SAINT JOHN — A New Brunswick daily newspaper issued a front-page apology Tuesday for a July 8 story that claimed the prime minister pocketed a communion wafer during the state funeral for former governor general Romeo LeBlanc.
The Saint John Telegraph-Journal apologized to Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the story which the newspaper said “was inaccurate and should not have been published.”
The story created a national controversy that lasted for several days while Harper was attending a G8 gathering in Italy and preparing to meet the Pope.
“There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now,” said the apology. “The Telegraph-Journal sincerely apologizes to the prime minister for the harm that this inaccurate story has caused.”
The newspaper also apologized to the two reporters whose bylines appeared above the story.
“Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them,” said the apology.
[More]
Related:
Telegraph-Journal apologizes to Prime Minister
Stephen Taylor weighs in with a lot more info.
Updates:
6:20 pm EDT, July 28th, 2009 — Editor removed from job, publisher suspended
Well, good for the Times Journal!!!!!
Are we seeing a glimmer of ethics surfacing in the news industry?
I hope they dealt with whoever inserted those statements
So then how did the item get into the article? Between the writers submitting the piece and the printing of the paper, who had their hands on the story, huh? If the newspaper is bragging about its high ethical standards, shouldn’t it be explaining this? Just asking.
Lee, its not an apology without names and accountability. They know who put this in but are not naming them. As such until such a time as they do, then anything in that paper – or its sister papers- has to be considered to be compromised information.
Oh please, that’s not an apology, Ward. That’s offering up a sacrifice to Harper’s blood-thirsty and indignant fanboys.
Baby steps , Ward.
When is the last time you saw any paper put something like this on the front page?
Harper would probably have a case to sue the editors for libel, but why should he bother when it will only catch up a few of the many known liars in the MSM? What the Harper Conservatives should do is use the opportunity to take a page from the liberal fascist Human Rights Commissions by tossing aside the law books and setting up Free Speech Commissions, complete with kangaroo courts staffed solely by conservative appointees, and charged with holding the Liberal MSM accountable. Doublespeak will then ensure that libel chill works both ways for a change because who but the Human Rights Commissions would come out against Free Speech Commissions?
Must be a serious irritant to the hate filled that salivated over this story. Screw’em!!
there needs to be further apologies
let’s see who has some chutzpah
this story was so easily shown to be lies from the begining
the lies are getting to be tiresome
fh
Fife reported that two names have been removed from the masthead of the paper-temporarily.
Did the reporters who first did the story file a complaint or raise questions when the story appeared in print. Why did it take 20 days to admit they lied.
Cynapse — You said: “That’s offering up a sacrifice to Harper’s blood-thirsty and indignant fanboys.”
What on earth are you talking about? The story was lies, pure lies. Who is blood thirsty? You can’t now be blaming Harper’s staff over this? Indignant fanboys?
The PM was at the G8. It is no coincidence that the only thing that came out of that meeting — where Canada’s handling of the recession was praised — was the wafer story and the fact the PM was two minutes late for the photo op.
There are Liberal hands all over this and I hope those hands are exposed. Even if some of Harper’s people were ticked over the story — they had every right to be!
Awful quiet out there, Cynapse.
Traveling will do that to you, jt.
To Sandy -
Newspapers screw up on reporting details large and small all the time. It’s easy not to notice because usually the errata is somewhere at the bottom of page 8. Sometimes, if the the errors caused personal distress or reputation damage the editor is bound to print an apology. That’s it. Nowhere is it stated that the editor is bound to offer up the entire chain of staff so vengeful partisan bloggers can dig through their trash, steal their voting records and print their addresses for retribution.
Newspapers generally prefer to skip the tit-for-tat slander that bloggers are all too happy to engage in.
Cynapse — I am afraid you lost me there. I have no idea what you are talking about. All I know is that a paper made up a news story and apologized as they should have since we are talking about erroneous information about the Prime Minister of our country and the funeral for a respected former MP and GG.
Other than that, I can’t see the direct correlation to partisan bloggers stealing voting records and their addresses. I must have missed something while working on my “McGuinty Record Mistakes” list — a new Page on my Header Bar. Can’t get ready for the 2011 election too soon.
http://www.sandracruxblog.com/mcguinty-watch/
I’m talking about:
“Lee, its not an apology without names and accountability. They know who put this in but are not naming them. As such until such a time as they do, then anything in that paper – or its sister papers- has to be considered to be compromised information.”
When will CBC come clean with the dozens of lies and false reporting over the last 10 years.
Plus all their slanted stories and innuendo.
Tim, the Harper government has done its fair share of meddling in the CBC as it is. You wouldn’t believe what kind of censored reports end up on certain websites.
An outright fabrication was added to an existing report with the intention of damaging the Prime Ministers reputation and scuttling the positives of his performance at the G8, (which was then very willingly picked up and amplified by the MSM) was sold as hard news.
This was tremendously damaging to the PM. And we have pro Liberal media caught red handed (no pun inteded). And we are supposed to just forget about it and move on.
The very keystone of journalism and media is accuracy, and media and journalists trade on the fact that because they are media they are automatically annointed with the benefit of the doubt. (“How dare you question our/my integrity!”).
This was not an accident, a poor edit, or a bit of incorrect information that made it past the editors and fact checkers. This was invented information inserted into a report with the intention of damaging the PM and as such the usual “whoops we made a mistake despite our usually incredibly high standards” does not cut the mustard.
Why should those who did this be protected by thier own? Why shouldn’t they be named? What makes them so special – these gatekeepers of truth and honesty – that they are above being named when they take a sledgehammer to the very cornerstones of their profession?
Cynapse …………………. remember the:
Heil Harper!
Harper waving from a podium caught at just the right moment, another proud moment for the very
dishonest CBC !
In 2006 Globe and Mail ran the photo of Herr Harper giving what looks like the Nazi salute to an unseen crowd.
Cynapse ………. I do agree with some of your comments from time to time, but you have to agree
at least a wee bit to the crooked ways they have treated Harper and CPCers.
The publisher of this paper is Jamie Irving – nephew of Paul Zed – Michael Ignatieff’s chief of staff.
The paper is owned by the Irving family – long time Liberals who are known to have “hosted” numerous elected Liberals on lavish trips. Paul Zed was one of these hosted Liberals and was once married to an Irving daughter.
I agree that names should be named about which Liberal fabricated the story and fed it to the oh so willing editor to insert.
Yup. Ignatieff says he wants to do politics differently? Then why does he surround himself with the slimey Liberal old boys?
timwest: No argument that some of the long-time CBC’ers are not happy with Harper’s neo-con politics and will tend to portray his efforts negatively. In the case where the news is unfounded, as this one, an apology should be issued (and was). However, the Harper government is not innocent of interfering in which stories CBC publishes, particularly concerning the party’s national activities. There are many reasons a link won’t be forthcoming, though they key word rhymes with “lampus”.
Fanboys and blood-thirst aside, I’m pleasantly surprised to read of a media outlet coming clean, even if it took a threatened lawsuit to force their hand.
Apparently the threatened lawsuit was by the two reporters whose bylines were on the initial article. They did not write the fabricated story. It was inserted by the editor Shawna Richer with the endorsement of the publisher, Jamie Irving (nephew and possibly close neighbot to Paul Zed, Ignatieff’s Chief of Staff.
The reporters took the heat and threatened to sue the paper if a retraction was not forthcoming. Shawna Richer was fired. Jamie Irving a 30 day slap on the hand suspension by Daddy.
So, if Ignatieff’s Chief of Staff is into dirty slimey tricks what does that tell you about the so called “new” style Liberal party? Just like the old style. Heh.
This whole smear was low down and dirty. It ended up dishonouring the funeral of Romeo Leblanc, attempted to paint the Catholic as ruthless and unflexable, removed the last shred of respect that the MSM had left. Proved why Canadians often refer to the Liberal Party as the Lieberal party.
I am thankful that we have decent, humble man like Stephen Harper as our Prime Minister.Canada is in good hands>
.
this is beyond pale
yellow journalism at it’s worst
is this Canada?
we must stop this in it’s tracks
total lies backed by a private video and a Liberal
we are mad and we won’t take it anymore
call for an investigation by the RCMP of every news outlet
that reported these lies
these are lies about our Canadian Prime Minister
is there no shame?
fh
The Irving family, without a doubt, have been a beacon of corporate responsibility to their home region, of the Maritime Provinces, and especially New Brunswick.
Without the profits, reinvested there, many more Maritimers would be calling Toronto, Montreal and Calgary, their home.
However, it has been no secret over the years, that the Irving family have been one of the biggest supporters of the Liberal Party, both provincially and federally. This unfortunate use of their power in this case, is testimony to their political bias, (this in no way diminishes responsibility of vultures such as the CBC and Toronto Star, who gleefully circled for their expected chunk of the carcass).
Therefore, their control of all major sources of news in that region of the country, is something the CRTC need to review.
I suspect the potential difficulty in obtaining expected contracts for Navy ship upgrades, as well as, Arctic capable ships, for the Irving owned Saint John Ship-building industry, played no small role in encouraging the apology.
Awful quiet out there again, Cynapse.
In fact your constant support of anti-Harper rhetoric, drive-by smears and a litany of political cheap-shots on the backs of, in this case a dead respected person, says a lot about the anti-Harper/anti-conservative supporters. They are beneath our contempt.
Like a bunch of petulant children who aren’t getting their way with mommy, it would appear that anything goes in the Liberal’s desire to get back into power. You will lie, cheat and steal your way into power and continue to do so while in office. You will use anything or anyone as a platform to spew your lies. ADSCAM wasn’t enough for Liberal cheerleaders, no you have to use lies about dead people (Chuck Cadman), or dead people’s funerals as platforms for your anti-Harper propaganda. Back-stabbers in my view, as dead people can’t defend themselves or slap you up side of the head for using them. Treacherous malcontents, not satisfied with the news as it is, as you are out of office, but using others to make up or distort the news to suit your own agenda to get back into office.
Like the crap about “Globull Warming”, scare tactics on a non-existent flu “pandemic”, hypocritical stimulus “investments”, which down south of the 49th has been seen for what it is: POLITICAL PORK from a party and President that Liberals drool over in support, the list goes on.
By the way, if I relied on Liberals or their cheerleader’s POV in our corrupt, politically motivated media, I’d go broke, just like the Madoff bunch, because as an investor it would appear that I would not be given the “truth”, a four-letter word in the Liberal lexicon. I would not trust a single financial statement or financial article produced from a Liberal-friendly news outlet, or print media, because if they were anything like the Telegraph Journal, they make up news. They lie. They have been caught out and nothing you can say can wipe that “truth” from collective memory.
If news media lie outright, or chase a fabricated story, knowingly or unknowingly, what else do they lie about? Would you trust a financial story or any financial information in the Financial Post, Globe and Mail or any other news media for your financial information, if they lied? I would NOT! The Liberals and their cheerleaders just do not get it on this subject. Well, keep digging. The media, reputable ones, had better get onto their own soapboxes now and call out the lies, because all media are now under the microscope with this story.
Let’s just have an election, Cynapse, so we can clean house of the Liberal sleaze, corruption and scum that infests this country like a cancerous disease, found in every corner and level of our society. I can’t wait for that day.
jt — While Cynapse can speak for himself, as I am sure he will, I thought I should point out that if he hasn’t left a reply to a comment recently, it will be because he is at work or, as was the case, on Monday in reply to my comment, he was on his way home. It’s not because he is avoiding us.
Anyway, from what I have observed over the past three and a half years, while Cynapse may be progressive or liberal on social issues (as I am as well), he is definitely a fiscal conservative. In other words, he is neither pro-Liberal or anti-Conservative. He just seems to dislike constant complaining, prejudice and innuendo and picking on one group over another.
And, no doubt Jack will smile when I say this but Cynapse is what we used to call an SD. He can argue either side of an argument just to get us going and by george, it usually works!
Actually, now that I come to think of it, I would be willing to bet all of us regulars at JN are SD’s. LOL
They’re like fleas on an old hound dog’s back, JT. I think we’ll be waiting for a long time.
“Cynapse — You said: “That’s offering up a sacrifice to Harper’s blood-thirsty and indignant fanboys.”
What on earth are you talking about? The story was lies, pure lies. Who is blood thirsty? You can’t now be blaming Harper’s staff over this? Indignant fanboys? …”
Oh my Sandy, you are now defending Cynapse? Which is it? I’m confused. By the way, I never said he is “avoiding posters” here, you did. It was posted “tongue in cheek” because of his previous posts on this subject. Just a little “SD” for ya, as you put it.
If I took your post seriously, then I might consider that even you are a “fangirl” of spun news just to get a rise out of people. Is that what this is all about? It sells news I guess. In that vein we can start selling “spun” financial news as well, because we now want to manipulate public investing? Who owns Business News Network? Bell Globe Media, the same ones who procduce CTV News. People are complaining that CTV as well as CBC, G & M, Torstar are in the pockets of Liberals. So, is BNN producing “spun” news on their programming? Then you missed my point completely.
The fouth estate’s credibility is on the line here. All departments and disclaimers don’t cut it. They need to clear the air, publicly. This isn’t some schoolyard game any more. All our media need to clean up their act, print and televised both, in order to regain the public’s trust in the news. All the news, period.
In this particular case, using somone else’s funeral and somone else’s “story” to create negative news publicly for somone else is definitely a little off color, if not outright illegal, leaving even politics aside. Are you in agreement with that?
Would you prefer your pension group to “spin” the news on whether your pension will support you in your old age? How about some little cog in the pension program you’re registered in just “fudged” a couple of numbers as “everybody does it” and then you find out that this was spun and not to your benefit? You might find yourself in the same boat as the Jones crowd are.
You are now defending somone who posted as if he supported what the TJ did and took other posters here to task over what they posted? I can wait for Cynapse’s reply, I’ve got all day.
Yes, Jack @ 27, you are so right on that. I doubt that we will get the full story on this as the political classes are sweeping this under the carpet ASAP. The media are wearing this right now. It looks good on them.
OK, I tried to cross post this story by posting links, but I got a spam warning. Steve Janke has more on the fallout from this story. I’d post a link but the spam filter won’t let me.
jt – I wasn’t defending Cynapse. He can take care of himself. And, yes, the other day, I was indignant and was calling him to task to explain himself, which I am not sure he actually ever did very well.
But, you see, I also know another side to this guy. He manages my website and Jack’s. We are a team. We simply accept that we have differences of opinions on a number of things.
And, yes, I know, Cynapse can be aggravating at times. In fact, I rarely get into an argument with him here because he is a natural born debater and more than likely we’ll end up simply having to agree to disagree. Or, worse, I end up losing my train of thought.
However, on this topic, I agree with much of what you say.
So, on that point, I will call it a day.
jt, that was a bunch of indignant noise. If you spent more time reading and less time projecting you would see that I said an apology was in order and it was provided. That’s it. Anything else is you seeking revenge against the phantom liberals who murdered your dog or something. Partisan one-upsmanship is of no interest to me – if you want to feel that way, go nuts. But that is no reason for more balanced people to support the public lynching you desire.
If you think I’m wrong, provide even one outcome from you getting names and numbers of the involved writers/editors/janitors/etc that doesn’t amount to simple-minded revenge.
Although Sandy is right about me defending myself (if this silly exchange even qualifies as such), her public support is appreciated. She is 100% right that I don’t care for the Anglo-Christian Taliban known as Social Conservatives, but money is strictly a “conservative” domain pour moi. Partisanship is worthless, though I suppose it does provide a sense of meaning where none previously existed. When I feel like marginalizing, killing and converting people I play Rise of Nations. Highly recommended, to be honest.
In that vein we can start selling “spun” financial news as well, because we now want to manipulate public investing?
What planet have you been living on the past 20 years? Seriously …
Hey Cynapse, try speaking to the rest of us without being so condescending. It’s very, very unbecoming.
In fact you come across as being very arrogant.
Arrogant or uppity? Honestly, do you expect me to reply to a post like jt’s with humility and diplomacy? He’s practically frothing at the mouth over a problem that is common as dirt – all because it has offended his political messiah and I don’t think he should get the opportunity to slander based on what could very well have been a mistake.
You get what you give, soccermom. Offer respect and you shall receive it. Promise.
Funny, I never see this indignation when Mr. G’s spouting his pseudo white supremacist drivel.
One good reason for naming names is that libel and slander are criminal acts, another good reason is that if I ever see their name in a byline or on a masthead I will know to give the article or publication a wide berth, but maybe a better question is why should they be protected?
And Cynapse, why put in the uppity remark?
But it hasn’t proven to be libel or slander, Ward – so far it’s just proven to be erroneous. An editor is supposed to be checking the truth of statements made and if he let a bad article through he’s on the hook and should take the blame. That’s what’s happened. Bloggers may credit themselves for raising the issue and forcing the confrontation but they’re really doing their efforts a disservice by trying to extend it into a witch-hunt. Good citizen journalism or conspiracy theories? There’s a thin line …
Unfortunately it wasn’t that something was missed it was that something was added and that there is a confluence between the media the Liberal Party and a major Liberal Party supporter is disturbing to say the least.
There is alot more evidence that points to the conspiracy side of the equation than that of the simple mistake side. To ignore it is to be willfully blind.
As I said earlier the media and its members are automatically shrouded with the cloak of unbaised integrity. When they are caught abusing it, the situation needs to be exposed. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and what I see is an attempt to shed as little light on this as possible.
Harper and/or the CPC always has the option of suing if they feel as you do. I don’t think it will play well for them in the long run (“PM Harper tries to censor community newspaper for unfavourable coverage”) but if there is a conspiracy they do have that route. What has the National Post had to say about this?
Have you even read these stories Cynapse? The situation has nothing to do with sloppy fact checking or making an honest error. The editor and publisher conjured up the wafer story out of thin air and added it to the account of LeBlanc’s funeral that the two journalists had previously submitted, all without their knowledge. This same lying liberal duo fired journalist Matt McCann a month ago after he submitted a story about a faculty protest against Liberal Premier Shawn Graham receiving an honorary degree from the University of New Brunswick. The editor, Shawna Richer, has since been fired, but the publisher Jamie Irving is of the liberal boosting Irving family who owns the newspaper as well as most of New Brunswick, and therefore has only been suspended. Even if you choose not to believe these accounts, why should we need more proof of the Telegraph-Journal’s guilt than the liberal clowns in the rest of the MSM needed about PM Harper’s supposed wafer pocketing before they pronounced him guilty?
(”PM Harper tries to censor community newspaper for unfavourable coverage”)
No, Cynapse, they would be specifically sued for printing a fabricated story in their newspaper, hardly what anyone would call “censorship”. There you go “projecting” again. Go to Stephen Taylor’s blog and read the print article yourself. There, see, I just learned how to read.
Man, you can sure spread it pal!
Brian: The stories were a little hard to avoid, though I got them possibly second hand via the 4 Toronto papers. Never saw it as a big deal and I don’t now. Plenty of people didn’t even get in line to take the host at my church if they hadn’t gone through first communion. Harper is an Evangelical so and is technically not eligible to receive the host. BUT, Harper is also a politician so of course his lack of participation would have been used against him, so the compromise would have been to take the wafer and simply not consume it. Seemed reasonable.
Since the entire underlying story of Harper’s great sin was how not consuming the wafer at a later time, or at least giving it back to the priest to do so, is a sacrilege against the body and blood of Jesus Christ, no, it does not seem reasonable.
In terms of realpolitik it most certainly does. Moreover, if Harper did consume the host, is this not an affront to his own church? My priest absolutely forbade non-Catholics from receiving communion since they did not go through First Communion.
I am neither a Catholic or a protocol droid but as I understand it the question of giving Communion to non-Catholic Christians is currently an evolving one within the Catholic Church, and it is not at all unheard of. Apparently it happens quite frequently, especially during weddings, baptisms, and funerals, that Communion ministers believe themselves authorized to extend Eucharistic hospitality to fellow Christians. The Catholics in attendance at the funeral, and the Pope who met with Harper while the “controversy” was in full rage, did not seem to have a problem with it, so why should I?
Cynapse, I’ve had plenty of conversations with you when you had nothing but condescension dripping from your words. Even when I agreed with you on a couple of things, you try to get a smart-ass shot in.
God Bless Sandy and Jack for putting up with you, because I sure wouldn’t.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, what about all these “Catholics” who are pro-choice and support ssm? If you are deliberately going against the teachings of the church (and the sanctity of life is a really big one with Catholics ), you should not partake as well. There were a whole bunch of sanctimonious hypocritical Liberals in that church the day of the funeral.
Which sin is worse?
Right on Soccermom! A common sense comment that I can identify with.
Soccermom: you have a problem dealing with your own attack methods, as do many conservatives. You’re so used to beating up on “limp wristed liberals” that you cannot deal with when someone hits you with your own heat. That’s what this is all about. Sandy and Jack never approach me that way even when they disagree, so they never see that side. I have no sympathy for bullies, sorry – particularly when your political philosophy centers around beating up on the weak.
Brian S: Frankly, I don’t know why anyone has a problem with any of this, so you’re asking the wrong person. Harper took the wafer, he didn’t – so what. The newspaper printed a false statement and apologized – that should have been the end of it. Instead there is an army of partisans probing voting history and looking for conspiracies. If we’re not mature enough hear news we don’t like without alleging persecution at every turn, then perhaps newspapers can be sectioned out strictly by philosophy so everyone can have their “daily me”
Well, I think it was a stupid thing for a typical MSM Liberal to risk her job and the reputations of her newspaper and its journalists over too, but the fact remains that she did. As I have stated, I am not a Catholic, but I am pretty sure that “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” has not been changed to allow for a myriad of little white lies of the kind that the MSM has used to try to sink Palin, Bush, Mulroney, Harper, and every other conservative leader of the past few decades.
Don’t get caught up on the wafer because the bigger lie was that “senior” Catholic officials were “outraged” at Harper at a time when the Liberal MSM knew that he was scheduled to meet with the Pope, so they were obviously trying to stir the pot in the hopes of creating a bigger controversy. The story is in the pattern, not the scope.
WK is threatening to sue somebody over this, NNW. Repeating a lie or a video over and over again does not make it true. And he should remember that it was Fife who broke the news liberals did it. Will he sue Fife and ctv.
Oh, and Iggy has returned to threaten an election in the fall. What else is new.
FYI — I have put up a new post on this topic.