A reader sends this along;
Thank you for your e-mail to The Canadian Press regarding Tim Cook’s coverage of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s visit to Western Canada.
You’re right. Tim Cook did not realize that Lonny McKague was the Liberal candidate in the federal riding of Souris/Moose Mountain last year. As you know, he did ask if McKague was a Liberal supporter, so CP was comfortable quoting him in that context. But more to your point: Had we known he had been a candidate, we would either have included that information in the story or perhaps chosen not to use his quotes at all. CP treasures its role as an objective news service. Feedback from readers like you helps us do our job better.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
All the best and, again, thanks for your interest.
Heather Boyd
Bureau Chief, Prairies Region
The Canadian Press
Canada’s No. 1 Source for News
Flashback – commentors notice that this letter is “virtually word-for-word identical to one that Kate posted on 22 December, that one signed by Lorraine Turchansky, Prairies News Editor, Canadian Press and Broadcast News.”
They must have to send out a lot of them.
cute little letter.
Don’t suppose they are going to print a story about the retraction tho…
“Heather Boyd
Bureau Chief, Prairies Region
The Canadian Press
Canada’s No. 1 Source for News”
*** Soon to be the No. 2 source for news.***
SDA will soon take the No. 1 position away, if it hasn’t done so already.
as Barcs said… waiting for retraction/clarification could take a while.
Translated: We will continue lying to the Canadian public and don’t care the outcome as we are the msm. We like to make the story not just report on them. Our makeup: is many stupid left wing toadies who graduated from schools like Rhyerson where the great E. Jack U. Layton taught us group marxist thinking and we couldn’t think for ourselves if we had to. We are journalists, to stupid for real jobs and we like it that way because hating ourselves makes us feel better.
Actually, a little while ago, didn’t Kate post a similar response to a similar question about a some other “independent farmer” who turned out to be a big-time Liberal? And wasn’t the answer almost the exact same? Along the lines of “if we had have known we would have said so or not printed the quote at all.”
In any case, what is so annoying about this is that it doesn’t reverse the problem of all of those people who read the original article being led to believe that this was truly an independent farmer. It does nothing at all…except maybe to have the effect of essentially saying, “I’m going to placate you by validating what you pointed out…now shut-up.”
In the end it would have been the same effect if she had have said, “You’re smart enough to check up on what we reported (good for you). But, most people aren’t so discriminating and we control what goes out…so tough luck.”
Translated: We don’t bother doing any serious fact checking of our sources because, hey, we just report what they say.
Translation – don’t call us (negligent), we’ll . . . call us (negligent, on it, maybe).
Nice PFO. Talking to the CBC is like having a conversation with a gnat!
bryceman — you are so absolutely correct.
The MSM controls what goes out, what slant stories get, and when they get caught with their pants down nobody knows about it except for the informed minority.
I always get anxiety problems when thinking about calling Gormely to call attention to garbage like this, but I think I’m over it now. I’m going to start calling and outing these biased turds we call journalists.
Kate — keep up the good work — and to the informed readers of this blog – we should resolve to start taking this info to the airwaves. A small movement could start taking place.
I can see it now. Waves of informed Canadians voting with a clue for a change…
(of course, then I woke up. but it was good while it lasted…)
There used to be a saying, those that can do, those that can’t teach. Today it should be, those that can do, those that can’t become journalists and work for the cbc.
When a quick internet search exposes the “independent farmers” its pretty sad that the CP can get so easily duped.
Don’t these supposedly learned journalists and their supposedly more learned bosses ever think to check things out to ensure accuracy to their reporting.
Oh – yeah……
Sigh
You would, however, think that since they got caught only a few weeks ago quoting another “independent” farmer, they would be aware that they can no longer pull the wool over the eyes of their readership. They had better get off their tushes and do some work instead of hoping that they can pass of their so called reporting as fact instead of baised spin.
Keep the pressure on boys and girls – the war is intensifying. They will not go quietly.
Translation, “We aren’t biased, we are grossly incompetent. (And we don’t particularly care, either.)”
The unfortunate thing about this is that there is a fantastic independent source verification tool available, that can give you the background on almost any “too good to be true”, or “independent” source. And its free!
All a journalist has to do is plunk in a source’s name and wham-o! Instant background check.
Now I’m going to give the web address of this tool, so I hope their servers can handle the traffic.
Check out the source verification tool at:
http://www.google.com
Bryceman: You’re right. This letter is virtually word-for-word identical to one that Kate posted on 22 December, that one signed by Lorraine Turchansky, Prairies News Editor, Canadian Press and Broadcast News. (permalink is http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005195.html)
So these clots can communicate with each other to the extent of being able to use the same proforma PFO letter, but they can’t seem to communicate the fact that they’ll get caught if they do.
Idiots.
“Had we known he had been a candidate, we would either have included that information in the story or perhaps chosen not to use his quotes at all.”
Yeah right. Didn’t they say basically the same thing last time this happened (not sure is was CP)?
In other words, we won’t ask or disclose anything until we get caught, then we will promise to be more careful next time.
Then, we will again fail to be more thorough with our question, then issue another mea culpa.
and worse than that doug…the sheep that trust the idiots.
Just think about how long they have been getting away with this kind of spam/news/spam….*shudder*
Don’t eat that Elmer…………..that’s horse shit!
“CP treasures its role as an objective news service.”
Get out the violins. Get teary-eyed. Get out the barf bucket.
Yeah, right, Heather Boyd. You “treasure” CP’s role as “an objective news service” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) so much that you ensured your reporter did his homework: Right?
Wrong.
After the fact, it’s very easy and breezy to say that you would either have mentioned that McKague was a Liberal candidate last year or that you wouldn’t have run his views at all. But THE FACT IS, you did run the piece, which was misleading in the extreme.
Why didn’t your reporter do his homework? Why didn’t you do your homework? What happened to CP’s “treasured” objectivity?
It’s in the trash, Ms. Boyd, notwithstaning your Pollyanna disclaimer.
The Media will NEVER be worried about ‘getting it right’ until they are hit with a succesful liable suit. Time and time again.
Doug…thanks for the permalink. Wow, the similarities are even stronger than I thought
You’re right – Ms. MacAfee didn’t realize that Daryl Knight had been a Liberal campaign manager in the last election.
VERSUS
You’re right. Tim Cook did not realize that Lonny McKague was the Liberal candidate in the federal riding of Souris/Moose Mountain last year.
And then…
But more to your point: if we had known he was a campaign manager, we would have either included that information in the story or perhaps we might have chosen not to use his quotes at all.
VERSUS
But more to your point: Had we known he had been a candidate, we would either have included that information in the story or perhaps chosen not to use his quotes at all.
And finally…
Feedback from readers like you helps us do our job better. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. All the best over the holidays and again, thanks for your interest,
VERSUS
Feedback from readers like you helps us do our job better. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. All the best and, again, thanks for your interest.
Someone should contact Ms. Boyd and Ms. Tuchansky to let them know that someone is stealing the other’s sincere words.
Same media Lawyer providing liable protection advice wording.
In the Internet we have a new weapon of MASS MEDIA DESTRUCTION !
This is a tool that allows us to be competitive in a medium where competitivness is not appreciated by the status quo.
The sad part: as all posters here know is that competivness only helps things improve.
In the Media’s case you would hope it would force them to bone up on their skills and be better journalists
Something they would be happy to do.
Too bad so many of them have confused subjectivity for objectivity. Or have they?
Too bad so many of them don’t feel the need for self improvment.
As for me I love improving on what I do and finding new ways to do it even better.
It makes my day!
Kate and all those in attendance you have been officially blown off.
My brother (a journalist) and I debate this subject constantly. We both agree that the media has an extreme liberal bias but we debate the reasons behind it…
1. Is the media biased because so many of them have university degrees (and are therefore leftists as a result of going to Ryerson/Carleton/other U.S. journalism schools)? Is it simply group-think and people not doing their jobs?
2. Or is it deliberate distortion to advance one’s career among liberal elite readers by pushing a particular viewpoint?
There are no fact-checkers at most news organizations and journalists often get things wrong at most publications (suggesting example 1). But there are good historical examples (Janet Cook, Jayson Blair, Christina Lawand and the CBC) where example 2 prevails.
My brother reckons it is most likely 1 given his experience of editing and casually fact-checking badly researched and written stories on staff. Whereas I believe 2 is just as prevalent as 1.
What do you think?
Have any of these independant farmers suffered SARS in their cattle herds. Manitoba cattle ranchers had a severe problem with SARS, whereas the media has a severe case of Foot in Mouth Disease. They must have caught it from dion.
I got the farmers independant weekly yesterday it says that giving 1000 to cwb employees will save farmers money.
I wonder if CWB employees will give me 1000 to save them money?
CP’s version of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” program.