Robert is right: the headline to Panetta's story -- "Clarkson unimpressed with Jean's seal-eating" -- is more than misleading, it seems calculated to deliberately give a false impression. Clarkson's position was essentially "Meh, been-there-done-that," but in the specific context of the media-created buzz suggesting there was some huge firestorm of anger over Michaelle Jean's sharing some food with the Inuit, the phrase "unimpressed" gives the impression that Clarkson disapproved, even though her position was essentially that she didn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Just in general I've had a really hard time wrapping my head around the pomp and hoopla of this whole story. If Ms. Jean went to a restaurant where vegetarian items were available and she ate a pork chop, or if she ordered the chicken, there would obviously be no outcry. But when she goes to a place where the only food available is seal, and she shares food with the locals, there is an outcry because...because....

There are myriads of other fake stories and fake issues where I can understand what the "reporters" are trying to do, and what's motivating them. In this case I can't even begin to glean what the allegedly-outraged *think* their outrage is about.

Must be preposition day at SDA. Even "Clarkson unimpressed by Jean's seal-eating" would have been less misleading.

Regardless of this reporter's obvious attempts at fabricating a story where their is none, why would anyone care what Clarkson thinks anyhow?

There's no outrage from the reporter, you dolt.
He's simply writing the story, with Clarkson rather churlishly commenting, in effect, that all this national adulation for Jean is over the top because, "Meh, been-there-done-that." The only reason Clarkson was asked was because she was in the Arctic with Jean, a rare event.
Notwithstanding that reporters don't write their own headlines, this headline seems to have it right. Clarkson does indeed seem rather unimpressed with Michaelle Jean.
Panetta is not trying to manufacture or fabricate anything. He shot a video of the GG eating some raw seal heart fresh from the carcass. Not every day that you see that, is it? And the reaction from the viewing public has driven the story. He's just following up on a topical issue, like good reporters do.
You folks have never actually worked in a newsroom, have you? It shows.

First the get the story...Then they milk it...Then they rinse the truck's container tank.

I think this story was at the rinsing stage.

It's tough to be a Canadian reporter...It's challenging to construct interesting thingys with 5 pieces of the same color Lego blocks.

No wonder Mulroney is still in the news...And did you know we might get the NHL Coyotes in Ontario?: Of course you did!

why would anyone care what Clarkson thinks anyhow?
Posted by: ChrisinMB at June 1, 2009 2:14 PM

My sentiments precisely.

The best part was that Panetta performed a sex-change operation on Bush and Clinton in his article. In the version that appeared today in the printed newspaper, he wrote "Ms. Clinton and Ms. Bush". (Editors have corrected that mistake online in the meantime.)

Funny how those who write for a living in Canada are the ones who are the least qualified to do so. Panetta is just the most recent example.

"why would anyone care what Clarkson thinks anyhow?"

or that blowhard "intellectual" husband of hers.

Both as useless as a fart in a wetsuit or a screen door on a submarine, so they are perfect for CBC.

Hey, you MSM shill: I didn't say the reporter was outraged. Reporters reported on -- alluded to, really -- putative outrage over the issue. IT's hard to understand their motivation, but also, more importantly, how they can justify this sort of story, in light of the fact that it wouldn't be a story at all if she ate something that reporter's regularly partake of -- pork, say.

Nobody believes that enough people were sufficiently outraged as to justify giving this "story" life in the -- now extended -- form it's taken. Panetta's spun-out story itself is entirely predicated on the idea that there was an "emotional reaction" from critics and that Jean's actions were an "incident." Out here in the non-spun world of story-making, outside of the usual go-to interest-group contacts that the MSM tends to use as a source for "reaction," there's no sound reason to believe that Canadians are upset that Jean had a traditional meal with her Inuit hosts. The ongoing story is just spin bordering on falsity, and it just keeps fanning out, bringing more bullshit with it.

Panetta wrote "Adrienne Clarkson was curt when asked by a reporter about Jean's headline-grabbing gesture..." Leaving aside the fact that Michaelle Jean is not the one who made it a headline, there's this niggling detail: Clarkson wasn't actually asked what she thought of Jean's "headline-grabbing," was she? Presumably, she was asked what she thought about Jean eating raw seal, which means that Clarkson's response was to a different question than the one that was inserted suggestively, in a sideways manner, by implication, yet her "response" to the question she wasn't asked merged with the reporter's own implication to became the main thrust of the story.

Your own comment perfectly illustrates this sideways approach of using one's own spin as a reference point for more spin: you suggested that Clarkson was "rather churlishly commenting, in effect, that all this national adulation for Jean is over the top." Clarkson was not asked how she felt about "national adulation" for Jean. You've simply tossed in your own fabricated implication that Clarkson commented negatively about Michaelle Jean receiving "national adulation."

If there is any part of any news report extant showing that Clarkson was asked how she felt about Jean's "national adulation," I'll stand corrected. In the meantime, you in effect posited a fictional response from an imaginary Clarkson to an imaginary question, all based, apparently, on a CP story, and then proffered the whole construction up as a defense of MSM journalism.

You have worked in a newsroom, haven't you? It shows.

"You have worked in a newsroom, haven't you? It shows."
ouch!

Yep ...

And how many gone down the memory hole?
Eh?

EBD: you bet I've worked in a newsroom. Which of course makes my opinion worthless, because I've been tainted by knowledge. Sorry for attempting to illuminate.
I love the triple standards here. If you don't like the story, or the subject, or the reporter, then ongoing coverage is 'milking it.' If you do like the story, then you complain like hell when it gets dropped in favour of the latest shiney new bauble.
It's the nature of the beast and has nothing to do with left, right, bias, laziness or anything else but newsroom reality.
(oh, and Werner, Panetta writes for the newswire, which does not use honorifics. So Ms. Clinton and Ms. Bush was added by a dopey (or humourous) editor at the paper or website you were reading.)

MSM Shit said "And the reaction from the viewing public has driven the story."

Uh, no it didn't. There was no reaction from the viewing public. Nobody really cared. The MSM decided what the viewing public should think and ran with it because they could get mileage out of it.

Last one, I promise, then you'll have to find someone else to kick around.
But really, Gordo, "Nobody really cared"??
The story went global. People jammed phone-in shows. It was everywhere. Even here at SDA.
You must think the MSM has serious mojo to "manufacture" that kind of reaction for something that nobody cared about. Take my word for it: if nobody cares about a story, it dies a quiet death in a heartbeat.

Which would explain the decades of uninterrupted non-viewership for Mulroney-Shreiber coverage...

But far be it for me to interrupt your insults towards the very same people who once subscribed to your newspapers and tuned into your tv newscasts... carry on!

And they're the same sorts of people who own, operate and write for magazines like Playboy, Kate.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/01/its-official-playboy-is-a-hate-site/

The story went global because it was an interesting piece of fluff. Then the MSM thought they could get more mileage out of it by milking it. Hence all the residual nonsense.

Most people are dealing with serious problems right now. Times are tough. You think anyone is laying awake worried about someone eating seal meat?

If you do then that would explain why you think this is a "topical story". It's not. It's filler.
There are a lot of stories out there that people want talked about that are being ignored.

I think the overall reaction of the Canadian public was "three cheers to the gal".

I await, breathlessly, the Red Star poll results on the issue.

MSn Shilled, back to sharping your erasers, something of use.

Gotta love our MSM . . . fawning over Iggy, self-congratulating themselves on their anti business, anti common sense, pro global warming, pro multiculti defense of girl killers . . . watching them commit politically correct suicide is fascinating. And enjoyable.

MSM schadenfrude . . . Ya Baby.

If they were using a gun I'd supply them more rounds, but their own pens are so much more effective.

MSM shill said:

"you bet I've worked in a newsroom. Which of course makes my opinion worthless, because I've been tainted by knowledge. Sorry for attempting to illuminate."

The above line is the reason why the MSM is failing, and the best part of all is the MSM are so busy patting themselves on the back that they don't even get it.

There's a difference between milking a story and milking thin air; the first is understandable, that latter laughable. Yes, MSM shill, the story went global -- because reporters created in and then ran with it. It was a news story because it was a news story, in other words; if you similarly reported, at fanned-out length, about a kid who spit on the way to school, that would be a story too.

"People jammed phone-in shows." Well yeah, I listened to a fair bit of that, and people essentially phoned in to ask why the hell it was even a story, and to say how utterly ridiculous it is that it became a story. Ditto here at SDA.

It seems like it's only certain members of the MSM who can't wrap their head around the notion that the average person seriously doesn't give a rat that the GG ate traditional Inuit food while visiting the Inuit. As gord put it, "You think anyone is laying awake worried about someone eating seal meat?"

By the way, no one has suggested that the MSM "manufactured" the "reaction," which could best be described as eye-rolling over the manufactured nature of the story.

Any "story" will draw some reaction, so that's no litmus test of whether a story is legitimate or an expression/mirror of some real-world concern.

I listened to Cross Country Checkup on CBC radio around the question and a people who "jammed the lines" were OVERWHELMING supportive of the GG. You can download the podcast and listen for yourself.

As for "I'm Adrian Clarkson and You're Not" who gives a rosy rat's red rectum what she thinks about it?

MSM, consider yourself TOLD !

If MSM is unaware of the connotative meaning of "unimpressed" as well as its denotative meaning, which is somewhat different, he is probably one of the reasons for its ongoing death throes.

EBD for Prime Minister. Got my vote.