at stake,

there are a lot of long term strategic interests of this country and of

the world.*" He talked about two major elements of the Canadian policy,

about terrorist groups, both in Canada and abroad. He talked about

humanitarian concerns, including evacuation and re-construction as being

among the "focuses of our activity."

Then he returned to where he had started his answer and repeated: "I'm

not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual

communities. I think that reaction is very predictable." That was the

clip included in the report following the protestor. It is logical to

conclude here that the reaction he is "not concerned" with, is the kind

of reaction personified by the protestor seen at the beginning of the

report. Mr. Harper was talking about predictable reactions in general

of which the protestor was a specific example. Some have argued that he

was talking about polling within the Arab and Jewish communities, and

while that's possible, he was also discussing, in addition to polling,

"reactions within certain domestic communities." Far from being

unrelated, as you suggest, the two are directly related.

Later in the news conference, the Prime Minister was specifically asked

about the protestors outside the meeting. While he did say that it is

important to listen to members of the various communities (as we

reported, his Ministers met with two of the protestors) he also said

"they can't guide all of our decisions at the same time." Far from

being contradictory to his response to the earlier question, this was

restating the government position that we faithfully reported throughout

the piece.

I do, however, agree with your concern about the structure of the

report. The construction of the piece did make it appear the Prime

Minister was responding directly to the woman protester, and that was

not the case. We should have taken the time to make it clear that the

Prime Minister was responding to a general question, and not a specific

question about the woman's concerns, and I regret that. While this does

not constitute a misrepresentation of Mr. Harper's position, or the

position of his Government, the program could have, and should have,

taken the time to be clear about what prompted the response.

It is also my responsibility to inform you that if you are not satisfied

with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the

CBC Ombudsman, Mr. Vince Carlin. The Office of the Ombudsman, an

independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is

responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's

journalistic policies. Mr. Carlin may be reached by mail at the address

shown below, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at

[email protected]

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Whitten

Executive Producer

THE NATIONAL

Box 500, Station "A",

Toronto, Ontario

M5W 1E6

I hope this information is helpful to you, and thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Jamie Richards

Communications Officer

CBC Audience Relations

[Michael Hardner]

Well, you got some kind of concession that the report was structured in a misleading way. Isn't this more than you expected ?

I think that we're in a very tenuous situation with regards to information management these days, and it's vital that responsible parties from all sides engage each other positively, in good faith.

[jbg]

Well, you got some kind of concession that the report was structured in a misleading way. Isn't this more than you expected ?

I think that we're in a very tenuous situation with regards to information management these days, and it's vital that responsible parties from all sides engage each other positively, in good faith.

If they gave that response the same publicity as the misleading report itself, I'd be a lot more impressed. No doubt, they succeeded in making the letter writer feel rather important. Basically, that's not the point.

[Yaro]

If that's the best evidence of bias you have against he CBC, then I really can't have any response but to laugh. The Bias in that piece is to only perceptible to those with a hyperactive sense of bias (yours not theirs). Virtually every piece written by any news agency anywhere is going to possess an equivalent amount of bias. Including your source "article". This is almost as stupid a complaint as the time I heard someone accuse Mansbridge of smiling more when he said Palestinian then when he said Israeli.

[scribblet]

Well, you got some kind of concession that the report was structured in a misleading way. Isn't this more than you expected ?

I think that we're in a very tenuous situation with regards to information management these days, and it's vital that responsible parties from all sides engage each other positively, in good faith.

Actually yes it is more than I expect, I am looking forward to the result of an enquiry.

[margrace]

If that's the best evidence of bias you have against he CBC, then I really can't have any response but to laugh. The Bias in that piece is to only perceptible to those with a hyperactive sense of bias (yours not theirs). Virtually every piece written by any news agency anywhere is going to possess an equivalent amount of bias. Including your source "article". This is almost as stupid a complaint as the time I heard someone accuse Mansbridge of smiling more when he said Palestinian then when he said Israeli.

Interesting on here the need to cut or get rid of the CBC. Clements says that there is no one saying this in the Conservative Party, as far as he knows

When reminded of this site he conveniently ignored it and when reminded of Freedominion he was adamant that Freedominion had nothing to do with the Conservative party and was not in any way condoned.

[scribblet]

If that's the best evidence of bias you have against he CBC, then I really can't have any response but to laugh. The Bias in that piece is to only perceptible to those with a hyperactive sense of bias (yours not theirs). Virtually every piece written by any news agency anywhere is going to possess an equivalent amount of bias. Including your source "article". This is almost as stupid a complaint as the time I heard someone accuse Mansbridge of smiling more when he said Palestinian then when he said Israeli.

Interesting on here the need to cut or get rid of the CBC. Clements says that there is no one saying this in the Conservative Party, as far as he knows

When reminded of this site he conveniently ignored it and when reminded of Freedominion he was adamant that Freedominion had nothing to do with the Conservative party and was not in any way condoned.

Whats your point and why would we care about Freedominion ?

CBC should not be funded with taxpayer's money, particularly as it is left wing and biased in its reporting.

[margrace]

If that's the best evidence of bias you have against he CBC, then I really can't have any response but to laugh. The Bias in that piece is to only perceptible to those with a hyperactive sense of bias (yours not theirs). Virtually every piece written by any news agency anywhere is going to possess an equivalent amount of bias. Including your source "article". This is almost as stupid a complaint as the time I heard someone accuse Mansbridge of smiling more when he said Palestinian then when he said Israeli.

Interesting on here the need to cut or get rid of the CBC. Clements says that there is no one saying this in the Conservative Party, as far as he knows

When reminded of this site he conveniently ignored it and when reminded of Freedominion he was adamant that Freedominion had nothing to do with the Conservative party and was not in any way condoned.

Whats your point and why would we care about Freedominion ?

CBC should not be funded with taxpayer's money, particularly as it is left wing and biased in its reporting.

thats exactly my point, a lot of conservatives want to do away with the CBC and Clement denies it is part of their policy.

[Yaro]

Actually yes it is more than I expect, I am looking forward to the result of an enquiry.

Inquiry? are you insane? let me paraphrase the response for those that don't get it.

I understand how you could possibly believe there was intentional bias in this report

Your obviously some kind of insane nut bag <---just so you get whats between the lines

I suppose the report could have been structured to make the information more clear

I can't believe I actually have to respond to this

If you feel the need here's someone higher up you can take it

I think he will get a good chuckle out of this so why don't you tell him the jokes more funny that way.

So just out of curiosity, are you as vigilant with the post as you are with the CBC? Ya I assumed as much.

[kimmy]

The ombudsman's reply-- that the Arab woman's emotional reaction typified what Harper was talking about when he stated he was not going to be swayed by emotional reactions from domestic communities-- seems fair to me. The comment that the report's mistake was in not making it clear that Harper was not responding directly to the woman also strikes me as fair.

Interesting on here the need to cut or get rid of the CBC. Clements says that there is no one saying this in the Conservative Party, as far as he knows

When reminded of this site he conveniently ignored it and when reminded of Freedominion he was adamant that Freedominion had nothing to do with the Conservative party and was not in any way condoned.

Perhaps they didn't mention this site because they simply weren't aware of it? Mapleleafweb is hardly on the same scale, either in size or notoriety, as Freedominion.

Are the lefties now spreading some some sort of theory that Mapleleafweb is actually a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party? That's kind of funny. The idea of swaying public opinion through a website with a membership of this size is pretty silly (which, again, should be pointed out to the native protesters who've decided this is the place to publicize their message). And, as far as I know, Mapleleafweb is a project based at the University of Lethbridge, not some shadowy operative's basement.

-k

[margrace]

The ombudsman's reply-- that the Arab woman's emotional reaction typified what Harper was talking about when he stated he was not going to be swayed by emotional reactions from domestic communities-- seems fair to me. The comment that the report's mistake was in not making it clear that Harper was not responding directly to the woman also strikes me as fair.

Interesting on here the need to cut or get rid of the CBC. Clements says that there is no one saying this in the Conservative Party, as far as he knows

When reminded of this site he conveniently ignored it and when reminded of Freedominion he was adamant that Freedominion had nothing to do with the Conservative party and was not in any way condoned.

Perhaps they didn't mention this site because they simply weren't aware of it? Mapleleafweb is hardly on the same scale, either in size or notoriety, as Freedominion.

Are the lefties now spreading some some sort of theory that Mapleleafweb is actually a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party? That's kind of funny. The idea of swaying public opinion through a website with a membership of this size is pretty silly (which, again, should be pointed out to the native protesters who've decided this is the place to publicize their message). And, as far as I know, Mapleleafweb is a project based at the University of Lethbridge, not some shadowy operative's basement.

-k

When I questioned Mr. Clement about criticism of the CBC and the suggestion that the Harper Gov.t migh get rid of it, he asked me where I got this information and I cited this one MapleLeaf and Freedominion.

The reply was that they definetly had nothing to do with Freedominion, however My observation about MapleLeaf was ignored.