Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

CBC inventing CPC positions for us

I've talked about CBC's bias before, but this is ridiculous.

The CBC clearly took comments made by Mr. Harper, and spliced them together to make it look like he brushing off some Lebanese protesters, when in fact he was talking about polling numbers!

The CBC totally made it look like Mr. Harper could care less about the protesters outside and just blew them off. Yet CTV's coverage of the very same press conference shows the full context of the question and answers, including the fact that the Tories invited two of the protesters in to meet with Peter MacKay, because they wanted to ensure that their concerns were heard!

Remember everybody getting hot under the collar when Mr. Grewal was accused of splicing tape? (which proved to be a false accusation, by the way) Now that the CBC has been caught? What's going to happen? Oof course, all this is going to fly under the radar, but the damage has been done. Then again, it will only have been seen by viewers of CBC's newscasts... they're mostly Libs and Dippers anyway, right? (you know, preaching to the choir and all...)

Thanks to Stephen Taylor for posting that video clip. And I love the little splice of his own he inserts into the end of the tape...

WHITE BACKGROUND WITH TEXT QUESTION: "So Mr. Harper, what do you think about the CBC manipulating your words and taking them out of context?"

Cut to video of Harper: "Very predictable"

UPDATE: Seems that National Post media analyst Warren Kinsella, of former Liberal fame, agrees with Stephen Taylor and my view of the CBC story. Funny that... and he's a Liberal supporter to boot. Even he can see it.


  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 12:35:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Ryan said…

    Ahhhhh........the CBC makes me want to pull my hair out. I can't believe we have to pay for this!

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 12:53:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Ryan said…

    This kind of editing happens all the time to allow a story to unfold in short clips. However, it's meant to condense a story into quickly veiwable segments, not manipulate the story.

    Also, notice that Chritina Lawand refers to Gery Schwarz as having "deep pockets" this could be seen as anti-semetic- eluding to the common anti-semetic them that Jews use their weath to control the world, gov't, hollywood, whatever the delusion..

    anti-capitalist- can't trust the rich, their all out for themselves, all they care about is getting richer.

    anti-conservative- all the conservatives care about is helping out their rich buddies, they don't care about the common man.

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 08:37:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Well, in this case, he IS rich, so I don't know what you can do about that. ;-)

    ($140,000+ to the Libs over 13 years... that's gotta hurt!)

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 10:55:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Dirk said…

    Please. Even in its full context, with the question about the reaction to his policies and polling results in Jewish and Arab communities, his answer still comes across as insensitive. "... very predictable"

    It's the Lebanese, some of whom were represented in the throng of protestors, whose reaction is therefore "very predictable".

    What's "very predictable" here is that Blogging Tories with too much time on their hands exaggerate cases of media bias where the CPC comes across poorly. Ever read the National Post or a Sun paper, or watched Global News from a centre/left perspective? You'll see much more blatant examples of media bias.

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 10:57:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Dirk said…

    And this thing about Gurmont Grewal... tell me how he didn't splice tape together to make PM & crew look bad.

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 01:33:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous ryan said…


    Thanks for explaining why the CBC's flagrant manipulation of the context of the story is actually OK, I feel much better.

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 03:30:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Alberta Girl said…

    Dirk - your comment and shoulder shrugging acceptance of the manner in which this report was edited shows exactly how the Liberals managed to "steal" taxpayers dollars and get re-elected. For you to even suggest that taking parts of the answer to a question and using snippets to build the story you want to present is OK, shows just why the Liberals are floundering out in "left" field.

    Something smells and you have your nose plugged while you deny that anything is wrong.

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 04:19:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Dirk - according to reports, there was a chunk of tape that appeared to me missing... turned out that when duplicated prior to giving it to the media, a chunk got left out. That piece, when reviewed, had nothing of interest, and did not make anyone look better or worse. He was cleared of any wrongdoing.

    I still find it interesting, however, that the Libs managed to spin things in such a way that Grewal looked bad, and Dosanj and Tim Murphy got off scott-free, when they had clearly contravened the rules attempting to bribe him to come over... though they were REALLY careful NOT to actually offer anything... I've listened to the tapes, it's pretty clear. (using phrases like "if you were to come over, those are things we can discuss afterwards...")

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 04:22:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    To clarify, before anyone tries to use Emerson to fire back at me... the wrongdoing was NOT the offer of something like a cabinet post, but offering something to change the results of the upcoming budget vote. He said that to interfere with an upcoming vote is illegal, as per the Ethics Commissioner, but to make an offer to cross the floor at a time when no vote is on the floor is another matter.

    (but it's interesting that even based upon his own interpretation, he refused to go back and investigate the Belinda affair... go figure)

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 05:52:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Dirk said…

    ryan, alberta girl, cc:

    This is how press conferences work: the person of interest gives a short talk, and then typically fields questions from a pool of journalists. These journalists then use the words spoken by the person of interest in their reports. Sometimes you see what the questions were in the report, and other times you don't, and you assume the context the quote appears in the report is consistent with the question as it was posed. Sometimes, quotes are used in context, and other times they're not. In this case, I think the context is consistent.

    So, having taken some time to watch the clip on youtube again, here's the sequence of what happened at the press conference:

    original question:
    "You seem to be receiving new support from the Jewish community in Canada, how do you feel about that? Do you think that's a direct result of your Middle-East policy, and on the flip-side, are you concerned about the negative response among some in the Arab community?"

    Harper's answer:
    Harper began by talking about the domestic response to the situation at hand: "we know that this particular issue has pretty strong resonance in certain cultural communities in this country." He then mentioned that his government has taken the position it has on this conflict for a number of reasons involving international and domestic strategic agendas. Harper then said: "I am not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think that reaction is very predictable."

    There it is. In context.

    Stephen Taylor's post-clip editorial says the context here is solely about a "polling boost from the Jewish community and a polling deficit with the Arab community". I disagree. Harper made only a single passing comment on polling: "we can't take positions based on polls". That's it, in what was about a 2-3 minute response to the question.

    Regardless of Stephen Taylor's own slanted editorializing, the context of the quote, as presented in the CBC report is not inconsistent with the original context of the quote in response to the question I quoted above. In both cases the context was about Harper's response to the responses from the ethnic/religious communities close to the conflict in Lebanon.

  • At Sun. Aug. 06, 10:13:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous jgriffin said…

    dirk said,

    "This is how press conferences work:" "watch the clip on youtube" "the negative response among" "the Jewish community in Canada" "solely about a polling boost " "with the Arab community". "Harper made only a single passing comment on polling".

    Oh yes, "the context of the quote, as presented in the CBC report is not inconsistent with" "Stephen Taylor's own slanted editorializing".

    And he did say it. I have it in writing.

  • At Mon. Aug. 07, 09:24:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Alberta Girl said…

    Dirk - you went to great lengths to "prove" that what Lawand did was "OK".

    Just proves my point that you feel that taking a comment that is in answer to one question and applying that comment to give the impression that it was in answer to another situation is just "good editing".

    Just proves my point that somehow this type of innuendo and directing viewers into believing something that is no is the leftist way. Guns in our cities ring a bell.

  • At Mon. Aug. 07, 10:41:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Dirk said…


    "Just proves my point that you feel that taking a comment that is in answer to one question and applying that comment to give the impression that it was in answer to another situation is just "good editing".'

    I never called it "good editing". I called this situation common practice. And furthermore, it's not inappropriate, as the context in which Harper gave his answer and the context in which Lawland's piece presented the quote are consistent. Harper's quote was a response to a question on how he felt about the various ethnic communities' responses to his government's Middle-East policies. Lawland's piece showcased the Arab response to the Harper government's Middle-East policies. That's consistent.

    "Just proves my point that somehow this type of innuendo and directing viewers into believing something that is no is the leftist way."
    I didn't see you make that particular point earlier. But anyway... even if you did, and even if Lawland's piece does represent excessive spin, I can direct you to many examples of right-leaning spin from the National Post, the Toronto Sun, and Global News.

    I don't expect you to accept anything I say, since it clearly contradicts your belief that anything "right" is correct. But here's where you and I differ: I am not an ideologue, and I don't blindly accept everything I hear from people who lean my way politically. I'm not a fan of CBC television, and yes, I have seen examples of them spinning things to the left in their news. This Lawland piece, however, is not one of those examples.

  • At Mon. Aug. 07, 04:03:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger nomdeblog said…

    Dirk, you mentioned, “here’s where we differ” then you didn’t say where the differences were.

    I’ll tell you where you and I differ. I don’t care what the Red Star says because I don’t buy it. But the CBC is paid for – with my taxes. I have to pay for stuff I disagree with. That’s wrong. Even if we spun the CBC to the right; that would not be fair to you because you would be paying for my biases. The news is biased. There’s no way around it. Therefore the CBC needs to be closed.

  • At Tue. Aug. 08, 12:07:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…


    Have you ever read "The Wealth of Nation's" by Adam Smith (who is the founder of modern Economic thinking by the way)...

    He outline's very well in that book the need for public broadcasting and public education. He state's that if left up the the peopleto decide what they want to watch they will 'choose' to stupidify themselve (he says it more gracefully than me of course).

    The CBC is designed to educate people and that's why your tax dollars are going towards it. That's actually a noble cause and should be praised rather than criticized and should not be drawn up into your partisian bickering... You may disagree with a slant that the CBC may be pushing, (that's at least respectable) but don't discount the CBC simply because of that!

    I also have a question for you (and don't give me some right-wing loaded answer... tell me what you really believe). Why do people always label a news organization which chooses to tell both side's to an issue as being "Liberal"?

    Also, over 1000 Lebanese have been killed in this conflict and less than 100 Isreali's... Therefore, even 50/50 coverage would be bias in favour of the Isreali's, it should be 10:1 in favour of Lebanon's position to actully be 'unbias'.... howere, I'm going out on a limb in assuming that you might have a thing or two to say against that.

    All I'm trying to say is that the CBC is a good thing and while it may not be the people's number 1 choice on their TV's, they provide a valuable community service (and that come's from the creator of Right-wing Economic thinking)... You can criticize a bias, if you see one (as CC did), but don't get caught up in any ideological warfare!

  • At Tue. Aug. 08, 12:32:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger nomdeblog said…

    We’re all biased. There is nothing wrong with being biased; only utopian cultural relativists claim neutrality to be a virtue. Neutrality is like being neutered. Neutrality is why you’ve lost Schwartz and Reisman as life long Liberals, along with many of my Liberal friends who are now Conservatives.

    Yes I have an ideology and so do you – it’s the opposite of mine.

    The CBC is not fair and balanced; you think it is, because you are happy with the net balance it ends up with. How would you feel if we put Ezra Levant in as Chair of the CBC? Andrew Coyne as its President?

    By the way, I’m in favour of subsidizing Canadian programming. But let’s use television to teach our kids some of our history. Let’s have it done by someone other than a utopian CUPE member. We don’t need the CBC to deliver Canadian programming; most of what it does is American imports anyway. Close it and use the billions saved on worthwhile Canadian content that can be delivered by the private sector.

  • At Thu. Aug. 10, 09:50:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Interesting... seems Warren agrees with my view...


Post a Comment

<< Home