Everyone knows the details already, but the basic facts are essential here: former MP Rahim Jaffer was charged last year with drunk driving and drug possession. Several days ago, under an agreement reached between his lawyer and an Ontario provincial Crown prosecutor, Jaffer pleaded guilty to lesser charges. The provincial prosecutor said there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction on the more serious charges; according to this report, police sources said that “a rookie OPP officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer.”
Now, keeping in mind that at the time he was charged Jaffer was neither a Conservative MP nor working for the Conservatives in any capacity whatsoever (they had long since elbowed him out of the nomination race in his riding), and that his plea deal was reached with the Crown prosecutor, not the judge, in a provincial jurisdiction that the federal government absolutely has no say in, take a look at a sampling of what various media and opposition members had to say:
David Akin: “Turns out the judge in the case, Doug Maund, is a long-time Tory.” Jane Taber: “Stephen Harper’s tough-on-crime Conservatives were accused of being not-so-tough when it comes to one of their own…” Akin, again: “Jaffer’s former caucus colleagues immediately tried to distance themselves from the (Crown prosecutor’s) decision.” Peter Mansbridge, introducing the top story on The National: “As a Conservative Member of Parliament Rahim Jaffer was known for his tough stand on crime. Now, the opposition says he’s a Tory example of another kind: hypocrisy!” Liberal MP Anita Neville, seen bellowing in the HOC on The National: “The Conservatives are conspicuously silent…when the law is being flouted by one of their own.” Toronto Lawyer Russell Silverstein, on The National: “You know, when the public sees somebody charged with drunk driving and possession of cocaine who’s politically connected…” Unidentified man-on-the-street, on The National: “Ex-Conservative MP, married to the Minister of State for Women’s Affairs – I mean obviously they’re going to drop the charges, they had no choice.” (all emph. mine)
The attempts to attach Jaffer’s actions to the Conservative government (“one of their own“) were pure partisan ridiculousness, and almost laughable; what was not even slightly laughable, in those several days of coverage, were the efforts of various media and opposition members to raise, in a sideways fashion – i.e., without being accountable for it – a constant insinuation that the Conservative government interfered behind the scenes in a decision made by a provincial crown prosecutor. For two days and nights, a serious allegation which there was no evidence for became unmistakably threaded into the subtext of the coverage of what was, unaccountably, the biggest news story in the country.
While various other media members also joined in, it was once again the CBC who led the charge, displaying a perfected reversal of the sort of coverage they gave the Liberals. When in 1996 Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien was ordered by a judge to answer a charge of assault, and Quebec’s Justice Minister announced a few hours later that he would not allow the case to proceed, there were no insinuations that there had been any political interference. When Jean Chretien’s son Michel was charged in 2002 with sexual assault, illegal confinement, and sodomy, the mother of the victim stated that she had been pressured by a sitting Liberal MP to not press criminal charges. She said the MP told her –
“…(Chretien) is the Prime Minister, he has all the power and he will fight this case for Michel. Then she told me that ‘a lot of dirty things are going to come up about your past and the media will be there’…I almost changed my mind (about pressing charges) because of that.”
Remember the CBC’s top-of-the-hour news story on that? Well, me neither, because there wasn’t one. And yet somehow, in the last two days, a provincial crown prosecutor’s decision, in a case involving a former MP, now a private citizen, somehow managed to become attached, with great deal of hyperventilating outrage, to the Conservatives. How does that happen, exactly? Only Mansbridge’s hairdresser knows for sure, but consider, in isolation, the CBC’s decision to nationally broadcast, in their top-of-the-hour story, the following statement:
“Ex-Conservative MP, married to the Minister of State for Women’s affairs, I mean, obviously they’re going to drop the charges, they had no choice.”
Interesting. Suppose some non-taxpayer-funded news network – let’s call it Fox News Canada – aired an unidentified man-in-the-street’s assertion that Michael Ignatieff beats his wife if she leaves dirty dishes in the sink. The network, and the reporter, would surely be required to provide some evidence to back up the statement or else face very serious consequences. It wouldn’t t even begin to suffice, as either a legal or moral defense, one wouldn’t think, for the network – or the reporter or the producer – to say “hey, we didn’t say that at all, it was some guy in the street.” To the contrary, the only justification for airing such a statement would be if it was made by a known public figure, at which point there might be some justification for covering it, albeit without repeating the allegation, and only in the context of a story noting that politician X made a serious allegation about Ignatieff without any proof to back it up; there could certainly be no journalistic justification whatsoever for airing such a statement from some unidentified man in the street, and any broadcaster who aired such a serious accusation without proof would be liable for it, and held to account.
Someone at the CBC made a decision to broadcast, coast-to-coast, an unidentified individual’s statement that a particular provincial Crown prosecutor – someone who has a name, a professional reputation, and a family – rendered a decision based not on the law he’s been sworn to uphold but on political interference from someone outside his jurisdiction, and that our sitting government illegally interfered in a court case in a provincial jurisdiction – and all without one single shred of evidence.
Was it urgent, serious, and of public importance for the CBC to nationally broadcast a categorical, unproven allegation of serious wrongdoing made by an unidentified member of the public? Was the unidentified individual’s honest statement of opinion in any way based on fact? Has the CBC – would the CBC – ever broadcast an allegation of serious wrongdoing by a Liberal government that had absolutely no basis in fact?
No, no, and no.
Vile, unethical, unprofessional journalism – and it only costs us a billion dollars a year.
You know, there oughta be a law…