Media struggle to cope with the reality of Carney’s whopper about Brookfield

Big fail for many journos who focus on the source of a never-denied accusation instead of the truth of it. Plus! New unnamed sources nonsense and be careful from where you Zoom in

AI image of Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney as Pinocchio

Many years ago, during a federal election campaign, a young reporter arrived at my desk with what he thought was a pretty good story.

So and so just said such and such about so and so, the reporter said, with some delight.

“Is it true?” I asked.

“Well,” the reporter said, looking dumbfounded. “He said it.”

To which I responded: “Find out if it’s true. If it is, you’ve got a pretty good story. If you can’t find out, it’s a notebook item for today and you can chase tomorrow.”

And, with that, I crushed the reporter’s spirit. He saw the accusation as a story in itself and the truth of the matter as secondary. I didn’t.

Which brings us to the whopper Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney told about his involvement in Brookfield Asset Management’s relocation of its head office to New York.

Conservatives had tried to show that Carney, who was Brookfield’s chair until mid-January when he announced his wish to become prime minister, was no defender of Canada and his involvement in the move showed he was willing to kowtow to US President Donald Trump. When asked about this, Carney replied that he had left the board before the decision was made by the board. As it turned out, that simply wasn’t true. The company’s records clearly show the board had made the decision - unanimously - while Carney was chair. The fact the move was confirmed by shareholders after Carney resigned is not relevant to his statement, which was “the formal decision of the board (emphasis mine) happened after I ceased to be on the board.”

Regardless, the CBC, along with most media, left the matter as a Conservative accusation in its headline: “Conservatives say Carney is lying about his role moving investment firm’s office to US” followed by a sub headline “Formal decision to move Brookfield's head office made after he resigned, Carney says.”

The author backs into the story by noting how successful Carney has been in his career but that his business associations are now causing complications. The report, to its credit, makes it very clear that company records contradict Carney’s version of events. The headline does not.

The author of that story also emphasized the truth of the matter when interviewed by CBCNN’s Power & Politics host David Cochrane who, in a separate exchange with colleague Ian Hanomansing, referred to an imaginary “parsing” of words by Carney. That conversation was interpreted by radio host and former CRTC Commissioner Marc Patrone and retired broadcaster Alan Fryer as pure apologia. The links to both interviews can be found here.

Global News’s online headline took a similar approach to the CBC, using a Canadian Press (CP) story, which also backed into the issue about telling the truth, positioning it as part of a series of Conservative attacks on Carney. There was nothing in the story to indicate CP had attempted to confirm the facts.

National Observer used the same story upping the stakes with “Conservatives attack Mark Carney over his firm’s relocation to the U.S.” headline.

Suffice to say the bulk of the coverage was almost entirely about Conservatives claiming Carney had done something wrong and not about uncovering the heart of the matter: whether Carney, the man media believe is destined to be prime minister, had done something wrong, i.e., not told the truth. Or, were the Conservatives not telling the truth.

Bloomberg went with something more neutral - “Brookfield NYC move becomes political flashpoint for Mark Carney.”

The Globe and Mail, which originally had also gone with a headline detailing the story as a Tory accusation, updated after research confirmed that what Carney said wasn’t true. Its headline became “Carney says he wasn’t on the board when Brookfield formalized a move to the U.S., but company records say otherwise,” reflecting a similarly straightforward introductory paragraph.

By focusing on the core issue at stake, the Globe set itself apart from the rest who, like my crushed colleague from so many years ago, prioritized the making of the allegation over what should have been the heart of the matter. And that was who told the truth, which Carney very clearly did not. Why was that so hard?

As Dwayne Chomyn posted on X, retweeted by Corus’s Ben Mulroney, “Not sure who came (off) looking worse in all of this - Carney or a lot of journalists.”

---

Speaking of the Globe, it came up with yet another unique way to mask a source when reporting on how Canada’s zombie prime minister, Justin Trudeau, was lobbying US President Donald Trump concerning Ukraine.

Robert Fife explained that “The Globe and Mail is not naming the source because they are not authorized to publicly discuss a private conversation."

I sort of believe that. And I sort of don’t. Because having been around the block a few times I think there’s a very good chance the source was authorized - even if through a nod and a wink - by someone in the Prime Minister’s Office to publicly discuss a private conversation so long as there’s no name attached so that the “leak” allows the PMO to deny responsibility for making a private conversation public. It’s a game. And readers are the marks.

---

Back to the CBC.

It marked the 60th anniversary of the modern Canadian flag with an opinion piece posing as news from Ottawa.

There, according to author Gabrielle Huston, downtown residents were finally reconciling with the flag after being traumatized by its use during the prolonged Freedom Convoy protest.

It actually could have been a pretty compelling piece on how Canadians with diverse perspectives use the flag and draw emotional support for their beliefs from it.

But it wasn’t. It was just a profile of people whose emotions were impacted negatively by the protest, supported by an academic extremism expert even though there were no widespread displays of extremism at the protest. There was no evidence of effort to reach out to former protesters for their perspectives on flag day or their reaction to those still working through their flag issues stemming from the protest.

Bad journalism doesn’t deserve public funding.

---

A tip of the hat to Blacklock’s Reporter for first pointing out to interested readers that outgoing PM Trudeau’s announcement of a high speed rail line between Quebec City and Toronto is the continuation of a conversation that began in 1967.

---

And one final piece of advice to all commentators appearing on either podcasts or TV talk shows these days.

When the nation is under siege and other Canadians are sorting through their fruits and vegetables to avoid buying American products and canceling or repositioning their winter getaways, picking up some freelance action while on location in tony Palm Springs - as Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason (above) did recently - isn’t the best look. And yes, as last week’s podcast revealed, I was recently in Victoria, B.C. This week, I’ll be in Ottawa which - I can assure you - is not Palm Springs in March. The Yanks won’t get a nickel of my money.

---

Watch TheHub.ca next Tuesday March 11 for more media monitoring and don’t forget to check out The Full Press podcast with Harrison Lowman, Tara Henley and yours truly.

---

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald and a former vice chair of the CRTC)