Are Tory Anti-Dion Ads Illegal?

[August1991]

Conservative attack ads fired at Liberal Leader Stephane Dion may end up sideswiping the ruling party after questions were raised about possible breach of copyright laws.

The television ads, which began airing Monday, use footage from last fall's Liberal leadership debates to deliver the message that the new Grit leader is weak, indecisive and an environmental failure.

But that footage belongs to a consortium of TV networks which pooled their resources to provide live coverage of the debates. The Cable Public Affairs Channel provided the pool camera for each debate.

The networks are now looking into how the Conservatives obtained the debate footage for their ads.

CPAC anchor Peter Van Dusen said Monday that any outside use of debate video would have to be approved by all pool members. Moreover, he said such video is traditionally never authorized for use by political parties.

Van Dusen said he is not aware of any request by the Tory party to buy or use any portion of the debate videos.

CP's Joan Bryden in the Toronto Star

But that's not all.

Ezra Levant had this in a recent column:

Ask a thousand Canadians what a "telecaster" is, and 999 would probably think it was a 1950s word for a newfangled TV set. But Telecaster is actually the name of the agency that screens TV ads.

...

Telecaster approves political ads, too. And so, what is a rubber stamp when it comes to toothpaste and shampoo ads becomes a powerful political censor when it comes election campaigns.

If Telecaster's decision-makers were normal people -- if they cared more about toothpaste and shampoo than politics -- this wouldn't be a problem.

But Telecaster's boss, James Patterson, cares enormously about politics.

Over the last three years, according to Elections Canada data dug up by blogger Stephen Taylor, Patterson made a whopping 17 donations to the Liberal Party, totalling more than $4,300.

That's more than most MPs give to their own parties. That's an extreme partisan.

One of the donations was even made in January 2006, just days before the last election. That's important, because Patterson was in charge of censoring TV ads that very moment. And censor he did.

That was when the Liberals rolled out their attack ads, claiming Stephen Harper was going to put "soldiers in our streets". It was absurd, and it backfired.

The point is Telecaster, run by Jim Patterson, didn't censor them, even though they used images of Stephen Harper without his permission.

But when the Conservatives produced a response to those attack ads -- showing video clips of Liberal MPs admitting their own attack ads had gone too far -- Telecaster censored the ads. Telecaster ordered the Conservative ads off the air.

The story gets worse: Telecaster yanked the ads after a complaint from the CBC, because it was their footage that captured the MPs making those statements. The CBC actively intervened to knock Conservative ads off the air. And the Telecaster censor, who just happened to be a major Liberal donor, was happy to comply.

Ezra Levant

Incidentally, this is the Telecaster Web Site (not much).

Now, keep in mind that Stephen Harper went all the way to the Supreme Court to determine whether a third party had the right to advertise during an election campaign. (I'm still amazed that Harper lost.)

So, what is Harper up to with these ads outside of an election campaign? Presumably, there's no limit to how much the Tory's can spend in this manner.

Is Harper testing the waters to see whether "someone" will force Telecaster to pull the ads?

[tml12]

Conservative attack ads fired at Liberal Leader Stephane Dion may end up sideswiping the ruling party after questions were raised about possible breach of copyright laws.

The television ads, which began airing Monday, use footage from last fall's Liberal leadership debates to deliver the message that the new Grit leader is weak, indecisive and an environmental failure.

But that footage belongs to a consortium of TV networks which pooled their resources to provide live coverage of the debates. The Cable Public Affairs Channel provided the pool camera for each debate.

The networks are now looking into how the Conservatives obtained the debate footage for their ads.

CPAC anchor Peter Van Dusen said Monday that any outside use of debate video would have to be approved by all pool members. Moreover, he said such video is traditionally never authorized for use by political parties.

Van Dusen said he is not aware of any request by the Tory party to buy or use any portion of the debate videos.

CP's Joan Bryden in the Toronto Star

But that's not all.

Ezra Levant had this in a recent column:

Telecaster approves political ads, too. And so, what is a rubber stamp when it comes to toothpaste and shampoo ads becomes a powerful political censor when it comes election campaigns.

If Telecaster's decision-makers were normal people -- if they cared more about toothpaste and shampoo than politics -- this wouldn't be a problem.

But Telecaster's boss, James Patterson, cares enormously about politics.

Over the last three years, according to Elections Canada data dug up by blogger Stephen Taylor, Patterson made a whopping 17 donations to the Liberal Party, totalling more than $4,300.

That's more than most MPs give to their own parties. That's an extreme partisan.

One of the donations was even made in January 2006, just days before the last election. That's important, because Patterson was in charge of censoring TV ads that very moment. And censor he did.

That was when the Liberals rolled out their attack ads, claiming Stephen Harper was going to put "soldiers in our streets". It was absurd, and it backfired.

The point is Telecaster, run by Jim Patterson, didn't censor them, even though they used images of Stephen Harper without his permission.

But when the Conservatives produced a response to those attack ads -- showing video clips of Liberal MPs admitting their own attack ads had gone too far -- Telecaster censored the ads. Telecaster ordered the Conservative ads off the air.

The story gets worse: Telecaster yanked the ads after a complaint from the CBC, because it was their footage that captured the MPs making those statements. The CBC actively intervened to knock Conservative ads off the air. And the Telecaster censor, who just happened to be a major Liberal donor, was happy to comply.

Ezra Levant

Incidentally, this is the Telecaster Web Site (not much).

Now, keep in mind that Stephen Harper went all the way to the Supreme Court to determine whether a third party had the right to advertise during an election campaign.

So, what is Harper up to with these ads outside of an election campaign? Presumably, there's no limit to how much the Tory's can spend in this manner.

Is Harper testing the waters to see whether "someone" will force Telecaster to pull the ads?

I do not know enough about all this to have an opinion.

Clearly, in most elections we see, at the very least, candidates of all parties say things about their other opponents that are not true but, even if they have to pull their ads or take back their quotes, they already have to force their opponents into damage control.

[August1991]

I do not know enough about all this to have an opinion.

Neither do I. But maybe Harper is pushing the envelope to see what happens.

And tml, we have rules forbidding the inclusion of the whole previous post in your reply. You didn't have to duplicate my OP. It just makes the thread long and unmanageable.

[tml12]

Perhaps you are correct.

And as for that last post, I realized that mistake as soon as I did it. Sorry!

[Ricki Bobbi]

I do not know enough about all this to have an opinion.

Clearly, in most elections we see, at the very least, candidates of all parties say things about their other opponents that are not true but, even if they have to pull their ads or take back their quotes, they already have to force their opponents into damage control.

Seems like every member of the consortium that has already aired the ads, as commercials or on the news, has no leg to stand on at this point....

[Remiel]

An interesting notion, August, but if the point is to test the waters, why are they wasting so much money on the Super Bowl? Would it not be disastrous for them if Telecaster were to yank them before the game, costing them the amount they had paid for the advertising without getting to use that time slot? Sure, maybe they could put something else in there, but it would likely be a poor patching job at best.

[geoffrey]

Looking at the political game for a second, I think it shows weakness to hide your words behind copyright laws. If you believe in what you were saying, you should have little problem with anyone broadcasting them across the nation.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Looking at the political game for a second, I think it shows weakness to hide your words behind copyright laws. If you believe in what you were saying, you should have little problem with anyone broadcasting them across the nation.

There is a tremendous opportunity there for the Conservatives even if they aren't allowed to air those ads.

They could just run text ads, with a tagline like "The Liberals held public debates, but they don't want you to hear them."

That would be brilliant and could keep the good news running....

[gc1765]

Looking at the political game for a second, I think it shows weakness to hide your words behind copyright laws. If you believe in what you were saying, you should have little problem with anyone broadcasting them across the nation.

I think it shows weakness to focus on your opponents weaknesses rather than your own strengths. If you believe in your policies you should have no problem highlighting them, instead of highlighting the mistakes of your opponent.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I think it shows weakness to focus on your opponents weaknesses rather than your own strengths. If you believe in your policies you should have no problem highlighting them, instead of highlighting the mistakes of your opponent.

Fair enough, but that's what the Liberals did to win in 1997, 2000 and 2004.

Read Warren Kinsella's book and he'll tell you just that.

[gc1765]

Fair enough, but that's what the Liberals did to win in 1997, 2000 and 2004.

Read Warren Kinsella's book and he'll tell you just that.

You are probably right, though my memory is not so good as I wasn't such a political junkie back then. I do remember the ads making fun of Chretien in '93 though.

I cringed when I saw the Liberals go negative in 2006, and it likely contributed somewhat to their defeat. The Conservatives certainly weren't any better. My favourite was the one where the Conservatives accused the Liberals of planning attack ads WITHIN their own attack ad. I couldn't believe the hypocrisy. Worse still were the debates...I can't remember how many times Harper talked about 13 years of corruption, 13 years of inaction etc....

[Who's Doing What?]

Conservative attack ads fired at Liberal Leader Stephane Dion may end up sideswiping the ruling party after questions were raised about possible breach of copyright laws.

The television ads, which began airing Monday, use footage from last fall's Liberal leadership debates to deliver the message that the new Grit leader is weak, indecisive and an environmental failure.

But that footage belongs to a consortium of TV networks which pooled their resources to provide live coverage of the debates. The Cable Public Affairs Channel provided the pool camera for each debate.

The networks are now looking into how the Conservatives obtained the debate footage for their ads.

I don't see what the big deal is. If the CPC is willing to pay for any footage they used, they should be allowed to use it. As to how they got it, I would be surprised if they didn't record the entire convention.

But Telecaster's boss, James Patterson, cares enormously about politics.

Perhaps an ethics investigation should be started?

[Ricki Bobbi]

I don't see what the big deal is. If the CPC is willing to pay for any footage they used, they should be allowed to use it. As to how they got it, I would be surprised if they didn't record the entire convention.

I'm a little surprised they didn't pay for it.

Still an opportunity for them. Pay up, if the consortium won't allow them. Boom new issue....

[gc1765]

Still an opportunity for them. Pay up, if the consortium won't allow them. Boom new issue....

Why would the Liberals allow the Conservatives to use their footage in their attack ads? And why would it be an issue? It's not as if the debates weren't public...they were on TV, I watched them.

[Fortunata]

Van Dusen said he is not aware of any request by the Tory party to buy or use any portion of the debate videos.

Yep, Steve sure does things different. Our "new" government, same as all the old ones.

[Charles Anthony]

Is Harper testing the waters to see whether "someone" will force Telecaster to pull the ads?

This could be a shrewd double strategy. If the ads are pulled, the Harper team could try to take it to the Supreme Court again.

If there is a law suit, the evidence -- in this case, the ads -- become public information and the Patterson team might have a hard time preventing their public display.

[Figleaf]

Looking at the political game for a second, I think it shows weakness to hide your words behind copyright laws. If you believe in what you were saying, you should have little problem with anyone broadcasting them across the nation.

It's not the Liberals that hold the copyright, its the broadcasters. I see no problem with broadcasters not wanting their news footage abused later by political parties. First, it belongs to the broadcasters and they should control it as they like.

Meanwhile, the tories stealing footage is outrageous.

[cybercoma]

It's not the Liberals that hold the copyright, its the broadcasters. I see no problem with broadcasters not wanting their news footage abused later by political parties. First, it belongs to the broadcasters and they should control it as they like.

Meanwhile, the tories stealing footage is outrageous.

Is it ok for broadcasters and news stations to control information?

[M.Dancer]

It's not the Liberals that hold the copyright, its the broadcasters. I see no problem with broadcasters not wanting their news footage abused later by political parties. First, it belongs to the broadcasters and they should control it as they like.

Meanwhile, the tories stealing footage is outrageous.

Is it ok for broadcasters and news stations to control information?

When the information is on a copyright format.....remember, it isn't the information in the Encyclopedia Britannica that is protected, it is the encyclopedia itself. If someone has given private property (video tapes) to the conservatives, the conservatives may be guilty of receiving stolen property

[Keepitsimple]

This thought just came to me - for those who don't believe there is Liberal bias in the media. The best demonstration can be found on any of the Political Blogs including this one. I have yet to see a single topic raised where the poster accuses the general media of being systemically anti-Liberal.

[M.Dancer]

This thought just came to me - for those who don't believe there is Liberal bias in the media. The best demonstration can be found on any of the Political Blogs including this one. I have yet to see a single topic raised where the poster accuses the general media of being systemically anti-Liberal.

So if a group of conservatives refuse to say the media is anti Liberal, it means the media has a Liberal bias.....?

Is that sort of like the test to see if a person is a witch?

[Keepitsimple]

This thought just came to me - for those who don't believe there is Liberal bias in the media. The best demonstration can be found on any of the Political Blogs including this one. I have yet to see a single topic raised where the poster accuses the general media of being systemically anti-Liberal.

So if a group of conservatives refuse to say the media is anti Liberal, it means the media has a Liberal bias.....?

Is that sort of like the test to see if a person is a witch?

eh?

[Who's Doing What?]

The "Left wing Liberal meadia bias" is a crock. Is CTV left wing bias? Is CanWest Liberally bias?

Get over it already.

[Figleaf]

This thought just came to me - for those who don't believe there is Liberal bias in the media. The best demonstration can be found on any of the Political Blogs including this one. I have yet to see a single topic raised where the poster accuses the general media of being systemically anti-Liberal.

Lefties complain too, but their terminology is different. They whine about 'concentration of ownership' and 'corporatization'.

[tml12]

The "Left wing Liberal meadia bias" is a crock. Is CTV left wing bias? Is CanWest Liberally bias?

Get over it already.

CBC is pro-liberal and that's where my tax dollars were going. It would be the equivalent for you if you lived in the States and your tax dollars were going to a Sean Hannity/Ann Coulter lovefest.

I bet you'd LOVE that...