The REAL Story

[Kip Powick]

According to my Mil friend.......

The incident occurred on a Challenger aircraft. It was NOT the PM. It was one of his staffers.....The PM was onboard

The individual was asked to turn off his laptop. He refused. The pilot pulled off the runway and went back and asked the staffer to turn off the laptop. He turned it off.

Upon arrival at destination a FA asked the same fellow to turn off his laptop...he apparently said it was OK to have it on in a civilian airliner so he was going to leave it on for the landing. The Captain advised the FA that he would be doing a "go-around" and they would not be landing until the laptop was turned off. The laptop was turned off.

The individual apparently sent a "snot-gram" to the MND and requested that they not have "that" pilot do anymore PM flights.

A memo came from the MND's office to the Squadrons that the PM's office was advised of the regulations and requested the information be deseminated to all the PM's staff.

Is that pilot doing anymore PM flights??? My friend does not know. He has done extensive flying of the PM and has advised me that the PM is extremely easy to get along with and abides by ALL the rules...no problem.

PS.....I am neither Liberal or Conservative inclined

[handyman]

Thanks for clearing this up Kip. I'm curious what the linch mob is going to do now?

[Guest pikachu]

Thanks for that view point. Could it be the media got something wrong!?

[BoomerPete]

Thanks for the update Kip.

It actually puts the overall situation in a poorer light, but it does improve the standing of the PM.

Interesting though that said "staffer" would have the authority to send such a snot-gram to MND, and that the official reply to Lawrence Martin from the PMO (see the other thread) would make absolutely no reference to any of this.

A bit disingenuous if you ask me.

Pete

PS - handyman, ... yes, I'll let him personally off the hook, but what does it all say for the PMO in general?

[Maverick]

Nice work Kip! You've TOTALLY ruined the best conspiracy thread we've had in weeks!

But seriously, thanks for clearing that up, it didn't sound right to me from the getgo.

[J.O.]

Thanks for the update Kip.

It actually puts the overall situation in a poorer light, but it does improve the standing of the PM.

Interesting though that said "staffer" would have the authority to send such a snot-gram to MND, and that the official reply to Lawrence Martin from the PMO (see the other thread) would make absolutely no reference to any of this.

A bit disingenuous if you ask me.

Pete

PS - handyman, ... yes, I'll let him personally off the hook, but what does it all say for the PMO in general?

You took the words right out of my mouth, Pete. If Kip's inside info is correct, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then the reporter should be called upon to print a retraction of his statement in the article that started this whole mess.

As for what this, and the (later retracted) media ban at Trenton shows about this PMO? It shows me that this PMO is quickly falling into the same level of arrogance as the previous ones, and that is quite sad, given the promises (which got my vote) of a new way of doing business. As the old saying goes, "Power corrupts"...

[handyman]

PS - handyman, ... yes, I'll let him personally off the hook, but what does it all say for the PMO in general?

Absolutely nothing. It wasn't him and you can't prove a thing so ease up on that trigger big guy until the next loose canon report from a Liberal reporter.

[GDR]

I just want to repost the column that I posted in the other thread. The media in this country is just not reliable. They twist stories to make their point. This column tells two stories. One that unfairly discredits a Conservative and one that discredits a Liberal.

Our preconceived biases seem to always kick in when we have these dicussions. Nobody's ideaology is going to be correct in all circumstances whether it be Harper's, Martin's mine or Pete's

I like Harper. I think that he is the best thing that has happened to this country in a long time. I'll tell you something else though. I've been really impressed with Bill Graham as Leader of the Opposition. Graham has actually stayed above partisan poloitics and has just presented his views regardless of whose side he came down on. None of us have a lock on good ideas, or bad ones for that matter.

Here's that column.

Thursday » August 10 » 2006

Keeping the media honest

Warren Kinsella

National Post

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Blogs are a vanity press for the demented, some say. Or, perhaps, they

represent a change to the way in which politics, and reporting, will be done in

the not-too-distant future. A big, big change.

You decide, using two case studies based upon recent events.

CONSERVATIVE CASE STUDY

On the evening of Aug. 4, CBC's The National broadcast a two-minute-long

item by respected reporter Christina Lawand. The story was about the

governing Conservative party's caucus retreat in Cornwall, Ont., a prime

ministerial press conference and a protest outside.

Lawand's story was introduced by a solemn news reader, who stated as fact

that Stephen Harper's position on the Israel-Hezbollah war was raising

"questions" and "criticisms" in Canada. Noting that Harper and his Tory

colleagues were meeting a "safe distance away," Lawand filmed a smallish anti-

Israel protest. One protester, Elsaadi Daad, deplored the "burning [of] children

and killing [of] innocent people." The next shot showed Daad and another

woman walking to meet with Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

Lawand's news item then immediately cut to the Prime Minister, standing

behind a podium, wearing a blue blazer and an open-necked shirt. Lawand

stated that Harper "clearly wasn't swayed" by Daad's pleas. She quoted him

saying the following: "I'm not concerned or preoccupied in any way with

reactions within individual communities. I think that reaction is very

predictable."

The juxtaposition of Daad's emotional prayer for peace and Harper's evidently

blithe dismissal of same was jarring. It made Harper seem cold-hearted and

callous. It also neatly set up the next part of Lawand's story, which promoted

the notion that Harper's Middle East stand was "costing" his party in Quebec. A

pollster was trotted out to say so.

Upon seeing Lawand's report, Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor was

incensed, and got to work. Using a program found on almost any computer,

Taylor put together a seven-minute film containing live feeds of the Prime

Minister's press conference. Taylor's film, found at www.stephentaylor.ca,

makes clear that the "individual community" whose reaction had been "very

predictable" and with which Harper was not "concerned or preoccupied" was

none other than the Canadian Jewish community. Precisely the reverse of the

impression left by Lawand's story. Discouraging, to say the least.

Along with exposing a significant media misstep, Taylor's work again suggests

that a new era is upon us. As my colleague Andrew Coyne has noted

elsewhere, reporters have to be much more careful now: There are "20,000

fact-checkers" -- bloggers, in other words -- watching everything the

mainstream media do, ready to object to any factual error.

LIBERAL CASE STUDY

On Aug. 6, the Toronto Star's Linda Diebel authored a 1,000 word story

headlined "A Bad Week for Michael Ignatieff." In it, Diebel stated that there

was now a "crack" in the putative Liberal leadership front runner's campaign

machine.

According to Diebel, what was distressing unnamed "senior Liberals" was that

Ignatieff had been mysteriously unavailable to comment on the Israel-

Hezbollah war. Was he away on vacation -- or was he attending to a sick

relative in Europe? Intoned Diebel: "Where he vacations is his business. No

question. But [the confusion] does raise alarm bells about political instincts."

Actually, no, it doesn't -- and I say that as one who has written critically of

Ignatieff in the past. For instance, when I contacted the Ignatieff campaign for

a planned column on the newsworthiness of the Middle Eastern views of the 11

Grit leadership candidates, his campaign quickly responded, providing

voluminous statements and background materials (too much for me to use, in

fact). The Star attempted to follow the Post's lead on July 28, but found -- to

its apparent chagrin -- that Ignatieff could not be reached.

Diebel thereafter implied that Ignatieff's campaign chief had been lying when

he said that Ignatieff was overseas and dealing with "an illness in the

family." (An earlier July 21 campaign statement said likewise.) Diebel quoted

Ignatieff as saying there was no such health issue.

Once again, not quite. The full statement -- provided by Ignatieff's campaign --

has him saying that the family member is in "chronic" bad health, and he

wanted "to spend time with her." That doesn't exactly sound like a lie.

And it doesn't sound like a "crack" in Ignatieff's well-oiled political machine,

either. What was most interesting, however, was the way in which the Ignatieff

people tracked the movement of the contretemps on the Internet -- using

blogs, and their own blog-like Web site, to quickly and effectively respond to

nasty spinning by rival camps. Much like Stephen Taylor did, to defend his

preferred candidate.

At the end of the long political day, does any of this mean that blogs will

supplant the mainstream media? Never. Not a chance. Bloggers lack the

resources, the training and the inclination to do what professional journalists

do.

But demented or not, they are keeping the mainstream folks honest. And that

can only be a good thing.

- Warren Kinsella blogs for the Post and at www.warrenkinsella.com.

© National Post 2006

Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

[BoomerPete]

Absolutely nothing.  It wasn't him and you can't prove a thing so ease up on that trigger big guy until the next loose canon report from a Liberal reporter.    

handyman, my friend ...

I agree that if Stephen Harper didn't do the deed then he shouldn't get the rap for it, certainly not on a personal level at any rate. But, if we take everything that Kip's friend has related as accurate, then what are we to make of the Prime Minister's Office?

Lawrence Martin was wrong (and very much deserving of criticism) to finger the PM personally if the actions were those of his aide, but the report of events was accurate in all other respects.

The incident did occur, and in fact was even worse than Martin had described in that the pilot had to taxi clear of a runway once and then later threaten a go-around in order to get compliance from the aide in question, all in Harper's presence (though perhaps not awareness). Said aide then abused his position and the powers of the PMO in an attempt to to have the pilot removed from future duties. And completing the trifecta, the PMO's communications officer directly denied that any dispute occured at all when in fact it did (twice!), an improper attempt at power politics followed the event, and the military was forced to respond in writing to the PMO requesting that all members of the PMO be reminded of the regulations.

I guess we'll never know the precise truth of the matter, but there is a stink here and its source is the PMO if not the PM himself. Maybe you can chalk all that up as a victory for Stephen Harper, but I ask you, who is accountable for the actions of the Prime Minister's Office if not the Prime Minister?

Pete

[Guest rattler]

handyman, my friend ...

I agree that if Stephen Harper didn't do the deed then he shouldn't get the rap for it, certainly not on a personal level at any rate. But, if we take everything that Kip's friend has related as accurate, then what are we to make of the Prime Minister's Office?

Lawrence Martin was wrong (and very much deserving of criticism) to finger the PM personally if the actions were those of his aide, but the report of events was accurate in all other respects.

The incident did occur, and in fact was even worse than Martin had described in that the pilot had to taxi clear of a runway once and then later threaten a go-around in order to get compliance from the aide in question, all in Harper's presence (though perhaps not awareness). Said aide then abused his position and the powers of the PMO in an attempt to to have the pilot removed from future duties. And completing the trifecta, the PMO's communications officer directly denied that any dispute occured at all when in fact it did (twice!), an improper attempt at power politics followed the event, and the military was forced to respond in writing to the PMO requesting that all members of the PMO be reminded of the regulations.

I guess we'll never know the precise truth of the matter, but there is a stink here and its source is the PMO if not the PM himself. Maybe you can chalk all that up as a victory for Stephen Harper, but I ask you, who is accountable for the actions of the Prime Minister's Office if not the Prime Minister?

Pete

Every office has someone who can only be described as a "self serving, self important, under achiever" They don't last long but they are very hard to keep under control unless assigned a full time sitter. That is of course why they don't last long. Loose cannons in business or politics are not tolerated once exposed. I would bet that would be the case here also.

By the by, when let go, seldom are the details made public so we will likely never hear the end of this story.