Video not so verite

This may seem like deja vu to the more regular readers among you but I did want to write it up for the main event, the Star. Today's treeware column is basically a follow to my post of August 8, in which I show how Stephen Taylor used YouTube to eviscerate CBC-TV News' Christina Lawand over her coverage of the Conservative caucus meeting in Cornwall. I'll cut to the newer stuff, since the Lawand stuff is available via the links above:

Queen's University biochemistry student Stephen Taylor, who in 2004 ran for the Conservative nomination for Kingston and the Islands, deconstructed Lawand's report for the National on his political blog.

As he argued, the packaging of the piece took Harper's words out of context, made it seem as if he did not care for the Lebanese-Canadian perspective, and closely tied him to the pro-Israel constituency.

To be honest, once you see the raw footage of what Harper actually said in response to a question by a Star reporter, it is hard to refute Taylor.

And that's the key.

Because, instead of providing a written critique of Lawand's report, he eviscerated it using YouTube.com, the video hosting service founded last year by three former PayPal employees and which has gone from zero to maybe a billion in worth since.

Some 100 million viewings of clips occur daily on YouTube.

But in the days after Taylor employed it to attack CBC, one of his favourite targets, his seven-minute Lawand video was one of "the most linked-to" clips on YouTube.

As CBC producer and web guru Tod Maffin pointed out on the public broadcaster's official blog Inside the CBC, YouTube, and similar sites such as Google Video, are "effective means for getting the message out."

Which advertisers — as well as propagandists — have already discovered.

They can pose as ordinary citizens doing their own thing with their mobile phone cams, downloaded music, graphic text generators and some archival clips to make mini-movies and send them shooting to computers all over the world.

For example, last week, one video making waves on the triple-w was a spoof of former U.S. vice president Al Gore's well-received feature documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. It depicts a bloated Gore bloviating about temperature spikes and the like, while putting even penguins to sleep.

The parody was presented as having been made by a 29-year-old geek nicknamed "Toutsmith" in a Beverly Hills basement. But, when the Wall Street Journal tried to track him down, it discovered it actually originated from the computer of a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, whose clients include oil behemoth Exxon.

"A DCI Group spokesman declines to say whether or not DCI made the anti-Gore penguin video, or to explain why Toutsmith appeared to be sending email from DCI's computers," reported the Journal.

As for Exxon, it denied any connection to the video.

As PR Watch reports:

What is certain is that "political operatives, public relations experts and ad agencies" are increasingly using video-sharing websites like YouTube to shape public opinion. Ogilvy & Mather "plans to post amateur-looking videos on Web sites to spare word-of-mouth buzz about Foster's beer," and AT&T has used YouTube to post videos against net neutrality.

You just can't get around these guys.

Spud Stud

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED:

I'm no gossip columnist -- and I am very much a romantic -- but I hear that Conservative foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay and Jana Juginovic, Director of News and Programming for CTV Newsnet, were recently seen together at a cozy Nova Scotia hospitality establishment. (Juginovic used to be Mike Duffy's exec producer.)

Says my source, "Indeed, it was confirmed that Jana was seen, er, fluffing the Honorable Member in the vicinity."

Now I am not saying anything untoward is going on but, if there is some canoodling happening, it may explain why some people perceive a pro-Conservative bias in CTV's news coverage. Or why CTV is scoring more scoops. Or uncovering more stories. Or whatever.

Draw your own conclusions.

UPPITY DATE: A colleague at CTV News wrote this to me, while asking to remain anonymous. My comments are in blue.

I feel bad for Jana. What you blogged was a helluva smear and for what? So you can make a point about Conservative bias at CTV?

Well, prove it.

If --- and I don't know if it's true -- all you got is Jana and Peter then, consider this:

- See the latest UWO alumni magazine which features profiles of many journos who graduated from UWO's j-school. Among them, Ravi Baichwal, our Newsnet anchor and former political worker for Greg Sorbora and the provincial Liberals.

- Who hosted the last Confederation Dinner in Toronto for Jean Chretien, raising millions for the Liberals? Bell Globemedia CEO Ivan Fecan. (Fecan was also vice-chair of the record-setting fundraiser for Paul Martin in December 2003, chaired by Gerry Schwartz and Heather Reisman.)

- Who ran the Ontario campaign for the federal Liberals in the last election campaign? Michael Bird, who took a leave of absence from his job as BGM's Ottawa lobbyist to do just that. He didn't return to his old job.

- Who masterminded those Liberal attack ads in the last election? Jack Fleischman, the top editorial guy at BGM's ROBTv, who took a leave of absence to 'mastermind' Liberal marketing strategy. He DID return to his old job!

- Who went canoeing with Pierre Trudeau and all the old Liberal boys? Well, of course, you know the answer to that one. (Yes, former CTV News VP Tim Kotcheff who left the network in the early 90s to run news at CBC-TV. He left CBC in 1995.)

Maybe it was a cheap shot. I didn't mean it that way -- but it was a highly bloggable item. And still is, just like any high-level media and political connection would be.

 

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.

Star chamber

Meanwhile, back in the Parliament Hill media wars ....

"Stop the guy from the Star, he's going to try to ask (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) another question," Dimitri Soudas, the PM's diminuitive deputy press secretary, said to the RCMP following a press conference Tuesday in Cambridge, Ont. to announce a $1 billion compensation package for tainted blood victims.

The largely aging gaggle of RCMP bodyguards steeled themselves and glowered in the direction of the reporter. "I've got him," said one particularly menacing and towering Horseman who engaged in a staring contest.

The Star reporter had alreay raised the ire of the PM's assorted aides and hangers on by having the temerity to ask a question without first putting his name on a sanctioned list.

Harper was cautioned by Soudas that it was an interloper and not worthy of response.

Anyway, this was deemed an immediate security risk and the ranks were quickly closed around Harper to make sure no one, especially that Star reporter got near to ask another question.

We make 'em tough here.

Now go plant some potatoes

Found this gem on Canadian Cynic:

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacLay (Ooops. Late night Freudian slip?? - Antonia) MacKay didn't like the Globe and Mail's front page story yesterday which reported that the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon was bungled by the PMO. He even wrote a letter of complaint to editor-in-chief Ed Greenspon, which you can read here, and distributed it to the media.

What is particularly unfortunate about your story is that such a statement could make it to the front page of your paper, supported by only unnamed "federal sources" and no effort whatsoever to contact the Prime Minister's Office to verify the accuracy of the claim. If you have a source that made such a false statement, I want to assure you via this letter that it is completely and absolutely untrue. I would also hope that, the next time the Globe and Mail suggests that the Prime Minister's Office was complicit in putting Canadians in harm's way, you would demonstrate the journalistic integrity to name your source and allow this office to comment on the record for the story.

As Canadian Cynic puts it:

You know, after your government gives almost the entire Canadian media the finger, it takes one serious amount of nerve to bitch and moan when that same media have to go elsewhere for their information.

You reap what you sow.

Shipped out

Almost tossed my Kashi Go Lean this morning when I saw the front page headline of the Toronto Sun, something about "Super Steve'' going to the rescue. But that's nothing compared to this post by Angry in the Great White North yesterday.

In my enthusiasm over the Prime Minister's plan to use his airplane to help get 120 Canadians home from Lebanon, I didn't consider just how dangerous this could be ...

<SNIP>

No doubt the 120 people who will get on the plane will be carefully vetted, but it's also true that there are not too many places to hide when you're in an airplane over the Atlantic should someone get on the plane with designs on the prime minister.

One of the terror suspects arrested in Toronto wanted to behead Stephen Harper (at least, according to the suspect's lawyer). The prime minister joked that he would only be worried if the threat came from the Conservative caucus.

It seems a lot more serious now.

I wonder if one or more of the "four or five staff" accompanying the Prime Minister and his wife will have those telltale bulges under their jackets -- just in case.

I just love the way Robert McClelland mocks Angry and his acolytes here and here.

Meanwhile, the National Post demonstrates how its right hand doesn't know what its other right hand is doing. Here's part of today's editorial:

Officials in Ottawa, and in many other countries, have been working day and night to assist people to leave Lebanon. They have done so in the face of enormous logistical obstacles, with the situation on the ground in Lebanon in constant flux. Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday even directed his own military flight be diverted to Cyprus to assist in the removal of Canadians. By its scale, the Canadian effort is perhaps unprecedented in our modern history. It is obvious to anyone who cares to look that the Canadian government cares deeply about the fate of Canadian and dual citizens in Lebanon. Is it too much to expect a simple "thanks"?

Now turn the page and why, what's this right there on the bottom?

We, the undersigned, representatives of the six Lebanese organizations listed below, extend our heartfelt gratitude to the Canadian government, represented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay, for the correct, just and prompt positions they have taken with regard to Lebanon and the unfortunate military confrontations that are occurring on its soil as a result of the reckless hostile actions of Hezbollah.

<SNIP>

We also thank the government for its wise and effective efforts with respect to its handling of all measures for the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon, the safeguarding of their security, and their safe return to Canada.

The Star's Jim Travers nailed it today.

Harper makes a straightforward case. As he explained his abrupt change of plans here, timing and geography put him in a position to help Canadians needing help.

"It's more than a symbolic trip, he said. "There is real need for air support in Cyprus."

So why, then, are Harper, his wife, a skeleton staff including a photographer, as well as his public relations team and RCMP bodyguards, taking up needed seats?

Why aren't they maximizing the assistance by sending an empty aircraft across the Mediterranean to the island nearest Lebanon?

The official answer is that it is too dangerous for the Prime Minister to fly on commercial aircraft. He has no choice but to stay with the plane, detour to Cyprus and bring home to Canada about 120 of the thousands fleeing Beirut by ship.

That strains credibility. It's hard to believe that taking a scheduled flight — or waiting for a government plane to arrive here — would expose Harper to more danger than flying into a chaotic region and then out again with 120 very upset people escaping a war.

And, even better:

This trip began badly with an unwise comment on a conflict that demands subtlety as well as some understanding of its convolutions.

Among many other things, the Prime Minister was clearly unaware that so many Canadians would be affected by Israeli attempts to weaken Hezbollah's control of southern Lebanon. Instead, he seized the moment to reassert Ottawa's support for Israel without enough thought about the consequences.

Now, depending on interpretation, he is either making amends or trying to erase memories of the mistake.

However history and voters finally assess it, Harper's flight is more than a risk and a gamble: It's a step into the unknown by a prime minister who puts extraordinary value on control.

Frankly, I would think "The Harpernator" would seem much more courageous if he had invited at least one reporter/photographer aboard to talk to the Canadians whose evacuation was bungled by the PMO, at least according to the Globe and Mail.

... Foreign Affairs staff realized last week that there was an emergency situation involving tens of thousands of Canadians brewing in Lebanon.

But federal sources say there was an edict handed down by Sandra Buckler, the Prime Minister's communications director, dictating that the situation was to be kept under wraps.

By Saturday, with Canadians desperate to reach safe ground, a task force was put together at Foreign Affairs to find ways to get people out.

Foreign Minister Peter MacKay also decided it was time to talk publicly about the scope of the situation confronting his department.

<SNIP>

Aside from shortage of staff, the Canadians involved in the operation say they were hampered by another difficulty: the Prime Minister's centralized command and communications policies — frustrations that were expressed both in the Middle East and in Ottawa.

All decisions had to be made and approved by Ottawa. And, with six time zones between the locations, decisions were often painfully slow.

While other countries were already marshalling large cruise ships on Sunday, Canada spent two days in long-distance discussions before any calls were made.

“It was only 24 to 36 hours ago that we first got in contact with the owners of the ships,” one senior official in Cyprus said Wednesday.

As important as getting all these Canadians out is, and as gigantic a logistical challenge it is, I have to say that all the heart-breaking hardship stories on TV are starting to grate. I can understand that millions of Canadians here at home are dying to know what's going on with their loved ones but the coverage is getting almost maudlin and too parochial.

There's just not enough on what's happening to those who can't get out, who may well be bombed to bits once the ports are cleared of foreigners.

 

 

From scoop to nuts

Political strategist Robin Sears has a terrific analysis of the news media today in the Hill Times. He covers all the bases, from Watergate to the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy), and even touches on the current situation in Ottawa.

Stephen Harper plays a long game and surely believes that revenge is a dish best served well chilled. No, his media campaign fits his game plan precisely.

First, he knows that the only people less loved than politicians and aluminum siding salesmen are the media. And he knows that among his target audience this contempt runs to violent hatred. His target voters see Maclean's magazine–now, under editor Ken Whyte, under its most conservative and Conservative management in its history–as part of the "vast left-wing media conspiracy" because it publishes unflattering cover photos of the PM.

Second, he knows that to a greater extent than any prime minister before him, he does not need the gallery. Every Ottawa pundit who says, "He'll fold when he is in trouble," misunderstands how the media and political world has changed. Stephen Harper's target voters read few newspapers, not because they are stupid but because they are young. The youngest among them hardly watch television news; their lens on politics is blogs, news sites and Maxim magazine.

Finally, he knows that it is not the PMO that will bend. The gallery will. Media owners are already deeply unhappy at this unseemly spat. Discussions about a compromise through intermediaries are under way.

Which is why, I believe, Stephen Harper has done us all a great favour. We have come to the end of the post-Watergate era in political journalism.

The centre – made up of a handful of nightly newscasts, rich big-city dailies and their star political journalists – cannot hold. It is doubly harassed: by declining audience and revenues and therefore relevance, on the one hand; and by the explosion of ankle-biting, semi-professional digital competitors on the other.

Where has the growth centre in print media been? In trash celebrity journalism and soft porn.

In television it is completely unreal reality TV. Radio risks becoming a satellite-borne digital jukebox. As in most of the developments at the nexus of politics and journalism in recent decades, it was the American hard right that saw this first.

<SNIP>

It is time for both sides to look at the real world and make some changes.

Neither politics nor political journalism sits as close to the centre of people's lives as it did a century or even a generation ago. To win attention and respect from a more sophisticated and skeptical public means going upmarket, not down. The wrong-headedness of most media moguls in understanding why so many have defected from politics and the media is painfully clear.

What can one say about The Toronto Star's launch of a trash celebrity magazine as its major editorial investment this year?

This should be required reading for every programmer and news director in the country.

Pressing situation

Prime Minister Stephen Harper kicks back and chats freely (reg. req'd.) with the Western Standard's Kevin Libin about how he's ''got more control now'' over the media. According to Harper, the stand-off between the PMO and the Parliamentary Press Gallery is happening because reporters refuse to let him pick and choose who gets to ask questions:

"When we first started doing this and were doing this, the majority of journalists loved it," he says. "But of course, the problem was that we were getting our message out and a small number of ideologues didn't like that. So they've now basically forbidden all of their colleagues to ask questions, which I think is a fascinating use of press freedom when a small number of journalists can tell others they can't ask questions at a press conference. But that's the position of the left-wing ideologues who are apparently running the show."

That's quite the tar and feathering of very responsible and seasoned journalists who are not there to get his ''message'' out but to act as the eyes and ears of the people that they serve: their readers, listeners and viewers. Or, put in another way, voters. Citizens. NOT consumers of your ''message.''

The prime minister won't say to whom he's referring specifically--though he does allow, "the key journalists causing the problem are from CBC, but strictly the ones in Ottawa" (not, he's careful to point out, CBC reporters elsewhere).

No, of course he wouldn't dare name names. He just smears everybody. And why should he, when the writer of this piece is happy to jump in and do the dirty work?

But on the Hill, there are plenty of stories of how The National's Julie Van Dusen harangues colleagues who break rank (she also recently crashed PMO security and began banging on Harper's door while he was meeting with children battling cancer).

Let's not forget that an advisory went out to the PPG saying that Harper was meeting with the children while the press, fools that they are, took that to mean that they were invited -- only to find themselves confronted by a locked door and security guards.

Others name Radio-Canada's Emmanuelle Latraverse and TVA's Lina Dib as two key rabble-rousers.

Oh? So now the PPG is a "rabble'' that gets ''roused" ?

Is their campaign working? That's debatable. Harper laughs when he talks of how much easier the gallery has made his life. "I'm free to pick my interviews when and where I want to have them," he says.

Which is exactly how he wants it. This way he controls the coverage and gets his ''message'' out. He completely admits it.

Read the whole thing, if your disgestive system can handle it.

Everybody wants to direct

Conservative MP Garth Turner (Halton) and I have had our differences in the past but I gotta admit, he's easily the tech-savviest politico on Parliament Hill. Now he's taking advantage of his TV background, familiarity with the web, financial resources and insider access to host and produce MPtv, a weekly hour-long cybercast covering everything from Senate washrooms to media figures such as CTV's Mike Duffy.

It must be getting to the Parliamentary Press Gallery which is in a state of war with the Prime Minister's Office. On his blog last week, Turner told the tale of a not-so-pleasant encounter with the PPG president.

I have made it clear that MPtv – the webcasting window on Parliament Hill that I have launched – is going to shoot whatever the hell it wants, when it wants, and then broadcast it to your computer, unfiltered. This may be seen as competition by the MSM, but it is not. Instead, MPtv will bring you shots you have never seen and people you might not have listened to. This is just week three of doing this, and so far we are only scratching at the surface of this powerful new communications tool. It is my mission right now (at least, one of them) to share this Hill with everyone, lest the people who populate it at the moment think it is some kind of club. And that, you can bet, includes the foyer-sucking media.

Belinda Stronach is probably the only Liberal with the wherewithal who could counterprogram this. Besides, she could probably hire a professional crew --while Turner makes do with his videocam and assistant Giselle.

Border patrol

The -- haf-kaf, cough, choke, wheeze, get me some water, let me clear my throat here -- much-loved Sandra Buckler, director of communications to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, now appears to be running Canada-U.S. relations, as well as ''relations'' with the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Seems she put the kibosh on an interview Canada's ambassador to Washington Michael Wilson was set to do on National Public Radio's Diane Rehm show.

Here's what Henry Champ of CBC Newsworld reported today:

You see the show is probably the most respected national radio program at NPR, running two hours each mid-morning. Its audiences are enormous, Ms. Rehm is an intelligent host not given to shouting or intense confrontation but rather thoughtful conversation about issues of the day.

Presidents, their wives, every congressman and senator on the Hill and certainly every ambassador covets a one-hour conversation with Ms. Rehm and her well-spoken, carefully screened callers.

I love the show.

So does the Canadian Embassy and they jumped at the chance when Ambassador Michael Wilson was offered an opportunity to talk about the arrest of 17 people in the Toronto area accused of terror-related offences.

Keep in mind that American radio and television networks were filling the air with dire predictions of more terrorists coming from Canada, with descriptions of terrorist cells in Brandon, Man. and Kamloops, B.C. I'll bet they even mentioned Red Deer, Alta.

Stop! Enter Sandra Buckler.

Buckler is director of communications in the Prime Minister's Office in Ottawa with, as nearly as we can discern, no knowledge of Washington journalism.

No, the ambassador cannot appear, Buckler told Rehm's producers. Apparently, such an appearance would inflame the story about the arrests.

Apparently Ms. Buckler also does not trust Wilson, the new ambassador who has been making considerable strides with the White House, Capitol Hill and the State Department. He was also previously finance minister and supervised NAFTA talks with previous administrations.

But Buckler is a former lobbyist with enormous chutzpah: even we don't tell the ambassador what to do.

We understand the embassy is trying to arrange a luncheon with Rehm and the ambassador to calm the waters.

Two things.

One: In the wake of the terror arrests, when politicians and pundits in the U.S. were making outrageous and outlandish claims about Canada, Harper, who happily appeared on Fox News while in opposition to join in the anti-Canadian chorus, did not go on the U.S. media to correct the record.

Two, Would Buckler have shut down the interview if Wilson were going on Fox News or on Rush Limbaugh's radio show ... or any private, commercial station for that matter?

Okay, one more thing: Considering the state of siege between Buckler and the PPG, do we really want this woman calling the shots on our relations with the U.S.?