I mean, who opens up an interview with the question “Are you a bigot?” The answer: Jane Taber, today, when interviewing Gwyn Morgan on Question Period. It’s like that old joke about asking a politician “When did you stop beating your wife?” But the difference is that the wife beating joke is a joke, and Taber was dead serious! At least Morgan had the decency to laugh it off.
[…]
It has become patently unclear just exactly what Taber’s primary job is in Ottawa. Is she a pundit? Is she a commentator with opinions? Or is she a straight-news reporter? You can no longer tell from her written stories or TV work.
She’s a woman who saw her chances at a Liberal senate appointment/diplomatic posting go up in flames on election night – that’s what she is.
Via Nealenews.
At 6 p.m. on Saturday I received a call from a seemingly embarrassed Ms. Malik. “I’m afraid I have to tell you that we’re cancelling you for the morning. I’m so sorry. I do apologize for the inconvenience.”
I replied that it was indeed rather inconvenient because I had rearranged my Sunday to accommodate her, and that it was purely fortuitous that she had caught me at home. But, I continued, the greater point was why I was being cancelled.
“Well, we’ve just had our meeting and it was decided to change the panel.”
asked if the panel was being changed because of me. There was a pause. And then, “I have to be honest, I’m not going to lie or beat around the bush. Yes, it was.”
I asked how many people were at the meeting and was told there were “about 10.” I asked who some of them were but was told, “it would be unprofessional of me to tell you that.”
When I pushed for a more full explanation, the thickness of the plot became ludicrous. “We have to book panels that work together.” Fine, I replied, you don’t actually have a panel yet and the only person you are cancelling is myself. Mr. Laghi, the other panellist and someone I don’t even know, has not been cancelled and no third panellist yet booked.And, anyway, why would this panel not work?
I had a similar experience during the last week of the election. I was contacted by a producer with George Strombopolous inviting me to be on his show during election night returns. The details had been hammered out and we were setting up flight arrangements – when I was suddenly advised they wouldn’t need me after all. They’d decided to “change the format of the show”. Perhaps that was the truth – but as I was told I was being invited to provide a “conservative viewpoint”, I did wonder what happened to the format that made conservative viewpoints suddenly unecessary.
You know, one would think that consumer criticism of the daily stream of creationist journalism coming out of the Ottawa Order Of Gotcha, might – in a profession run by responsible adults – prompt an old hand like Elizabeth Thompson to reflect for a moment on the direction that industry circulation figures are heading… and then ask herself the question made famous by one Dr. Phil; “So, how’s that working for you?”
Here’s a challenge, Zerb: write about how TorStar’s last quarter saw your employer’s value cratering. Then see if your employer publishes it. I’ll even send you a confidential Bay Street analysis of the Star’s prospects.
CBC had obtained the the first “gotcha” in the War on Harper.
A Saskatchewan Conservative MP, Maurice Vellacourt, had criticized the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Judge, Beverley McLachlin, had fired back.
It was all “quite extraordinary” given the Prime Minister’s desire to keep his caucus in check, said McNeil Sunday night.
Less extraordinary was the fact the CBC, in its rush to smear a Conservative MP and the Prime Minister, had missed the real story.
The Supreme Court spokesman had either lied or been misled by the Chief Justice when responding to Vellacourt.
And The Black Rod has the proof.
To the CBC — Gotcha.
The rest at the Black Rod More – to assist those who are having trouble comprehending the implications of McLachlin’s speech, I direct you to a column by Ted Byfield, published this February; Vellacott is not the first, nor is he the only person to raise this issue of the self-elevation of judges who believe themselves endowed with supernatural understandings of law that eclipse mere words written in a Constitution.
When a person is appointed to the bench, explained our chief justice, he or she acquires a unique wisdom and knowledge conferring an ability to determine with certainty how Canadians must live.
Thus the judge must not feel bound by the precise words of the Charter.
Even in the face of a hostile public opinion, the judge must establish “norms” which are “essential to the nation’s history, identity, values, and legal system.”
The judge is able to discern these “norms,” she continued, and confer on them the force of law where necessary.
Only judges know how to accurately interpret these unwritten concepts,
REALity said it begged to differ.
“Judges in Canada are appointed because they or their law firms have paid large sums of money to the party in power, or have personally worked diligently for the party in power,” said the magazine.
The intriguing, in fact dangerous possibility, however, is Chief Justice McLachlin actually believes this stuff.
Perhaps she sincerely thinks when a lawyer is appointed to the bench, a new insight — what Christians call “grace”– somehow descends upon the appointee.
This person is no longer just a lawyer who backed the right party.
He is now a seer, an oracle, a clairvoyant with new powers and insights into the soul of the nation.
I find it interesting that the leftie commentors here are the most supportive of McLaghlin’s creative approach to the Canadian constitution.
I would find it even more interesting to observe their reaction if McLaghlin were a socially conservative judge whose “unwritten norms” included expanding Charter rights to the fetus. From The Time Capsule – an exerpt from a 1976 Globe & Mail article reveals that Rosalie Abella (appointed to the Supreme Court in 2004) had no objection to describing judges as “playing God”.
“It’s fair to say that the city’s political movers and shakers, having turned Toronto upside down in search of a suitable candidate to topple David Miller for the mayoralty in November, didn’t have a brain wave and happen upon Jane Pitfield.”
One of several little treasures at Nancy Fielding’s Neurotica.
Stephen Spruiell delivers a smackdown to would be historical revisionist Eric Boehlert, complete with this postscript;
FULL DISCLOSURE: I’m mentioned in Boehlert’s book in a chapter called “The Press Haters,” which is ironic considering I’ve never written a book about the press described as “Riveting in its sharp denouncement.”
The LA Times has cut loose Pulitzer winning reporter Michael Hiltzik in response to the well-publicized Patterico bust *.
“Hiltzik did not commit any ethical violations in his newspaper column, and an internal inquiry found no inaccurate reporting in his postings in his blog or on the Web,” the editor’s note said. “But employing pseudonyms constitutes deception and violates a central tenet of The Times’ ethics guidelines: Staff members must not misrepresent themselves and must not conceal their affiliation with The Times.”
And sometimes there are editors who treat their readers like idiots.
Clarification – A profile of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that appeared in last Saturday’s Focus section referred to a story about the Iranian President in the current issue of The New Republic. After an investigation by The Globe and Mail, it appears that notes by the author were mistakenly inserted into the story without proper attribution. The Globe has apologized to The New Republic and regrets the error.
If that’s all they could come up with after an “investigation”, one must conclude that the Globe and Mail employs the most incurious editorial staff on the face of the planet. Robert Aterman;
The Mop’s response to the matter of the striking similarity between the recent Paul William Roberts (Globe and Mail) and Matthias K�ntzel (New Republic) profiles of Ahmadinejad … [is]… bunk. The PWR article is around 2,000 words. Of that about a third is given over to Ahmadinejad�s biography. Almost all of this section is a lightly paraphrased (and in parts exactly identical) version of the original article by K�ntzel. This represents pretty much the entire informative content of the article; the rest is Roberts� opinioneering. It is hard to see how this can be described as �notes by the author.� Nor is it believable that this was �mistakenly inserted.� This isn�t a line or a paragraph, but over 700 words, absent which the article would include essentially no factual content.
The Roberts column appeared April 22nd and there’s no sign of formal disciplinary action that I’m aware of – but perhaps I’ve just not been looking hard enough. Perhaps one of our lurking “media moles” can answer the question – does Paul William Roberts still write for the Globe and Mail?
Or anyone else?
Or maybe it’s just a problem with short term memory. “Molarmauler” looks at three days in the life of forest products company Tembec, Inc in the context of G&M coverage of the softwood lumber deal;
A first-timer looking at these numbers would be so unimpressed. Tembec only 2.63% higher. What a disappointment. After all that hard work by Mr. Harper and company.
Too bad Tembec is levelling out at 22% higher than it was on Wednesday when rumors of an announcement were rumbling. Must be rough on those who thought to buy stock in lumber companies when Mr. Emerson crossed the floor.
Because God knows, the Globe & Mail wouldn’t be party to the type of reporting that cherry-picks or buries data to suit an existing script.
Who cover the White House who write the stories that get picked up by the wire services and into our nightly news. Observe;
Q [WaPo reporter Jim VandeHei] It’s come to my attention that there’s been requests — this is a serious question — to turn these TVs onto a station other than Fox, and that those have been denied. My question would be, is there a White House policy that all government TVs have to be tuned to Fox?
MR. McCLELLAN: Never heard of any such thing. My TVs are on four different channels at all times.
Q Because you have four different TVs. But every time I’ve ever been —
MR. McCLELLAN: Every TV in the White House also has channels every — has a split screen, where they can —
Q VandeHei Well, they always seem to be tuned to Fox, and there’s been requests, and these are paid for by taxpayer dollars. And my understanding is that you guys have to watch Fox on Air Force One. Is that true?
MR. McCLELLAN: First time I’ve ever heard of it. First time you’ve brought it to my attention, meaning the first time the press corps has brought it to my attention. In fact, I’ve watched other channels on here.
Q VandeHei There’s one —
MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on, Jim, come on. I’ve watched other channels on here, so I don’t know where you’re hearing that. But it’s the first time anyone in the press has raised that question with me.
Q VandeHei You’ve watched other channels other than Fox?
MR. McCLELLAN: On here, yes, sure.
Q VandeHei I’ve never seen — they’re always turned to Fox, which a lot of people consider a Republican-leaning network.
Q VandeHei Scott, is it one — on the airplane, is it one for all? I mean, if it’s tuned for Fox here, is it Fox everywhere?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that certain areas may be interconnected, but
I’ll have to double-check which.
Q VandeHei Is yours off, wherever you are?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the conference room, or the senior staff office,
the staff office, they’re different TVs, and you can switch to different
channels. I’m not sure if some of these in the back are connected to
some of the others that are watching right here, right now. It doesn’t
look like it to me. I’ve never known anyone that’s raised a complaint
about a request from back here to watch a different channel.
Q VandeHei I’m officially raising it and officially complaining about it.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I’m going to go see if we can change the channel
for you. Have you called up?
May I suggest that the Cartoon Network might be more appropriate?
(Read to the bottom of the link for another surprising bit of information.)
Now, there is nothing wrong with journalists piggy-backing on other writers; for example, they may add their own spin to a story, or compress it for readers who don�t need the full details. Roberts does indeed acknowledge K�ntzel and the New Republic directly as the source of one item of information. But as the quotations below indicate, he has basically lifted not merely facts from K�ntzel�s piece but whole paragraphs. How this duplication escaped the Mop�s editors is a mystery to readers. It will surely prove an embarrassment to the paper.
The paper in question is the Globe & Mail, Matthias K�ntzel is the author of Ahmadinejad’s Demons (mentioned here last week) and the Globe writer is Paul William Roberts. Just one of several such paragraphs;
K�ntzel: The Basiji’s cult of self-destruction would be chilling in any country. In the context of the Iranian nuclear program, however, its obsession with martyrdom amounts to a lit fuse. Nowadays, Basiji are sent not into the desert, but rather into the laboratory. Basij students are encouraged to enroll in technical and scientific disciplines. According to a spokesperson for the Revolutionary Guard, the aim is to use the “technical factor” in order to augment “national security.” Roberts: A past immersed in such a cult of self-destruction would be chillingly ominous in any country. In the context of the Iranian nuclear program, however, this obsession with martyrdom is deeply worrying. Basiji followers are no longer sent into the desert; now, they go into the laboratory. Basij students are encouraged to enroll in technical and scientific disciplines. According to a spokesman for the Revolutionary Guard, the aim is to use the “technical factor” in order to augment “national security.”
Uh oh.
April 27 Update: Thankyou to Angus Frame (editor of globeandmail.com) – for stopping by in the comments to notify readers that this was published today, both online and in print;
Clarification – A profile of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that appeared in last Saturday’s Focus section referred to a story about the Iranian President in the current issue of The New Republic. After an investigation by The Globe and Mail, it appears that notes by the author were mistakenly inserted into the story without proper attribution. The Globe has apologized to The New Republic and regrets the error.
Yesterday I received an email that I’ve received permission to share. I’ve edited the identifying details, as the writer would like to preserve her privacy;
Hi Kate,
I have enjoyed your blog since discovered it during the election.
I trust if you share any of my email that you would keep me anonymous please. I am still having *issues* to say the least with regards to my husbands death.
[The investigation into the circumstances of his death during a training exercise] is still ongoing, at least I think it is. I have never EVER been officially updated on it. That said, the only thing that has been confirmed is there was no pilot error (important for me and my husbands memory to bring that up).
The reason I am emailing you is the issue of banning the media from the base when the soldiers’ remains are returned to their families. While my husband was not overseas, I will share with you my personal experience with the media and a very public death.
Thankfully the media had yet to discover my house when I had to go see my husband for the first time. They found me by 6 AM the following morning. My parents had driven up immediately after my frantic phone call. My father stepped outside to get the papers and he was besieged (to say it lightly) with media camped out in my driveway! They were knocking at my door, putting the cameras on us as we opened it. There was always their cars there, with them sitting in them, waiting for someone to come or go. Phone call after phone call to the house when the lines were needed for more important issues. Our grief was made very public. I was asked if I wanted media at the funeral and I agreed to have them there. I wanted the people of Canada to know that even when Canada’s sons and daughters do not go overseas, lives are put on the lone on a daily basis for the safety and security of every Canadian. To show them how the phrase “military cut backs’ translates into real life in the forces. I had insisted that there not be a close up on any family member. I was sure Joe Blow watching the news did not need to see my tears, or those of my children to know we were distraught. Yet this rule was broken.
The media also pushed for the release of the names of those killed ASAP. Why?? Does it matter to Joe Blow? Shouldn’t it matter more that ALL family (not just immediate) and close friends are informed personally even by phone than to hear it on the news? Families of victims killed in auto accidents can request that the names not be released and Joe Blow doesn’t complain.
About the Peace tower and the flag flap, if anyone understand tradition it is a military member and his family. Did I expect the flag at the Peace tower to be flown at 1/2 mast for my husband?? oh hell no! But I did expect a phone call or something from our Prime Minister? Just the letter with his stamped signature would have to be good enough. He was in Europe and there is no way that letter was written there and sent to me to receive so quickly. It is also noticeable the signature is from a stamp and not hand signed. I did get a touching phone call and a lovely letter from the Governor General, HE Clarkson.
I will end this letter now. I could go on but I am sure you don’t want to hear all the sordid details of how a military widow is really treated.
Except to add, that if I were to walk into funerals of people I didn’t know stating it is my right to know who they are etc I’d be frowned on or even thrown out.
Think of this email when you see the tape replays shot by CTV news yesterday from over the fence at CFB Trenton.
If you’ve never forwarded a post from SDA to family and friends before – consider doing it with this one. The media has been screaming for tranparency. Well, let’s give it to them. Turn the “camera” back on the microphone holders for a change, and let ordinary Canadians see the mob for the self-absorbed ratings vultures that they are.
(bumped to top due to continuing updates)
From Army.ca, a military message forum, reaction to media coverage over the government’s decision to return to previous traditions when honouring fallen soldiers;
Once again, I’m fed up and disgusted with the media and their “spinning” of non-issues into something more. Yet again, TV tonight is awash with “Conservatives won’t lower the flag” stories – presented with no background and with plenty of people saying what an “insult” it is to soldiers. They have no idea what soldiers think of this issue, yet are ready to jump to conclusions in an effort to speak for us.
To the media reading this (and I have no doubt you are): how much is enough? You have plenty of coverage of the coffins being put on the plane and I have no doubt you’ll have plenty of the funerals – invited or not. Get a grip. We are the Army; it is a sad reality that part of our job is to take casualties on behalf of Canadians and our elected political masters – of whatever stripe. Don’t denegrate that sacrifice with an unseemly and politically motivated display of spin designed to promote controversy and generate ratings. “Canada’s Iraq” indeed…
h/t Mark Collins in the comments. (Mark is also now blogging at Daimnation).
More from Chris Selley, who also agrees with the Conservative policy (and looks back at contrasting news coverage during WWI). No nation can fight a war wallowing in a state of perpetual mourning. The flag should fly high and defiantly.
(As an aside, this debate over the growing frequency of flag lowering is not new – I recall reading a few weeks ago an anecdote about a school flag being lowered on the occasion of the death of a janitor.)
Another comment from an army reservist;
As a member of the army reserve I am sick of the MSM�s facination with flag draped coffins. They are always ready to show the coffin but but there�s barely a mention (maybe one or 2 sentences)of the work done by the men in those coffins.
Journalists are scumbags who are too lazy & dumb to do anything of any value themselves so they have to achieve cheap fame by leeching off the triumphs or tragedies of others. They then justify being the town gossip by pretending everything they utter is in the public�s interest. � Yeah right. Running up to a plane to photograph coffins is in the public interest? geezuz!
What do you low-lifes in the press do for fun? Go down to the dog pound with some pop & chips and watch them euthanize strays?
If you want to register your objection to Craig Oliver’s nakedly political editorializing, you can do so here. If anyone has his personal email address, drop it in the comments.
Commentor ET points to a Globe and Mail message board, where Lew MacKenzie is fielding questions link;
MacKenzie asks readers – ‘We lost 27 killed in Bosnia/Croatia in the 90’s”…and no-one paid any attention…Same in the Sudan, Congo, Golan Heights – “absolutely no-one called for the flags to be lowered”.
He further comments “I’m glad to see the public paying attention for a change – particularly those who slashed the budget and personnel strengths during the same 90s'”
So- why didn’t the Liberals lower the Peace Tower flag before? And why did they reduce the capacity of the military to protect themselves and us?
That is -point two- the flag lowering, once, on the Peace Tower, for those four soldiers killed by US-Canadian error – was a deliberate partisan political tactic of Chretien. It had nothing to do with respect, but was actually disrespectful, for Chretien/the Liberals used those soldiers.
Stephen Taylor has begun to document the flood of gratuitous comparisons between Stephen Harper and Darth Bush’s Rethuglamericans.
Stephen – that’s a job for a team of bloggers. Definition: Drive By Media
The perplexing part about this growing trend to tie Harper’s policies to those of Bush is that it’s taking place in the duly diligent world of fact-checking, editor supervised, professional journalism. WaPo, 2003;
A Pentagon spokeswoman said the military-wide policy [barring media from covering return of “flag-draped coffins”] actually dates from about November 2000 — the last days of the Clinton administration […] Dover Air Force Base, which has the military’s largest mortuary, has had restrictions for 12 years, others “may not have been familiar with the policy,” the spokeswoman said. This year, “we’ve really tried to enforce it.”
“Harper’s policies on Afghanistan sounding increasingly Clinton-like”. Somehow, I doubt we’re going to see that in the headlines.
Just a little cursor problem. Nothing here to see, people. full text
You could see the offending video clip for yourself, but the pro-transparency-in-government public broadcaster has forced its removal under threat of legal action. Screencap (via a predictably dismissive, anonymous CBC employee blog Tea makers).
Near the end of this lengthy and contentious comments thread arising from the Aaron Harris photo post, “Tony” suggests that my criticism of the “mainstream media” arises from …. jealousy.
Hell hath no fury like a wanna-be journalist scorned, goes the theory.
It’s not the first time that accusation has been floated, nor am I the only blogger who’s been confronted with it. After I’d addressed that question, Tony repled;
Like hundreds or thousands of other people (and like dozens of MSM types) I enjoy your blog, even if I don’t always agree with your take on things, and like the vast majority of your readers I’m grateful that you take the time to do this and am glad you’re doing well enough to find the free time.
Thanks for addressing my note.
But I thought your post on Aaron Harris was ill-informed and unfair.
There are plenty of reasons to find fault with the MSM and your blog serves a valuable purpose in challenging its approach sometimes.
But please excuse some of us for reacting angrily when you paint the entire fourth estate with one brush, and malign a whole institution under imagined or erroneous pretenses, which is what I believe you have done in this case.
Because this goes to a broader issue, and because I believe I can speak for at least some of my readers – I’ve decided to reply here instead of continuing the comments thread.
I’ll plead guilty to generalizing about the “mainstream media” insofar that I assume most readers know (or will figure out) that I’m referring to the general inclinations of the major players in the industry and the liberal “default setting” through which most of our news is filtered.
The generalization is mostly a result of the brevity required of blogging and not intended as a wholesale indictment of every individual practicing journalism.
However, as he is a self-described member of that fraternity, my response to Tony about his “angry reaction” is this: you have a lot of work ahead if you hope to undo the slow-motion suicide of the news industry – and don’t bother protesting the validity of that premise. The decline in newspaper and magazine circulation, and the ratings numbers of the major networks speak for themselves..
We may agree to disagree on whether the Aaron Harris “serial crownings” at the Empire Club are worthy of a closer look and open questioning. Again, that’s the nature of blogging. Sometimes people agree, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they don’t care. Sometimes they think it’s unfair. I would point out that this is the nature of news reporting as well.
Unlike the news industry, however, when I present a topic, the readers look at the evidence, hash it out, bring new information to the debate, and sometimes I even change my mind. (As a footnote: the Aaron Harris post was originally prompted by an ordinary reader who directed me to the CBC item privately, in the belief that the photo had been willfully defaced. That should be a signal that something might be wrong.)
But in this case, what isn’t in dispute are the growing list of examples in the “mainstream” media of manipulated news “reporting”, reporter editorializing, and altered/staged photos. These examples are contributing to a significant problem with consumer cynicism about integrity and possible political motives within the MSM. The blogosphere has enabled comparison and criticism – and with that an unsettling realization that media sleight of hand and sleight of word are hardly new practices.
If members of the industry can’t withstand open scrutiny on this lowly blog without turning to rationalizations that I’m nothing more than a would-be journalist with a chip on her shoulder – then, you haven’t gotten it yet.
I’m not a competitor. I don’t want your job. I’m a frustrated news consumer. I’m sick of being spoken down to by people who can’t pronounce words correctly. I’m fed up with reading transcripts that reveal that reporters have quoted people out of context to support a pre-ordained script. I’m tired of having speeches and statements “explained” to me by pundits after I’ve listened to them.
I’m not interested in news stories created by polls commissioned to create news stories.
I’m tired of reading that wire services have stringent “ethical guidelines”, and that to suggest that a photo might be altered is well, just the realm of tin foil hat conspiracy mongering .
Better to ask yourself why so many of your former customers like myself – news “junkies” – no longer accept your stories and images at face value.
Call it the “fool me once” approach to news consumerism.
You’ve lost our trust. The question is now thrown back to you, Tony – how do you propose to earn it back?
Related: “Does the country really need 370 journalists to cover 308 MPs?”
The cool thing about the net is that it’s no longer necessary to subscribe to five different papers to find out how the news is presented differently from city to city;
Wow, we said. The Canadian military says the Liberals were foisting equipment “considered lemons or irrelevant” on them. They want to scrap “questionable” Liberal projects and replace them with equipment the military “needs.” Why wasn’t this on Page One?
Or was it?
Maybe it had been covered properly in other cities, we thought. We went looking. And we discovered, instead, a textbook case of story spinning.
It seems, as far as we could find, that this story was printed in four newspapers–The Winnipeg Sun, the Ottawa Sun, the Toronto Sun and the Edmonton Sun. And it was rewritten depending on where it appeared.
To begin with, the headlines were better in Edmonton and Ottawa. Tories and military are in tune (Edmonton Sun) Liberal promises put on ice (Ottawa Sun) Forces may ice ships (Toronto Sun)
The leads varied from paper to paper: OTTAWA — The military is set to scrap major equipment purchases announced by the former Liberal government. (Ottawa Sun) OTTAWA — The Canadian Forces is reviewing its shopping list to find extra funds to pay for expensive Tory priorities. (Toronto Sun) OTTAWA — The military is set to scrap major equipment purchases announced by the Liberals that are considered by brass to be lemons or irrelevant. (Edmonton Sun, Winnipeg Sun)
That’s only scratching the surface, as it turns out.
Because, you know, it’s not – especially when you work for a billion-dollar-a-year corporate media welfare case that’s about to have its mandate reviewed.
(Click image for link)
Now, compare this with the juxtaposition of the logo in two other photos taken during the Harper speech Friday. The crown portion is well above Harper’s head, in one it doesn’t even appear;
So what was Harris doing when he took that shot – lying on the floor? And if he was indeed, shooting from a lower angle, why is the microphone at the same height relative to Harper’s tie in all three images?
(And back to the original point, – what do CBC employees think they’re accomplishing with cheap stunts like this? Beyond adding “coffin nails” to Bev Oda’s shopping list)
This isn’t the first time photog Aaron Harris has “found” this clever angle at the Empire Club. Looking more closely at this older CTV story on the Gov.General, I captured the two images, and resized the smaller one to loosely match that of the Harris credited “crown on head” shot;
Note that the two are taken from nearly the same height comparable to Governor General, but that the Harris photo places the viewer a little more to the left (based on the positioning of the microphone relative to her face). Yet, miraculously, the backdrop with the maple leaf logo not only drops lower, but it also takes a sudden lurch to its right.
So, what does that suggest about how Harris may have achieved his unique image capturing “King Stephen” yesterday?
Apr 23 Update: Steve Janke has found yet another Harris “crown on head” photo, this one apparently taken last November.
Discussion in the comments suggests that the Harris would be capable of aligning these images with the assistance of camera technique and technology. I’m willing to consider that explanation, of course – that Aaron Harris has, on at least three different dates, purposefully chosen the lenses, settings and camera angles required to place the crown portion of their logo atop the speaker’s head during speeches at the Empire Club. As was pointed out in the comments;
“the defense goes that a professional photographer with an excellent rep orchestrates using zoom lens and f-stops the same juvenile “bunny ears behind head” photo on three different occasions. Okay. What do you need to do to get a bad reputation in the news photo business?”
*AaronHarris.com
(Flashback: A reminder for those who protest that photo alteration “never” takes place.) April 24 followup
