28 Replies to “Heil Harper!”

  1. Lawyers, taxpayer paid lawyers,
    Threatening Canadian bloggers,
    For showing video clip of what Mother Corp showed the entire nation.
    In Canada. I’m not making this up.
    This alone is reason enough to get rid of the CBC. Let Rick Mercer get a real job. With elected senate on the way, Canada doesn’t need the CBC Senate Pre-School.

  3. …for legal reasons, like yours, [but the above] has a saved screenshot…
    Sorry, missed a bit.

  4. Left liberal moonbats love Herr Schickelgruber. Imagine the moonbats heiling “Heil Schickelgruber”.
    Here is a Moonbat blogger: “Heil Schickelgruber”.
    Hey, Himmler: the Jooosss are under your bed. Achtung. +
    Last week the Globe and Mail ran this photo of Herr Harper giving what looks like the Nazi salute to an unseen crowd. I’m not suggesting for a minute that Harpo is a Gestapo wannabe; that would be in poor taste (and hopefully incorrect). But it is kinda creepy, no? +
    See full-size image.
    http://www.spacedogdesign.com/images/heil_harper_sm.jpg
    300 x 329 pixels – 60k

  5. WTF?
    Too bad we can’t see the offending video.
    If we could see it, we could judge for ourselves as to whether the vertical line referred to is actually a cursor and not an “l”.
    I believe it’s doubtful that a cursor would appear at all in a broadcast clip. Why? How often do we see a cursor anywhere in a broadcast?!
    NO wonder the CBC has intimidated the linked site into removing the video of the offending broadcast…
    Besides, in the PDF letter provided, the CBC fails to adequately explain the cursor and the two missing letters. What are the odds against such an error occuring? Astronomical. Such an “accidental” insult… hard to believe it’s an accident… besides, these improbable, perfect “accidents” have happened before in the MSM and to my memory, pretty much only to conservative politicians.
    Let the CBC deny all they want their apparent bias against anything that doesn’t toe the line for the leftist state apparatus of which they are a part… we know from years of watching that they report what and how they want, regardless of what the facts may be. They leave out important information and add unnecessary editorialization dressed up as part of a supposedly factual report. Of course, other MSM outlets do this, and the people know.
    The people know. Deny it all you want, CBC. They can decide for themselves, thanks plenty. And watch your viewership continue to plummet.
    Take a hint! Your act leaves something to be desired!

  6. I wanted to share with all my email received from CBC. They believe their stuff so much that they are able to justify just about anything they write! Sorry that it’s so long but this kind of reporting must be stopped.
    Dear Mary,
    Thank you for your e-mail addressed to Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. As you know, Mr. Carlin asked me to reply. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in doing so. The past few weeks have been a particularly busy time for the program, but I do want to thank you for your patience.
    You wrote to draw our attention to what you feel was an unfair report concerning a government videotape that shows President George Bush was warned of the risks before Hurricane Katrina struck. The report was prepared by CBC News Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald, and broadcast on the March 1 editions of THE NATIONAL.
    Certainly, I regret that you are disappointed in Mr. Macdonald’s report and THE NATIONAL. I can assure you that we take very seriously any assertion that our journalism is inaccurate, biased or unfair, or in any way fails to meet the rigorous criteria set out in the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices.
    However, in this case – and I say this with respect – I strongly disagree with your assessment of Mr. Macdonald’s report. Allow me to explain why.
    To be clear, in a series of stories sent out late in the afternoon on March 1, the Associated Press said it had obtained a confidential videotape, along with seven days of transcripts of briefings, that showed federal disaster officials warning President Bush and his Homeland Security chief days before the hurricane struck that they were concerned about the security of the levees in New Orleans and the ability of rescuers to deal effectively with the aftermath of the storm.
    Yet, as Mr. Macdonald’s report said, despite the warnings and misgivings of his top officials, Mr. Bush “turned around and made this statement to state and local officials: [Bush speaking] ‘I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared.'”
    Some have complained that this was edited from – and misrepresented – Mr. Bush’s statement in the videoconference transcript. Here is what Mr. Bush said from his Texas ranch during that August 28 meeting: “I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm to help you deal with the loss of property. And we pray for no loss of life, of course.”
    I suppose it would be preferable to carry all of the President’s statement (which runs to some 325 words), but the media (and certainly the electronic media) rarely affords that luxury. Instead, we expect reporters to telescope a lot of information into the few seconds or at most minutes available in a broadcast news report. Reporters are trained to seek out the essentials of the story – or the most newsworthy part of a statement, for instance – to include pertinent information in a very short space of time, and to use succinct phrases that are accurate and brief. Even complex events and their significance must be conveyed quickly and clearly and, of course, fairly. And I believe that was the case here.
    The most pertinent of the 325 words in Mr. Bush’s statement are the fifteen that were included in Mr. Macdonald’s report. In the report, Mr. Bush is seen assuring state officials that the federal government is fully prepared. The clauses that follow modify “prepared.” They say the government is prepared to help during the storm, it is prepared to move in resources after the storm, and it is prepared to help deal with the loss of property. The essence of his statement is that the government is prepared. The rest of the statement concerns the ways in which it is prepared. So, I believe the words Mr. Macdonald included in his report are fully representative of the longer statement and faithful to the President’s meaning.
    That said, I can appreciate the argument that the President’s statement more fully explains exactly how the federal government is preparing for the disaster. Selecting a few words to represent a speech or a statement always carries some risk of altering the speaker’s meaning or intention. Certainly, there are times when the media inadvertently gets it wrong, but I do not believe that is the case here.
    In fact, I think it is important to point out that Mr. Macdonald was not the only reporter to identify this as the most important part of the President’s statement. The AP story, I referred to earlier, used a shortened version of the same quote: “We are fully prepared.” The National Post in two stories (published on March 3) shortened it still further saying Mr. Bush had assured local authorities that the government was “fully prepared.” Other media similarly quoted Mr. Bush.
    Thank you again for your e-mail. I hope my reply has fully addressed your concerns and assured you of the continuing integrity of CBC News.
    Finally, 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 Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. 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 ombudsman@cbc.ca
    Yours sincerely,
    Jonathan Whitten
    Executive Producer
    THE NATIONAL
    Box 500, Station “A”
    Toronto, Ontario
    M5W 1E6

  7. If news is news then why is there no one from any of the other msm outlets bring this up?
    cluck, cluck, cluck

  8. MaryM: I had e-mailed a complaint to the Ombudsman regarding another issue a couple months ago and received an e-mail reply that was practically verbatim in its introduction, particularly “…However, in this case – and I say this with respect – I strongly disagree with your assessment of…”.
    It would seem that they have a ready-made response letter prepared where they can fill in the blanks.

  10. I suggest a New Orleans style celebration funeral ceremony when we sell the CBC.
    Hurry to the Tea maker’s site it won’t last long I predict.
    Oooooooh …lawyers, someone has a liberal against a wall.

  11. Remember Neil MacDonald’s ‘We are prepared’ report on President Bush that didn’t quite get the story right?
    Well, the CBC e-mailed me back.
    I looove the part where he says ‘In fact, I think it is important to point out that Mr. Macdonald was not the only reporter to identify this as the most important part of the President’s statement.’….as if that is supposed to prove anything other than that journalists go for the sound byte that best panders to the publics pre-conceived notions.
    —– Original Message —–
    From: “Jonathan Whitten”
    To:
    Cc: “Amanda Pyle” ; “Bob Campbell” ; “CBC Ombudsman”
    Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:55 PM
    Subject: Re: The National – March 1 – Neil Macdonald report
    Dear Mr. XXXXXX:
    Thank you for your e-mail addressed to Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. As you know, Mr. Carlin asked me to reply. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in doing so. The past few weeks have been a particularly busy time for the program, but I do want to thank you for your patience.
    You wrote to draw our attention to what you feel was an unfair report concerning a government videotape that shows President George Bush was warned of the risks before Hurricane Katrina struck. The report was prepared by CBC News Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald, and broadcast on the March 1 editions of THE NATIONAL.
    Certainly, I regret that you are disappointed in Mr. Macdonald’s report and THE NATIONAL. I can assure you that we take very seriously any assertion that our journalism is inaccurate, biased or unfair, or in any way fails to meet the rigorous criteria set out in the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices.
    However, in this case – and I say this with respect – I strongly disagree with your assessment of Mr. Macdonald’s report. Allow me to explain why.
    To be clear, in a series of stories sent out late in the afternoon on March 1, the Associated Press said it had obtained a confidential videotape, along with seven days of transcripts of briefings, that showed federal disaster officials warning President Bush and his Homeland Security chief days before the hurricane struck that they were concerned about the security of the levees in New Orleans and the ability of rescuers to deal effectively with the aftermath of the storm.
    Yet, as Mr. Macdonald’s report said, despite the warnings and misgivings of his top officials, Mr. Bush “turned around and made this statement to state and local officials: [Bush speaking] ‘I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared.'”
    Some have complained that this was edited from – and misrepresented – Mr. Bush’s statement in the videoconference transcript. Here is what Mr. Bush said from his Texas ranch during that August 28 meeting (although the words in the transcript are not exactly as you quoted them): “I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm to help you deal with the loss of property. And we pray for no loss of life, of course.”
    I suppose it would be preferable to carry all of the President’s statement (which runs to some 325 words), but the media (and certainly the electronic media) rarely affords that luxury. Instead, we expect reporters to telescope a lot of information into the few seconds or at most minutes available in a broadcast news report. Reporters are trained to seek out the essentials of the story – or the most newsworthy part of a statement, for instance – to include pertinent information in a very short space of time, and to use succinct phrases that are accurate and brief. Even complex events and their significance must be conveyed quickly and clearly and, of course, fairly. And I believe that was the case here.
    The most pertinent of the 325 words in Mr. Bush’s statement are the fifteen that were included in Mr. Macdonald’s report. In the report, Mr. Bush is seen assuring state officials that the federal government is fully prepared. The clauses that follow modify “prepared.” They say the government is prepared to help during the storm, it is prepared to move in resources after the storm, and it is prepared to help deal with the loss of property. The essence of his statement is that the government is prepared. The rest of the statement concerns the ways in which it is prepared. So, I believe the words Mr. Macdonald included in his report are fully representative of the longer statement and faithful to the President’s meaning.
    That said, I can appreciate the argument that the President’s statement more fully explains exactly how the federal government is preparing for the disaster. Selecting a few words to represent a speech or a statement always carries some risk of altering the speaker’s meaning or intention. Certainly, there are times when the media inadvertently gets it wrong, but I do not believe that is the case here.
    In fact, I think it is important to point out that Mr. Macdonald was not the only reporter to identify this as the most important part of the President’s statement. The AP story, I referred to earlier, used a shortened version of the same quote: “We are fully prepared.” The National Post in two stories (published on March 3) shortened it still further saying Mr. Bush had assured local authorities that the government was “fully prepared.” Other media similarly quoted Mr. Bush.
    Thank you again for your e-mail. I hope my reply has fully addressed your concerns and assured you of the continuing integrity of CBC News.
    Finally, 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 Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. 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 ombudsman@cbc.ca
    Yours sincerely,
    Jonathan Whitten
    Executive Producer
    THE NATIONAL
    Box 500, Station “A”
    Toronto, Ontario
    M5W 1E6

  13. Shawn, No I’m am so glad that you posted yours as well. This just goes to show you that there is a lot of yes people at CBC. That’s about all I have to say about our great national media outlet!

  14. Saw the stuff at Tea Makers.
    Put it all together and it’s hard to believe such a thing would be an “accident”.
    I’ve never seen anything like it.
    How on earth did a closeup of hei-cursor get there? Never saw anything like that. And the two sixes followed by an “s”… put together, the effect would be subliminal… people would think bad stuff of the PM.
    And we paid for such grossly negligent incompetence (at the minimum)? Professionals, my ass!
    They’re lucky they didn’t accidentally slur a minority! Then would they be so cavalierly dismissive of any accusations? No… someone would be fired and a profuse apology would be issued… at least.

  15. From the letter to MaryT from the CBC:
    “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.”
    Having dealt with the CBC ombudsman for the past three months, and having orginally got exactly the same kind of letter from Tony Burman, with the details changed to deal with my particular concerns, I question just how “independent and impartial” the Office of the Ombudsman is.
    In conversation with Mr. Carlin, he told me (unsolicited information; I did not ask him about himself) that he was an employee of the CBC before he left Mother Corps to teach journalism at Ryerson for nine years, and then was asked back by the CBC to become the CBC Ombudsman.
    Is it only me, or do others detect a conflict of interest here the size of a MACK truck?
    Who’s the Governmental Minister to contact about concerns about the CBC? I would sincerely like to suggest some close monitoring of this “news” (sic) outlet and to also suggest that a great deal less of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars go to support its upkeep.

  16. I really don’t understand why Proud To Be Canadian had to pull the video clip. Technically speaking, if the CBC is publicly funded, all content of the CBC is the property of the Canadian public.
    As it is, Proud To Be Canadian has every right under the Canadian Copyright Act, Section 29.1 (under the heading of “Fair Dealing”) to make that clip available. In fact, I think I’ll let them know that.

  17. MaryM and shawn, thank you.
    I am curious to know if MaryM received her email at the same time… were these both sent out tuesday april25 1.55pm ?
    kinda takes the edge off the “yours sincerely” though…

  18. MaryM and Shawn,
    FYI – I received an identical e-mail from CBC/Whitten (sent at 12:09 PM ET today).
    I got the same sensation reading his response as I did a couple of years ago from David Bazay (then Ombudsman, now deceased).
    His “I strongly disagree with your assessment of Mr. Macdonald’s report” is followed with the lamest of excuses – like ‘other MSM outlets did it so it must be OK’. So much for independent, competent professionalism.
    It’s impossible not to conclude that the CBC Ombudsman is just a paid apologist for CBC bias and/or incompetence. They’ll NEVER admit to breaching their journalistic code that: “The CBC not only be impartial, it must also project an image of impartiality.” Hah!

  19. Really! That’s a relief. So when “Harper Heil” was displayed, it wasn’t “heil” at all; it was the word “their” with the “T” and the “R” cut off, and then a cursor — which looks like “L” — was inserted after the “I”…
    Ah, so that’s how you spell “Heil”!
    It was purely a mistake, the ombudsman assures, the result of a “complicated process” involving graphics. How could reasonably intelligent people think otherwise? He is “saddened by the level of mistrust of the CBC that seems to exist within segments of the body politic.”
    Oh, those out-to-lunch segments, I tell ya. Remember that drawing of Harper giving a Hitler salute which appeared on the CBC website during the election? Inadvertant. Turns out it was cropped from a larger cartoon that showed Martin and Harper throwing wooden blocks at each other like little children. How adorable! Mind you, the position of Harper’s arm wasn’t really in a position of having just thrown something, but was rather in a nazi salute. That salute is neither here nor there, though, because the whole minor tempest was, it was revealed later, caused by two things, in equal proportion. First, it was a cropping mistake. Secondly, and most importantly, it was caused by paranoia among those who would vote Conservative. The ombudsman explains: “during an election campaign, particularly one as close and hard fought as this one, partisans of all sides are alert and passionate about any perceived slights of their candidates.”
    In other words, chill. Don’t overreact to little inadvertant mistakes. Like the one during last fall’s election campaign, when CBC National displayed in a news story on the nomination of Alan Cutler (who was first to try to blow the whistle on the m.o. of the LPC) a lingering televised photo of fictional nazi SARGEANT SCHULTZ — seriously — juxtaposed with one of Harper moments later. There’s only ONE explanation for that one; it falls under that category of “mistakes-that-can-only be-explained-by-the-mistaken-thought-processes-of those-who-notice-them.” You see, “in the West the CBC… is perceived as being tainted with a liberal or Liberal bias”. The problem is the WEST, but even out thar’ it’s not a cause for concern, because the CBC had TWO panel members from the west, and both of them “saw little in the National’s election coverage that would support such perceptions.”
    So there. CBC…Trusted…Canadian…please don’t flush…

  20. New Kid
    Who’s the Governmental Minister to contact about concerns about the CBC?
    Bev Oda is the heritage minister and the CBC falls under her pervue.

  21. “Many thought it was a deliberate attempt to insult the Prime Minister designate, just after his election victory” 🙂
    Just after a cartoon on the CBC website with Stephen Harper giving a Nazi “heil” salute.
    How many just saw it as another accidental coincidence?????
    Long Live Joel Johannesen

  23. Calling Maurrricee Strong; calling Morriccee Strong; Red Alert… Red Alert. Call Kofifoodforoilforfood ; get out the press releases. Title Press Release No. 1: Hotter Than Hell. Yes, the disc by KISS.
    Yes, she is spelled Rona; R-o-n-a. +
    Conservatives looking at non-binding U.S.-led rival to Kyoto
    OTTAWA (CP) – Environment Minister Rona Ambrose says Canada is considering joining a U.S.-led effort to curb greenhouse emissions outside the framework of the Kyoto Protocol +
    cnews

  24. Of course I was dismissive. The whole thing is silly. If you read my site you will see that I’m more critical of the CBC than anyone, when I feel it deserves it. It doesn’t in this case.
    My advice is: get over it. I’m sure Mr. Harper has.
    “Technically speaking, if the CBC is publicly funded, all content of the CBC is the property of the Canadian public.”
    Technically speaking, you would be wrong. Not even the CBC owns it.
    “I really don’t understand why Proud To Be Canadian had to pull the video clip.”
    If I were to hazard a guess I would say that it was because he turned the clip into a trailer for his own website, with his URL and name all over it, in the credits, in the intro, and in the outro. You’re not supposed to do that with stuff you don’t own.

  25. So, the CBC thinks it’s because of the blogs that so many Canadians distrust it. I gave up either watching CBC or bothering to contact its sycophantic Ombudsman–how about Ombuds-toady (visions of Jabba the Hutt!)–many years ago.
    The CBC actively and consciously SABOTAGES conservative points of view. Well over a decade ago, I was actually involved in certain CBC programs. As the victim of naked bias and the most unprofessional of broadcasting standards, over and over again, I can attest to the CBC’s skulduggery, which matches the travesties mentioned here. Likewise, bringing the facts to the attention of the CBC functionaries is akin to the hens complaining to the fox.
    I think the only way to solve this problem is to get rid of the fox. The shockingly inept and insulting correspondence from the Ombudsnman, which leads this thread, amply proves the point.

  26. Marc, Sorry it took so long, fighting computer gremlins. My email was sent at 8:32 am. I agree, so much for yours sincerely!!! What a joke, this is how they had complaints. Fire the whole lot, sooner the better. How do you spell sincerely??????
    SMALL DEAD ANIMALS, Kate your site rocks! This is true freedom of speech.

  28. “If I were to hazard a guess I would say that it was because he turned the clip into a trailer for his own website, with his URL and name all over it, in the credits, in the intro, and in the outro.”
    That would be a selective guess. Just as it would be selective eyesight regarding the rest of what I wrote.
    But since you don’t have the time (or perhaps the know-how) to look up those pesky things called “facts”, I’ll just print you out the section of the Copyright Act that I referred to.
    Section 29 of the Copyright Act reads:
    Exceptions
    Fair Dealing
    29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright.
    R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 29; R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 7; 1994, c. 47, s. 61; 1997, c. 24, s. 18.
    29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
    (a) the source; and
    (b) if given in the source, the name of the
    (i) author, in the case of a work,
    (ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance,
    (iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
    (iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
    1997, c. 24, s. 18.
    I believe that the source / broadcaster (CBC) are mentioned in his criticism, and as criticism Section 29.1 covers the posting of that clip quite nicely. And so long as he covers those bases, it doesn’t matter if he put a tag onto the clip to state where it was posted. After all, how do you think all those other Blogging Tories video clips get posted without threat of legal action?
    Oh, sorry. That involves actually thinking. Don’t want to hurt you there.
    But good try. Thank you and have a nice day… tool.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation