Will Mike Duffy's Chickens Come Home to Roost in Harper's Backyard?

“Because my family has no money, I’ve decided to become a prostitute. That’s right, I’m going into politics.
” ― Jarod Kintz, The Merits of Marthaism, and How Being Named Susan Can Benefit You

During the final days of the 2008 Canadian federal election campaign, the Liberals were starting to climb in the polls. Stephen Harper had not done well in the debates and Climate Change was increasing as an election issue.

According to Nik Nanos

The fallout from the French and English debates shows the previous pre-debate 10 point Conservative margin is now four percentage points. Tracking shows incremental movement in favour of the Liberals and Stephane Dion. Dion registered his highest score as the person Canadians think would make the best Prime Minister.

Stephen Harper was in trouble and he knew it. Attacks on the carbon tax were losing traction, and his "bubble campaign" was about to burst.

Enter CTV and Mike Duffy. (Insert drum roll)

In the now infamous interview with Stephane Dion, Steve Murphy, an anchor with CTV Atlantic, presented a question that many linguists have called convoluted at best, and intentionally crafted at worst. I believe the latter to be true.

The French speaking Dion, who is also hearing impaired, struggled to make sense of Murphy's verbal diarrhea, asking several times to start again. Murphy assured the Liberal leader, that he would be afforded the same courtesy as many others who needed restarts, and that the "out takes" would not be broadcast. He lied.

Tripping over themselves for headlines, CTV included them in their nightly news.

Mike Duffy used the incident as a panel topic on his program, mocking Mr. Dion and steering the conversation away from his defense, and toward simply sticking it to him. Days later Stephen Harper won his second minority.

However, the stunt pulled by Duffy, Murphy and CTV had a more dire affect. Not more dire than being stuck with Harper for another term, but Canadian democracy was struck another serious blow. The Liberal votes did not go to the Conservatives, or even the NDP. Instead those voters simply decided to stay home on election night.

The players, Mike Duffy and Steve Murphy, were charged by the CRTC with ethics violations. Yet Murphy was given a rare one-on-one interview with Stephen Harper, and Duffy a Senate seat, along with CTV board member, Pamela Wallin.

Early Warning Signs

Many in the media were aware of how badly Mike Duffy wanted a Senate seat. A once respected journalist, he had become little more than a gossip monger, willing to prostitute himself for the chance to sit in the coveted Chamber. They even nicknamed him The Senator.

So his manipulation of the "news" to worm his way into the good graces of Stephen Harper, came as no surprise to them. They would finally be afforded an opportunity to expose the scam, when just a few months later, Duffy's expense claims would be brought into question.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer, drew attention to the fact that Duffy had racked up $44,000 in travel costs in just three months. Odd, given that much of his travel was for speaking engagements on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, for which he charged a fee.

Duffy was livid and called Stoffer a "faker", prompting Don Martin to write a piece, Mike Duffy Jumps the Shark.

It takes considerable effort to become a complete embarrassment. Congratulations Senator Mike Duffy, you've finally done it.

With his wild rant on a CBC national politics show this week, the television icon has accomplished the difficult feat of offending all those in his parliamentary orbit -- his former journalistic occupation, the Conservative party, senators, MPs and even the prime minister who appointed him ....

...Now, Duffy calling someone a faker equals pot calling the kettle black. This is the same Duffy who, as host of his own politics show, presented himself for decades as journalistically neutral, then accepted Harper's $130,000 appointment ten months ago and now devotes his energies to shamelessly shilling for the Conservatives.

That's the definition of fakery for you, particularly given he was appointed after airing that infamous CTV interview with then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion, a bumbling performance credited by some as the turning point of the 2008 election campaign for Stephen Harper.

Duffy's on air political views were already becoming increasingly right-wing, perhaps recognizing that hitching his wagon to the Conservative Movement would be better for his career.

In 2004, when there was concern over a coalition attempt by Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, that would have made Harper Prime Minister then, Duffy was one of the few to hail this as a good thing.

On the day in October 2004 when Mr. Martin’s government delivered its throne speech, CTV journalist Mike Duffy — later appointed by Mr. Harper as a Conservative senator — reported that some Conservatives saw the Liberals’ troubles as a chance to make Mr. Harper prime minister. “It is possible that you could change prime minister without having an election,” Mr. Duffy said on CTV on Oct. 5, 2004. “If you could put Stephen Harper — and this is some of the thinking of Conservatives — in 24 Sussex Drive, even for five or six months without an election, it would make the Conservative option much more palatable to Canadians because they’d see that they don’t have horns and a tail.”

Unfortunately, it would turn out that he did in fact have horns and tail. In 2004, Canadians were concerned with his threats to Public Healthcare and our Charter of Rights. Touché.

But Duffy was now true blue, hitting the circuit with neocon diatribe against anything remotely liberal, even warning journalism students not to read Noam Chomsky, for fear they might be inflicted with critical thinking. The horror!

When They Fall They Fall Hard

Now Mike Duffy is facing 31 criminal charges of fraud and breach of trust, despite enormous efforts by the PMO and Conservative Party, to sweep this under the rug; including money to pay for his defense.

What were they afraid of? Surely not just the scandal. They were already facing enough scandals to sink their ship.

However, well aware of Duffy's penchant for gossip and need to stay in the limelight, they were probably afraid of what he already knew and what he would share, and indeed, he has promised to do just that.

There is already overwhelming evidence that Harper knew of the Duffy payoff, just as he knew of the Cadman payoff, and Porter's criminal record. A continuation of controlling everything but being accountable for nothing.

Besides dreaming of a Senate seat, however, Duffy also had designs of one day being awarded the Order of Canada. Says former drinking buddy, Linden MacIntyre:

“Mike developed ‘host’s disease,’ ... That's where you start to believe all the flattery, believe you’re bigger than the story. The affliction gets worse, the head swells up and anything that threatens your celebrity becomes a problem.”

Duffy now has a very big problem, and instead of ending his career in glory, he will be remembered as a "faker", a fraud and a cheat.

But he will not be alone.

Peter MacKay Knew in 2008 That Afghan Detainees Were Being Tortured

It took Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff just a week of visiting Afghanistan, to learn that Detainees being handed over by Canadian soldiers were being tortured.

In fact, our soldiers had become so concerned about this, that they started taking photos before handing them over, reminding the Afghan authorities that they had evidence should something happen.

But it wasn't until those claims came to the attention of the Canadian public (again), that the Reformers changed their tactics (again).

You'll notice that MacKay doesn't deny the allegations of torture, only that they are now responding it. The calls for Sandra Buckler's resignation were because she undermined the military, by claiming that they kept her government out of the loop. This was quickly disputed by military brass.

Transfers to resume once prisons improve: MacKay
January 26, 2008
CTV.ca News

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Saturday that Canadian soldiers will resume transferring detainees to Afghan authorities, but only when Canada is confident they will not be tortured. The handovers will recommence once "we see there are improvements... in the Afghan prison," MacKay told reporters.

Meanwhile, Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan said the government has confidence in Sandra Buckler, director of communications in the Prime Minister's Office. On Thursday, she had told CTV News that the military had not told the government that it had stopped turning suspected Taliban detainees over to the Afghan government in early November ....

The opposition has accused the government of covering up news that Canadian troops stopped transferring suspected Taliban prisoners to Afghan authorities after diplomats found clear evidence of torture.

Military leaders had also reportedly been furious, saying they kept the government in the loop. The policy change came to light Wednesday as a result of government documents filed in a lawsuit by human rights groups opposed to Canada's policy of handing detainees over to Afghan authorities. A general also testified about the change on Thursday.

The opposition has accused the government of not revealing the change mainly to protect itself from embarrassment. Government leaders, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, ridiculed the notion of torture when they first surfaced in the spring of 2007.

Conservatives Refuse to Apologize for Bullet Hole Photo on Website

If you go on the Reform Conservative website today they still have a horrendous photo of Stephane Dion with bullet holes in the wall behind him and a line up of suspects below.

It is very tacky, and despite many complaints, they still flaunt it with glee.

This was approved by the party and obviously seen many times by Harper, yet they continue to display it. What kind of people would promote this kind of thing?

Ironically, as part of a photo shop campaign, there appeared very briefly a photo of Stephen Harper in the Oswald assassination scene, before being removed as inappropriate. This was not designed by any Liberal staffer, as the horrible Conservative designed Dion assassination attempt above.

But obviously to try and deflect attention from the Detaineee issue and bumbling in Copenhagen, the Reformers have gotten themselves into a right flap.

Jeff Jedras mentions the hypocrisy on his blog after a heated radio appearance, and of course little Pee Pee got in on the action:

Everyone's favourite Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre, weighs-in (I guess he didn't get the talking-points from the PMO not to comment):

But Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre called on Ignatieff to deliver a direct apology for the shocking photos.

"This disturbing picture appeared on the official Liberal party website and Michael Ignatieff is responsible for the actions of his party," he said. "Mr. Ignatieff should do the honourable thing."

Just for fun, here's Pierre a few weeks ago on accusing MPs of supporting anti-semitism:

Federal Conservatives say Liberal MP Irwin Cotler is pretending to play the victim as he attempts to wring an apology for a flyer they sent to his riding that he says accuses him of being anti-Semitic.

Quoting a conservative columnist, Tory MP Pierre Poilievre told a Commons committee on Tuesday that politicians live to be unjustly accused of something because “the opportunities to play victim are too tempting.”“I think that puts some of this into its proper context,” Mr. Poilievre said.

Why Martha Hall Findlay Will Be Here For the Long term

I must admit I'd never heard of Martha Hall Findlay until the Liberal leadership race that vaulted Stephane Dion to power.

Sadly, his victory meant another sacrifice on the altar of Karl Rove, as Harper started running attack ads as soon as Dion won the title of leader of the opposition.

Capitalizing on the fact that he was struggling with the English language, the Conservatives used what they deemed to be a weakness, to paint a picture of him as a snivelling coward. They even referred to him as 'Mr. Dithers' ... in the House of Commons.

Despite that, nearing the end of the 2008 election campaign, his party was starting to make some gains, especially when he handled himself so well during the debates; until Mike Duffy and Steve Murphy pulled a fast one, using a false start to suggest that the Liberal leader had no plans for the economy.

If they'd bothered to show the rest of the interview, viewers would have been assured that he did, but both men obviously were looking for something from Stephen Harper. Mike Duffy got a Senate seat and Murphy an interview, but both men were also charged with ethics violations. Too little too late.

But back to Martha.

Her speech was first at the convention, and I was immediately drawn to her confidence and intelligence. She had focus and determination, and though a long shot, garnered a lot of attention. I've liked her ever since.

I know from her resume (Wikipedia) that she studied in a French school until the eight grade, then skipped three grades (9, 10 and 11) graduating from high school at the age of 15.

She was a silver medallist in the 1976 Canadian Ski Championship, and was named to the national training squad before retiring from competition to concentrate on her education. She graduated in international relations from the University of Toronto, and in law from Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. She worked as a waitress, carpenter and ski race coach to help pay for her education; then while completing law school, she co-owned and operated two retail stores, living above the Yonge St. store.

In her current role as critic for Public Works and Government Services, she keeps Conservative Christian Paradis on his toes (it was under his watch that the Queen's silver was sold). But more importantly she questions why Jim Flaherty has the sale of 10 billions dollars of our assets listed in his budget, while Paradis was quoted as saying that this is not the time to sell. He also admitted that he had never received a list of just what Flaherty was auctioning off (was the silver on the list?)

She also once sent me a personal e-mail thanking me for supporting the Party, and I thought that was very nice. It was in response to my offer of an old mining helmet I have with a light on front, to help her find her way when the cold Ottawa air hit the Conservative hot air coming out of Parliament during the December crisis.

I hope she's around for a very long time.

CBC Got it Right. Harper Got it Wrong

The Conservatives have been spending $750,000.00 a week to try to annihilate Michael Ignatieff in the same way they did Stephane Dion. It was money well wasted.

As this country is in crisis on so many fronts, for the Canadian public to be assaulted in such a callous manner is both abhorrent and condescending.

How stupid does Stephen Harper think we are?

The entire crux of the ads is his implication that if you achieve greatness while outside Canada you are not a real Canadian.

Apparently he's never been to Canada's Walk of Fame or he would know that most of the names there are of people no longer living in this country, or who spent the bulk of their lives and professional careers outside of Canada. It doesn't make us any less proud of these individuals.

What would the movie industry had been like if Louis B. Mayer from Saint John, New Brunswick or London Ontario born Jack Warner, had decided not to leave? Or Toronto born Mary Pickford who became America's sweetheart? James Cameron, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg? Jim Carrey, Dan Ackroyd, Keanu Reeves, Kim Catrell ... the list is enormous.

If this was going to be his ace up the sleeve, he's apparently not playing with a full deck. This is not who Canadians are.

And then of course, there's his mining of all of Michael Ignatieff's award winning books, Ivy League schools' lectures and Gemini winning documentary. Taking comments out of context and cherry picking viewpoints when Ignatieff WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

Two recent articles gave me hope that these ugly attack ads might discontinue. The first was learning that CBC refused to air them and the second a poll verifying that the Tories were on the wrong track.


CBC refuses to air Tories' anti-Ignatieff ads
By Glen McGregor,
Ottawa Citizen
June 4, 2009

OTTAWA — The Conservative party was unable to get television commercials aimed at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because the attack ads violated the network's long-standing ban on political advertising.

The Tories approached CBC officials before the launch of the "Michael Ignatieff: just visiting" campaign and were told that an internal policy prevented the network from accepting political ads outside of times of elections.

As are other broadcasters, CBC is required to provide a share of its airtime to political parties during the writ period, but can set its own rules outside it.

"We'll only accept political advertising like that when there is an election campaign on," CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said. "We have generally pretty strict guidelines."

The policy has been in place for many years and was reviewed a few years ago, Keay said.

It is unusual for political parties to advertise before or after an election, but the Tories, flush with cash, effectively used a series of attack ads against former Liberal leader Stephane Dion before the 2008 campaign officially began.

The "just visiting" ads running on other networks attempt to portray Ignatieff as an opportunist who spent most of his adult life outside of Canada. The spots accuse him of having no plan for the economy and highlight a 1994 television interview in which he referred to the United States as "your country just as much as it is mine."

One Conservative source, speaking on background, said the party thought it was odd CBC would turn down its advertising dollars at a time when the network was struggling under financial pressures. CBC has had to reduce staff and programming as advertising revenues have plunged.

No other network refused to carry the Ignatieff ads, the source said. The TV spots have received heavy airplay in recent weeks, and the cost of the campaign is estimated in the millions of dollars.

Parties are free to spend as much as they like on advertising outside of election periods, but a Liberal senator last week introduced a bill to curtail pre-writ ads. Senator Dennis Dawson's bill would amend the Elections Act to require parties to count all advertising toward their cap on election spending.

Canadian small-c conservatives have long fumed over what they consider to be unfair restrictions on political advertising. Stephen Harper, when he led the National Citizens Coalition, went to court to challenge rules limiting third-party political advertising in a case indexed as "Harper versus Canada." (fitting title. Harper vs Canada. Kind of describes how he governs)

More recently, the Tories have battled with Elections Canada in court over the agency's refusal to reimburse candidates for the costs of radio and television ads from the 2006 federal election.

Negative Ads Not Helping Conservatives
Net News Ledger
Northwestern, Ontario
June 6, 2009

Thunder Bay, ON -- Often in politics, political parties re-use the same tactics over and over. The Liberals used the same tactics against the Conservatives until they were defeated in 2006. Now it appears that the attack ads the Conservatives are using against Michael Ignatieff are demonstrating that the Conservatives are going to the same well once too often.

Nik Nanos, of Nanos Research states, "Properly crafted and validated by the political target, negative ads can be a powerful political tool".

Research by Nanos on the impact of the recent Conservative ads attacking Michael Ignatieff indicates that in the short term they have not had a significant impact. A majority of Canadians consider the ads ineffective and believe that they reflect poorly on the Conservatives.

Nanos adds, "Of note, the ads have had a marginally negative impact on the impression of Michael Ignatieff primarily among committed Conservative and NDP voters.

However, the attack ads have had less of an impact in Atlantic Canada and in battleground Quebec. "Factoring the latest ballot numbers and the last six waves of Nanos tracking since the last election, the Conservative attack ads have not arrested the incremental trend which currently favours the Liberals.

The conclusion is that the ads have had no discernible short term impact in favour of the Conservatives. The long term negative impact on Ignatieff remains uncertain and merits further tracking over time. This may well be the first salvo in a narrative the Conservatives are hoping to explore".

Here is the information on the latest Nanos Poll: Methodology: Polling between May 26 and June 1, 2009. (Random Telephone Survey of 1,001 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). A survey of 1,001 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. For 626 respondents aware of the ad, the margin of accuracy is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Effectiveness of Ads Question: Would you say the ads were effective, somewhat effective, somewhat ineffective or ineffective? [Recall Only]
Effective 20%
Somewhat effective 15%
Somewhat ineffective 8%
Ineffective 53%
Unsure 4%

Considering that the Tories' base (mostly from the West) is about 35%, yet only 20% believe the ads were effective should also give Harper pause. The ads won't change their mind about voting Conservative, but do reveal that he may have to change his tactics even for those who claim to like him.

Impact of Ads on Impression of Ignatieff Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of Michael Ignatieff? [Recall only]
Positive 14%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 45%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 22%
Unsure 4%

Impact of Ads on Impression of Conservative Party Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of the Conservatives who paid for the ad? [Recall only]
Positive 7%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 20%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 53%
Unsure 6%

The Conservatives have opened the door for Michael Ignatieff to show Canadians what he has accomplished outside of the country. His is still unknown, while Harper is very well known, so it will be difficult to once again try to sell himself to us. I'm not buying.

Why Mike Duffy Must be Removed from Senate

Last October, during the final days of the election campaign, and the Liberals were starting to climb in the polls; Mike Duffy pulled out all the stops, not to broadcast news but to discredit Stephane Dion.

We all know how he was repaid for his efforts and as he sits in Senate, no longer accountable for his actions, it begs the question. Does he have the right to continue to enjoy the benefits of such a position after being charged by the Canadian Broadcast Council for unethical behaviour?

Along with his partner in crime, Steve Murphy, he greatly impacted the views of voters. However, he only impacted them to stay home on election night, because none of the lost Liberal votes went to the Conservatives, who were also down from last election. Duffy merely helped to muddy the waters of the entire electoral system, and in turn, the democratic process. This puts into question his ability to represent Canadians in a fair and intelligent manner.

I'm helping to pay his salary and as such believe he should now be fired.

CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL
national specialty services Panel
CTV Newsnet re an episode of Mike Duffy Live Prime Time(Stéphane Dion Interview)
(CBSC Decision 08/09-0213 & -0281)
Decided April 6, 2009

THE FACTS

Mike Duffy Live Prime Time was a political public affairs program of limited duration. While Mike Duffy Live was a regular series, the special Prime Time episodes were at times material to this decision only aired during the 2008 Canadian federal election.

On October 9, 2008, CTV Atlantic journalist Steve Murphy interviewed Liberal leader Stéphane Dion for the second time during the 2008 federal general election campaign. During the interview, it appeared that Mr. Dion had not understood Murphy’s first question and the Liberal leader asked to re-start the interview a total of three times. On the fourth occasion, the uninterrupted interview continued for about twelve minutes. CTV Atlantic (CJCH-TV) aired the interview process in its entirety, that is to say, the false starts followed by the complete interview, on its 6:00 pm newscast.

Later that evening, Mike Duffy Live Prime Time, broadcast on specialty service CTV Newsnet, had as its primary subject of discussion the Murphy-Dion interview and restarts, which had by then begun to generate considerable public controversy and interest on the part of various news organizations (although it is unclear to the Panel whether any other broadcasters had aired the stops and restarts). The complete interview was not included in the Duffy episode, which began with the host’s introduction of that day’s principal topic:

Hello again and welcome to the Thursday edition of Mike Duffy Prime. Well, the Harper Conservatives got some good news today and it wasn’t just the World Economic Forum, which rated our banking system as the best, the most secure in the world. This good news came in the form of a devastating reminder of Stéphane Dion’s struggle with the English language. We’ll have the tape in just a few moments. If you’ve got a PVR, set it on “record”. This is going to be one you’ll be talking about for days....

First, the tale of the tape..... What we’re going to show you is exactly what happened in that Halifax hotel suite. The tape has not been edited. CTV Newsnet then broadcast the interview stops and retakes, ending shortly after the final restart, which resulted in the Liberal leader’s response to the final, only slightly altered, version of the initial question.

Murphy: "Monsieur Dion, the economy is now the issue in the campaign and on that issue you’ve said that, today, that Mr. Harper’s offered nothing to put Canadians’ minds at ease and offers no vision for the country. We have to act now, you say. Doing nothing is not an option. If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done? (In order for Mr. Dion to be PM 'now', he would have had to have been elected in 2006)

In the rest of the full interview, which continued from that point but was not broadcast on the Duffy show, the Liberal leader, in response to Murphy’s several questions, dealt with what he would say “to ease the minds of Canadians”, the Liberal economic plan, the proposed carbon tax, deficits, the green shift, taxes, comparable European national policies, and Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan.

At this point in the Mike Duffy Live program, Duffy facilitated a panel discussion with representatives from three of the major federal parties. The caption at bottom of screen during this portion of the program was “Campaign Exhaustion?”

The topic of discussion then shifted to other aspects of the election, primarily the various parties’ prospects in different ridings. The MP panel portion of the program concluded and Duffy spoke to CTV correspondents Tom Clark and Craig Oliver via telephone. During this segment, the caption at the bottom of the screen was “Dion’s False Starts” and live footage of Dion giving a speech was shown as the commentators discussed the issue.

Duffy: CTV’s Tom Clark is covering the Liberals in Laval. Tom, how are the Liberals explaining this Dion language problem? Are they doing the Geoff Regan move here and saying it’s all about his handicap and anybody who mentions it’s picking on him?

Clark: No, uh, surprisingly, Mike. Um, the Dion Tour is not saying it’s because of a physical handicap. They are saying he did not understand the question. But they are steaming mad, I can tell you. They are saying that this is an “appalling”, in their words, they say this is an “appalling breach of journalistic ethics”.

They had asked for the TV station, CTV station in Halifax not to run those false starts. Uh, they believed that they had, initially, an agreement that those false starts would not be run and now they are saying that nefarious or higher-ranked, uh, uh, people within the organization, within the network, uh, went back on that word, uh, and ran what everybody has seen tonight.

Duffy: Well, it’s clearly part of CTV News policy that no reporter on the street can make deals. Uh, the camera’s rolling and, and we don’t make deals with anyone. It doesn’t matter who they are....

Duffy: Yeah, well, Geoff Regan put it down to being a handicap and we’re making fun of a handicapped person, which we are not doing. We’re covering the election campaign. Thank you both for joining us tonight. Undoubtedly this will be water-cooler talk tomorrow as Canadians, uh, get ready to make their choices in the upcoming election.

The CBSC received numerous complaints about the Dion interview, both about the original CTV Atlantic broadcast of the clip and about its rebroadcast on this episode of Mike Duffy Live Prime Time. A total of ten complaints specifically identified Mike Duffy Live Prime Time as their subject of concern. Of the ten, six provided enough information for the CBSC to engage its process and, of these, only two individuals requested that the CBSC rule on the matter following receipt of the broadcaster’s response ...

Those complainants were concerned about the inclusion of the Murphy interview in the Mike Duffy Live Prime Time program. They expressed the view that Murphy’s question had been awkwardly worded, so it was understandable that Dion had comprehension difficulties, which were compounded by the fact that he was operating in his second language. They wrote that the broadcast of the false starts was unfair, particularly since CTV Atlantic had initially told Dion that they would not air them (that fact was clearly acknowledged by Steve Murphy in his introduction to the clip on the CTV Atlantic News at 6 newscast).

One of these two complainants characterized the broadcast of the Dion footage as an attempt to “make news rather than simply report it,” while another articulated his concerns about Duffy’s presentation by questioning whether “Mr. Duffy’s words and facial expressions reflect professional journalism?”

The formulation of the question itself.

Since much turns on what was asked and what was understood, or misunderstood, the Panel considers it useful to look carefully at the formulation of the question itself. It was initially put as follows: “If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?” When the interview recommenced, the question was framed almost identically, the adverb “already” having been inserted to qualify the verb: “If you were prime minister now, what would you have already done in this crisis that Mr. Harper hasn’t done?” And then, in the context of the “good” interview, that ran in full, there was no structural change, the word “today” having been substituted for “now” and “by now” for “already”; the question was worded in this final incarnation as follows: “If you were Prime Minister of Canada today, what would you have done by now that Stephen Harper has not done about this economic crisis?” […]

In any event, any moderately attentive analysis of any of the three forms of the initial question would reveal that the question is confusing, and not only to a person whose first language is other than English. In the strictest grammatical sense, Steve Murphy’s question mixes not only tenses (present and past), but also moods (subjunctive and indicative), both being syntactically relevant in French and English.

It follows that several interpretations of what the interviewer intended to ask are possible. What the Panel (speculatively) believes the interviewer wished to ask was essentially what Mr. Dion would have done in the past about the economy and this crisis had he been in Mr. Harper’s shoes during the same period. If such is the correct understanding, the question would have been more properly framed, “If you had been prime minister during the period that Mr. Harper has been prime minister, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?” Or, it may be that the question Murphy wished to put was meant to have a present/future articulation, as in “If you were prime minister now, what steps would you be taking about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not yet taken?”

Given the confused question, the Panel considers that the interviewer may even have intended to ask whether Mr. Dion would have taken specific steps to obviate such an economic crisis in the first place. Alternatively, did Murphy mean to inquire how Mr. Dion would have tackled the economic crisis had it landed on his plate after two years in office? Or did he wish to request how, if Mr. Dion were elected as prime minister on the day of the interview, he would handle such an economic crisis encountered that day or thereafter, in the future? Indeed, Mr. Dion appeared to understand that there could be a difference in the answer depending on how long he might have been in office before being called upon to face such a problem. As he ultimately pointedly asked, “give me a first date where I’m prime minister that I can figure out what, what is your question […] about [emphasis added].”

The Panel’s only point is that the question was unfocussed, unclear and ultimately confusing, even to Anglophones (as all Adjudicators on this Panel are). It was neither crisp nor even clear, and it left doubts as to its meaning in the interviewee, the audience, and even this Panel, after viewing and reviewing the logger tape. In other words, blame for misapprehension cannot simply be laid at the feet of the interviewee.

The Newsworthiness Issue

There are two aspects to the newsworthiness issue, one that was raised in the CTV Atlantic decision and one that flows from the Duffy rebroadcast of the false starts.

The first issue relates to the broadcast of the outtakes at all. The majority of the National Specialty Services Panel agrees with the Atlantic Panel. The undisputed newsworthy element of the original broadcast was the complete interview, which ran for about twelve minutes after the restarts, beginning at about 6:41 pm. In that part of the 6:00 pm newscast, Mr. Dion discussed his platform and offered suggestions for dealing with the economic crisis in response to the initial poorly formulated question. The balance of the interview (a little more than an additional ten minutes in duration) dealt with what he thought should be said “to ease the minds of Canadians”, the Liberal economic plan, the proposed carbon tax, deficits, the green shift, taxes, comparable European national policies, and Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan.

That is where the substantive meat was, not in the restarts. Despite the presence of that complete interview following the initial four minutes of introduction and restarts, the Atlantic Panel concluded that it was a code breach “for the broadcaster, CTV Atlantic, to reverse its commitment and broadcast the outtakes.” In the matter at hand, where almost none of the substantive electorally-relevant content was provided to the audience, the Panel finds that the rebroadcast was unfair in terms of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The second issue relates to the fact that the CTV Atlantic broadcast of the restarts was itself newsworthy, that it had become newsworthy. As the President of CTV News said in his November letter, “That evening and the next day, the interview and the restarts were reported by several news organizations including The Canadian Press, CBC, Newsworld, Global News, The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star [emphasis added].”

The majority of the Panel considers the following conclusion of the Atlantic Panel to be of relevance: What then was the broadcaster really seeking, if not the full questions and the full answers? It appears to have been the stumbles, the whoopses, and the mis-starts. Given the poor quality and confusing syntax of the question, the Panel does not accept the “justification” that Mr. Dion’s command of English could be shown to be “so poor that he could not understand a question with different tenses.”

Fairness

[The Atlantic Regional] Panel (two-thirds of the industry Adjudicators being themselves members of RTNDA and broadcast journalists of considerable experience) considers that restarts and retakes are a common, not a rare, occurrence. The decision to extend such a courtesy was neither unreasonable nor even unusual.

Such outtakes, the Specialty Services Panel concludes, are very common, even absolutely routine. The Panel does not, therefore, even find it a modest stretch to have a person in authority agree to a restart, or even more than one restart. After all, once that ball was rolling, there was no reason to expect that anything had changed when it came to restart three or even four. On any of those restarts, the interviewer could have said “No, we must carry on from here.” Murphy did not and, in the view of the Panel, the Liberal leader and his team had every reason to expect that the restarted matter was, in effect, “overwritten” or banished from use. ... Had the question been articulate and well-framed, the Panel might have expected the Liberal leader to wear some responsibility for the confusion that ensued. That was not, however, the case.

Even had the question been properly put, though, the broadcaster’s commitment to permit the restarts would likely have put the filmed content off-limits. In the circumstances, the question was bad and the commitment was made. The Panel views the broadcaster’s actions in the rebroadcast of the outtakes on the Duffy show as an unfair and improper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial, contrary to the rule established in Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The National Panel also acknowledges that, while the host, Mike Duffy, was entitled to have and manifest an opinion, as this was, after all, a mixed news and public affairs show, not a pure news program, he went too far. He was not fair, balanced or even-handed. In addition to the unfairness of the rebroadcast noted immediately above, the host significantly misrepresented the view of one of the three members of his Panel, namely, Liberal MP Geoff Regan, who had attributed the misunderstanding as a hearing issue and had said, “I don’t think that we should […] spend a lot of time talking about someone’s physical impairment.”

About 20-30 seconds later (all of the following emphases being added), ignoring totally the actual words of MP Regan, Duffy said “you fob it off as, we’re making fun of someone’s physical impairment.” And, in his next observation, the host reiterated the fallacious assertion, “And then you tell me we’re making fun of his physical impairment?” Despite the fact that guest panellist Geoff Regan twice said, “That’s not what I said,” and it is clear from the transcript that was not what he said, Mike Duffy persisted in his misrepresentation.

In talking with his CTV colleagues Tom Clark and Craig Oliver, Duffy next said, “Are they doing the Geoff Regan move here and saying it’s all about his handicap and anybody who mentions it’s picking on him?” He concluded the item with these words, “Geoff Regan put it down to being a handicap and we’re making fun of a handicapped person.” The National Specialty Services Panel concludes that the consistent misrepresentation by host Mike Duffy of the MP’s point of view constituted an unfair and improper presentation of opinion or comment contrary to Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Steve Murphy Gets His Butt Kicked But Harper Cleans Up

Last October when Steve Murphy of CTV News went against his word and ran the Stephane Dion re-starts, I said that he proved that media ethics is an oxymoron. It was about as low as a public broadcaster could go.

This week it was ruled that Mr. Murphy and CTV, violated industry codes and public apologies will run during his program.

He may have been a respected anchor, but will go down in history as a snake.

Mike Duffy has also been charged for replaying the false starts and having a panel dissect them. We know what he got as his reward. Not sure about the man that many call 'Mr. Potato Head'.

CTV broke codes in Dion interview, CBSC finds
THE CANADIAN PRESS
May 27, 2009

OTTAWA — The arbiter of ethics on the airwaves ruled Wednesday that CTV violated industry codes when it included three false starts in a broadcast of an election interview with then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council found CTV Atlantic's 6 p.m. newscast was ``discourteous and inconsiderate'' when it ran the awkward false starts after the anchor promised Dion they wouldn't be broadcast.

It also found the question that was put to Dion ``confusing.''

At the beginning of the interview, anchor Steve Murphy asked Dion: ``If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?''

Dion began to respond, and then stopped and asked Murphy if they could restart because he didn't understand the meaning — whether Murphy meant if he had been prime minister since 2006, or going forward.

Murphy restated the question in a similar fashion, and Dion asked for two more restarts, which Murphy agreed to.

Afterward, the entire tape — including the restarts — was broadcast.

The council said in its decision that the question was confusing to begin with, even to someone whose mother tongue is English.
And it took issue with the fact Murphy had agreed to Dion's request to restart, and then broadcast the entire exchange. It noted that restarts and out-takes are common in television news media.

``Mr. Murphy was in a position to make the commitment he did make on behalf of the broadcaster, a commitment that could be relied upon,'' the CBSC's Atlantic regional panel wrote.

``In the view of the panel, if Mr. Murphy did not have the authority to make such an agreement, he ought not to have made it. Having made it, the broadcaster ought to have stood behind him.''

CTV News president Robert Hurst expressed disappointment with the decision.

``We are deeply concerned by the tone and content of the council's decision as it is not the CBSC's role to police the nature of the questions any news organization chooses to pose to a public official,'' Hurst said in a written statement.

``CTV News also stands by the conduct of Atlantic Canada's most-watched news anchor Steve Murphy, one of the region's longest serving and most respected journalists, who has been unfairly criticized throughout this process.''

A spokesman for Dion said the former leader had read the decision, and said ``it speaks for itself.''

CTV will run a statement saying it violated the Radio Television News Directors Code of Ethics within the next three days during the supper hour newscast, and then again within the next week.

The standards council also studied complaints lodged against CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live program. The show rebroadcast Dion's false starts and discussed it with a panel of politicians and later with journalists.

During the discussion, Liberal MP Geoff Regan suggested Dion might not have understood the question because of a hearing impairment, but then said it was not a subject worth discussing.
Duffy then repeatedly said that Regan was accusing the network of ridiculing a handicap.

The CBSC's national specialty services panel said Duffy ``went too far.''

``He was not fair, balanced or even-handed,'' the panel said, also agreeing the rebroadcasts of the restarts were in breach of industry code.

CTV Newsnet will run a statement saying it violated the Canadian Association of Broadcasters code of ethics within the next three days at the same time as the Mike Duffy Live program used to air, and again within a week.

Two members of the national specialty services panel dissented with the Duffy Live opinion, saying that media outlets should err on the side of providing more information — not less — to the public.

They argued that Dion's ability to react to stressful situations could have constituted valuable information during an election campaign.

The dissenters said they agreed with the assessment of Duffy's show, but didn't find it constituted a breach of code.

Hurst's statement did not include a specific mention of Mike Duffy Show Live.

Duffy was appointed a Conservative senator last January. He declined comment Wednesday. Regan said he was pleased with the ruling.

``I hope it'll lead to stronger journalistic practices,'' Regan said.

``I respect the media and they have an important role to play, but this decision clearly shows that in this case CTV crossed the line.''

Little solace for Mr. Dion, but hopefully it will be clear message to others. How can we rely on our journalists and anchors when they will stoop this low for a story?

Details of the case can be found:

HERE

HERE

and HERE