And So The Story Begins To Emerge

But key questions remain unanswered

In a recent post to his CBC editor's blog, John Cruickshank has publicly offered such some snippets of the story surrounding Krista Erickson and the conduct that eventually got her reassigned to Toronto.

"When, as in the present instance, it is revealed that a reporter has been collaborating, even if only obliquely, with one party or another, an appearance of partisanship emerges that cannot be dispelled by claims that this is how political reporters interact with their sources.

In this case, our reporter provided questions to two Liberal MPs using her BlackBerry in the hope that these would be put to the former prime minister during the committee hearings."

According to Cruickshank, Erickson did in fact submit the offending question to two Liberal MPs (she also did it via Blackberry which leaves a trail of electronic correspondance that can be followed). One of them was clearly Pablo Rodriguez.

Who was the other Liberal MP? Was is Paul Szabo?

That could prove to be a serious breach of conduct for Mr Szabo, who evidently willfully allowed the Commons Committee he chaired to breach its mandate in pursuit of a non-existent news story that would just so happen to be damaging to the Conservatives.

Will a House of Commons Ethics Committee be called into his conduct? Perhaps it should be.

Also, a question for Pablo Rodriguez: why'd you lie?

Remember that Rodriguez claimed he wrote his questions himself, as he allegedly writes all his questions. Yet, John Cruickshank has clearly determined otherwise.

Rodriguez should be challenged on the public record. In fact, the extent to which he himself has benefitted from such misconduct on behalf of media personell before should be throughly investigated.

"I accept the reporter's explanation that she did not do this to advantage the Liberals or hurt the Conservatives — that she just wanted answers for her story.

She believed it was permissible to create a temporary alliance of convenience with the Liberals if it would help determine whether Brian Mulroney had lobbied a Tory minister on a recent matter."

Alliances of convenience do pose a serious threat to journalistic credibility.

Yet, if Erickson believed that was permissable, something probably gave her that impression. How prevalent are such "alliances of convenience" at the CBC?

Are they really temporary alliances, or are such "alliances of convenience" perhaps a sign that activist journalism -- wherein reporters intentionally work hand-in-hand with politicians they support in order to damage governments they oppose -- has truly taken root at the CBC?

"But in this kind of information sharing, reporters can become part of the story they are covering, which is not our role. Any time a reporter plants a question and covers the results, they are deceiving their audience about their detachment and fairness.

For our reporters, this makes cultivating sources problematic. We can't make deals that leave us beholden either to members of the government or any opposition party."

Yet it's entirely possible that the only difference between Erickson and other CBC reporters who may (or may not) have made similar arrangements is that she got caught.

Will there be a full-scale investigation into such practices at the CBC to determine who else, if anyone, has used such means to cultivate sources? If so, will anyone else found to have done so be disciplined?

A public inquiry into such practices at the CBC may still be in order. However, if John Cruickshank has yet to percieve the wisdom of calling for such an air-clearing process, it's at this point unlikely that he ever will.

Which is rather unfortunate. While Cruickshank and CBC Ombudsman Vice Carlin have answered some key questions, it seems that many more will remain unanswered -- maybe even formally unasked.

The CBC is far from clear of any doubt.

Krista Erickson: Busted!!!

CBC lives up to some of its big talk, but more is needed

One probably shouldn't be surprised to see Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez waving goodbye to CBC Krista Erickson today, as the CBC has announced it's transferring her from Ottawa from Toronto.

Conservatives, meanwhile, probably hate to see her go, but love to watch her leave.

Well, probably at the least the "love to watch her leave" part.

"Following an investigation by senior management of CBC News, we have determined that our reporter Krista Erickson did, in fact, provide questions to a Member of Parliament in the lead up to the Ethics Committee meeting in
December," CBC news editor John Cruickshank wrote in a letter to Doug Finley. "Those actions, while in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story, were inappropriate and inconsistent with CBC News policies and procedures."

"Our investigation determined there was no bias in related news coverage. However, our reporter, acting on her own, used inappropriate tactics as a result of journalistic zeal, rather than partisan interest," Cruickshank wrote.

Well, of course it did.

"Given the potential risk to the journalistic credibility of our Ottawa bureau, its reporters and CBC News generally, we have chosen on an exceptional basis to make the detailed outcome of our disciplinary process available to you, our employees and the public at large."

"I trust this addresses your concerns."

Actually, not quite.

As previously mentioned, the allegations of collusion between the CBC and any political party raises some serious questions about the CBC, and shakes public faith in the public broadcaster's ability to operate in a non-partisan matter despite the notably lopsidedly partisan character of the board of directors.

The only way to restore public faith in the CBC and answer the questions so many Canadians have come to ask is to hold an investigation in the public eye. A public inquiry is needed.

While admittedly, the break with CBC policy insisting the identities of disciplined personell would not be made public suggests the reported conclusions are indeed genuine (it's a tremendous show of good faith), Canadians also deserve certainty.

The conclusions simply do not deliver in this regard.

John Cruickshank should encourage Stephen Harper to call a public inquiry into what will likely henceforth be known as the "Krista Erickson affair" so that it can be determined how, if at all, prevalent indiscretions similar to Erickson's are amongst CBC staff, and if any CBC staff are acting in benefit of any political party, regardless of which party that may be.

CBC Lives in Glass House, Throws Stones

CBC claims about transparency are utterly laughable

In the most recent development in the allegations that an as-yet unnamed CBC reporter fed questions to Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, the CBC has finally broken its silence...

...about a Conservative party fundraising letter.

In the letter, CBC news publisher John Cruickshank castigates Conservative party campaign chairman Doug Finley for spreading cynicism throughout the political process:

"Dear Mr. Finley,

I have reviewed your pre-Christmas fundraising letter.

I write this public response to you because I believe that by its inaccuracy, innuendo, exaggeration and expressed malice towards hundreds of Canadian journalists you risk damaging not just your target, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but also public faith in our political process.

I understand that a private association like the Conservative party does not have the sort of transparent and reliable complaints process that we have at the CBC. That is regrettable.

I understand that you have already availed yourself of access to our Ombudsman, complaining that a member of the CBC News staff communicated suggested questions to Liberal MPs in advance of a public hearing. I appreciate this show of confidence in the integrity of our process. I wish you had reflected that respect for our commitment to answer any and all complaints about our work in your unfortunate letter to potential donors.

You were well aware when you sat down to write your appeal for cash that CBC News had publicly condemned the behaviour you complain of and had called a disciplinary meeting to look into it.

Your suggestion to your potential contributors that the CBC was waging a partisan campaign against your party and the government of Canada was flatly contradicted by every step we had taken before you composed your cash appeal.

We accept that you are not the only, or even the first, Canadian political party to use CBC News as a whipping boy for fundraising purposes.

The Liberal party accused us of bias on several occasions when it fit their agenda.

As a public broadcaster we take our responsibilities to all Canadian shareholders very seriously. This is more than just a glib promise. Unlike any other broadcaster in the country, the CBC has a journalistic standards and practices book. This book is given to each reporter, producer, editor and host working at the CBC. It outlines in explicit detail the code of conduct for our journalists. It covers conflict of interest; it covers issues of journalistic fairness and balance. It is clear, and it is binding. It is also a living document. We talk about it and refer to it daily when we are dealing with difficult ethical issues. It is also freely available to the general public to see, so they know exactly what standards we aim to maintain.

I would be delighted to share a copy of it with you.

CBC News is especially sensitive to how we cover partisan political debates. The CBC is non-partisan. We do not want to be seen to be a creation of any party (although, as you know, it was a Progressive Conservative government that brought our organization into being.)

While all our journalists try to live by our code of conduct, CBC News is not infallible. But we are accountable. When there are errors of judgment, or misunderstandings or improper interpretation of the journalistic standards and practices, we investigate. When we discover shortcomings, we change our standards and practices.

No other news organization in the country operates within such a demanding ethical regime. For you to sully the reputations of so many dedicated Canadian professionals is utterly unacceptable. Your denigration of our ethical standards can only contribute to the public cynicism about public life that is already far too pervasive.

Yours sincerely,
John Cruickshank,
Publisher,
CBC News"

Of course, Cruickshank's letter seems to overlook a number of problems regarding the overall situation.

First off, he insists the CBC's process for dealing with complaints is "transparent and reliable". Yet, the CBC has already promised it will not be releasing the identity of the reporter in question. Not only will the public not have the benefit of knowing to whom to attribute this clear case of misconduct, but the individuals who will have to interact with him or her will not know, either. They certainly have the right to know about the ethical standing of any potentially disreputable reporter, so that they may make an informed choice about whether or not they wish to take the risk of dealing with that reporter.

In fact, the entirely behind-closed-doors disciplinary process practically ensures that the various questions that need to be answered won't even be asked.

Questions that also deal with the notable ambiguity of key passages of the very code of conduct that Cruickshank alludes to. (An email directed to the "transparent and reliable" CBC ombudsman, Vince Carlin, regarding this last particular matter has yet gone unanswered.)

Cruickshank's big words aside, a great many Canadians are calling for some accountability from the CBC, but we have yet to see it.

It's a very frustrating position to be in to find that one cannot have their questions about the operation of a publicly-funded organization answered. We've been asking them for weeks.

Cruickshank's stonewalling in the wake of Finley's fundraising letter (the greater implications of which are discussed elsewhere) only stands to reinforce the fact that a public inquiry is the only way Canadians will get the answers about the CBC that they deserve.

Will John Cruickshank finally begin answering some questions, or will he at least advise Prime Minister Stephen Harper to start the process by which these questions can be answered publicly?

The time for an answer to this question, and to many others, is now.

Will Pablo Rodriguez Speak Up?

Rodriguez has some questions to answer as well

In a recent op/ed piece published in the National Post, Ian MacDonald raises an intriguing point:

Pablo Rodriguez rarely asks questions in English.

In fact, during this past session of Parliament, Rodriguez asked a single question in English. He asked an additional seven in French.

Yet, MacDonald notes, when Rodriguez appeared before the committee, to address Brian Mulroney (who speaks fluent French), he asked (in English), "Mr. Mulroney, you said you made no presentation to Maxime Bernier on the wireless spectrum issue. While he was the industry minister, have you ever had a private or public dinner or lunch with him in Montreal, or any other city? Have you ever met with him at all? If so, how many times, in which city? Have you ever placed a telephone call to him, or has he called you? On any of those, did you discuss the wireless spectrum issue?"

MacDonald asserts that the question was crafted "with lawyerly precision", and his assessment may not be altogether unfair.

To add a caveat, to treat the innuendo stirred up by noting that Rodriguez uncharacteristically asked his question in English as conclusive of anything would be unfair. However, to discard the suspicion it raises out of hand would also be altogether unreasonable.

To put it simply, it raises questions about who wrote -- or, rather, helped him write -- this particular question, but by the same token there are plenty of reasonable answers. Certainly, a Liberal staffer could have helped him translate the letter into English, and craft it with such precision.

But, by the same token, why ask the question in English at all when Rodriguez's self-noted language of preference is French?

Perhaps someone listening to the answer prefers to communicate in English.

On the other hand, Rodriguez could have simply been asking the question in English as a courtesy to Mulroney, whose first language is English. It seems a reasonable tactic to ensure a straight answer from Mulroney.

But who, other than Rodriguez, knows for sure?

For his part, Rodriguez claims that he was "inspired by what I saw on TV, inspired by the questions in the House of Commons, inspired by the fact that Mr. Bernier never wants to answer questions."

Now it's time for Rodriguez to answer some questions about his relationship with the as-yet-unnamed CBC reporter.

This is merely another reason why a public inquiry should be held. Otherwise, Canadians may never get the answers they deserve.

CBC Investigating Collusion Allegations

But an internal probe isn't enough

In the wake of an emerging scandal alleging Liberal party MP Pablo Rodriguez asked a question at the Mulroney-Schreiber hearing that had been written (or at least suggested) for him by a CBC reporter, the CBC has announced it will be launching an investigation into the affair.

On Thursday, Rodriguez asked Mulroney if he had anything to do with the recent decision to auction new allocations of cellular transmission frequencies.

Following a complaint lodged with the CBC ombudsman by the Conservative party, the CBC will be investigating the allegations raised by former Liberal party cabinet minister Jean Lapierre.

The CBC has admitted that the practice is, at the very least, "inappropriate".

"In our view, while the reporter may have been in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story, this was an inappropriate way of going about it and as such inconsistent with our journalistic policies and practices," announced CBC head of English media relations John Keay. "The particulars of this matter are currently under investigation and will be considered under the disciplinary processes outlined in our collective agreement."

Unfortunately for the CBC, conducting an internal investigation may simply not be enough this time.

When one considers the implications this matter holds for the CBC, its reputaiton, and its status in the public eye, it isn't hard to percieve the lunacy of allowing the CBC to merely investigate itself and calling that the end of it. While previous episodes (including the previously mentioned Christina Lawand editing-cum-hatchet-job episode) could plausibly be written off as mere indiscretions, the discovery of open collusion between the CBC and Liberal party cannot be quietly swept under the rug with a brief apology and a promise of future vigilance.

This time, the CBC has some very serious questions to answer, and there is only one place the public can rest assured it will recieve the proper answers.

That forum is a public inquiry.

This recent affair has raised a good many troubling questions about the CBC, and Canadians deserve answers. Among them:

-Exactly how prominent is such "suggesting" of questions by CBC employees? How many CBC reporters have done this, and how long has it been going on?

-Under what guise has this practice been taking place? Has it been restricted to public inquries, or have CBC personell helped write Question Period queries as well?

-Are these personell doing this as private citizens or as CBC employees? Are they using their CBC credentials to gain access to Liberal party members, or members of any other party, for this purpose?

-Are these reporters doing this on their own time, or during hours billable to the CBC?

-Have any CBC employees made use of CBC assets or resources in service of a political party?

-Has any arrangement been established between the Liberal party members and CBC employees in question whereby such favours are reciprocated in any way, shape, or form?

-Have CBC brass made it clear to CBC employees that such behaviour is prohibited, or have CBC executives made use of a "don't ask, don't tell" approach in regards to such behaviour?

Canadians, who fund the CBC via their tax dollars, have a right to know the answers to these questions, and the CBC should consider itself obligated to answer them in the public eye, not behind closed doors.

An internal probe is not enough. The government should call an official inquiry into this matter so Canadians can get the answers they deserve.

CBC Has Tough Questions to Answer

CBC "suggesting" questions for the Liberal party

For those of us critical of the CBC and its overwhelming bias, the past few days have been very good days.

In what has turned out to be an absolute bombshell of a story, former Liberal cabinet minister Jean Lapierre has suggested the CBC may be writing Question Period queries for the Liberal party.

According to Lapierre, Liberal MP Pablo Rodirguez recieved questions written by the CBC to be asked during Brian Mulroney's testimony before the Commons Committee regarding whether or not he had anything to do with the upcoming wireless spectrum auction.

On Mike Duffy Live Lapierre commented on the questions asked by Rodriquez.

"Last night I knew all about those questions," Lapierre explained. "They were written by the CBC and provided to the Liberal Members of Parliament and the questions that Pablo Rodriguez asked were written by the CBC and I can’t believe that but last night, a very influential Member of Parliament came to me and told me those are the questions the CBC wants us to ask tomorrow."

Upon some further investigation into the matter, Liberal staff members have denied that the CBC has written questions for the Liberals, but rather merely "suggested" the questions, which Liberal staffers then wrote.

If that isn't a distinction devoid of any real diference, one might wonder what is.

Canadians should be expecting some answers in short order from the CBC over this matter.

Sadly, this isn't the first embarrassing episode in the chronicling of CBC's blatant partisanship. Last year, CBC reporter Christina Lawand was caught editing comments by Stephen Harper in order to make them appear uncaring. The previous year (during the federal election), the network was busted fishing for Canadians planning to vote against the Conservatives due to fears over a hidden agenda.

However, this is a very different matter. This most recent episode actually involves open collusion between the CBC and the Liberal party. It actually represents outright political interference by a publicly-funded broadcaster.

All in all, maybe this recent episode is less than surprising. After all, it isn't like the CBC doesn't know which side their bread is buttered on.

Stephane Dion's Political Career On the Line Over Throne Speech

Judgement day looms for Dion

Just when one thought things couldn't possibly get any worse for Liberal leader Stephane Dion, they apparently have.

The Quebec wing of the Liberal party has found itself effectively crippled today, as Dion's Quebec lieutenant, Marcel Proulx, and the party's provincial director, Serge Marcil, have both resigned from their posts.

Proulx is believed to have resigned regarding the party's recent disastrous performance during a trio of Quebec byelections, in which the traditional Liberal stronghold in Outrement was razed by the NDP.

Denis Coderre and Pablo Rodriguez were reportedly offered Proulx's job, but have decined.

To top it off, Jamie Carroll, the party's former national director, resigned on 10 October, amidst insistence that the party had defamed him.

To top it all off, Stephane Dion reportedly remains committed to toppling the government over the Throne speech, especially if it contains limits on spending powers and rejects the Kyoto protocol as unattainable.

The Liberal party is simply not prepared to fight an election. However, by failing to defeat the government on its proposed agenda, Dion would risk not only his credibility in the eyes of the environmental movement, but also his alliance with Green Party leader Elizabeth May in their desire to see Peter MacKay defeated in the next election.

In other words, everything Dion has worked for is very much on the line, and under the worst possible circumstances.

To make matters worse, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois have also pledged themselves to vote against the throne speech. Dion's fate is entirely in his own hands, but he simply may not have a viable option before him: defeat the throne speech and lose his leadership, or vote in favour of it and lose his reputation.

On top of all this, his party doesn't want to defeat the government on the throne speech. Many of his MPs have publicly insisted they won't force an election that "Canadians don't want" (it seems they never do when the Liberals will lose). In a pre-throne speech caucus meeting, only 6 of 30 speakers were in favour of defeating the speech.

Down in the polls, down in Quebec, and down on his luck, Stephane Dion simply may not have any options left. In short, Dion has simply met his political nadir, and the Liberal party is facing it right along with him.

Should the Liberals find themselves choosing a new leader within the next year, this throne speech will, one way or the other, likely be viewed as the beginning of the end for Stephane Dion.