Harping on CBC

Over the weekend, the Blogging Tories got into a lather over this report (YouTube video) by CBC-TV's Christina Lawand who was covering the Conservative caucus meeting in Cornwall.

They claim she took Prime Minister Stephen Harper's line about the reaction of the Lebanese and Jewish communities out of context -- and certainly, based on the video analysis, it looks that way.

Here's another take:

CBC showed a report of the anti-Harper protest that took place in Cornwall where the Conservative Party was holding a retreat. The segment by Christina Lawand shows Elsaadi Daad, a chador-clad woman who was incidentally on her way to meet Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mackay, saying that burning children and killing people on both sides is wrong and "it’s got to stop". Lawand then says that "Harper clearly wasn’t swayed" and showed Harper speaking the following words, "I’m not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think the reaction is very predictable."

The juxtaposition of the two statements, not to mention Lawand’s statement that "Harper clearly wasn’t swayed" clearly showed what the CBC wanted their viewers to see — Stephen Harper saying that he doesn’t give a damn about the killing of civilians in the Middle East and more importantly, he couldn’t care less about the "predictable reaction" of Muslims like Daad.

The only slight problem with Lawand’s report is that it just didn’t happen that way. But why let the truth get in the way of a great piece by the CBC about how bad Stephen Harper is.

The juxtaposition of some images, and not others, with the Harper's clip made it seem that he does not care about the Lebanese-Canadian community.

However, to blame Lawand is not necessarily fair since she probably did not do all her editing herself in Cornwall but, instead, the segment was packaged with archival footage back in Toronto or Ottawa.

That said, CBC should have been extra careful: This is the Prime Minister pronouncing on highly explosive and divisive issues.

More fuel for its funeral pyre.

Comments

[Jay Currie]

"However, to blame Lawand is not necessarily fair"

I agree. The chances are very high that this was in editorial.

Which makes it worse because it reflects the institutional bias of the CBC.

What is interesting is that, unlike ten years ago, the pushback was near instantanous and deployed video skills and analytic skills which previously only MSM had.

The systematic bias in MSM is easy to detect; until the web, once detected there was little to do but stew about the unfairness of it. No more.

This sort of rubbishy editing, faked news and altered pics are meat and drink to the blogs which are emerging as the counter balance to the sadly out of touch legacy meda.

Good catch Steve!

[True North]

Just because in the unedited version of his statements Harper meandered around the issue with some experssions of senstiivity to certain groups and commiunities, doesn't alter the fact that their pleas did not result in a change of policy. Saying F.Y. in a sweet voice doesn't change the message.

The CBC report cut to the essentials - 1)people have valid reasons to ask for s different policy - hundreds of innocent people are being killed.
and
2) Harper's policy remains unchanged.

I'd like to criticize the CBC report fot not poining out the fallacy Harper puts forward that it is only Jews and Arabs that are to be considered here, and that otrherwise most Canadian support his stand. Not true!

If you buy into the right wing anti-CBCers critique, then editing any report on a Harper set of pronouncements and presenting it in a meaningful wider story context is going to be next to impossible.

That's what they want - a neutered, brain-dead CBC News.

Let's keep an eye on CTV News - how far will it go to ensure BGM gets no static on the CHUM deal or anything else it desires. FOX News North anyone?

It's not a question of who does the editing. Even when the editing is done elsewhere, the reporter selects the clips (sometimes with the help of a producer in the field), writes the script, and suggests appropriate images. The script is written around the clips. Thus, in this case, responsibility most likely lies with Lawand and/or her producer. They either were present at the news conference or had access to the whole tape, so should have realized they were taking the clip out of context.

[Jim McLean]

Doesn't matter who was doing Lawand's editing. She's the reporter on scene and it's up to her to make sure the clips and script are in order. It's the digital age. She can feed back in and out cues and script directions as though she were in the room next door to the edit suite.
Having said that, however, the reaction on Taylor's web site to this incident of "taking out of context" is bizarre. Left wing conspiracy? Sell off the CBC? Start a letter campaign to the CBC ombudsman to make everyone's life miserable? Come on. By all means get to the bottom of the reporting here, admit a mistake if one was made and set the reporter straight if it was her call to contruct the story this way. But please lay off the nuisance hyperbole.

[PhantomObserver]

Actually, I'm not quite sure just who at the CBC should have been extra careful.

If you mean the segment producer, well, it's the nature of bias. They probably liked the emotional impact of the story so much that certain alarm bells would never have gone off.

If you mean the show's producers, they're probably so demoralized by certain programming decisions by the top brass that they just don't care anymore. While they won't do anything as outrageous as the Reuter photograph swindle (that would look bad on the resume), they're probably at the point where "the standards of CBC News" is a meaningless phrase.

If there is an upside to this, it's that should the Tories actually get around to reviewing the CBC's overall mandate, then "standards and practices" for CBC newsgathering can't be off-limits anymore.

[Reality Check]

The basic issue in Lebanon is simple. Hezbollah exists to destroy Israel. Israel does not want to be destroyed. Harper is not being callous about the death of innocent Lebanese civilians. But he is being morally clear that in that zero sum game he thinks that Hezbollah's goal is not acceptable. Good for him. The Liberal/NDP idea that you can split the difference between someone who wants to destroy another and that other not wanting to be destroyed is simply untenable. Would the Left say in the context of a rapist and a potential rape victim that we should have a policy of even handedness? Of course not. So what is the difference?

[Maz]

Meanwhile, on the weekend, leaders of the separatist BQ and PQ Parties in Quebec marched arm in arm, pour ainsi dire, with 15,000
pro-peace (read anti-Israel) demonstrators in Montreal. Shows how
Stephen Harper isn't the only pol on the block who can be loud and
clear.

[John W]

Conservatives should remember that it was the same Christina Lawand who spent several months trying to raise one very forgettable judge called John Gomery to sainthood status as he attempted, with it turns out little success, to destroy the character and reputation of Jean Chretien.

In the end, this easily forgotten buffoon, who was the subject of Lawand's endless adulation, contributed nothing to Canadian political life, his silly report landing in the political trash bin with a rather permanent and well deserved thud.

Hopefully, Gomery and Paul Martin, who made the ridiculous appointment, are enjoying their well deserved obscurity somewhere in the wilds of rural Quebec along with the Mulroney cronies who served the good Judge in his anti Chretien campaign.

So, Lawand probably still has a few credits left in the Conservative Party fairness account and will continue to keep us well informed in her usual style for a few years anyway.

[Allen]

Yes, but... Harper wants Hexbollah dealt with, ie. destroyed or diminished to a powerless state. To do otherwise would only continue the "status quo ante" to quote Condi. So excuse the CBC editorializing but the message was essentially correct.

[doug]

I don't understand the fuss. He said, "I’m not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think the reaction is very predictable"

That covers what Elsaadi Daad said. It's a reaction from within an individual community. Therefore, he's not concerned with it in any way. This is applying simple logic to his own words. (Oh, and "in any way" includes empathy.)

Don't blame the CBC. Harper likes to sound like a strong leader. So he makes categorical statements like the one above. It's his fault if people draw their own conclusions.

[vinb]

Maybe the Blogging Tories mean well, but to interpret *Harper clearly wasn't swayed* as *Harper doesn't give a damn about dead civilians* and *Harper couldn't care less about the feelings of Canadian Muslims* is mischievous at best. Nothing in the clip supports this reading. Lawand clealy says not *swayed* on the decision against calling for a cease fire. The editing may assume the viewer has been following the story over the past few days -- which isn't, or shouldn't be, and unreasonable assumption. That's all. Nothing to see here.

The bloggers' analytic skills Jay Currie so admires are zealously applied, all right, but are not exactly sharp.

[estragon]

Jay Currie wrote:

> I agree. The chances are very high that
> this was in editorial.
>
> Which makes it worse because it reflects
> the institutional bias of the CBC.

Jay Currie, on what basis do you make this ridiculous assertion? Do you have any idea how a TV news story, or a newscast (or for that matter, a newspaper) is put together? Have you ever so much as been inside a newsroom?

The arrogance displayed by you and your journalist-hating ilk never ceases to astound me. If only you spent one tenth of the time you devote to unfounded speculation about the CBC on actually learning how journalists do their jobs, maybe your posts would have an iota of credibility.

[Scotian]

Do I think this was sloppy editing? Yes, no question on that. Do I think this makes it far easier for CBC's detractors to attack it as incompetent or worse intentionally biased? Yes to that too. Do I think this is proof of a conspiracy at CBC to portray Conservatives and Harper in an unfair/negative light because he is Conservative? Nope, not at all. CBC has its faults, no small amount of them in fact IMHO. Yet the argument that CBC is biased is because it is State owned and the Liberals have been in power for most of the last 40 years (30 out of 40 years) and used it as a party mouthpiece.

Problem with this is if this is true then when government changes the direction of CBC should change because of the directives of the government of the day using it as that mouthpiece. The counter to that argument I've seen from CPCers is that since the company is loaded with lefties from the hiring policies of the Libs then it means regardless of who is in power it will always favour the left/Liberals. The problem with this though is that it has to presume that those working at CBC are not professionals but rather partisans first interested in putting their agendas forward than doing their jobs. While I am certain there are a few that fall into this description, that is the case in most businesses generally in my experience. Most though likely are dedicated professionals and to assume otherwise without hard evidence specifically proving otherwise (and confirmation bias evidence does not fall into that description) is not the sign of an open reasonable mindset but someone already convinced of dirty doings.

This conspiracy against the Conservatives by the media and especially the CBC is and always has been based on belief, not solid proof. This latest example of poor workmanship only underscores just how committed to this belief many CPCers are. It is this sort of willingness to buy into such faith based evidence and postulate such conspiracies against them that leaves me thinking they are paranoids, and paranoids are always in a "with us/against us" mindset regardless of the presence or lack of actual enemies. That is not a mindset that I believe is healthy for any government regardless of political beliefs.

Conservatives have got to stop blaming everyone else for their inability to sell their message in this country. It is juvenile, it is quite frankly insulting the intelligence of most Canadians, and it is whiny. The main bias of media is to get the story broken first, that they should be as sensationally presented as the facts allow, and that unfortunately there will always be holes in coverage of an issue because there is never the time to have all contextually relevant facts. Which is why the idea is to accurate reflect the overall collection of facts with what is essentially a representational summary of them. It is also not the job of the media be it private or public to act as the public relations firm of any political party/government. It is their job to examine them critically, as in an adversarial manner,, which I have seen in the last seven months be taken by many CPCers as proof of bias against them and their party/leader.

Many of us have seen this song and dance play out in America over the past couple of decades and we want no part of it here. One of the realities of being in such close proximity and interconnectedness with America is that it is hard for the average Canadian to miss larger trends like the discrediting of all but approved media for "fair and balanced" reporting. That this method is used to control the message and information available to the average citizen making it easier to manipulate them into poor decisions (see Iraq war as one maj0or example, but far from the only one) by such partisans.

I have never known the media to get all their facts right all of the time, which is why I tend to look for cross verification from other sources on things before I assign them any significant belief. I know that whether it is incompetence or simple human nature errors will creep in and to use such as proof of a conspiracy of discrediting a political party seems more than a little loaded with unproven assumptions being paraded as proven fact. Which is the way of paranoid minds from what I have seen in my life and as I already said such a mindset sees enemies everywhere and acts accordingly regardless of the reality. That is something I can never see as a healthy/safe thing to have in a government regardless of political orientation.

[Andy]

Well, maybe I'm just dumb or naive, but maybe the views of Elsaadi Daad [the chador-clad woman who was incidentally on her way to meet Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mackay, saying that burning children and killing people on both sides is wrong and "it’s got to stop"] was an example of what the Prime Minister was referring to when he said,"I’m not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think the reaction is very predictable." It looked like a pretty good video example. I think we all need to be analytical and critical when we watch and or listen to "news". Are we sponges? Let's give Lawand a break for a gripping [seems to have been] story.

[Jay Currie]

estragon, I'm pretty clear on the way news reports are put together and on what happens in a news room. I've even worked in the press, run and edited magazines, published in a bunch of Canadian and American, have friends who have edited national mags...

But there is a reasonable question to be raised as to whether it was the reporter or an editor who did the cut. And as I was not in the editing suite I can't actually say.

(And I don't hate journalists...rather I would like them to actually do their job rather than set up as freelance opinion writers. thats what we have blogs for.)

[left coaster]

I have spent many hours in an editbay and the "blame the editor" doesn't wash. Lawand took a clip out of context when she just as easily could have taken the one that answered the womans statement out on the street. Extremely sloppy work at best and blatant manipulation at worst. There is no excuse for either and if she was on my watch she'd be gone.

[Steve]

I think that the juxtaposition of the story segments does make it appear that Harper does not to care about the loss of life in Lebanon and Israel. However this is an accurate portrayal of Harper's position on the situation. By not calling for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of troops, and by refering to apparent war crimes as a "measured response", it is clear that our Prime Minister is actively encouraging further death and destruction. I can think of nothing more callous.

Perhaps the CBC should have played an audio clip of Harper's comments while showing images of dead Lebanese children, bombed out UN facilities or the massive oil spill.

Any attempt to portray the official position or underlying intent of Stephen Harper as anything less than barbaric is misleading.

[Andrew]

Antonia,

Your blog tagline is "Antonia Zerbisias on the media" and yet days after a rather large media-based story breaks (photo editing by Reuters) you choose to slag the Blogging Tories and ignore the real story?!?

Odd choice - but it's your blog I suppose.

Personally I would appreciate hearing your opinion on the Reuters mess.

[TB]

andrew have you even looked around her blog or are you another deaf dumb and blind righty tighty?

[go meshy]

Can someone get this Lawand a throat lozenge? Her voice sounds like mine when i have the flu! And can anyone at CBC pronounce the word "figure" properly? Every on air person says "figger" ...
It's "FIG-YER"!!!!