Stephen Taylor has gone to extraordinary lengths to expose the CBC, with this example of blatant editing and manipulation of sound bites designed to further their agenda. Kudos to Stephen for his innovative method of presenting this evidence. Please watch the video on his site.
Many Blogging Tories have commended him for this fine work.
In the comments section of Stephen's post, "W.C." suggests complaining to the CBC Ombudsman:
E-mail Vince Carlin:
ombudsman@cbc.ca
I think this is a great idea. The only way we're going to have a hope of keeping them accountable is if they know we're onto their little game. Could someone please remind me again why we taxpayers are funding this propaganda?
Let's keep Rex Murphy and get rid of the rest of them.
* * * *
Update: "Check out Typical CBC. It's predictable." Dark Blue Tory more info and a story about Reuters doctoring photos of Beirut. It's not just predictable; it's disgusting.
47 comments:
there's nothing wrong with this piece in the least. good editing allowed us to get the thrust of the piece quickly. harper supports the israeli invasion of lebanon regardless of which minority communities support or reject his position. taylor's propaganda is merely an attempt to distract his readers from the real guts of harper's foreign policy. many canadians don't agree with our government's position as is our right to do so. an election will quickly indicate the public's postion on harper's decisions. i think this is what conservatives fear the most. "moral clarity" may cost harper dearly
Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy - it is obvious from your comment that you are a CBC watcher - therefore, you have been brainwashed. There is no hope for you until you seriously stop watching the CBC.
For you to say this was "good editing" really shows how far gone you really are. This piece was a lie and the "good editing" was an attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the truth.
Jeff, sweetie - get your head out of your behind and wake up to the facts instead of the drivel you are being fed on CBC. They are lying to you. Watch, listen and learn!
Wouldn't someone who, you know, watches the CBC, be better able to comment on the bias of, you know, the CBC?
Jeff and Dirk... for you guys to credit this as "good editing" only shows what you think is good: editing.
This isn't about matching the context of what Harper says to the issue the reporter is making. This is about the reporter taking an issue and finding a snippet of something, anything that Harper said at some point in history -- regardless of whether the words are addressing the reporters issue -- and applying it as such.
This "good editing" would be no different than had the reporter in this editorial brought up the issue of the Lebanese protestors and then produced a clip of Harper 2 years ago and then tried to present it as Harper addressing what the reporter was presenting. In both instances, the reporter took words away from one context and applied it to something else entirely.
There would be no difference.
As Stephen Taylor showed, Harper did address directly the Lebanese protestors that this "reporter" (ha!) linked to the one clip she presented. The real question is simple: why didn't this "reporter" use the direct answer rather than a clip from something else entirely? She obviously saw the whole press conference.
And Dirk's point about seeing either clip as being equally insensitive only further proves Stephen Taylor's point. I mean, if both clips were equally insensitive, than why even bother choosing an out-of-context response over an in-context response? The reason is obvious: because the reporter DID see a difference.
See Dirk? You only proved ST correct. This WAS manipulation. And you also proved something else in the process... there are lap-dogs who will drink this up without engaging the brain.
Jeff, if the CBC needs to "cut & paste" to obtain what they want to say from PM Harper's comments, doesn't that suggest something to you?
Dirk, if you don't see Taylor's point, you might want to remove your blinders.
Tango Juliette, the CBC isn't anti-Canadian; they're anti-conservative and pro-socialist. For them, the ends justify the means because they fear for their tax-payer funded jobs.
The CBC is like Chretien said when first confronted with AdScam. He claimed he was "saving" Canada and since the referendum failed, the money was well spent.
The sad part is I'll bet there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will get to see the CBC's bile but only a few of us will get to see Steve Taylor's excellent redress.
To think our tax dollars get to pay for this nonsense is enraging.
Ditto on all your remarks there Mac. Thanks. You saved me a pile of typing.
Now how do we go about either getting rid of the CBC or forcing them to actually report the news objectively?
Complaints to the ombudsman.
Also CRTC complaints get political attention.
These fools at CBC who call themselves journalists and exist at the expense of taxpayers need to be held accountable. So call or e-mail CBC and complain about the behaviour of the trough hogs.
www.cbc.ca under contacts...easy to find.
Ombudsman and Dir. of News will both respond....maybe not to your satisfaction but they will respond.
OMMAG
BTW - Dear Jeff,
Grow up.
OMMAG
PGP - I like all your suggestions! Thanks.
I'm assuming the only reason you want to keep Rex Murphy is because he's considered right wing?
I'm glad you're well on your way to clearing bias out of the CBC.
Darren, a little 'balance' would be nice.
I wouldn't give Stephen Taylor an editing job at the CBC, CTV, CanWest Global or FoxNews. Your lack of editing skills put me to sleep. Had you taken video-editing, you would have received a failing grade from your instructor. Christina Lawand's story had about 17 different shots in about two minutes. Taylor had one shot.
Mike
Next, let's compare Lawand's story to the CTV live news feed. That's the point. Lawand had to cover her story that included many different viewpoints: the demonstrators, the PM, Quebeckers, and Gerry Schwartz. Taylor had only the PM's response to a Toronto Star reporter's question.
If the prime minister didn't look good in Lawand's story, perhaps it's because empathy is not one of the PM's stengths. He does come across as bland in many news stories--on the CBC, CTV, or CanWest Global. Maybe Taylor can offer to be Harper's image consultant when Taylor finishes university. Just don't do any video-editing.
"Next, let's compare Lawand's story to the CTV live news feed. That's the point. Lawand had to cover her story that included many different viewpoints: the demonstrators, the PM, Quebeckers, and Gerry Schwartz. Taylor had only the PM's response to a Toronto Star reporter's question."
You are right that Lawand had to cover many different viewpoints. But she did it sequentially, not all at once. So, when she came to discussing the two protestors that talked to MacKay, did she take Harper's response to a direct question about those two protestors?
No, that would be too direct, wouldn't it?
What she did is to make a direct choice NOT to use a direct answer about those protestors and instead take a small snippet in the middle of something Harper said about addressing the concerns of both Israeli and Lebanese communities.
I mean, look at it in its most basic (read: honest) form:
1) A question and response regarding Harper weighing support from the Israeli community against ("on the flipside" - from the reporter's question) backlash from the Arab community.
or,
2) A question and response regarding the two protestors that met with Peter Mackay and how Harper feels about it.
That is where it is clear that Lawand's intent in that section of the piece discussing those two protestors was NOT to present Harper's view on the protestors. If she wanted to, she had the opportunity. And it's not like she couldn't have gotten a quick segment from his direct response. But she did not do that.
And Dirk, we are looking at this piece objectively. All one has to do is ask why during the course of Lawand presenting these two protestors she chose to apply a quote from Harper on a different subject matter over a quote that was specific to exactly what she was presenting.
If you can't ask yourself that question then it is YOU who is not being objective. You're just lapping it up.
And to anybody who thinks Harper is bland... can you name me a Canadian Prime Minister who wasn't bland 99% of the time? Get real folks. That criticism is so lame.
Trudeau? Being an @#$hole doesn't mean that you're not bland.
As for your spin Dirk, I'm sorry but if your best explanation is that the problem is Harper didn't answer all his questions in such a way that the CBC could use any response to any question is kind of ridiculous. The fact is that Lawand was talking about these protestors CONCERNS and instead of using Harper's response to these protestors, she used a response about how Harper gauges one community's REACTION against the other.
Here's your transcript:
Lawland: "And while Elsaadi Dad was invited to deliver her message directly to Canada's foreign affairs minister, Stephen Harper clearly wasn't swayed."
(Stephen Harper's quote:
"I am not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think that reaction is very predictable.")
And you didn't even see it. "Stephen Harper clearly wasn't swayed."
Swayed by what? The CONCERNS of these two protestors who met with Peter MacKay? Or swayed by the opposing REACTION of two different communities? If it was about the two different communities -- as the answer was pertaining to -- then where were the Israeli protestors?
You and I both know that the answer was about a different topic... thus the tone was different.
So, once again, tell me how an answer to questions regarding weighing the REACTION of two specific communities is more relevant to a discussion of these individual protestors' CONCERNS compared to this:
"They can't and shouldn't be ignored; they can't and shouldn't guide all of our decisions at the same time. We have to make them on a wider basis but they have to be understood, and certainly that is something our ministers have been doing regularly." - Harper's response to a question about these protestors
Would you say that is the same as:
""I am not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities."
Kind of 100% the opposite isn't it? When you ask a question that gauges a person's view of one group's REACTION over another you are going to get a different response than if you ask how that person is addressing individual CONCERNS.
Perhaps you don't know that REACTIONS aren't the same as CONCERNS. Just because I am not emotionally swayed by REACTIONS doesn't mean that I am not emotionally swayed by people's CONCERNS.
Obviously you don't know the difference...
Darren, in the cost-benefit analysis of the CBC, Rex scores as a positive but only because he has an excellent sense of humour. His journalistic skills are average but balanced which, in leftie vernacular, means he's extreme right wing. The CBC is so slanted left that Rex probably does seem right wing.
Dirk, how could Mulroney be the king of deficients when Trudeau created Canada's first deficit and was the all-time champion of Tax & Spend? Mulroney put Canada back in the black despite inheriting Trudeau's financial mismanagement legacy.
You're right about one thing; Trudeau was rarely bland. Blindly socialist, anti-Semitic and arrogant beyond belief but rarely bland. If you don't like that, Dirk... fuddle-duddle.
Jeff is wrong.
And I'm a HUGE cbc fan. And I didn't vote for Harper. If this is how news is normally done, then things are worse than I ever imagined.
I wrote to the ombudsman as you suggested Joanne:
Dear Mr. Carlin,
I know you've heard about this issue already, but I do want to add my voice.
Even as a left-leaning voter, I was really shocked and disappointed to watch Stephen Taylor's video of Christina Lewand's misleading coverage of Stephen Harper's speech in Cornwall in which his quotes were mis-edited and grossly misused.
Just because I didn't vote for him doesn't mean that I can't be stunned and hurt that the CBC uses footage in false contexts. I'm deeply hurt, in a very personal sense. I'm a big CBC booster, and this obvious example of dishonesty has shaken my convictions in the CBC.
I feel very very strongly that the CBC should apologize. Integrity is everything in covering current events. A longtime defender of the CBC, I cannot defend this.
I'm very curious what will happen to the producers and editors of the segment, as well as Ms. Lewand.
The CBC's actions on this matter will speak to the corporations' commitment to honestly and integrity in news reporting for the nation.
Yours truly,
Jason B. Green
Yeah, Taylor's not a great video editor, I could have done it up snappier and better than him, sure. So what? He's not a profession video editor.
I disagree with Taylor on many things, but I recognize obvious bias when it's pointed out to me. I'm glad he's pointed it out to me.
Jason, your letter is awesome!!!
I think it will have even more impact coming from someone who usually votes left and actually is a fan of the CBC.
Thanks for sharing, and please let me know if you get a response. Thanks. I haven't drafted mine yet, but I doubt that the bigwigs are working on the long weekend anyway. ;)
"Stunned and hurt when CBC uses footage in false contexts."
Can we trust anything the mainstream media says? For instance it just came across the Drudge Report, that Reuters the big time media wire service serving the world has just used doctored photos of Beirut being bombed.
Visit the website of www.littlegreenfootballs.com website of the blogger who blew the cover for this all. The photographer was let go but now there is a scramble to find out how many of his photographs were altered. After he was let go here is what he was quoted as saying as in the www.Ynetnews.com.
"Worker suspended after telling American blogger: I look forward to day when you pigs get your throats cut."
To all you bloggers out there well done: in outing the main stream press and exposing the terrorists working with the main stream media.
Thanks, Mary. I'm just not sure how crazy I would be about getting my throat cut.
This is getting beyond the point of annoying. It is downright scary. How much media manipulation is going on that we don't even know about?
And the general public seems to buy this stuff hook, line and sinker.
Jo
It's like one of my grandaughter's said "I don't want to see anything negative". That includes Dr. Phil and Fox news. So you see North Americans like to keep our collective heads buried in the sand and pretend nothing is happening out there. Pretty much like the old saying of
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and everything will be all right, but where would Europe be now if Churchill had not opposed Chamberlein's "peace in our Time", which really meant appeasement,and Hitler got in the world's face with a war we just couldn't ignore. Seems to me that gratitude is missing in France and Germany, the ones that were liberated by the blood of North Americans.
I'm hardly playing semantics Dirk. If I was playing with semantics I'd be trying to take one topic and make it apply to two different scenarios/subjects, which is exactly what Lawand did. I'm simply pointing out how Lawand performed a bait-and-switch with the subject matter. If you're going to attack somebody over semantics, it should be Lawand.
As you quoted:
"And while Elsaadi Dad was invited to deliver her message directly to Canada's foreign affairs minister, Stephen Harper clearly wasn't swayed."
You have two elements in that sentence of Lawand's report: a) Elsaadi Dad being invited to deliver her message, and b) Harper not being swayed. So, the simple question is: if we are talking about Harper not being swayed by these protestors, then why didn't Lawand use his actual response about being swayed by these protestors, as follows:
"They can't and shouldn't be ignored; they can't and shouldn't guide all of our decisions at the same time. We have to make them on a wider basis but they have to be understood, and certainly that is something our ministers have been doing regularly."
It is very simple. Lawand made a statement about Harper being "swayed" in relation to the protestors presenting their concerns and then pretended Harper didn't respond directly to that. She chose to apply a small segment of words on a different subject matter (how Harper weighs the reaction of one community over the next) as if it was dependent on the first.
Your understanding of the word "while" in this presentation is pretty hilarious. The sentence you quoted is what is referred to in English as a complex sentence. It contains an independent clause (the protestors presenting their concerns) and a dependent clause (Harper being swayed) with the use of the word "while" as a subordinating conjunction. But, in choosing to use the word "while", Lawand made "Harper clearly wasn't swayed" a dependant subject to "Elsaadi Dad was invited to deliver her message".
But for some reason you must have missed something in grade school English if you are going to say, "Harper's not being swayed here has nothing to do with the protestors visiting MacKay." If that is what you think, then you clearly don't understand grammar.
Under your definition, the use of "while" to allow the separating of one independent clause (the protestors presenting their case) and a completely different independent clause (your rational of the use of the Harper quote about two different communities in regards to being "swayed") could make Lawand's presentation as intelligent as saying:
"And while Elsaadi Dad was invited to deliver her message directly to Canada's foreign affairs minister, Stephen Harper still disliked Corn Flakes."
But in Lawand's presentation, the whole issue here is that "Harper clearly wasn't swayed," is quite obviously a dependent subject to "Elsaadi Dad was invited to deliver her message". In that case, Lawand sure made great efforts to ignore in what way "Harper clearly wasn't swayed":
"They can't and shouldn't be ignored; they can't and shouldn't guide all of our decisions at the same time. We have to make them on a wider basis but they have to be understood, and certainly that is something our ministers have been doing regularly."
Of course, your observational selection is not going unnoticed.
"Harper's not being swayed is a reaction to the "predictable" response of the Arab community, not to Elsaadi Dad directly. "
That's my whole point.
His response as spliced into the newscast is not a response to Elsaadi Dad. And thus, by extension, the construction of Lawand's sentence -- as clearly explained by myself -- dishonestly creates a dependency of Harper's spliced-in statement to Elsaadi Dad's discussions with the Harper government.
But since nobody has done so, let's look at the entirety of what Harper is saying from which that spliced-in statement was taken:
"Well let me just say this, we know... we know that this partcular issue has pretty strong resonance with certain cultural communities in this country. That's not a mystery. You know... and people will have strongly held views, and it may or may not influence their vote in a future election. The government of Canada... as I say, we can't take positions based on the polls, we can't take positions based on, you know, reaction within certain domestic communites. These are serious international issues there are... there's not only a lot of lives at stake, there are a lot of long term strategic interests of this country and of the world at stake here and that's why we're taking the positions we're taking. And in particular, if I can, you know, emphasize the two elements of our policy once again, peace and stability and the threat that terrorist groups represent to that, represent to that not just in the middle east but in Afghanistan, in Toronto where we've arrest some and elsewhere... these are, there are important strategic considerations here. At the same time there are important Canadian interests and humanitarian concerns that we've had to deal with through evacuation and that we will have to deal with, obviously, in the reconstruction of Lebanon. So, these are the focuses of our activity, I'm not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think that reaction is very predictable."
And as Stephen Taylor correctly points out in that video, this is about Harper gauging polling reaction between various communities, as identified with:
"The government of Canada... as I say, we can't take positions based on the polls, we can't take positions based on, you know, reaction within certain domestic communites."
But for some reason Lawand felt that she could take a statement of his discussing policy based on polls and applying it grammatically to her statment that he is not "swayed" by Elsaadi Dad's message. As I explained quite clearly, that is what the sentence says (just because you don't understand sentence structure doesn't mean that wasn't what was said).
So, either you are ignorant of how grammar works, or for some reason you not only do not have the ability to differentiate between REACTIONS and CONCERNS, but you also have an inability to differentiate between POLLS and A MESSAGE. Harper was talking about POLLS based on REACTIONS in certain communities, and you -- as Lawand presented -- seem to think that this is the same as CONCERNS as presented in A MESSAGE.
If as Lawand's sentence implies (you cannot deny this - go ask an English teacher if you don't understand) that Harper was not swayed by Elsaadi Dad's message, then she could have taken a quote from that part of the press conference that was in regards to Elsaadi Dad.
As I have pointed out -- and you have yet to deny -- she chose to splice-in a quote that had nothing to do with Elsaadi Dad. Since the grammar issue is clear, then it is also clear what she did.
Just because you don't want to see it doesn't make it untrue.
And since I didn't say it:
"In your examination of the complex sentence, you're not considering what was being said immediately beforehand."
I did take that into consideration. Before that sentence was a clip of Elsaadi Dad explaining her message.
So, what we have here is, a) a clip of Elsaadi Dad's message, b) the spliced-in Harper quote, and c) Lawand's sentence that clearly connects the two directly.
I don't see what your point is since that only further confirms what I am saying.
Surecure, I went back and watched the clip again. I'm more convinced than ever that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead and manipulate viewer opinion.
Your analysis of the whole situtation is very well done, IMO. I'll be using some of your insight when I draft my letter. Thanks.
Dirk, you're confusing debt with deficit or you're being deliberately obtuse.
Yes, Canada has often borrowed money to cover large capitol projects like the National Railroad. That is debt and the costs of servicing and repaying debt forms part of the budget.
The budget is the process of weighing income (ie: taxes, cost recoveries, fees, other sources of income, etc.) against the outgoing costs (ie: social programs, wages, debt service & repayment, etc).
It is possible to run debt without running a deficit. Canada did so for the first 100 years of it's dominion. Then along came Trudeau with his socialist ideals... and we had our first deficit.
What isn't hard to count is how much federal debt he left behind. The net federal debt was $17-billion when he came in and $175-billion when he left. There was no federal deficit when he took control, and a $25-billion annual deficit by the time of his departure.
And what have we to show for it? Did we win a war? Did we build a dynamic economy? No, we spent it all on sandwich programs of infinite variety, most of which did no good and are long gone. And our children -- those who haven't moved to the United States -- are repaying it today through fruitless taxation from which they derive zero benefit.
Trudeau's legacy to Canada is huge. From his dismal financial legacy to his asinine socialist legacy and his final dysfunctional Constitutional legacy, PET left his skid mark on Canada.
I looked over your "facts" and I looked around in the website. There is no explanation of the "public accounts" (which you linked) and "National accounts" or any of the other tables. Without those explanations, the tables are meaningless.
"What I'm saying is that the context of Harper's quote in the CBC piece is his response to the Arab community's negative reaction to him. This is supported by Lawland's narrative early on, and in the complex sentence."
So, what you are saying is that Lawand presented the protestors and their fury, moved onto talking about Elsaadi Dad and how she met with members of the Harper government, and then in that wonderful sentence referring to Elsaadi Dad, we are supposed to forget that she is independent subject of the sentence and realize that Harper's quote is about the group of protestors in general?
Alrighty then...
"Stephen Harper didn't himself meet with Elsaadi Dad, and had probably never heard of her at the time of the press conference."
And this is where the cat is let out of the bag. You obviously didn't even watch that full video of Stephen Taylor and also ignored everything I have said if you think this. After all, I've only mentioned a dozen times that Harper was asked to comment on Elsaadi Dad and he answered directly.
Cute...
Dirk, I recognized the website (I can read but thanks for stating the obvious) but I didn't see the link to a glossary. Then again, I didn't look too hard. Yup, I admit it- I'm lazy!
I got my "numbers" from a Globe & Mail obituary article on Trudeau that I googled up which strangely enough also mentioned that Trudeau ran the first budgetary deficit. I suppose it's possible that a journalist might be mistaken about the numbers but it is generally recognized in any article about Trudeau, even those by his fans and worshippers, that economics was his downfall. Strangely enough, there were a number of Trudeau's changes which I agreed with but in my cost/benefit, PET was a liability, not an asset.
Mulroney definitely ran higher numbers in his term as he inherited Trudeau's legacies and struggled to bring government back under control. It is unfortunate so much energy and resources were wasted on Mulroney's unfortunate attempts to repair Trudeau's flawed Constitution. Meech Lake & Charlottetown Accords were Mulroney's downfalls but economically and environmentally, Mulroney rocked.
It was Mulroney's legacies (ie: GST & Free Trade) which allowed Chretien & Martin to coast through more than a decade of indifferent fiscal policy coupled with corrupt contracting practises and increasingly socialist policies without breaking the bank.
How ironic that Chretien came to power by promising to kill the GST and cancel the Free Trade Agreement... and Martin lost an election by fighting to protect the GST.
I did the Glossary thing (I hate admitting I'm lazy) and I found this to be particularly interesting...
National Accounts: Statistic Canada's most comprehensive report card on the performance of the economy. They present a wide-ranging overview of economic performance, including output, income growth and inflation. The National Accounts also show measures of government expenditures, revenues and budget balances. The National Accounts measure deficits and surpluses differently from the Public Accounts, mainly because the National Accounts are not limited to budgetary revenues and expenditures. The National Accounts include revenues and expenditures relating to government employee pension accounts.
In other words, the table you listed represents an incomplete accounting; only part of the picture. Aren't statistics wonderful?
Crown Prince, perhaps, but not King? :)
I was around during the Trudeau years and the media was almost as nasty to Trudeau then as they are to Harper now. Much was made of Trudeau's deficit spending and some of his other economic plans like wage & price controls, the National Energy Program, etc. There's a reason why residents of Alberta use Trudeau's name as a curse word to this day.
I say almost for a reason. Back then, the kind of personal attacks which are the norm now weren't tolerated as they were seen as being disrespectful to the office, rather than the individual.
For all our society has progressed and become more tolerant in many ways, we've definely become less tolerant in others. Whether these changes are a good thing or not remains to be seen.
Back on the original subject, I sent an email to my MP with a link to the utube of Stephen Taylor's movie and asked him to take my concerns to the CBC Ombudsman on my behalf. Let's hope he's more responsive than Joanne's MP!!
"Harper was asked to comment on the protestors themselves, and he gave a BS answer that doesn't jive with his actions, or his previous comments."
Oh, because Harper is the one providing BS in this instance...
Let's hope he's more responsive than Joanne's MP!!
lol! That's a good one, Mac! Too funny. Who is your M.P. BTW?
Yeah, that would have been a good idea for me too, if I thought it would get some action.
BTW, I did actually get a personal response from her about a month or so after sending the letter, so I guess that's not too bad. I am going through her answers and may share some of them at a future time.
Stephen Taylor's blog is going to get a lot of traffic today from CBC!!! ;)
My MP is Conservative Russ Hiebert. He seems like a nice enough guy although I was a bit worried at first because he seemed a bit too focused on the SSM issue. The last thing we need is a one-issue MP.
Mac, that's surprising that someone like that would win a seat in B.C.!
Hiebert ruffled a few feathers by knocking off incumbant Val Meredith as the candidate after the PC & CA merged. Meredith assumed she was a shoe-in but Hiebert had strong backing and signed up quite a few new members, mainly from his church group.
During the 2004 election, he presented well but was dogged by concerns his stance on SSM (he disapproves) might be the tip of an iceberg of social fundamentalism... or at least, that's how the media and the other candidates played it up.
Fortunately, Hiebert proved to be a well rounded MP, intelligent and articulate. He's been appointed to a couple of committees and is doing well so far.
Very interesting, Mac. Sounds a bit like a local M.P. from around here. (Not mine). Real nice guy. Well respected in the rural areas.
I got a reply from CBC already!
The only other point I would like to make is that if Harper appears to be cold-hearted or "insensitive" -- as Dirk put it -- in the quote that was snipped-out, then the real wonder is how in the full light of his response being first and foremost about his feelings towards the reaction within the Jewish communities (which was the fundamental basis of the question he was asked), then how can this quote be seen as "insensitive" towards the protestors?
If Dirk would love for Lawand's sentence to be addressing anything but who it specifically addresses, then how is it that Harper's quote has anything to do with the protestors at all? After all the question he was asked was first and foremost about response within the Jewish community.
If as Dirk suggests the Harper quote is being used to sidestep specifically talking about Elsaadi Dad (which the sentence specifically is about) and was actually about addressing the protestors in general, then by his own rules of how things are applied, the quote itself wasn't talking about the Lebanese communities, since the initial question was about the Jewish community.
Sorry Dirk, but you can't have it both ways.
I'm just enjoying watching this from the sidelines, guys!
So...
We have the context of your calling that Harper quote "insensitive".
We have Lawand's sentence talking of Harper not being "swayed".
And even if that statement by Harper was in regards to both the Jewish and Lebanese communities reactions (which it wasn't... it was about polling sway, as Harper even said) then what is Lawand talking about?
Talking about being swayed in this context is about as news worthy as saying that Canada is still undecided in choosing between a Communist dictatorship or a American style Republic.
Uh, yeah... okay. Your point?
No... we know what the point was: to make Harper look "insensitive". It obviously worked on you Dirk.
Damn those Jedi mind tricks!
You obviously disagree, and that's fine.
That's right. You guys can agree to disagree. Zac and I do that all the time.
My congratulations on keeping it civil. Well done.
On Stephen Taylor's thread, a couple of folks raised an interesting point. Shouldn't the left be every bit as outraged by this manipulation as the right? After all, if the media gets to filter & spin every question and every answer, doesn't that affect all political parties as they try to deliver their message?
Shouldn't the left be every bit as outraged by this manipulation as the right?
Yes, exactly. I think Jason fits in that category, and he is livid! He wrote a letter too.
"Harper mentioned polling in passing once, in the middle of a long response to a difficult question."
This seems to be the pattern within your arguments. Their only strength lies in ignoring what the person is actually talking about, whether it be Lawand's mentioning of "Elsaadi Dad's message" or whether it be Harper talking about polls. The only way for it to be about what you want it to be about is by glossing over the specifics of what the person is talking about to make it a general statement about something else.
That's hardly a strong argument.
But you are right in that this is beyond boring... I guess your acceptance of a reporter's choice of out of context cutting-and-pasting of random quotes to prove something that the speaker wasn't even talking about over a direct answer to what said reporter was talking about only goes to show the power of people's willingness not to see what is plainly obvious.
It's deceptive reporting. It's unfortunate that you accept this as good (or even acceptable) journalism. It sounds like you're a Michael Moore fan, since that is his favourite tool.
Well, at least there isn't any blood! ;)
I find even emailing each other sometimes helps resolve a dispute, because it takes it out of the public eye, and you only have each other as an audience.
"Harper's response wasn't just about polling. It was about the reaction in the Arab and Jewish communities. He mentioned polling but once. Watch the transcript again."
I don't need to watch the video again. Just as a reminder, I transcribed the entire thing above. I'm well aware what he said.
But if we were to examine what the reporter asked and Harper's response from how you have accepted Lawand's funny sentencing, then we would also have to admit that just because the reporter specifically asked about the Jewish and Lebanese communities doesn't mean that Harper's response is specific to either of them. After all, the truth is he doesn't mention exactly which communities that he himself is talking about even once in the response:
"...we know that this partcular issue has pretty strong resonance with certain cultural communities in this country."
And while you and I have been talking about the Jewish and Lebanese commmunities (not the Arab communities) since those are the two communities the reporter specifically asked about, the truth is that there are many cultural communities in Canada with which this resonates in different ways. From the most obvious examples discussed on the news you've got the Jewish, Lebanese, expanded Arab and especially the Quebecois communities all showing some degree of sensitivity to this.
So, once again, if we take your position on the specificity factor, the quote as taken from Harper's sentence still doesn't work as you would like it to.
"Elsaadi Dad's message -- which, from what we saw in the report, is reflective of the reaction of all Arabs angry about the Harper government's stance on this file."
Very true. But the whole point is that Lawand is presenting Harper as not being swayed by Elsaadi Dad's -- and as you said the reflective stance of the Arab community -- message. And this isn't about Harper not being swayed by the message or him finding the message "predictable". This is him saying that, while he does listen to what the communities say (he said so several times in that press conference), the reaction itself of any community is not something he spends a lot of time juggling because it is "predictable".
And what exactly is predictable? How this will play out in the polls. The statement was about polls and making decisions or governing based on polls about how one community will react versus the next or gauging how a certain community might vote in the next election. It was about how he isn't concerned with how this issue will poll within those communities because he isn't stupid. He knows how those communities will react because it is "predictable".
That's exactly what he said. Perhaps you should go watch that press conference again from start to finish.
I don't see how in this vast scope of what Harper is talking about that one can get any degree of specificity to Elsaadi Dad's "message". In fact, Harper said of the messages of Elsaadi Dad and her companion that, "they can't and shouldn't be ignored."
As you so eloquently put it, go watch the transcript. Damn insensitive of him there, isn't it?
P.S. You're right... that civility compliment definitely wasn't aimed at me.
Larry Zolf at the CBC admitted that they are biased and influence the elections, he was quite blase about it, which is the most scarey part.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20060328.html
"Harper’s treatment of the media is that of an ingrate. The media made Harper. The media also first made Trudeau and Mulroney. Later, the media made both Trudeau and Mulroney and their parties suffer at the polls.
A similar fate awaits Harper if he doesn’t change his basic suspicion and hatred of reporters and news commentators. "
Post a Comment