From Garth Turner’s comment section, CBC’s Susan Ormiston describes how she tried to get to the bottom of the Turnergate story,
The facts Mr. Turner are as follows.
Our producer called you around 11 a.m. Monday morning. He identified himself as calling from CBC News. You spoke with him for a time, and then the producer asked if you would speak with me.. and said we’d like to call you back from a studio where we can record. You agreed.
We called you back within 10 mins. We were delayed a few more minutes as we tried to connect the phone call with the record booth, which we told you.
Then you and I began to talk. I started by saying we were trying to “drill down on the bloggers claims” and you responded as I reported “well I hope you are going to drill down on the kind of gutter politics that creates this crap”.We talked for roughly 10-15 minutes. At one point you said and I am quoting from the interview transcript:
Garth Turner: “It’s one thing to have it on YouTube, you put this on CBC… ahh, I can’t prevent you, and you can do it if you want and I’ll do your little interview here.”
It is clear to us that you knew you were speaking to a CBC journalist and agreed to do so, and that you acknowledged you were doing an interview.
I might remind you when I tried to further clarify further the events of the doorknocking , you hung up on me.
At the end of the day, Mr. Turner, in your email to Peter Van Dusen of CPAC, copied to us, you were still putting blame on CPAC.
“The bottom line seems to be that CPAC was informed, prior to shooting, that the home in question was that of the son of my associate.”CPAC has categorically denied that claim. We represented both your side and CPAC’s rebuttal, on our story Monday night.
Regards,
Susan Ormiston
CBC News
Well, Susan, there are two sides to all stories and I’m flattered you feel it necessary to use my blog to get your message out, when a national TV network is insufficient. Actually, I was asked if I wished to be interviewed by you, but before agreeing, I wanted a conversation. When you became argumentative, the futility of speaking with you further was apparent. So, I did something useful. I went door-knocking. At no point did you indicate our words were being taped. You did not ask me, as Peter Van Dusen did, if you could record. In fact, I sent you the following email after our encounter, “Re: Our Conservation. It was not on the record, as you did not indicate so. Regards, Garth.” I copied Keith Boag, which he confirmed. BTW, you never offered an on-camera interview with me, as you did with Conservative blogger Janke and CPAC’s Stringer. But, whatever. You win. Now can we talk about issues affecting Canadians? — Garth
Stephen Taylor is a scientist, political analyst and a blogger. Taylor writes here regularly and is the founder of bloggingtories.ca. Taylor has contributed to Macleans, CTV, talk radio and has been a featured speaker on new media at numerous events including the Western Standard Cruise and the Forum for Public Policy. In December 2008, Taylor organized Rally for Canada, a series of rallies held coast-to-coast to protest the proposed coalition government.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:33 am
“Now can we talk about issues affecting Canadians?”
It does affect Canadians. It affects Canadians in YOUR RIDING, Garth, who have the right to elect a principled MP who doesn't spend the bulk of their time distorting the truth to trump up their own ego.
I thought you'd get elected as a Liberal this time around. Now, I'm not so sure. I'm with Janke, maybe Dion'll dump you, lest you become the grinch that stole politics.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
This one came to my attention via email. I think a few people spotted it.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
When did Garth start caring about issues that affect Canadians? The only thing he has ever cared about are issues affecting him.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Never have I seen a story more irrelevant.
Turnergate? Give it up.
This whole thing is a farce. A political hatchet job.
Why not debate something real? Policy differences perhaps?
I expected more from you Stephen.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I used to think that Garth wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him in the butt. I was wrong. He does recognize the truth…and he runs like heck to get away from it. If he ever told the truth or confronted the truth, I swear that he'd burst into flames. He is kind of like Dracula – Dracula is allergic to crosses. Garth is allergic to the truth.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
This is real, Jon. Garth runs on a platform of democracy and honesty (like he invented them). If he is this dishonest and so much a coward that he tosses his assistant in front of the train then he will not make a great MP. Simple as that. It is very important to have an MP who can at least fake honesty and humility. Garth is unable to even do that. He fakes everything else but he cannot manage to fake those two qualities.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I used to think that Garth wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him in the butt. I was wrong. He does recognize the truth…and he runs like heck to get away from it. If he ever told the truth or confronted the truth, I swear that he'd burst into flames. He is kind of like Dracula – Dracula is allergic to crosses. Garth is allergic to the truth.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
This is real, Jon. Garth runs on a platform of democracy and honesty (like he invented them). If he is this dishonest and so much a coward that he tosses his assistant in front of the train then he will not make a great MP. Simple as that. It is very important to have an MP who can at least fake honesty and humility. Garth is unable to even do that. He fakes everything else but he cannot manage to fake those two qualities.