Strongly worded e-mail: CBC's The National

I wrote to CBC's The National in December 2011 because they had made an extremely incorrect statement on air.  They graciously sent me an unconvincing reply.  Even if one is to accept that their incorrect statement is technically correct you have to concede that it was super misleading.

TO: The National
SUBJECT: Fact Correction
DATE: Dec 19th 2011

I listened to the "Year Ender" At Issue segment on your podcast today, and I was taken aback at a glaring error in facts in the introduction and again in the conversation.  

In the introduction, Peter Mansbridge read out that the government fell on the budget, saying, "It seems an awful long time ago that Jim Flaherty's 5th budget sent the country into it's 41st election."

I had to double check that I was't accidentally listening to an old podcast, but no, the topic was indeed this year in review.  Errors like this can be usually forgiven and overlooked, that is, unless, they weren't about arguably one of the most important political events in recent Canadian history.

The government did not fall on the budget.  I wish the election was caused by something so pedestrian, then it wouldn't have been so scary.  As you should know, the election was caused by an historic non-confidence motion due to the government being found in contempt of Parliament.

The import of this cannot be understated.  It is one for the history books.  Don't take my word for it; call up any constitutional scholar and learn more.  No government in the centuries of history of all commonwealth countries has ever dared to go so far down this road antidemocratic behaviour and been called out for it.  It is worth noting that the government could have been found in contempt the year before over its refusal to release the Afghan documents to Parliament ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw-tM364X-0 ), but the opposition failed Canadian democracy by acting selfishly and short sightedly rather than protecting the dignity of Parliament. 

Shockingly, the misstatement was not corrected by any of the panelists.  In fact, one of the panel, Bruce Anderson mused that the Liberals made a mistake in going for the election considering their political position.  Perhaps if they fell on a budget bill then it could be seen as a case of poor timing, but a government found in contempt can not be allowed to continue governing under any circumstances.  If the Liberals didn't call the Conservatives out on that (for a second time) then we might as well just give up on our system.

The most terrible thing that came out of this, is how few Canadians understood what happened, and gave a majority to a government that was found in contempt of the democracy that elected it.  However, it is not surprising considering that even the flagship CBC TV news program is capable of forgetting what actually happened.

I expect that The National will make an on-air correction soon.  I'd hate to think that so many Canadians be left in confusion on this issue.

dave

TO: Dave Duprey

SUBJECT: At Issue - CBC News 
DATE: Dec 24th, 2011

Dear Mr. Duprey, 

  

Thank you for taking the time to send your e-mail. I'm grateful for the chance to provide an explanation. 

  

Peter didn't mean to suggest that the government fell on a vote over the budget. You are, of course, absolutely right about the issue at the heart of the non-confidence motion. Our program covered the story extensively at the time. It was also the discussed through the election campaign and on election night. 

  

The intent was to refer more generally to the dynamic at play at the time. All of the parties had indicated they wouldn't support the government's budget. Once that happened, its fall was a matter of time. There was a great deal of manoeuvering to determine and control the actual non-confidence vote. The Liberal Party preferred that the fall be over the government's "contempt for Parliament," hoping to frame that as the ballot question (David Herle talked about that decision on Tuesday's The Insiders panel). However, when Peter said "Jim Flaherty's fifth budget sent the country into it's 41st election" he was not referring to the actual non-confidence vote and, I say this with respect, the statement is correct. You pointed out that the At Issue panelists did not correct Peter. I believe that was because they understood the intent behind the statement.You have written a thoughtful and passionate note. If you are not satisified with this response, you may wish to request a review by CBC's Ombudsman. The Ombudsman may be reached at: 

Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at Ombudsman@cbc.ca. 

Yours Sincerely,

Mark Harrison

Executive Producer

CBC News: The National