Now this is a real attempt, to control the media...

[CDNBear]

I'm not sure why you're hung up on "the fifth estate". Choking the flow of information is always a problem. It's a matter of principle.

Agreed. My principles say its a direct attack on the press.

I'm not talking about the Afghan papers. I'm talking about a gag order on officials in Afghanistan during an election. The Canadian Press requested an interview with Tim Martin, our top diplomat in Kandahar. The request wasn't unreasonable, it was for a story about a transfer-of-command ceremony that took place at Camp Nathan Smith.

This was a major milestone, we were handing over command of our training center to the Afghan authorities.

That's when an official from Canadian International Development Agency rejected the request, saying that there would be no interviews during the five week campaign.

Hmmm, that is troubling, but still not an attack on the press.

Because the paper is behind a pay-wall. You have to pay for articles published in Science, or go to a library with a subscription. I can access a whole range of journals at work through our subscriptions, but not everyone can. And almost certainly not everyone will understand the gobble-dee-gook of marine biology/immunology/molecular biology that leads to such a finding. So science writers go to the authors for clarification, to write the story so that lay readers can understand the significance.

But still available to the public.

If they are denied access to the author, that is stifling the press. That is not only an attack on the press, it is an attack on the fundamental here, of an informed citizenry.

I somewhat agree, and I'm shocked. But still of the same opinion. Layton attacked the press directly. Something the other leaders haven't done.

I prefer 'Professor Layton', myself.

Fits the intelligentsia moniker well.

 

[Colpy]

Well, shutting down reputable reporters like Terry Milewski was a good start.

The only power over our government that we have as citizens is the media. We complain so that the media can complain so that the government can respond.

When a reporter can't even finish a question without getting lashed out at by conservative drones, it's a sign that we're beginning to lose our control over government. They don't even realize that they're fighting against themselves - that's lunacy.

What would happen if this government continued to maintain the long gun registry, and you didn't have a voice Colpy? As much as I disagree with your stance, I would never hold you back from expressing your desire for that freedom. If we can't get the government to answer to reporters; or they dictate the amount of questions reporters can ask; or they even dictate what questions are asked - then even you wouldn't have a voice to make a change.

First of all, shouting down a reporter is rude and uncalled for.

Secondly, you have absolutely no idea how our system works. We have an in-House Question Period for the express purpose of allowing the Official Opposition to challenge the gov't.........and a Press Gallery so reporters can watch and report what they see.

If your concerns are so obscure that they can not command the attention of a single party.....well, then you are SOL.

 

[lone wolf]

...and that's the way (uh-huh uh-huh) they like it....

 

[Colpy]

And on the original problem.....Mr. Layton's "massage".....

Mr Kay says it was a "Liberal fixer" who told him, and certainly this last minute leak has the Grits' sticky fingers all over it. I mean, I'd like to think the Tory oppo-research hit team were nimble enough to plant this and frame the Liberals, but there's not a lot of evidence they're anywhere near that good. Whereas a party of such renowned "ass-kickers" as the Liberals would surely be savvy enough to figure out that if they broke this on Sun TV they might easily damage both their political opponents. Either way, poor old Jack never saw it comi ...oh, forget it.

Mark Steyn is great....read the entire article.

SteynOnline - THE HAND OF FATE

So it was the Liberals that were up to dirty smear tactics! Oh, how I love it!

 

[Icarus27k]

For the record, I posted a thread about the election in a forum populated with young Americans. After several hours, I finally got some responses. Mainly, the topic is about the difference between Canadian Conservatives and U.S. conservatives.

 

[mentalfloss]

And on the original problem.....Mr. Layton's "massage".....



Mark Steyn is great....read the entire article.

SteynOnline - THE HAND OF FATE

So it was the Liberals that were up to dirty smear tactics! Oh, how I love it!

I didn't go through the article, I really don't understand these 'under the table' fixes. How stupid can you be to bribe The Sun and then let them call you on it?

Where the hell is the mafia when you need them these days?

 

[Praxius]

NDP leader defends himself in campaign's final hours | Decision 2011 | News | Toronto Sun

He doesn't have to defend himself. From what I read last week, the Toronto Police & the OPP (along with getting a few other police forces involved) are already looking into the matter as to how anybody got ahold of those documents in the first place.

 

[Colpy]

He doesn't have to defend himself. From what I read last week, the Toronto Police & the OPP (along with getting a few other police forces involved) are already looking into the matter as to how anybody got ahold of those documents in the first place.

Well, he may have to defend himself...

But the leak was definitely in violation of the law. From what I read.

 

[CDNBear]

Where the hell is the mafia when you need them these days?

Cretien and company retired.

He doesn't have to defend himself.

That's great, I didn't think he should have had to. As far as I'm concerned as I've stated from the very beginning, the story itself, is a non issue, a shameless smear, and low.

From what I read last week, the Toronto Police & the OPP (along with getting a few other police forces involved) are already looking into the matter as to how anybody got ahold of those documents in the first place.

You read about this last week? You have a time machine?

Well, he may have to defend himself...

But the leak was definitely in violation of the law. From what I read.

I've tried to find policy/law on note books Colpy. I can't find anything that's definitive. I'll have to stop by number 3 district and ask. My father says, a retired Officers notes, still in his possession, are his property. Where dear old Dad gets fuzzy is, whether or not an Officer can keep his notes upon retirement.

Since retired Officers notes, are routinely used in all manner of books and articles on crimes from the past, biographies, and so on. I'm having a hard time believing that it was a breach of any kind.

On a side note Colpy, have you noticed, a few of the folks that support Manning's illegal acts, are questioning the legality of a retired Cop, confirming a story with his notes?

 

[SLM]

Ok, so I understand the principal behind freedom of the press and that an attempt to prevent the press from publishing would be a violation of such. That makes sense to me, even if the story itself is without merit. Politically it makes sense to make the attempt since, whether it's right or wrong, once it's out there it's out there. But just because it makes sense from a political point of view doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I'm curious as to the potential of a lawsuit and the right to sue for defamation. I remember hearing a while back, and I do not remember the source, that our defamation/libel laws with regard to published materials is handled differently than many other countries or in other civil suits. Typically in a civil suit the onus is on the plaintiff to prove why they have been wronged, but when it comes to published materials, the onus is actually on the defense to provide why they have published and that the litmus test was "if it's in the publics best interest". This is why I'd heard we don't really have tabloid journalism or paparazzi here like they do in the UK or the US.

I don't know if that necessarily has any impact on the chain events in this particular case or even if it's true or not, but I am curious.
Does anyone know?

 

[karrie]

Canada holds its press accountable to truth and relevance. I see nothing wrong with that. If a story is leaked in a way that implies a scandal where there was none, and slanders someone for something that didn't happen the way they make it out to have happened, there SHOULD be some accountability in place, plain and simple. Otherwise, why would we trust the news outlets to be telling us the truth about anything?

They're a business. You either run your business ethically, and tell your customers the truth, or you will end up shut down.

 

[mentalfloss]

Canada holds its press accountable to truth and relevance. I see nothing wrong with that. If a story is leaked in a way that implies a scandal where there was none, and slanders someone for something that didn't happen the way they make it out to have happened, there SHOULD be some accountability in place, plain and simple. Otherwise, why would we trust the news outlets to be telling us the truth about anything?

They're a business. You either run your business ethically, and tell your customers the truth, or you will end up shut down.

We're talking about The Sun here. They've been running an unethical business for quite some time now.

 

[Tonington]

Hmmm, that is troubling, but still not an attack on the press.

It's an attack on democracy. The freedom of the press exists to serve democracy.

But still available to the public.[/.quote]

They could make it available in an encrypted form as well, and that would be available to the public. It's still restricting the flow of information.

I somewhat agree, and I'm shocked. But still of the same opinion. Layton attacked the press directly. Something the other leaders haven't done.

Attacking directly or indirectly is still attacking. And you and I are made poor whenever that happens. It's all in the same vein.

 

[CDNBear]

I don't know if that necessarily has any impact on the chain events in this particular case or even if it's true or not, but I am curious. Does anyone know?

1, It's true. It was a story, that was confirmed by the Officer. Supported by his notes.
2, It was also confirmed by Jack and Olivia.
3, It was most definitely an attempt to smear Jack.
4, It's news to anyone that cares about 'morals'.
5, After asking a York Regional Officer, it was not uncommon for Officers to keep old note books. Although policy now is, they must be turned in, and saved. This is a York regional Policy and is not the policy of all Police services.
6, The notes, would indicate that he was caught in a compromising position. But in my opinion, he was not charged, nor tried, so he is not guilty of any crime.
7, He has no right to privacy on the matter.

They're a business. You either run your business ethically, and tell your customers the truth, or you will end up shut down.

Why is the 'truth' in question here? Jack and Olivia confirmed it. The notes and the Officer confirmed it.

We're talking about The Sun here. They've been running an unethical business for quite some time now.

I'm sure you believe that. But I suspect that's based more on your ideology, than fact.

But you might want to rethink your condemnation of Sun media...

National Post columnist Jonathan Kay confirmed Sunday that he was approached by a Liberal Party insider with the same story on Oct. 12, 2008.
"I was shown a copy of a Liberal Party lawyer's Access To Information request seeking details of the massage bust - and I have retained that ATI request in my files," Kay told The Gazette on Sunday. Kay wouldn't say who the lawyer is, saying he promised the person his or her name wouldn't come out.
He said he didn't run with the story in 2008 because he couldn't confirm it.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...e+story+2008/4707638/story.html#ixzz1LEe1Xgje
​

From a Liberal? Who knew they were that slimy.

Kay couldn't confirm it in 2008, so he passed.

Sun Media could confirm it in 2011, so they ran with it.

It's dirty journalism, but it's still journalism.

And I might add, far better than the yellow journalism you use.

It's an attack on democracy. The freedom of the press exists to serve democracy.

I'm glad we agree on something.

They could make it available in an encrypted form as well, and that would be available to the public. It's still restricting the flow of information.

Sometimes that's a necessity.

Attacking directly or indirectly is still attacking.

You think restriction is an attack, I don't. I recognize the necessity of restricting information for various reasons from treaty negotiations, to covert operations.

And you and I are made poor whenever that happens. It's all in the same vein.

I agree and disagree. I still don't see it in the same vein, for one. But yes, I'd love to know some things, but I recognize that fact, that sometimes we just can't be kept abreast for reasons beyond our pay grade.

Maybe it's from having served, I don't know. I do see your point though, and I can respect what you're saying, but I can't fully agree.

 

[SLM]

1, It's true. It was a story, that was confirmed by the Officer. Supported by his notes.
2, It was also confirmed by Jack and Olivia.
3, It was most definitely an attempt to smear Jack.
4, It's news to anyone that cares about 'morals'.
5, After asking a York Regional Officer, it was not uncommon for Officers to keep old note books. Although policy now is, they must be turned in, and saved. This is a York regional Policy and is not the policy of all Police services.
6, The notes, would indicate that he was caught in a compromising position. But in my opinion, he was not charged, nor tried, so he is not guilty of any crime.
7, He has no right to privacy on the matter.

Why is the 'truth' in question here? Jack and Olivia confirmed it. The notes and the Officer confirmed it.

I'm sure you believe that. But I suspect that's based more on your ideology, than fact.

But you might want to rethink your condemnation of Sun media...

From a Liberal? Who knew they were that slimy.

Kay couldn't confirm it in 2008, so he passed.

Sun Media could confirm it in 2011, so they ran with it.

It's dirty journalism, but it's still journalism.

And I might add, far better than the yellow journalism you use.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Sometimes that's a necessity.

You think restriction is an attack, I don't. I recognize the necessity of restricting information for various reasons from treaty negotiations, to covert operations.

I agree and disagree. I still don't see it in the same vein, for one. But yes, I'd love to know some things, but I recognize that fact, that sometimes we just can't be kept abreast for reasons beyond our pay grade.

Maybe it's from having served, I don't know. I do see your point though, and I can respect what you're saying, but I can't fully agree.

I completely agree on points one through six. Point seven, maybe there is no official right to privacy (I won't argue that), but personally I could give a damn about anyone's private life. Elected official or not, if they're not breaking the law, then I don't care. Each to their own, I say.

I was actually asking if anyone knew whether what I remembered hearing about civil litigation (re:libel/defamation) in Canada was true or not. I can't remember where or when I heard it, it may have even been as long ago as when Princess Diana died. There was a lot of talk during that time of paparazzi, tabloid journalism, celebrities and such. I do remember it being said that the onus of proof in cases of libel/defamation suits of newspaper published materials was on the defense in Canada. But I've not heard that stated anywhere since. So that may not be true, but I'm sure that's what I heard said.

Even if that is true, it may have no bearing on this particular situation. I guess this whole thread just brought it my mind.

Like I said, just curious.

 

[CDNBear]

I completely agree on points one through six. Point seven, maybe there is no official right to privacy (I won't argue that), but personally I could give a damn about anyone's private life. Elected official or not, if they're not breaking the law, then I don't care. Each to their own, I say.

I agree. In fact, I kind of liked him a little more when the story broke, who knew the man like to get his freak on?

I was actually asking if anyone knew whether what I remembered hearing about civil litigation (re:libel/defamation) in Canada was true or not. I can't remember where or when I heard it, it may have even been as long ago as when Princess Diana died. There was a lot of talk during that time of paparazzi, tabloid journalism, celebrities and such. I do remember it being said that the onus of proof in cases of libel/defamation suits of newspaper published materials was on the defense in Canada. But I've not heard that stated anywhere since. So that may not be true, but I'm sure that's what I heard said.

Even if that is true, it may have no bearing on this particular situation. I guess this whole thread just brought it my mind.

Like I said, just curious.

I looked into this a while ago, after a troll posted defaming accusations about me, at a now defunkt web form. You remember correctly, only it doesn't just apply to the press. Sorry, I meant to put that in the other post. I got carried away, lol.

 

[SLM]

I agree. In fact, I kind of liked him a little more when the story broke, who knew the man like to get his freak on?

I looked into this a while ago, after a troll posted defaming accusations about me, at a now defunkt web form. You remember correctly, only it doesn't just apply to the press. Sorry, I meant to put that in the other post. I got carried away, lol.

Oh Bear! Layton getting his freak on is not a mental image that will go away quickly, lol.

But thanks for the confirmation on the litigation thing. It seems almost counter-intuitive, so I was starting to wonder if I dreamt it.

 

[CDNBear]

Oh Bear! Layton getting his freak on is not a mental image that will go away quickly, lol.

Sorry.

But thanks for the confirmation on the litigation thing. It seems almost counter-intuitive, so I was starting to wonder if I dreamt it.

Any time.

 

[damngrumpy]

I love this forum there are people on here that I don't agree with most of the time yet they
say things that are intelligent and present an opposite point of view, and sometimes when
they don't know how something works they take an educated guess or ask for more details.
There are others that think a news story goes on air or to print without any rules or safety
checks, it is OK to say anything you please.
In fact it takes quite a while to get a story like the Layton one onto the airwaves or on the
front page. A story like Bin Laden actually took a few days before the announcement,
and that is because a number of factors prevented the release, like peoples safety and the
fact that the media wanted to be sure of what they were dealing with.
In Layton's case the story was out there years ago and found to be not much of a story.
Then just before election day it comes around again more than fifteen years later.
The problem is it had a great byline and a great heading but nothing in the meat of the
material. at least nothing more than the first time it was a story.
The reason it got so little coverage is most people knew it was a non story a repeat and
done for political reasons. If you look at the substance and the legal implications you would
also readily see it had not gone through all the checks and balances a news room does
before going with it. Every single outlet said according to Sun Media, almost like they were
ashamed to be putting it on the airwaves.
I think some need to find out how a story makes it to air or print and realize there are rules
for legal and for accuracy and when that doesn't happen it reflects badly on the media itself
when all the smoke clears as it were.

 

[CDNBear]

I love this forum there are people on here that I don't agree with most of the time yet they
say things that are intelligent and present an opposite point of view, and sometimes when
they don't know how something works they take an educated guess or ask for more details.
There are others that think a news story goes on air or to print without any rules or safety
checks, it is OK to say anything you please.

Who thinks that?

The problem is it had a great byline and a great heading but nothing in the meat of the
material. at least nothing more than the first time it was a story.

No, as Kay said, he couldn't confirm it.

The reason it got so little coverage is most people knew it was a non story a repeat and
done for political reasons.

And of course that sticky little problem, of no confirmation.

If you look at the substance and the legal implications you would
also readily see it had not gone through all the checks and balances a news room does
before going with it.

You keep saying that, but the facts don't add up.

Every single outlet said according to Sun Media, almost like they were
ashamed to be putting it on the airwaves.

Or they couldn't confirm it.

I think some need to find out how a story makes it to air or print and realize there are rules
for legal and for accuracy and when that doesn't happen it reflects badly on the media itself
when all the smoke clears as it were.

What are you talking about? What laws have been broken?

I might not write for a major news paper, but I do have an editor that is a friend and the boss. I know what I can and can not say. Sun Media, has broken no rules, no laws, from all I have seen on this.

Unless you can show me were the wrong doing is, the rules or laws that apply, you're blowing hot air.