April 24, 2007

CBC: Hues Of The News, Update

(bumped with Update #2)


We made a mistake.

The photo shows smoke billowing from stacks at the old Lakeview coal-fired generating plant in Mississauga, once said to be the world’s largest. The Ontario government called it a heavy polluter when it was shut down a couple of years ago not only because of the quantities of greenhouse gases it produced – difficult to photograph – but because of the noxious fumes and particulates that contributed to the murk obscuring downtown Toronto seen in the photo.

The stacks were demolished a few months ago but it remains a powerful image of the kind of emissions the Kyoto Accord wants to limit and that is why we used it in the April 19 story on John Baird’s concerns about the “risks” of meeting Kyoto.

(Did you catch the scare quotes on the word "risks"?)
It was the right photo, but not the right version. uses images in number of ways: It is our policy not to alter those accompanying news stories and depicting actual events or people. Those used as graphics in promos or to illustrate feature stories, columns or the like may be changed in minor ways – slightly heightened contrast, different colour filter, slight cropping – to enhance their visual impact and appeal.

In this case, the original image was treated with a “warming filter,” which gave it the sepia tone, and cropped slightly to use as a graphic image. Fair enough, except it was – mistakenly – dropped in a file accessible for use with news stories and subsequently posted with the Baird story.

It was an inadvertent error, but I should also point out that the “dramatically different” versions the blogger found are, in fact, exactly the same photograph both showing exactly the same thing – emissions from an acknowledged heavy polluter. There was no “misrepresentation” and no attempt to mislead.

That's the copy from the main page at Inexplicably, clicking on the permalink and comments brings up a blank page. (Note: This one works.)

Well, who to believe? The CBC or my own lyin' eyes?

Of course they're the "same photograph". That was the rather the point - the question was why the photo was run through such a "warming filter" in the first place. I know what it took for me to run the original through the GIMP to approximate the change. This was (quite obviously) no mere bump in contrast.

And if the CBC felt that "warming" the photo was an acceptable alteration, then my question is this - was the blue-toned version that has appeared at least 3 times on their website just a different, enhanced version of the original?

Original post here.

Tod Maffin at Inside the CBC - "I know executives are discussing this particular issue today. I expect to hear from them soon about it."

Posted by Kate at April 24, 2007 5:02 PM

Even without the photoshopping, the picture is, arguably, a misrepresentation of the Toronto millions of us know and love and call our home. You would have to go out of your way to capture a picture of Toronto that looks this polluted and smoggy.

Plus, with its juxtaposition to the accompanying article, the implicit message of the picture is, "Conservatives don't care about the environment." Since it's apparently a stock photo, the picture was probably snapped during the reign of the Liberals, while they were huffing and puffing about Kyoto -- and doing nothing.

Posted by: Richard Ball at April 24, 2007 9:53 AM

If anyone really wants to reduce world pollution DO NOT BUY, MADE IN CHINA.

Posted by: Western Canadian at April 24, 2007 9:54 AM

...dang! My post wasn't quoted by the CBC...

Totally agree with you Western. Unless we stop now, Soylent Green will become a reality.

Gives new meaning to energy bar...

Posted by: tomax7 at April 24, 2007 9:56 AM

That's not where the issue has to be discussed!!!
It has to be discussed by those, who pay CBC bills, i.e. in the Parliament.

Posted by: Aaron at April 24, 2007 10:00 AM

Aaron? You, me and every other tax payer are the ones paying the CBC bill.

Posted by: Jim at April 24, 2007 10:06 AM

Love some of the comments, especially one by Mr. Whittingham:

"...I may be an naive country boy from Saskatchewan..."
"...Kate and her bloggers are CBC conspiracy theorists. It keeps them busy and out of trouble. If they didn’t have this to occupy them, they’d probably be shootin’ their guns off randomly."

Ah, so sad to see a native Saskamite so indoctrinated by eastern mentality.

Bet he also thinks AdScam, Gun Registry, and Kyotot is part of Kate's conspiracy.

Poor boy probably forgot how to load his gun also...

Posted by: tomax7 at April 24, 2007 10:07 AM

The CBC has been a disseminator of left wing propaganda virtually since its inception, along with the National film Board.
It should come as no surprise to discover manipulation of photos, we already know they frequently nuance facts, as witnessed by CHRISTINA Lewand about Stephen Harper in a piece piece months ago.

Sadly Canadians are forced by law to maintain the CBC with our tax money.

The best Harper can do is privitize the CBC.

Who knows they may even discover a whole new market if they shifted their focus to the right like Fox News in the USA.

Posted by: Joe Molnar at April 24, 2007 10:10 AM

what PMSH needs to do is just shut down the heritage ministry. isnt that the one that funds the cbc?

Posted by: FREE at April 24, 2007 10:14 AM

Well, I suppose it's slightly encouraging to think that the CBC has at least been provoked into CYA mode. Reading "CBC Ethics" post (second one) made me think of Ken Finkleman's character from his own show, The Newsroom: maybe George was just a lightly satirized version of the CBC executives Finkleman had to deal with every day.

Posted by: Blackadder at April 24, 2007 10:27 AM

Many Ontarians have for a long time referred to Toronto as the Big Smoke and occasionally on a hot summer day it can take on an orange hue. Either that or my eyes were burning.

What I find interesting is that this picture must have been taken when the Liberals were in power after having signed on to the Kyoto accord, and I don't remember the CBC raising such such a big stink about it. The bias and contempt for all things Conservative seems to be reaching a fevered pitch.

I believe Canadians want TV programming to reflect our values not TV that attempts to program us with new values. More Canadians would support a politically neutral CBC but since they don't seem capable of operating without trying to redefine our culture it is past time we threw the CBC to the wolves. The CBC does not reflect Canadian culture and will continue to lose market share either way.

Posted by: Brian S. at April 24, 2007 10:30 AM

About the picture.
Note that the dramatic smoke on top of the picture is black on top and light on the bottom.
The way the smoke looks, it seems that the camera was placed near the source to make it look so dramatic. To see the cropped parts would make it clearer what’s the deal.
The composition of the picture is, to make the place look like Chemical Ali would have a hand in it. Probably used filter to enhance the pollution, which ordinarily nobody wants.
Just some observations. The whole thing may just be what it is.

Posted by: Bolshevik at April 24, 2007 10:33 AM

"...dang! My post wasn't quoted by the CBC..."

Check out those comments. Are they a fair and balanced representation of the 164-or-so on SDA?

Heh heh...

Posted by: Drained Brain at April 24, 2007 10:39 AM

Notice that the CBC asks its readers for their opinion. But it has already skewed their responses by self-describing their action as only done "to enhance image clarity" - an innocuous action done to clarify borders of colours/black and white.

But the CBC action wasn't to 'enhance image clarity'. It was to send a message of alarm, an image of smoke-filled pollutants over our cities.

The fact that this wasn't 'smoke' (particularate matter) but steam or water vapour; that the emitters (the four stacks) were demolished several years ago; that it took place under the Liberals - all these facts are hidden by the CBC.

Instead, they focus only on 'image clarification'. What about factual clarification?

Posted by: ET at April 24, 2007 10:55 AM

He's going to hear from them soon? Yeah. And my f**king rebate check from Queerbec is in the mail too

Posted by: Justthinkin at April 24, 2007 10:56 AM

The CBC itself just proved Kate's whole point. The CBC intentionaly skews the "news".

There were 164 comments posted on kate's sda site concerning CBC bias on the "smoke" story.

The CBC then pays someone to filter through the comments and pick out the most favourable six.

Alby was in the 'top six' according to the CBC.

On sda, Alby represents a small %age of the comments and less than 0.00005% of the intelligence. Sounds Like Canada. Sounds Like CBC Mentality.

It IS hard to take a photo of CO2. It makes up a very, very, VERY small proportion of our atmosphere. And CO2 is an insignifigant GHG compared to water vapour.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 24, 2007 10:57 AM

This is a movement that we have to get started, it will shut down the global warming hype overnight:

Posted by: bob at April 24, 2007 11:17 AM

Sorry, I’m not buying. Having grown up in Port Credit the “Four Sisters” of the Lakeview generating station are instantly recognizable. While you can obviously see the CN Tower from the Lakeview Promenade you would most definately not be getting that picture of First Canadian Place. We’re talking a distance of 20km. If you were to zoom in enough to get the CN tower looking that big the stacks should be substantially bigger. In addition, the angle is all wrong. You can’t possibly get that view of the stacks in the same picture as the tower without one hell of a wide angle lens. If you’re not familiar with the locations do a quick direction search on Mapquest from Hydro Rd in Mississauga to Rees St in Toronto (the stacks were parallel to Hwy 2 before they were demolished). There is more going on here than a simple change of hue.

Posted by: PB at April 24, 2007 11:40 AM

Bit OT here(again),but I find this really fascinating!The response,and the attention from so many avenues,to all of us"talking back to the radio"
Another example,is the whole Hollandgate affair.As I mentioned few days ago,it had all but dropped off the radar..but also,Holland had appeared to have been told to STFU...he was of late pretty much invisible.Then,after it was pointed out here,on Kate's blog..lo and behold,Marky Mark is up in the House yesterday asking question for 1st time in weeks!They ARE paying attention people,you are making a difference,and it is truly gratifying to behold!To all of the contributors..keep up the great work.I for one appreciate the blinders being removed!

Posted by: Sammy at April 24, 2007 12:02 PM

Hi Kate -- FYI, the CBC has sent me its response. You can find it at

Would love to know what you and your readers think.

CBC blogger

Posted by: Tod Maffin at April 24, 2007 12:24 PM

To read the letter from the CBC don't use the link . It doesn't work. Just click on Tod Maffin at the bottom of the post and it will take you to his website with the posted reply

Posted by: Lakeshore Observer at April 24, 2007 12:36 PM

Just read the CBC response. It's pitiful and would insult the intelligence of a goat.

Posted by: Rattfuc at April 24, 2007 12:37 PM


I wrote as much when the picture was first discussed. I'd like to know where the photographer was standing to get that snap - I can't think of any nearby elevation that would allow for it. Thanks for confirming what I believed.

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at April 24, 2007 12:48 PM

‘Mistake, but not an attempt to mislead’: CBC on altered photo [ibid}


Fake? Yes. So, ff off, rednecks.

Posted by: maz2 at April 24, 2007 12:49 PM

The best lies contain 99% truth and 1% lie. Such a premise makes photoshopping images ideal for the job. The CBC puts not only pictures through "filters" to enhance interest, they also openly admit to filtering words (one example - the leadership debates during the last Federal Election where a "knowledgeable" CBC radio panel said they'd filter the debates for Canadians to prevent listeners from having to suffer through the boredom).

The problem with filtering is with the motives of those doing it. Changing details skews facts which affects opinion. Does the CBC really know when enhancing interest becomes deliberate misrepresentation? Do they care?

Posted by: Martin B. at April 24, 2007 12:58 PM

Makes it sound like, all we added wasa sepia tone not realizing what effect that would have.

It was done to get an effect....admit it and we will all respect you more.

Posted by: Stephen at April 24, 2007 1:03 PM

I would like to give them credit that they're doing a follow-up based on Kate's earlier post. They're obviously listening. How well they listen, and the end results of it are not yet apparent, but the potential for reform is there.

Posted by: Shane O. at April 24, 2007 1:13 PM

‘Mistake, but not an attempt to mislead’

It absolutely was an attempt to mislead. Because, by their own admission in that letter, CO2 is hard to photograph. Why? Because it's invisible. And smog is a problem in the GTA and the people of Toronto have an emotional investment in the issue. And so the CBC falsely linked smog to Kyoto, which is about CO2 and NOT smog so that the people of Toronto, and anyone else from a city with smog problems, would react emotionally negative to Baird, the Conservatives, and their stand that to implement Kyoto would be economically disastrous.

It's no different than showing ice normally melting in the spring or a polar bear on a tiny piece of ice (which is a few feet away from shore) before every story on global warming. It's an intentional misrepresentation of the facts in order to promote an agenda.

And what's absolutely hilarious about this story is that taking the Lakeview power plant offline was the equivalent of removing 30,000 cars from the roads. There's over 5 million people in the GTA. To account for minors and commuters let's assume only half those people drive on any given day. So shutting down the Lakeview power plant was the equivalent of taking 1.2% of the cars off the road. And under Kyoto we need to reduce by 30%. You do the math and it's obvious that Baird's "fear mongering" report is not far off the mark.

Posted by: Reid at April 24, 2007 1:23 PM

Shane O,

They are embarassed by the exposure and are dissembling.

When Tony Burman explains the event away or apologizes, then the lesson is learned.

I would argue they are a biased news source but internationally they are an outlet of some repute.

They owe Canadian's a public explanation.

Posted by: jrb at April 24, 2007 1:25 PM

There is so much wrong with this photograph.
Firstly, the stacks are emitting water vapor.
Secondly it would be impossible to include them in a photograph with the background showing. They just don't sit where the photo tells us they are.
Air Pollution in Southern Ontario is NOT generated in Southern Ontario. It originates in the Ohio Valley.

Posted by: Rattfuc at April 24, 2007 1:46 PM

Water vapour? The Four Sisters were the smokestacks at a coal-fired power plant!

Posted by: john at April 24, 2007 1:51 PM

Rattfuc is right (or partially so).
Coal fired generating plants heat water with burning coal to produce steam. The majority of the bad stuff is removed by scrubbers. What you see in the picture is mainly steam/water vapor being vented.

Posted by: Atric at April 24, 2007 2:03 PM

If you believe that coal-fired power plants emit nothing but water vapour, you're delusional.

Why did the Harris government order Lakeview to stop burning coal in 2001 if it's so nice and clean?

Posted by: john at April 24, 2007 2:13 PM

I hadn't read the CBC reply when I posted my comment. It doesn't seem to be truthful.

Posted by: Shane O. at April 24, 2007 2:25 PM

No one is suggesting that all that is emitted is steam. Indeed residue from the burning of coal is a problem, especially with older facilities like Lakeview. Harris had it decomissioned because of the costs of upgrading it to the standards that exist at facilities like Nanticoke. Contrary to what the media would like you to believe, Nanticoke is indeed quite efficient. High-tech and only burns soft coal imported from Utah.

Posted by: Atric at April 24, 2007 2:25 PM

Soft coal is the bad stuff. Lots of sulfur, burns smoky. Try again.

Posted by: john at April 24, 2007 2:31 PM

Get off your computers and get a life. I can't believe that anyone could be remotely interested in something like this for more than 30 seconds. It's a CBC CONSPIRACY, everyone!!!

Posted by: Bill at April 24, 2007 2:48 PM

Now that we know that CBC religiously follows this blog, they know that we know that the anti-semitic and anti-Conservative government pose written all over Mansbridge's face is the typical attitude of all the CBC.

And no one was even complaining to them about the clip.

It's just the way they are.

Posted by: clair voyant at April 24, 2007 2:54 PM

John: "Soft coal is the bad stuff. Lots of sulfur, burns smoky. Try again."

This statement is ridiculous. It's like saying fish tastes fishy... yuck! I hate all fish.

The fact is that lignite coal (low quality) is the primary coal used for power generation. And that soft coal (bitumous) is of higher quality than lignite.

Bitumous coal has several uses which depend on the grade of the coal itself.

The bitumous coal that is used for power generation is of the highest quality and has low ash, sulphur, and carbonate contents.

So burning bitumous coal in the boilers produces LESS garbage to have to scrub from your flue gas than lignite coal.

And for the record John, I'm an engineer who has spent several years (in the past) working in coal fired power plants. Where do you get your knowledge from?

Posted by: Reid at April 24, 2007 2:58 PM

Reid: Very well. As an engineer, what comes out of a coal-fired plant's smokestack?

Posted by: john at April 24, 2007 3:09 PM

Well John that depends on a couple of things.

1. Is the power plant in a 1st or 3rd world country?

2. Is the power plant vintage or modern?

The reason these questions are important is because there's lots of bad stuff that, left untreated, can be emitted out of a coal fired power plant's stack(s). Things like NOx, SOx, ash, heavy metals, CO2, water.

Technology exists to remove nasties like NOx, SOx, ash, and heavy metals in the newer, or upgraded, plants of North America and Europe. CO2 is another matter. However, that's not what you were talking about since you mentioned that soft coal burns "smokey" and is "bad" and smoke consists of particulates (mostly ash, NOx, and SOx).

In older plants and those being constructed in places like China you're going to get all kinds of nastiness being emitted out of the stacks. Which is why it's important to get the Chinese on board with clean coal technologies. The only way we can meet all the energy needs of the planet is to utilize fossil fuels and nuclear energy (or kill off a couple of billion people or so). And since nuclear is currently a small percentage of the total production this will require the construction of hundreds upon hundreds of new nuclear power plants.

There's only so much power that can be generated by wind, solar, tides, etc.

There's only so many rivers you can dam up and valleys you can flood.

These stats are from 1998 (the most recent I can find) from the USGS and represent world wide energy production based on fuel type (first number is Quad BTU and second number is percentage of total energy production).

Oil 152.0 40.0 %
Natural Gas 85.5 22.5 %
Coal 88.6 23.3 %
Nuclear 24.5 6.5 %
Hydroelectric 26.6 7.0 %
Other 2.5 0.7 %

Other includes biomass, geothermal, solar, wind

Posted by: Reid at April 24, 2007 3:47 PM


With respect to the portion of the photo that shows the Four Sisters and the emission of thick plumes, do you think that is a natural photo or doctored?

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at April 24, 2007 3:57 PM

I don't like either photo. Having worked at the power plants around Lake Wabamun, AB I have seen ancient & modern power plants in operation. What I have personally seen, even at the older plant (built in the 50's), coming out of the stack looks to be mostly very white (steam) with a small amount (10% or less) as residual orange/brown haze remaining after the steam dissipates.

My opinion of that photo is that the smog haze over Toronto is what it is, smog from a multitude of cars & factories from all around the Great Lakes. And that photo was chosen because the extra "smoke" coming out of the stacks adds to the dramatic effect.

But my own personal experience tells me that if you were the one standing there taking the picture, what was coming out of those stacks would look very different to your naked eye than how it looks on the photo (original or doctored).

I'm an amateur photographer and love taking pictures of the horizon when there's blue sky mixed with white clouds. The reason I love this is that when you "develop" the pictures you can get very dramatic looking clouds if you've used the right filters. And the clouds in the pictures do not look like they did to your naked eye.

Posted by: Reid at April 24, 2007 4:25 PM

What's really amusing about their choice of "illustration?"

Those smokestacks are the "four sisters" of the coal-fired Lakeview Generating Plant in Port Credit. The plant has been closed and the stacks have since been demolished (June 2006). Here's a short video of the demolition:

Posted by: backhoe at April 24, 2007 4:28 PM

"We found a photo of a generating plant that was shut down a couple of years ago and gave it the "global warming filter" treatment to make it more appealing to our brain-dead readership. But we never intended for it to be used! Somehow it ended up in the news image grab-bag and was mistakenly chosen to illustrate the concerned John Baird Kyoto "risk" story. Screw you blogger."

What a crock.

Posted by: Wally at April 24, 2007 4:28 PM

Seeing as how you posted beautiful images of houses in Kurdistan on this blog last year neglecting to mention that they were CGI this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: Jose at April 24, 2007 5:08 PM

Toronto "smog" comes from the Ohio Valley heavy industry, where the pollutants move over the waters of Lake Ontario and are exposed to sunlight UV rays which converts it into noxious smog that settles on Toronto and even well inshore. Yes, the local pollution does contribute to the total smog, but the other sources are equally important.

Toronto is just at the bottom of the environmental sewer and sits in it's pollution, hoping that the prevailing winds will change from SW to NW.

Posted by: Observer at April 24, 2007 5:30 PM

Huh Jose?
What ever does a picture of Kurdistan have to do with the topic at hand??

Posted by: Rattfuc at April 24, 2007 5:40 PM

Seems that the direct link to the story posted above has been clipped by the CBC. If you go to you'll be able to scroll down to the article, but all of the readers comments have been pulled offline. Seems that CBC didn't like the heat they were taking. CBC has a toll free at 1-866-306-4636 if anyone wishes to enquire as to why all of the readers comments were pulled.

Posted by: Mark R at April 24, 2007 6:10 PM

...and besides, Jose, Kate responded to your allegation several posts ago. As I recall, she had expressed some negative opinion about your intelligence. Where's your proof, Jose? Or do you think unsubstantiated blather is enough?

Posted by: Eeyore at April 24, 2007 6:10 PM

Tod asks: "Would love to know what you and your readers think."

I think Sue Gardner, the person who wrote the non-apology, is subhuman filth, unfit to lick the shadow of a real human off a pile of cur dung. I'm revolted that my tax dollars are paying for such bald faced lies. Thanks for asking.

Posted by: Bob at April 24, 2007 6:44 PM

I'm sure, if the CBC were to post a story about their senior editors, they would be happy to use a photo of Larry, Curly and Moe wearing suits...after all, the picture would only be "...used as graphics in promos or to illustrate feature stories, columns or the like...", right? Sure!

Posted by: Eeyore at April 24, 2007 6:47 PM

Ha, the CBC blog is off line.

Saved a screen shot at

Posted by: tomax7 at April 24, 2007 7:04 PM

Link at national newswatch to Inside the CBC gives:

Site offline.

Posted by: maz2 at April 24, 2007 7:18 PM

that would be a global warming filter not just one of those off the shelf 52mm ones I suppose.

"hoist on their own retard" again.

CBCpravda, will Stephen not rid of these tax stealing vermin?

Posted by: cal2 at April 24, 2007 7:19 PM

I bid a dollar for one of there cameras.

Posted by: FREE at April 24, 2007 7:32 PM is a CBCphile. LOLOL ...

At the beginning of the long dash, following ten seconds of silence the time will be exactly: Bedtime for Inside the CBC.
File under: Stuck on ssssstewpid.
Goonight, Peter. Shalom.

Inside the CBC - a public blog for CBC employees

inside the cbc

Tod Maffin is writing/editing "Inside the CBC", a blog for CBC employees that is open to the public. From the About page:

I don’t get leaked any advance CBC information or participate in any pre-announcement strategy meetings or anything like that. Likewise, I don’t tell them in advance what gets posted here or how. They don’t get an opportunity to review or edit or veto anything. They read what I write the same time you do. I suppose if push came to shove and they told me to take something down or edit it, I would. But having been working with these folks now for a month in beta, I can’t imagine that kind of scenario. In the end, we’re all working toward opening up communication at the CBC — a good goal.

I find this quite fascinating. Really, a blog for CBC employees that's open to the public? I love the blog, but I find the positioning a little strange. Why not just say it's an inside look at the CBC, full stop?

In any case, it's pretty neat. Tod is a great writer and posts all kinds of tidbits that will be of interest to CBCphiles like myself. ...-

Posted by: maz2 at April 24, 2007 7:34 PM

The CBC blog comments were almost all severely critical of the CBC, stating that it was misinforming the public, and was deliberately manipulating its content to function as propaganda. The CBC, like all socialist institutions, rejects criticism.

Posted by: ET at April 24, 2007 7:34 PM

Tried the link as well , doesn't work . I do however have complete confidence the CBC will retract these obviously " Fake but accurate " photo's sometime really , really soon ..... apparently the correction is going to run under the tide schedules in the Hobema Times Daily , just before the Bingo results ....stand by for updates ...developing .....

Posted by: Bill D.Cat at April 24, 2007 7:38 PM

here we go again, CBCpravda "All Khadr , All the time"

It would give Pansbridge a "Depends experience" if this POS pleaded guilty. and a whole lot of liberal lawyers a chance to try to jump on the dole and appeal.Can wait to see the whole welfare group of Mama Khadr and the sisters wailing on the news tonight from their cozy taxpayer funded
hideout in the burbs.

Posted by: cal2 at April 24, 2007 7:46 PM

Tod asks: "Would love to know what you and your readers think."

I think the CBC should be HISTORY, as in CLOSED.
Then all the scum at the cbc can go get real jobs.

Posted by: FREE at April 24, 2007 7:52 PM

"Fake, but accurate" pretty well descibes the photo.
Has anyone seen, the Green Helmet Guy ?

Posted by: tertius at April 24, 2007 7:54 PM

The last message before it melted down was from an obvious CBC loyalist complaining of all the trolls daring to comment on the subject. Typical elitism. Hey, I'm a shareholder, my dear!

Posted by: Tom at April 24, 2007 7:57 PM

My bad, that should be describes.

Posted by: tertius at April 24, 2007 7:58 PM

As TV news consumers, Canadian should pay close attention to every TV newscast on global warming or "climate change items."

CBC, CTV, Global all follow the same pattern,
Virtually every oil sands story will show multiple stacks belching, as the narration takes place.

Sear that into the viewers brain.

Smoke belching from the oil industry, polar bears dying from heat prostration and starvation.

Y2K replay in spades, eat it up folks, courtesy Suzuki, Gore and MSM.

Posted by: Joe Molnar at April 24, 2007 8:09 PM

Agree Joe Molnar and as Reid said at 4:25, these images are “ an intentional misrepresentation of the facts in order to promote an agenda.”

TV generally has become a medium to stir emotions. The left has been reduced to emotion because their message won’t hold up to scrutiny. They now rely on TV’s emotion which has no interest in the digging for facts or the hard work it takes distil the truth.

I’ve also noticed CTV on Duffy shows a dramatic scene of a glacier calving whenever global warming is mentioned. But calving is a very natural phenomenon as the glaciers flow down from the mountains. I’ve seen that happen, it’s a beautiful scene.

But I’ve also seen people watching calving say in a panicky way “see, see, global warming’. However, ice melts when we aren’t in an ice age. It also replaces itself at the top of the glacier even when we aren’t in an ice age.

If we are to consider keeping the CBC taxpayer supported Crown Corporation it has to change it’s raison d'être from being a place to employ utopians to being a non-commercially motivated media outlet whose mission is to provide Canadians with “just the facts ma’am .”

If the CBC has become too inbred to change , then privatize it , I don’t want to subsidize distortions any longer.

Posted by: nomdenet at April 24, 2007 8:23 PM

I've kept a screen shot as well and posted it for posterity[click my name.]

The CBC really knows how to manage problems. It's a non-denial denial.

They'll be more!

Posted by: jrb at April 24, 2007 8:44 PM

This whole CBC Photoshop kerfuffle reminds me of when Hezbollah got caught doing the same thing last summer. Only then it was added smoke; now it is white clouds of (mostly) water vapor tricked up to look like smoke. Question is, did CBC pick some Hezbollah Photoshop technicians, or are they just using the usual suspects? Maybe Tod knows?

(Pssst! Pass it on, Steve is going to sell the Ceeb to Fox News! Part of the Hidden Agenda, doncha know.)

Posted by: DoubtingThomas at April 24, 2007 9:07 PM

Seems that CBC didn't like the heat they were taking.
And now that the comments, still ending with CBC loyalist comments, are up again, I see that my comment (posted under a different name) isn't there. Funny, it was there when I previewed and posted it this afternoon. Although I couldn't see it or any replies to it during the afternoon as the site was, mysteriously, down. Time to check the wayback machine, I guess. Or Google cache. (Before they're wiped, that is, and much more effectively than Ms Crow's attempts, I'd opine.)

Posted by: andycanuck at April 24, 2007 9:14 PM

Sounds like a case of false advertizing. Only much more serious. Kinsella could make a bundle.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 24, 2007 9:16 PM

...yeah andy, mine is gone too. Wasn't thinking, should have done a screen shot of it, but was totally amazed it did get posted. Wasn't being a jerk or anything, but asked them of a certain female CBC reporter.

Posted by: tomax7 at April 24, 2007 9:16 PM

Google cache of the page...

Posted by: tomax7 at April 24, 2007 9:23 PM

...whoops meant Yahoo's cache, didn't mean to offend


Posted by: tomax7 at April 24, 2007 9:24 PM

Time to wind down this expensive anachronism - toss the Librano apparachniks into the street. I don't want to pay for this crap a day longer.

I so hate that I am forced to pay for it when I can longer bear to watch it without arguing with my TV.

Posted by: Shaken at April 24, 2007 9:34 PM

"That was the rather the point - the question was why the photo was run through such a "warming filter" in the first place."

Maybe because nobody wants images that are always blue because of the ultraviolet present in the light? Are we banning polarizing filters next?

Posted by: Sean at April 24, 2007 9:49 PM

"We made a mistake", CBC admits.

And then went on to incriminate themselves.

"It is our policy not to alter those(images) accompanying news stories".
[So why does the CBC blantantly break it's own policies ? Liable]

"(images)May be changed in minor ways to enhance their visual impact and appeal".
[A picture is worth a thousand words. A thousand lies. Liable]

"It(fake photo) was - mistakenly - dropped into a news story."
[A thousand words was taken out of context. Liable.]

So, CBC, what percentage of your so-called "news stories" are "enhanced" ? Lies ? All of them ??

Same thing with "anonymous sources ?? Fictional ??

Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 24, 2007 9:54 PM

Further comment about applying filters digitally. There are two concerns about using filters when creating an image:

1) Depending on the type and strength of the filter, you will lose up to two stops of light. This is a concern in low light conditions where you don't have a tripod and you're concerned about camera shake.

2) Unless you're shooting with very high end filters (Singh-Ray), you will lose some optical quality by adding a filter to your lens. You can get exactly the same effect in most cases by applying the filter digitally instead, but without sacrificing optical quality.

Adding a filter digitally is not a big deal to me, and is usually more sensible than laying out a lot of cash for unnecessary glass. I'm saying this as someone who has supplied images for editorial use.

This is a non issue.

Posted by: Sean at April 24, 2007 9:57 PM

Wow! There must be some big money driving this “lets sell out our production workers” agenda that we call Kyoto.
What a pitiful excuse. This almost sounds as plausible as the dog developed my pictures and I published them by mistake. I used to like the CBC but I used to like Castro. One day I grew up. I don’t think they have it in them.

Posted by: John Tiller at April 24, 2007 10:01 PM

My comment was posted in the "apology" second posting, tomax7, and not on the first posting that your Yahoo cache search found. Using both Google and your Yahoo page linked, above, for the second posting I get the equivalent of "page does not exist".

That's the URL that I tried to find searching for my polite (although ironic) comment. (Maybe try deleting the "/print" from the end of the URL too? I did and still got the same missing results, but I'm no IT expert.)

Posted by: andycanuck at April 24, 2007 10:01 PM

Sean, look out! The point, the point! Oh, sorry, you missed it. Better luck next time.

Posted by: Ham at April 24, 2007 10:08 PM

The comment that I had posted on the CBC site, pointing out that they were manipulating the public, was up for a short time - and now, has disappeared. It seems that the CBC has edited the comments (a la Garth Turner?) and removed ones that did not simply comment on the mechanical aspects, eg, on spatial and colour problems but commented on the integrity of the CBC.

Posted by: ET at April 24, 2007 10:11 PM

ET ,
Double chug violation for using CBC and INTEGRITY in the same sentence . Consume now , heathen!

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at April 24, 2007 10:20 PM

The picture should be shown by the SEEBEESEE in its original without cropping and without any filters. Thought it was likely snapped through a filter in the first place for dramatic effect. Don’t know from what direction the picture was taken, it seems that the smoke clouds are closer than the tower, though you can see the top of the tower in the smoke. It is somewhat curious. Or maybe not.

Posted by: Bolshevik at April 24, 2007 10:24 PM

What? I was banned from that site! I made a comment but they didn't like it. Bawwwaaahhh.

Posted by: Real Conservative at April 24, 2007 10:33 PM


Seriously, some folks ought to get together and monitor CBC, on air and online. I personally doubt that this is an isolated incident?


Posted by: Dave at April 24, 2007 10:42 PM

"Sean, look out! The point, the point! Oh, sorry, you missed it. Better luck next time."

The point that I'm making -- as someone who sells images on a professional basis -- is that the use of a digitally applied warming filter is not a big deal. If you had a better understanding of photography (and it's obvious that you don't) you wouldn't be freaking out over this.

For chrissakes folks -- there aren't enough examples of obvious bias at the CBC to complain about that we have to start manufacturing them?

Posted by: Sean at April 24, 2007 11:03 PM

"It is our policy not to alter those(images) accompanying news stories"

When news agencies talk about altering, they're talking about "pixel pushing". That's moving elements of an image around. The image linked to below is an example of pixel pushing (note the cow that moved):

That kind of change in an editorial image is absolutely verbotten.

On the other hand, fixing lighting problems, removing sensor dust spots, and colour cast corrections are entirely acceptable:

Increasing the colour saturation is also acceptable. Most digital images that are shot in RAW format are rather flat looking, and you need to bump up the colour to get a result that approximates reality.

Posted by: Sean at April 24, 2007 11:10 PM

someone already does try

Posted by: FREE at April 24, 2007 11:10 PM

Hams right sean you dont get it. Its not about the tech of it, its about the LIES and BS

Posted by: FREE at April 24, 2007 11:15 PM

The original Kyoto photo the CBC used is fake too. That smoke is polluting just a little too perfectly isn't it? And the bright streak of blue in it? I'd say the darkening was in fact the second round of photoshopping on this pic.

Posted by: JL at April 24, 2007 11:36 PM

CBC states: "The stacks were demolished a few months ago but it remains a powerful image of the kind of emissions the Kyoto Accord" . . . I think the problem here is that this is precisely NOT what the Kyoto Accord targets -- the Kyoto Accord focusses on innocuous CO2 while offering a completely ineffective solution to actual pollution. Kyoto is a pretend solution. I have concerns that the CBC has done very little to explain the reality of the Kyoto Accord. Here is a very fine assessment of the actual situation: and a good place for the CBC to get started should it seriously wish to treat the issue objectively.

Posted by: LindaL at April 24, 2007 11:42 PM

Bill's right: "Get off your computers and get a life." -- I am missing Trailer Park Boys -- time to switch gears.

Posted by: Lindal at April 25, 2007 12:08 AM

I am always posting late at nite, so I am not sure if anyone reads my posts. For what it's worth, here is a CBC story I heard not long ago -- it's an old story, but it typifies what exactly is wrong with the CBC. I ran into a guy who used to sell advertising for the various media outlets in Ottawa -- radio and TV. One of the broadcasters was poised to get "The Fugitive" (Richard Jantzen, one armed man,etc. if anyone remembers -- very popular show). They were REALLY excited because they were going to get great advertising for this one. At the 11th hour, the CBC came in, outbid the original group and they got the show -- THEN -- they buried it (like 11:30 at nite or some such). In other words, CBC just wanted to squelch the free-market competition . . . they screwed the private sector on our dime. The most important thing is, I do not believe they have changed at all.

Posted by: LindaL at April 25, 2007 12:34 AM


Congratulations and thanks for your continuing exposure of the CBC's dishonest reporting.

It's a damn shame that "CBC Watch" is so damn user- unfriendly. They really should give up the name to you so that all of us CBC haters would have a home where we could bring their daily leftwing spin and lies to the attention of each other.

Posted by: Terry Gain at April 25, 2007 12:36 AM

And still those idiots will go around in their private jets and spew all that CO2 into the air and the KYOTO TREATY is nothing more then a nafarious plan by unscruplious persons eco-freaks and others to control our lives in fact the U.S. Senate did,nt ratifi it its time to put this KYOTO TREATY into the paper shredder

Posted by: spurwing plover at April 25, 2007 12:42 AM

It appears that the CBC managed to brainwash the Cons:

"Tories flip flop to support Kyoto motion"

Posted by: lberia at April 25, 2007 12:53 AM

As a resident of Toronto for the past 16 years, all I can say, is: Eat my shorts!
Would I personally recommend anybody moving here to Toronto: No.

Posted by: davie at April 25, 2007 12:55 AM

"news" in sepia tones? hmmm.....

my days of watching the CBC and believing any of it are so far in the past... The last time I saw anything with "integrity" on the CBC would be when Bobby Orr was still playing.
it really has been that long ago.

Posted by: marc in calgary at April 25, 2007 1:07 AM

Hi everyone,

I'm not sure why the comments/single-page isn't working on the blog. (It's not just that one story about the photo; if you check, you'll see it affects every link.)

Any Wordpress gurus out there? Looks like I have a sleepless night ahead of me trying to figure this out.

Now I know why CBC won't give me the root password. ;-)

CBC blogger

Posted by: Tod Maffin at April 25, 2007 2:04 AM

an inconvenient money laundry.

Posted by: cal2 at April 25, 2007 2:37 AM

Seems the point is missed.

A proper photo for the article would be a picture of the speaker for a news outlet. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dosen't matter how they did it, it's the 21st fringen century and we can make anything visually. What matters is that a state run news outlet is attempting to influance a story.

A picture of CAW workers standing at the food bank accross the street from the GM plant in whitby plastered with closed signs would in their view also be appropriate for this story.

Media is good, now just do your fg jobs and start working for a living and find real news and "report" back what you find damnit.

Posted by: m at April 25, 2007 4:23 AM

If we are to consider keeping the CBC taxpayer supported Crown Corporation it has to change it’s raison d'être from being a place to employ utopians to being a non-commercially motivated media outlet whose mission is to provide Canadians with “just the facts ma’am .”

And you still believe in the tooth fairy,right?
The CBCpravda will never change.Only solution is to flush it down the sewer with the rest of the crap.

Posted by: Justthinkin at April 25, 2007 5:44 AM

Hi Tod, do you think that the comments page "not opening bug" (if you'll excuse my IT jargon) is also responsible for deleting previously-posted comments?

Posted by: andycanuck at April 25, 2007 7:08 AM

It goes both ways....unfortunately.

Posted by: js at April 25, 2007 7:41 AM

That doesn't so much seem like a mea culpa as opposed to it being exactly what I said it was in the original thread.

They must have scanned the SDA thread and stolen my responses, it's the only logical answer. Yes, that's sarcasm.

Once again, not a defense of the CBC in the overall sense. News organizations screw up, and they screw up on a far larger scale than a crappy picture.

Posted by: Krydor at April 25, 2007 11:26 AM

Thanks for dropping in to explain, Tod.

Posted by: Kate at April 25, 2007 1:18 PM

Tod, not only is the CBC blog down, but they edited it before it went down.

My post, and a couple of others are not showing in the link Kate put for the printed version.

I did a Yahoo cache (Googe didn't have any) and the time stamps match, except the omitted ones.

Sorry, I think it's a joke, so I put it under my comedy section.

Ironic eh?

Posted by: tomax7 at April 25, 2007 4:48 PM

Now you guy's have me looking at he CBC web site just for kicks. Notice the baird story now only shows a picture of baird, much better. Haven't read the article, but at least the lead in is not slanted like the topic of this post.

Posted by: m at April 26, 2007 6:31 PM

Where is the outrage on this? I heard Kate on AM900; however, I haven't heard this on any other media outlet?

Posted by: Ashes at April 26, 2007 6:57 PM

...and it's back up

Posted by: tomax7 at April 27, 2007 1:36 PM