It's hard to imagine that a 37-year veteran editor and a reporter who had covered politics before did not realize that creating a sentence that was not said with a new meaning is wrong. I can sort of understand how the Capital Gains Inclusion graphic can be botched, some people are not good with math. That some journalists are not good with words either is mind boggling.
NJ, you write, "... some people are not good with math." Please allow me to amend the finish of your statement to (very correctly) include, "... some people are not good with math, including cabinet ministers who foolishly thing that they are numerate when, in fact, they are innumerate and that they understand legislation when they foolishly do not understand legislation."
This is very good insight into the process of how the narrative control sausage is made.
CTV fired those two (probably will get new jobs and raises at CBC with kudos) but they would not have done this if there was no pressure to do so, to "get" Poilievre.
This is no different than what the media have been doing to Trump down south for a while. I don't have to like Trump in order to see what is happening.
You don't draw conclusions before conducting a science experiment. You may form a hypothesis, but you don't confirm it until after the experiment. You don't alter results after the experiment has concluded. That appears to be what CTV News did in this case.
90% of people are blithely unaware of most things, there are still some who think the CBC is a news organization while it is actually a cult wholly given over to narrative control.
Exactly. Subtle at times but it’s still there far too often. TV news has morphed too far into the entertainment field and I get that but opinions are just that. Opinions and prejudices are not necessarily facts.
So your take is it’s wrong but ho hum ? Btw “ no longer on the news team” doesn’t mean fired. Details matter. Facts matter. It’s incredible CTV thought they could get away with such reprehensible duplicity. What’s even more sobering is that the print hacks have been doing similar things for years. And the sadly amoral Katrina Gould releases a video claiming conservatives are tantamount to dictators for asking documents on yet another scandal be sent to the RCMP for investigation. Asking for government documents is a just and entrenched right of parliament. The entire mess CTV has exposed shows how seriously corrupt the progressive liberal administration has become. No excuses. Fire them all
I doubt anyone was fired. That would have provoked a wrongful dismissal claim by the union. They were either moved laterally or promoted out to other positions.
If CTV set out to embarrass the conservatives, they sure did a lousy job. Expecting Canadians to believe that a dental plan was the reason for the non-confidence motion was ridiculous. Most Canadians could list at least a dozen reasons (inflation, housing, Chinese interference, SNC Lavalin, C11, C18, C63, ethics violations, playing dress-up in India, funding a racist, out-of-control immigration, and Trudeau's finger wagging) for why this government should fall and the dental plan wouldn't be on the list.
Not to blow my own horn, but well before Justin became PM, when he won the Liberal leadership in 2013, i said a Justin Trudeau govt would be the most divisive, financially illiterate government in our history. Bang on, we are hanging together by a thread.
The only thing i didn't explicitly predict was the endless corruption, of processes, ethics, etc.
Peter, I have (temporarily) stopped reading your column today in order to post this comment, then back to finish.
Why the rush to comment? You talk about / quote the words, "misrepresentation ... fabricating disinformation ... journalistic malpractice ..." and so forth.
I insist on three more old fashioned words to describe what CTV did: "lie" and "deliberate misrepresentation" and I do not accept anything else. Those other words suggest / imply / posit / blah blah blah sloppiness, error, and so forth. I simply attribute deliberate and specific malice. In fact, it appears that you also do as you note that the CTV news staff were trying to make a particular point when the lied and deliberately misrepresented.
So, I argue, assert, claim, etc., etc. that CTV set out to make a particular point and in so doing they lied about motive and, in particular what was said. Of course CTV's mealy mouthed weasel words simply prove that the lie was a deliberate misrepresentation
I think it is important to use appropriate words to properly describe this event. Now back to finish the column.
The Toronto Star had a piece saying a technical problem was somehow behind the report. Warning the piece quickly turns into a pity piece about the state of journalism.
Peter, enjoy the Substack. However, while on the topic of journalists checking their facts prior to publishing/airing, I could not find a Cristina Tanaglia. A simple google search, that I'm sure you've also done, yielded Cristina Tenaglia whose bio is still up on the CTV website and lists CP24 as a place she previously worked. Presumably CTV wouldn't keep the bio of a person they had just "fired" on their website . However, one never knows with stumblebum CTV.
The fact that there were folks who spliced together different statements to create an impression of the motion that the CPC had brought is not acceptable. To me, it would be acceptable to produce reporting on all bills somewhere in the legislative process that would be stopped short of becoming a laws if the government lost a confidence motion. Bills in the House of Commons, bills in the Senate and so forth. I think the dental bill would be on that list.
The background on how a news story will support another program on the network was good - and it does happen in a lot of networks, newspapers and websites - from all perspectives - where things presented as a news story worthy of our attention is used as a promotional tool to keep our attention on that network. It can be done well when there is cross promotion between the daily news grind and stories/pieces that are more in depth - which are still news and information, but not as "urgent" as the days events.
I also note, with a degree of irony, that the standards of journalism do not apply to many other occupations. Notably politicians - from many ideological backgrounds. For example, in looking a bit around before I posted my comment, one story had a quote from Mr. Poilievre that used this example of CTV error to make an assertion about it - "Poilievre also posted his response, claiming that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “protects the company against real and complete competition to gain favourable coverage on CTV.”" I got that from the Daily Hive. But I don't see any substantiation of this claim. And I don't see a "in my opinion". I don't know that CTV has been protected against competition by the prime minister, although maybe CTV has received support from the same funds that are supporting multiple jounalism outlets. Also not sure that CTV has been giving the PM favorable coverage - I think I have heard a number of stories and opinion pieces that are not in his favor, to put it mildly.
I do agree with something I heard Althia Raj say the other day, and I am paraphrasing - at least the jounalists (in this case the network) apologizes about their error, something you rarely hear from a politician.
While cutbacks have certainly made a difference to the workload of individual journalists, I am sure, in this case, it certainly wouldn't be a reason to put different statements together, if anything, that seems like more work. I could see an argument that less eyes to check the product means that this intentional error doesn't get caught until its too late.
It's hard to imagine that a 37-year veteran editor and a reporter who had covered politics before did not realize that creating a sentence that was not said with a new meaning is wrong. I can sort of understand how the Capital Gains Inclusion graphic can be botched, some people are not good with math. That some journalists are not good with words either is mind boggling.
NJ, you write, "... some people are not good with math." Please allow me to amend the finish of your statement to (very correctly) include, "... some people are not good with math, including cabinet ministers who foolishly thing that they are numerate when, in fact, they are innumerate and that they understand legislation when they foolishly do not understand legislation."
I know, wordy, but accurate.
This is very good insight into the process of how the narrative control sausage is made.
CTV fired those two (probably will get new jobs and raises at CBC with kudos) but they would not have done this if there was no pressure to do so, to "get" Poilievre.
This is no different than what the media have been doing to Trump down south for a while. I don't have to like Trump in order to see what is happening.
I also don't like the Trumpster and I also can see what is happening.
Trump needs no external enemies, he remains his own worst enemy.
Its shocking how far the democrats seem willing to go, destroying the village to save it when it comes to democracy.
And now we are starting to see the same tactics applied to Poilievre, someone who bears no resemblance to Trump except in fevered minds.
You don't draw conclusions before conducting a science experiment. You may form a hypothesis, but you don't confirm it until after the experiment. You don't alter results after the experiment has concluded. That appears to be what CTV News did in this case.
Who watches the watchmen?
only us
90% of people are blithely unaware of most things, there are still some who think the CBC is a news organization while it is actually a cult wholly given over to narrative control.
Thank you Peter, this was a valuable description of a very bad journalistic faceplant. Bravo, and see you on Twitter.
Unfortunately nowadays too much of the 'news' is actually ideological messaging.
Exactly. Subtle at times but it’s still there far too often. TV news has morphed too far into the entertainment field and I get that but opinions are just that. Opinions and prejudices are not necessarily facts.
So your take is it’s wrong but ho hum ? Btw “ no longer on the news team” doesn’t mean fired. Details matter. Facts matter. It’s incredible CTV thought they could get away with such reprehensible duplicity. What’s even more sobering is that the print hacks have been doing similar things for years. And the sadly amoral Katrina Gould releases a video claiming conservatives are tantamount to dictators for asking documents on yet another scandal be sent to the RCMP for investigation. Asking for government documents is a just and entrenched right of parliament. The entire mess CTV has exposed shows how seriously corrupt the progressive liberal administration has become. No excuses. Fire them all
I doubt anyone was fired. That would have provoked a wrongful dismissal claim by the union. They were either moved laterally or promoted out to other positions.
If CTV set out to embarrass the conservatives, they sure did a lousy job. Expecting Canadians to believe that a dental plan was the reason for the non-confidence motion was ridiculous. Most Canadians could list at least a dozen reasons (inflation, housing, Chinese interference, SNC Lavalin, C11, C18, C63, ethics violations, playing dress-up in India, funding a racist, out-of-control immigration, and Trudeau's finger wagging) for why this government should fall and the dental plan wouldn't be on the list.
Not to blow my own horn, but well before Justin became PM, when he won the Liberal leadership in 2013, i said a Justin Trudeau govt would be the most divisive, financially illiterate government in our history. Bang on, we are hanging together by a thread.
The only thing i didn't explicitly predict was the endless corruption, of processes, ethics, etc.
No one is perfect.
Peter, I have (temporarily) stopped reading your column today in order to post this comment, then back to finish.
Why the rush to comment? You talk about / quote the words, "misrepresentation ... fabricating disinformation ... journalistic malpractice ..." and so forth.
I insist on three more old fashioned words to describe what CTV did: "lie" and "deliberate misrepresentation" and I do not accept anything else. Those other words suggest / imply / posit / blah blah blah sloppiness, error, and so forth. I simply attribute deliberate and specific malice. In fact, it appears that you also do as you note that the CTV news staff were trying to make a particular point when the lied and deliberately misrepresented.
So, I argue, assert, claim, etc., etc. that CTV set out to make a particular point and in so doing they lied about motive and, in particular what was said. Of course CTV's mealy mouthed weasel words simply prove that the lie was a deliberate misrepresentation
I think it is important to use appropriate words to properly describe this event. Now back to finish the column.
The Toronto Star had a piece saying a technical problem was somehow behind the report. Warning the piece quickly turns into a pity piece about the state of journalism.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/ctv-wasn-t-out-to-get-pierre-poilievre-the-truth-is-more-alarming/article_77e60b9c-7cff-11ef-96d7-a35f1dac5897.html
A continuation of narrative control, covering for those caught out.
And then they write articles wailing how no one trusts the media as though its the fault of nefarious right wingers spreading misinformation.
There is no greater spreader of misinformation than our current federal government.
Peter, enjoy the Substack. However, while on the topic of journalists checking their facts prior to publishing/airing, I could not find a Cristina Tanaglia. A simple google search, that I'm sure you've also done, yielded Cristina Tenaglia whose bio is still up on the CTV website and lists CP24 as a place she previously worked. Presumably CTV wouldn't keep the bio of a person they had just "fired" on their website . However, one never knows with stumblebum CTV.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-national-team/cristina-tenaglia-1.6843623
My typo. Fixed
And thanks for quickly bringing it to my attention. Like Bell, I am under-resourced. :-)
But unlike Bell, you own up to your oooopses.
The fact that there were folks who spliced together different statements to create an impression of the motion that the CPC had brought is not acceptable. To me, it would be acceptable to produce reporting on all bills somewhere in the legislative process that would be stopped short of becoming a laws if the government lost a confidence motion. Bills in the House of Commons, bills in the Senate and so forth. I think the dental bill would be on that list.
The background on how a news story will support another program on the network was good - and it does happen in a lot of networks, newspapers and websites - from all perspectives - where things presented as a news story worthy of our attention is used as a promotional tool to keep our attention on that network. It can be done well when there is cross promotion between the daily news grind and stories/pieces that are more in depth - which are still news and information, but not as "urgent" as the days events.
I also note, with a degree of irony, that the standards of journalism do not apply to many other occupations. Notably politicians - from many ideological backgrounds. For example, in looking a bit around before I posted my comment, one story had a quote from Mr. Poilievre that used this example of CTV error to make an assertion about it - "Poilievre also posted his response, claiming that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “protects the company against real and complete competition to gain favourable coverage on CTV.”" I got that from the Daily Hive. But I don't see any substantiation of this claim. And I don't see a "in my opinion". I don't know that CTV has been protected against competition by the prime minister, although maybe CTV has received support from the same funds that are supporting multiple jounalism outlets. Also not sure that CTV has been giving the PM favorable coverage - I think I have heard a number of stories and opinion pieces that are not in his favor, to put it mildly.
I do agree with something I heard Althia Raj say the other day, and I am paraphrasing - at least the jounalists (in this case the network) apologizes about their error, something you rarely hear from a politician.
While cutbacks have certainly made a difference to the workload of individual journalists, I am sure, in this case, it certainly wouldn't be a reason to put different statements together, if anything, that seems like more work. I could see an argument that less eyes to check the product means that this intentional error doesn't get caught until its too late.