Photograph by: CHRIS WATTIE, REUTERS
The reputation of Canadian journalism took a bit of a dive recently, but not because of their factual reporting on the Bev Oda affair, which correctly identifies the particulars of her very serious charges of parliamentary misconduct. I’ve already expounded at great length about the reasons I believe Oda is guilty, at the very least, of misrepresenting CIDA, and at worst may be taking the fall for decisions made out of the PMO.
No, journalism didn’t suffer by reporting on these happenings in Ottawa, which are a vital aspect of our democratic checks and balances of power and accountability. It suffered by taking a rather editorial slant with the propagation of the picture of Bev Oda getting caught smoking a cigarette.
One of the primary responsibilities of journalists is to report news and information in as unbiased and non-prejudicial manner as is humanly possible. Inevitably, that task becomes more difficult when reporting on news about a cabinet minister accused of serious misconduct, as opposed to something more emotionally neutral like the amount of rainfall over a 24-hour period.
Although it’s an unwritten rule, the basic understanding to photojournalism 101 is that if you’re going to take a picture of a politician in a manner that is unflattering or otherwise embarrassing, it better have a good reason to be in the public interest. Catching the prime minister picking his nose, or the opposition leader scratching his rear end, or the backbencher blowing his nose might all be embarrassing, but they’re all normal behavioural habits of human beings.
If we were to start taking compromising pictures of political leaders doing things that we ourselves all do at certain times, it wouldn’t speak well for our sense of ethical practices. After all, it’s easy to catch someone in a strange or ugly micro-expression, or doing something that looks otherwise ugly with the camera shutter speed set to half a second exposure. For this reason most photojournalists try to restrict themselves from indulging.
There are moments, however, when an embarrassing photo is in the public interest, mainly because the politician sought out the photo opportunity in the first place. When Robert Stanfield botched a football catch in 1974, hands grasped awkwardly together, a look of consternation on his face, that was most certainly legitimate. Similarly when dexterity-challenged Stephane Dion could not score on a goalie in a photo-op street hockey game in Montreal, despite taking numerous second chances, that was also news.
In other words, if a politician is going to stand there and invite photographers to document his or her futility, it’s all fair game. But that’s not what happened when Bev Oda chose to smoke a cigarette. That was clearly the worst kind of exploitative, paparazzi journalism that permeates the kind of tabloids usually reserved for the British Royals.
What’s interesting about this is that there were many liberals who complained about the smoking photos of Barack Obama that proliferated the internet in 2007. The photos were clearly unflattering and contrary to the clean-cut image of the suave orator, giving him a kind of disheveled, rougher appearance one might expect from a man waiting in the unemployment line.
Let’s face it, smoking has become a cultural taboo in North America. People still partake, but guiltily and huddled away from doorways and windows. Because it’s a physical addiction, most people sympathize with smokers to the extent that they will leave them to their semi-private habit so long as it doesn’t interfere with their own right to uncontaminated oxygen.
A shot of Bev Oda smoking accompanying any story about her being accused of lying in parliament is tantamount to editorializing and biased journalism. It isn’t just juxtaposition; it’s inherently exploitation of the worst and most serious kind, because it makes the subconscious suggestion that this person, a cigarette dangling casually on the precipitous edge of her lips, is just the sort of person who would do such an unethical thing.
In other words, the picture is prejudicial, with the intent to influence the outcome of events. In this case, that would be to have her judged in the court of public opinion and found wanting, not for what she’s actually done, but for the appearance of it.
Check out the caricature by Aislin in the (Montreal) Gazette today. He shows Oda smoking a cigarette and looking sinister, but he doesn’t have the courage to show her with dark glasses as in the original photo because he knows he would be criticized.
And while you are on the subject, maybe you can add in the fact that they manufactured in a cloud of smoke in some of the articles with the pic in it. Different pics…some with and some that were added. Holy hell….don’t ever not give funding to left wing organizations. This is what happens when the CBC & CTV & media that is running the country will do to you and your reputation. Banana republic anyone? I am livid.
Hogwash. If a person is in a public place, they can be photographed. A public official is especially open to scrutiny by virtue of being an elected leader. So she smokes. Who cares? A the very least, that just shows she’s human, and “one of us”.
I don’t know what you have against smokers, but to try to tarnish Oda’s reputation by focussing on her addiction is, frankly, petty.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Darrell Symonds, Antonin I. Pribetic and Andrew Walsh, Adrian MacNair. Adrian MacNair said: Oda smoking picture is shoddy journalistic ethics: http://bit.ly/gBZxn4 @karensd [...]
Next thy will be accusing her of taking the money herself.(that is a Liberal thing )
Mark Edwards
Your missing the point. So she smokes…maybe….was it lit? A manufactured cloud of smoke by the maggot media tells us maybe, maybe not.Its like the NOT. No proof. Just manufactured by maggot media. There are a lot of “CLOSET” smokers, but the media don’t have their pictures.
The fact that they chose to run the pic speaks volumns as to how far they will go…how desperate they are….HEY, maybe all the Tim Horton people will like the pic, and this will backfire in the CBC holier then thou faces. The rest of the MP’s better be careful when they step out for their smoke, because their nerves are shot ,from being smeared 24/7, or not, if your the opposition.
Media CBC, who won’t reveal their expenses, all on the warpath against a decent Govt. want the corrupt Liberals back in power. Thats what this is all about.
Check out a lot of the PPG reporters on Twitter.
It’s all a fun game to them.
I’m losing respect daily for the whole lot of them.
I don’t have anything against smokers. I think it’s pretty clear that smoking has developed relatively negative connotations, and that some elements of the media chose to deliberately use that image for that purpose.
Journalism ethics 101: “While photographing subjects, do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.”
For those who want to get on the media throw another female conservative to the wolves bus….check this out from a LIBERAL no less…
http://stuffoccurs.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/minister-oda-and-not-why-i-agree-with-the-minister/#comment-16
Thanks for the link Ontario Girl. Well Adrian this is precisely what I and others have been asking you for and taking you to task over.
Oda is not guilty of lying to anyone.
Unfortunatley I don’t think you have left any room for a climb down.
I thought that was a rather disgraceful exhibition on Power Play by Travers and Robert Fife on Wednesday, to celebrate the unflattering and tasteless picture, that Canadian Press captured and circulated to all the news media of Bev Oda and the cigarette, which they guaranteed would be carried and shown all over by their professional ( using term very loosely) brethren – doesn’t say much for our media does it as it sinks to another low?
For Travers and Fife to make light of this disgusting action by the media, and their ensuing guffaws, should raise the ire of women across Canada, for this juvenile treatment and intrusion of a private moment. To think that 24 hours earlier, both Travis and Fife were lecturing politicians about tasteless and vulgar personal attacks, and that they had no place in a civilized society( do we recall the unflattering picture of Chretien that was condemned by these same two individuals), yet in this case they applauded, if not cherished, this disgraceful act. They can not deny that they were amused and relished this offensive photo and its’ resulting publicity, which they helped contribute to. Are we to assume that journalist have a different standard and code of ethics which may be even worse than that of politicians – or are these two an exception to the rule? I will believe, they are the exception, when I hear some of their brethren condemn them for their disgraceful actions, or that they sincerely apologize to all Canadians and women in particular, or preferably both.
Any journalist worth his salt would have condemned and despised this act of yellow journalism.
I am reminded of the old saying “I hear the laughter of the vacant minds”
Does CTV and Power Play owe their viewers an apology – you decide?
Journalistic ethics. Now there are two words that should never be used in the same sentence. If journalists actually had a work ethic of the kind that digs deep and analyzes as completely as humanly possible instead of this smear first ask questions later ethic I might have some respect for those who call themselves journalists. As it is I side with the wag who said of the media, “half of ‘em are lying and the other half aint telling the truth.”
I’m not trying to climb anywhere, bud. Yes, of course she lied. I was talking about impugning her with pictures of smoking.
Adrian — Read the “stuffoccurs” blog. Oda is NOT guilty of anything. What she was doing was business as usual, which is something those of us who have worked in the offices of politicians know.
While this comment has nothing to do with the horribly tacky and unprofessional photo of Oda smoking, it is not up to you to declare her “guilty.” I am surprised, actually, surprised at your over-reaction.
But, since you obviously have no plans to give her the benefit of procedure, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
We don’t disagree Sandy, because to disagree you have to at least agree upon the parameters of the discussion. The Conservatives allowed Canadians to believe CIDA cut off Kairos when it didn’t, a fact you and others continue to ignore. Then you invent irrelevant excuses about CIDA and the Conservative government being the same thing.
Then we have the knowing and not knowing about the not and when who knew what about it. It’s all so convoluted.
You can’t say one thing in a court of law one day and something different on a different day without being charged with perjury. Our parliament should work the same way.
Adrian you said
“Then we have the knowing and not knowing about the not and when who knew what about it. It’s all so convoluted.”
Site me the two sites where there is a discrepancy in the “not”
It was also stated quite clearly by Ms. Biggs at the December committee hearings that Oda overturned the CIDA recommendation and that is the minister’s prerogative and was very acceptable.
The problem with your link is that it skips an important point:
No, it isn’t like that. It’s like a vice-president at RBC wants to lend $100-million to Facebook, but the president of RBC disagrees, and directed the VP to not lend to Facebook. The president then proceeds to act as though the decision had been made by the VP, when in fact it had been made by the president all along.
Nobody said it wasn’t her prerogative. But Oda and the rest sloughed it off deceitfully as a CIDA decision. And don’t give me any bullshit comeback about it being a CIDA decision because CIDA is the government and the government is CIDA.
What we have here is ideology disguised as governance. I’d prefer they were upfront about the ideology, but they clearly believe it hurts their image. It certainly doesn’t hurt as much as getting caught doing covert ideological decisions like this.
And you know this, how????
There have been numerous assumptions in this whole sordid mess… yours is just another one.
unless you can provide a link proving your assumptions, they are nothing more than wild guesses.
You recently said you will soon graduate and will be looking for a job. Well, this blog will certainly be read by any potential publisher or editor. The way you jumped to the conclusion re Bev, and still insist she lied, will not help you in getting a job.
According to your logic, I’d be the perfect fit.
I know this because this is precisely what everybody thought until it was revealed that the Conservatives overruled CIDA on ideological grounds.
Adrian we live in a parliamentary representative democracy. In such a democracy it is the will of the minister of a given branch of government that IS the policy of that branch of government. It is not the will of the bureaucrats that makes that policy. If the bureaucrats were to set the policy then we would not be living in a parliamentary style representative democracy. We would be saddled with an unelected tyranny.
Uhhhhhh huhhhhhh.
You don’t get it.
At the risk of sounding like Gayle…link please!!
As I understand Adrian, it’s not the history of the document that concerns you. I worked for the feds and I know that bureaucrats take short cuts to avoid red tape in order to meet deadlines, or “operational requirements”, to put it in their lingo.
You’re zeroing in on what transpired in the House. In that respect, it’s up to Speaker Milliken to issue a ruling, on the basis of the presentations made by the Government and by the Opposition.
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand your perspective.
The whole thing has me rather exhausted, trying to take in all the views and facts put forth from so many sources. I’m now putting it to rest until Milliken speaks.
Adrian, over the past several posts, you have come off as an arrogant know it all.
It in’t becoming.
That’s more or less correct. As I wrote before, I have a few complaints/concerns.
1. The government perpetuated the lie of omission that CIDA had cut them off.
2. Oda made contradictory claims in parliament.
3. The government appears to have a tendency to make ideological moves behind the shield of the bureaucracy that are later proved ideological.
It makes them look underhanded and untrustworthy.
Link for what? You thought Kairos was cut off by Bev Oda in 2009?
“arrogant know it all” AG? Don’t you mean arrogant know nothing? He doesn’t even understand parliamentary democracy or ministerial responsibility. In his hoary little world we have no need to elect anyone, the bureaucrats set all the policy and set government direction. In fact I wonder why he even follows politics since politicians have no real purpose anyway.
They pretended something was a bureaucratic decision in order to make it more palatable to the general public. That has nothing to do with democracy or ministerial responsibility, Joe.
I thought it was the combination of her wearing sunglasses plus smoking in the picture that made her unfairly look sinister that was the shoddy journalism and the snarky way it was exploited.
Now the fact that she has had eye problems making her wearing sunglasses was conveniently not published.
As to smoking itself, yes we are treating smokers as lepers but it’s still common to see smokers freezing their butts off outside office buildings, and sad as we may feel about the health risks of the poor addicted smokers it is just about totally irrelevant to anything except when used to exploit as an unflattering picture.
As to her guilt you are certainly free to arrive at your conclusions, and be convinced that you are right, and arrived at them honestly, but others reading conflicting information are at least not so sure about whether there was lying or simply not volunteering information to correct a misperception or ambushed by badgering questions: Would this be less than 100% honourable or honest, maybe, but very much less serious than deliberately lying ?
So in politics does this mean that you show all your cards or correct someone who erroneously thinks you have different cards: Is it your responsibility to tell them they jumped to conclusions or inferred incorrectly from something you said to arrive at the wrong conclusions ?
Did Bev Oda ” imply ” something untrue or did the Opposition ” infer ” something and she failed to correct them or wasn’t permitted to finish to correct a wrong impression ? This is all getting to the point of trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the top of a pin !
It isn’t that I’m telling people they aren’t free to draw their own conclusions. It’s that I’m frustrated people don’t seem to have a problem with the clandestine nature of the funding cut, and the subsequent attempt to pass it off as a routine bureaucratic procedure.
You don’t understand that when the minister in charge of a departments says, “This it the policy of this department”, then THIS IS THE POLICY OF THAT DEPARTMENT!!!! Minister Oda, PM Harper never said otherwise and any minister who ran around trying to get a consensus amongst the bureaucrats in the department is not worthy of being a minister. One radio interviewer once said that he could tell when a minister had been co-opted by his bureaucrats and needed to be changed out was when the minister came on the air and said “we” referring to himself and his bureaucrats. A minister is a fool to ignore the advice of his bureaucrats. A minister is an even greater fool to blindly follow the advice of his bureaucrats.
Don’t give me any bullshit about the CIDA bit. Tell me where she changed her story on the “Not” bit – site the changes not just repeating she lied she lied.
In answer to the question who wrote the “not” in she answered she didn’t know the name of the person. Where is the lie? How in hell do you have any proof that she knew who the person was.
If you read any factual stories on this you would know she was not physically present when it was done.
You have had enough interaction with the legal system and law suits so you should know better than to call someone a liar unless you have proof or want your pants sued off.
You have a problem but the President of CIDA doesn’t have a problem with the actions of Oda.
I think you are second fiddle to her even if you don’t think so.
I don’t give a shit about that, Joe. I’m talking about how your government is using the bureaucracy as a shield for ideology that it doesn’t have the courage to openly declare.
Isn’t there a saying about politics being like making sausages in that it’s a messy process and something one would rather not think about when enjoying eating the sausages ?
In an ideal World I guess everything should be as open and as honest as possible and maybe the criticism is justified that there was some lack of transparency here, but in that case are we talking about what should be a ” hanging ” offence or just desrving a slap on the wrist !
So maybe I can understand your frustration in trying to get people to see it as ” not the way to do things ” but maybe people are having difficulty seeing it as a major breach of ethics as opposed to the way things work ….. disappointing as this may be to idealists ?
I don’t think it’s being idealistic to expect your government not to make ideological decisions and hide them behind bureaucratic decision-making. That’s the problem.
Adrian the longer you go on the less sense you make. Since the minister sets the policy there can be no hiding behind the bureaucracy. The Liberals were famous for hiding behind the courts but the Conservatives have been providing leadership to the bureaucrats not hiding behind them. If you don’t believe me go read what the bureaucrat’s testimony. You know those bureaucrats whose choices were over turned by the duly elected and appointed minister.
I agree it would actually show strength and be better to do it as you suggest but I think in part the whole thing is something like being ” infected ” by the bureaucratic Ottawa disease or culture, or in trying to be too clever ?
Am I excusing it or just trying to understand it ? I’m really not sure ? Maybe a bit of both LOL.
How about bureaucracies throwing our money around based on their ideologies?
Give a shit about that Adrian?
So in your mind, it isn’t the government that’s ideological, it’s CIDA?
Huh. Interesting theory.
News flash for Adrian. It is the job, duty, obligation, or the elected officials to set policy not the unelected bureaucrats. It is the job, duty, obligation of the bureaucrats to bring the policy of the elected officials to fruition. In you mind you seem to have the rolls reversed. BTW there is no such thing as a non-ideological government. Its why we have political parties. The Liberals espouse a progressive ideology whereby groups such as KAIROS gets funded. The Conservative espouse a Conservative ideology whereby groups like KAIROS does not get funded. One is no more ideological than the other. The problem people like you have is that you have been born and raised with a ‘progressive’ mindset and can’t see the ideology in your point of view. If you were a fish you could never admit you were wet and you would disagree with any other fish who said you were wet.
I will help you out here. When she said she did not know “who” wrote it, the clear impression she was trying to give was that she had nothing to do with it. Since it was intended to deceive it was dishonest.
unbelievable Adrian, unbelievable. Again just how did she lie. Because the only evidence that she did is that the media says she did.
Rebut the link that alberta girl provided with facts not aspersions.
You are better than this Adrian.
Adrian. 99.99 percent of Canadians had never heard of Kairos losing their funding, and fewer yet would have any idea that there may have been confusion as to what the reasons may have been and fewer yet (just the libs and the media)as to whether Odas answers were simply correct answers (which they were) or a diabolical effort to mislead the Canadian public which had no idea about any of this in the fist place.
So your assertion that she tried to mislead the Canadians.
You can take the facts on their face as they are as stuffoccurs did, or you can insert your own interpretations into it and convict Oda on those.
You would lose hard and fast in court on this one Adrian.
Another day, another round of conservatives trying to defend the indefensible.
Just accept you are OK with the fact she deceived the House. Stop trying to make her into an innocent victim.
I did not get that impression Gayle at all, I got the impression that John Mckay trying to do his best Perry Mason was trying to hand this around her neck – since it is part of the foundation of the the broader misrepresentation.
Oda was not about to let him do it. The only people trying decieve are the libs and their syncophants in the media.
1. CIDA had them cut Kairos cut off – fact
Trying to make hay as to whether some all or any of the bureaucrats in the ministry agreed or disagreed with the decision is irrelevant.
2. Oda did not make contradictory claims in parliament. She gave 2 different answers to 2 different questions. Implying that she gave 2 different answers to 1 question is fundamentally dishonest.
3. The governmetn “appears” to be enacting policies that they were elected to enact, and the Libs, bureaucrats, and media don’t like it very much.
Every government action and decision is ideological.
The media looks underhanded and untrustworthy and working in cahoots with the LPC
Except the only evidence of this Adrian is that you and your media cohorts have interpreted it this way.
The facts as you present them in this situatio would stand up in a court of law.
So you have become judge and jury based on your interpretation of what happened.
Every decision a government makes is ideologica, since ideology is the basis of politics.
The ideological angle you are falling back on now is misdirection.
When you can come up with a timeline and analysis of what occured to equal that of what stuffoccurs put together Gayle that supports your position get back to us.
Wrong. In my mind the elected officials don’t try and pass off their own decisions as the decisions of the unelected bureaucrats.
I don’t think you understand the definition of ideology. Speaking of fish, you’re just swimming with your team. And I get it. I just wish you could engage in some critical thinking once in a while. Just for fun.
True. If the court were filled with partisan Conservatives.
1. Wrong. The minister did, and then hid behind CIDA. This is the source of your obduracy.
2. Yes she did. Any reasonably person would infer that. And by logical extension that means…
3. I don’t understand what the media and the Liberals have to do with the Conservative government misrepresenting the bureaucracy. Just as they did with the longform census. And hey, now that I think about it, just as they did with the Afghan detainees. There’s a pattern of abuse from this government.
The media only appears underhanded to you because from your standpoint everybody it out to get the Conservatives. Sometimes, you have to think to yourself whether the it’s the one person you’re protecting who is right, or the rest of the world.
If by me and my media cohorts you mean me and everybody else who employs logic and intelligence, then yeah.
According to Miriam Webster dictionary: Ideology, the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.
Either a socialpolitical group has an ideology or said socialpolitical group does not exist. Liberals as a socialpolitical group are just as ideological as Conservatives.
As for your other point since it has been covered again and again and again that the policy is determined by the minister there is no point in debating with someone whose only point is the one on top of his head. But if you comb your hair just right no one will notice.
When Oda answered the question ” who inserted the word NOT?” she said she didn’t know who (name of the person) who did it and she was truthful with that answer.
If you read the following explanation, by a former Liberal ministerial aide and current Liberal party member, you will learn why her answer is consistent with the facts and circumstances.
She has also maintained from day one that it was her decision and direction to reject funding for Kairos, and most people including the President of CIDA, has without qualification stated to a parliamentary committee, it is the minister’s right, prerogative, and duty to implement the will of the government.
Here is statement of former Liberal aide and current Liberal party member
http://stuffoccurs.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/minister-oda-and-not-why-i-agree-with-the-minister/
“On the day the decision was finally made the Minister was away from her Ottawa office and was on the phone with her staff. Normally, that means all the staff (we had 12 in our office) are gathered around a table in conference call fashion. The Minister directed her staff to indicate that she disagreed with the public service and would not continue to fund KAIROS. One of those staffers (we don’t know which one) put “NOT” on the document because there was no place to disagree and then sign with the auto-pen. Standard stuff. We know there was an urgency about the decision, so sending it back to the public service to correct, and go through the process of getting signatures and dealing with some public service blowback, was not a reasonable option.”
How convenient, and utterly ridiculous, an excuse. Perhaps all people convicted of perjury should try the same excuse in court. See how that works for them.
You are indeed entitled to your opinion on this matter, but that is all it is. There is no lack of opinion, but there remains a lack of facts. Accusations do not necessarily translate into guilt, so I am with those who refuse to pass judgement simply based on a drive-by smear campaign.
And so you would have her lie under oath instead? Convenient excuse or not it is the truth. She didn’t know because she wasn’t there. I’m beginning to think you belong on a human rights kangaroo court where ‘truth is not a defense’.
I am not sure I understand. You are saying McKay was trying to say she was responsible for inserting the “not”? Of course that is what he was trying to do – and as it turns out he was correct as she has admitted responsibility for the “not”.
Her earlier answer was clearly an attempt to evade said responsibility. She only admitted it when she had no choice.
It is not that hard. You just have to accept the truth for what it is.
She hid behind nothing Adrian and no amount of repeating that Liberal talking point will ever make it true.
Despite being asked numerous times you have never put forth anything factual that supports this assertion.
(Apparently reasonable means people who agree with you?) As for as infering…when you are calling for someones head and calling them a liar, it had better be based on more than your inferences of what that person may have meant.
And as a poster above has pointed out Adrian, you are not coming across very well.
Disparaging people who disagree with you and calling them names and engaging in ad hominem attacks instead of backing up your arguements with facts, is not the hallmark of someone who has a solid arguement.
I read it by the way. It is clear the Minister answered the question in a manner that lead people to believe the decision to add the “not” did not come from her. He even admits that in his little summary.
Since she did that knowingly, she clearly knew she was misleading people. This is dishonest. Deal with it.
Care to clarify what you mean by that Adrian or should I infer?
George Washington’s father:
“George, who owns that axe? They must have used it to cut down the cherry tree”.
George Washington:
“I do not know who owns that axe.”
Truthful? Possibly. Misleading in order to evade responsibility for cutting down the cherry tree? Definately.
You and others visiting this blog have insinuated that my opinions are formed by some kind of mind-melding brainwashing that goes on at journalism school; or because I have some kind of “progressive” remnants in my brain from my upbringing that I can’t detect; or because I sympathize with my media cohorts (despite the fact I’m not employed by any media presently).
So who, exactly, is employing argumentum ad hominem?
An honest answer would be:
“I do not know who specifically inserted the word, but since you are clearly asking about who is responsible for it then that would be me”.
If you indeed read it Gayle you will see it demolishes the entire media narrative.
If this is such an open and shut case you would think the media would report all of the facts on the story, not just cherry pick what supports the allegations of the Liberals.
Heres a nice example of media malfeasance
“Oda reportedly doctored a document by writing “not” on a sentence, changing the meaning and ending $7 million in funding for Kairos.”
The above never happened, and its common knowledge that Oda was away and as such could not have written anything on it.
These are the folks that Adrian says we are not supposed to impugn.
If he was clearly asking the question, then why didn’t he just ask it Gayle?
Now Oda’s career is in jeopardy because she failed to interpret what a questioner really meant, when he did not ask for the information he was really looking for?
Really?
Too bad you can’t use the actual transcripts of the case we are talking about to make your point Gayle.
Nice creative writing excercise but I would like to see some facts pertaining to the accusations that have been hurled at Oda.
Here is a clip from Stephen Taylor, that shows how the media is Cherry picking details to paint a false narrative.
Again, on such an open and shut case, you would think the media could deliver a straight and direct reportage of the case.
but they keep proving they cannot.
Just like those who parrot them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut1NoT1AHbE&feature=player_embedded
The actual transcripts prove my position. You just do not want to admit that you are supporting someone who is dishonest.
PS – thanks for the edit Adrian.
So you think he was really really interested in the name of the office staff who inserted the word? Really?
Get real. Everyone knows what information he was seeking.
Actually it does nothing of the sort.
Whether or not Oda physically inserted the word, she was responsible for it. She just tried real hard to make people think she wasn’t.
So you can try playing with this like you have, but at the end of the day you have not even tried to counter what I am saying. We both know that is because you know I am right.
Well Gayle in your example it was not G W’s job to refute the faulty logic of his questioner. The questioner made a huge and faulty assumption that the only person capable of cutting down the tree is the owner of the axe.
Now let’s assume that Oda came back to her office and asked who put ‘not’ in the memo. Let’s assume that Mary said that Joan put ‘not’ in the document. Let us then fast forward to the answer to the question asked of Oda, “Who put ‘not’ in the document”. Oda would again have had to answer truthfully “I don’t know”. Mary’s word that Joan did it is what is called hearsay. Joan may have done the deed or Mary could be lying through her teeth. The best answer Oda could have truthfully given is that Mary said that Joan did it but that wasn’t the question asked. What’s more if Oda had asked Joan if she had done the deed Oda could only answer that Joan said that Joan did it but again that is not an answer to the question. The ONLY truthful answer Oda could give to the question asked is “I don’t know”. She doesn’t know because she didn’t witness the act.
You know dam well that the court will accept her answer because it answers the question asked of her.
Incredible that some would call her a liar for answering the question correctly.
Also the court would ask how was Oda to know what staffer put in the “not” when she wasn’t there herself. How foolish are you. If she came out with a name the court would obviously ask How do you know? You weren’t there when it was done.
You have a little more mox than that – give up your losing argument or make a public pronouncement that she lied and let the court settle it and put your ass in jail and you deserve it for piling on without fact or evidence.
Sure, in my example the question asked allowed for the answer given. But so what? Washington is still not being honest about who cut it down. He is allowing his father to retain the impression the axe owner cut it down when he knows it was him.
Oda answered a question knowing that her answer would mislead people to think she had nothing to do with it. That is fundamentally dishonest, and your post only reinforces that.
Surely you can understand that?
whoa. I am not one to leap to Adrian’s defence, but people here have been attacking his chosen profession just because he dares to look at this without your partisan view.
I suggest you grow up.
So says you Gayle. Oda answered the question the only way she could given that she was under oath. When you are under oath you don’t go making all kinds of allegations for which you have no proof. If you do so you are likely to be shown to be less than trust worthy. The best answer Oda could give is the one which no one can refute. Unless Oda actually saw the “not” inserted she is wise to answer, “I don’t know”. It is honest, it is prudent and if the questioner had chosen to be equally honest it would soon have been revealed that since the ‘not’ was inserted before the minister signed, who put in the ‘not’ is as irrelevant as if the document had been properly drafted with the negative option being presented at the same time as the positive option.
Actually Gayle your example is poor. The questioner is trying to determine who is responsible for cutting down the Cherry tree.
It doesnt matter who put the NOT in the document, because they have no authority to make the document worth anything, only Oda does.
The reason that Mckay did not ask a more specific question is that the LPC and the media already “knew” it was Oda.
Except no one did their homework, which would have shown them Oda was out of the country and could not have made any changes to the document.
When Oda said she did not insert the NOT it threw the whole narrative into a spin.
So rather than being able to run with the narrative that was already in the can -the next step was to prove Harper forced her to do it – the media was forced to create the secondary narrative that she lied by comingling the “I don’t know who signed it” with the ” I authorized the NOT” as contradictory answers to the same question – which anyone can see they are not.
Again, Mckay did not ask the right question because he thought he already knew the answer – as did the media.
So it has never been about investigating anything, but about creating a scandal.
And the LPC and media can’t even do that right.
heh. It would not have been perjury to say that “not” was inserted at her direction.
That was a nice try though.
Not one word of this post contests the fact that Oda knew what McKay was getting at, and that her answer deliberatly mislead him and the House.
Try again
Gayle, are you saying you are a mind reader? Funny you know that Oda knew what McKay was getting at, when even McKay didn’t know what he was getting at, or he would have asked the appropriate question.
You’re pretty much down to its Oda’s fault that McKay didn’t do his homework and she should have helped him build the foundation for a preordained narrative.
Again Gayle you simply cannot incriminate someone based on what you think they should have been thinking at the time.
Do you realize how silly you are sounding?
And you are pretty much down to “she answered a question literally and did not care that she was giving a false impression, even though she knew she was doing so”.
Which is exactly what I have been saying, so thanks for that.
See, whether or not Oda knew what McKay was getting at (and how could she not since whichever flunkie she got to add the word to the document really is not relevant), she knew after she gave that answer that people were under the impression she knew nothing about it. And despite that erroneous impression, she did absolutely nothing to correct it.
If you really do not see the dishonesty in allowing people to believe something that is not true then I cannot help you. You are just a conbot, and last I heard there is no cure for lunacy.
Best of luck to you.
And silly silly McKay for believing a Minister of the Crown would be honest and forthright with him. He is stupid like Washington’s father.
ha ha ha ha ha
While I generally agree with your stand against the use of unflattering pics to influence opinion, I can’t help but recall your piece on the Gay Pride parade a couple of years back.
In the comments (which seem to have disappeared) you made a rather big deal of the fact that Layton was waving a “phallic symbol” during the parade (which, oddly enough was a pink lei…about as far from a phallic symbol as you can get). If I recall correcty, “disgusting” was one of the adjectives you used.
Quite frankly Adrian, it’s a bit hard to take a lecture on ethics from someone who has been guilty of the exact behaviour he is railing against.
I guess it’s only unethical if it’s employed against someone who’s politics matches your own.
As for the comments by Alberta Girl et al;
Nobody cares that Bev Oda is a woman. This isn’t some media plot to discredit female CPC ministers/members/etc. Your insinuations (if not outright statements) that this is somehow connected to her gender are ludicrous. It’s about her lying to parliament….get it? Nobody gets a pass on that one (or shouldn’t), even if they do happen to be a woman. You sound like the lefty nuts who ran Ontario back in the Bob Rae days.
There’s a difference between someone marching in a gay parade and someone smoking a cigarette.
Which if you actually took the time to read the transcripts you will see that is exactly what she said. But being a liberal when did you ever let truth get in the way of a good smear campaign?
Did she say it the first time or the second.
I have checked with two professional photographers, one of whom teaches a class in the digital photography program I am enrolled in and covers photojournalism as part of it; neither of them have heard of this unwritten photojournalism 101 rule.
It must be a well kept secret, and one developed since the days of folk like Erich Salomon.
Oda smoking is a candid image of a current Canadian politician – and nothing more.
What’s the difference? Both were unflattering photos of a public figure taken in public. Both were used to portray that person in an unflattering light (although I admit I had to laugh when a closer examination of Layton’s “phallic symbol” showed it to be a pink lei…circular, pink and fuzzy. Hiarious.)
The comments generated by that photo of Layton (including yours) were far worse than the ones generated by the photo of Oda smoking a cigarette, but you had no problem piling on then.
So I’ll repeat the question: Why weren’t you denouncing the practice of using photos in this manner then? Have you had a change of heart about the whole idea, or is it only reprehensible when done to someone sympathetic to you?
Seems to me the moral relativism I hear complaints about around here isn’t entirely limited to the “lefties”.
Nah. It’s a candid shot of a _Conservative_ politician, which means it’s part of some MSM pot to discredit the CPC.
God help me, but the looney left is looking like the only sane peope left in politics these days.
PS:
“Journalism ethics 101: “While photographing subjects, do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.””
Obviously written by someone not familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
(Sorry to get all scientificy on you there Adrian, but I just couldn’t resist).
How in hell is it even possible to report events _without_ influencing them? The mere fact that people are made aware of events affects the outcome. Do you really think Nixon would have resigned if the Washington Post hadn’t reported the Watergate break-ins?
What is the problem some people have the way the recommendation was rejected.
President of CIDA Margaret Biggs, who signed the Kairos document, testified before the parliamentary committee in December, Oda did nothing wrong and used her ministerial discretion and judgment to deny approval of the funding.
“I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice. This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal,” she told the foreign affairs committee.”
So Oda instructed her staff that she was not approving the recommendation and they inserted the word “not” before the word recommend. As Ms. Biggs president of CIDA told the committee they got the message and understood it – it was sent to the minister for approval or non approval – she didn’t approve it obviously when “not recommend” was on the paper . That was the minister doing her job -she had every right to refuse approval as Biggs testified so what is the problem.
To claim forgery or defacing of a document is absurd and ridiculous – that doesn’t wash with anyone who has an IQ higher than their shoe size.
“What is the problem some people have the way the recommendation was rejected.”
It was a bit sloppy but no, that isn’t the problem. The problem is that she lied to parliament (whether it was a lie of omission, or a direct lie depends on how far you can stretch the semantics one way or another. But she lied.)
There`s no question Bev had the authority to reject the funding proposal, despite the recommendation that it be accepted. The problem is that she lied about it. That’s become a pattern in the Harper government…blame it on the bureaucrats. For examples, one need look no further than the StatsCan fiasco, Afghan detainees, several instances of Canadian citizens being left stranded in third world shitholes, well…the list goes on.
So much for transparency and accountability. In my world, if you make a decision, you take the heat for it. You don’t pin it on underlings.
Nice try at deflecting the issue though.
Careful there Adrian. You’re actually starting to sound a little less biased. Maybe time to turn in your CPC membership card and actually, you know, think before you type.
Just when I think you’re another neo-conbot, you come out with something like this. Well done.
The fact that Oda is smoking means nothing to anyone except the health nazis. 20% of the population smokes. Obama still smokes. Seems ridiculous that so much emphasis is directed to her holding a smoke rather than the subject matter.