CTV’s Canada AM makes a poor edit

Last week, I was watching Canada AM and would have spit out my coffee if I had been drinking some at the time.

I had just seen the program’s Seamus O’Regan interview Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion about climate change, the oil sands, the terror threat against the oil sands and then finally a potential election. It was a standard four minute interview which ended with some rhetoric from Stephane Dion, saying that Harper wants to make the country right-wing, Republican, far right, evil, etc… par for the course and standard fare for Dion. The Liberals have recently been pushing that very message in every QP breath they take.

At the top of the hour, they replayed a clip of the Dion interview which described the Liberals as a moderate alternative to Harper’s “far right” party. Again, inaccurate, but expected. Immediately following this clip, the anchor goes to the next news story to describe “far right” nutjob Ernst Zundel being convicted in Germany. It’s almost as if Dion teed up the ball and CTV drove it 350 yards.

Take a look (Youtube video):

In CTV’s defense, the same “far right” descriptor was used to describe Zundel in the previous top-of-the-hour news update (before Dion had given his interview – Dion went live at 7:40am EST). However, who cuts a clip of Dion describing Harper as “far right” and then gives the anchor text on Zundel describing the Holocaust denier as “far right”?

Also, what’s with the kid gloves Seamus? If Dion uses language to describe Canadian conservatives that CTV reserves for Holocaust denial, aren’t you supposed to call him on that? The proper response would have been “now wait one second there, Mr. Dion…”

For the record, this is editing on live television. I don’t think that there was any malice intended on the part of CTV… the result was just unfortunate. If this had been a pre-packaged broadcast, I’d be quite upset. With that said, I do believe that lessons above (and in the video) regarding language and kid gloves should be considered by CTV.

UPDATE: Should we instead be disappointed with Dion for twisting the misnomer (on all fronts) for his own agenda? Haven’t we heard Dion describe Harper as a ‘far right climate change denier‘?

Who knew that Grit could be so transparent?

liberal-courts-head.jpg

Lorne Gunter:

In the wake of the Adscam scandal, it was revealed that of all judges appointed by the Liberals — not advisory panel members, but judges themselves –nearly two-thirds had personal ties to the governing party. If one added in those from law firms with Liberal connections, the total shot up to nearly three-quarters.

Yet not an official word of concern from the CBA, or the Liberals, or the Grits’ media cheerleaders about how that brought the administration of justice into disrepute.

Given the left-leaning predisposition of the legal establishment in Canada over the past 30 years, it is a pretty sure bet that most of the bar association, law-society and judicial members of the advisory committees — plus many of the provincial representatives — hew to the left. Add in the Liberals’ 36 incumbent appointees, and the committees were cozy little closed shops that could be relied on to pick left-leaning ideological soulmates for the bench.

More reading:
Globe and Mail causing trouble?
Macleans 50: Right Turn

Quick thought

Stephen Harper’s famous five priorities during the previous election were packaged as such because Paul Martin seemed to name every issue as “his #1 one priority”. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Conservatives formed a list of about 100 items that Martin’s had listed as “priorities”. Of course, this labeled the last Liberal PM as “Mr. Dithers”… a leader who’d never be mistaken for a rudder.

So, has Stephane Dion further refined Stephen Harper’s strategy?

Will the next election campaign be based on Stephane Dion’s one priority?