Harper Photos Removed from Government Website.
"Critics have complained that the website, actionplan.gc.ca, looks like a partisan promotion – complete with a Tory-blue colour scheme, glowing third-party testimonials, more than 40 photos of Harper and repeated references to "the Harper government" rather than the Government of Canada."
I think it is a valid question to ask and even more-so since we all still have this made up story so fresh in our memories and who there was that other time........
So let us know CP we will be waiting.
Remember it is your job to cover the news, not be the news; or worse, create the news.
----------------------------
Update: This is the so-called evidence found at Impolitical.
Case solved:
The picture still remains on the site and can be found here.
77 comments:
It was one of the top stories on QR 770 Calgary this morning....including the bitter Gerry Nicholls complaining that it seemed like a partisan ad.
How. Is. This. News.!!!!!!
Chantal Hebert March 13, 2009:
"Its home page features no less than five pictures of Harper and he is sporting a different tie on four of them.
That's a good thing because very little else differentiates the pictures from each other and they take up most of the page.
Its focus is squarely on Harper as an action man rather than on the government's action plan and the rest of the website fully lives up to that advance billing.
In less politically mature countries, it could be construed as an effort to substitute a cult of the personality for solid policy dialogue. Here, it is just the latest silly production of a muddled Conservative brain trust.
Every link leads to more pictures of the Prime Minister.
On the page devoted to so-called real action, the government's web masters have actually managed to fit in a dozen postage-stamp-size shots of Harper. "
http://www.thestar.com/Comment/article/601640
Mysty....and this is news?
So. What.
If the only thing you lefties have to b**ch about is photos on a website, you may as well throw in the towel.
But it does take the focus off Mr. PlayFarmer riding a float, or Mr. Gandalf extolling virtues in Narnia, now doesn't it.
Wafer-gate, two!
Alberta Gril:
This website is not a CPOC site. It is a Government of Canada website. It is not there to promote Dear Leader and his Ideals. (According to the Treasury Board it is also illegal -- but I guess you don't care about stuff like that.)
Alberta Gril,
"Mysty....and this is news?"
Well, it was news on March 13th. I answered Ardvark's question , providing the name of one of the 'critics' who no doubt 'spawned' this story in the interest of openness, fairness and all the rest.
Not to mention, as is currently being pointed out elsewhere - Ardvark seems to have taken Stephen Taylor's bloggy essay for PROOF allegations that the photo's were removed are false. I'd suggest another go at the text but whatevs... it's too late.
Also Gandalf not part of Narnia - wiser not to use metaphors from your list of banned books. Stick to the ones you've actually read.
After reading this post I challenged the CP with the suggested inaccuracies. This gentlemen from CP always responds to my questions and is quite polite. However, I do find his response extremely partisan considering that he has suggested in several email communications to me that the Canadian Press is unbiased..
"I'm not sure which version of the story you saw because I'm out of the office and on my blackberry, but there are at least two people condemning the government for this in the text, including Gerry McNicholl the head of the conservative National Citizen's Coalition who was a former colleague of the prime minister. I refer you to the front page of Monday's Star for a full text with those decrying what the government has done identified and quoted
But I can't help but believe that your support of the Conservatives has completely blinded you to the facts in this story:
- the government has spent five times as much promoting a nine-month-old budget as it has spent on a looming health crisis that could kill thousands of Canadians
- the promotion of that budget has been blatantly partisan in violation of the government's own rules by repeatedly referring 'the Harper government' in promotional material rather than the government of Canada. It has also plastered that material with dozens of promotional photos of the prime minister
- when the PMO was caught breaking its own rules, it went back into its website, removed the photos and then lied about them ever being there in the first place
- when our technical people were able to resurrect a webpage that proved they were lying, they responded with silence
I don't want my government lying to me. I don't want them using my tax dollars to get themselves re-elected. I can contribute to their party for that purpose.
The Conservatives used taxpayer dollars for this purpose, lied about it and then tried to obliterate the record about their lies.
At The Canadian Press, we believe that Canadians need to be informed about this kind of behaviour by any party.
You seem a polite but persistent supporter of the Conservatives. Given the leads we are getting from all quarters, including from inside the political operation of this government, that Conservatives agree this is inappropriate and embarrassing behaviour at a minimum."
Robert Russo
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
The Canadian Press
Alberta Girl, the LPOC don't need a website or photos of any kind; the LPOC have the NATIONAL MEDIA and radios to advertise for them
The PM is rarely seen on television.
If we calculated how many times the LPOC is seen on television and the length of time and the extent of National medias that support them. you will be surprise what you find.
"At The Canadian Press, we believe that Canadians need to be informed about this kind of behaviour by any party."
An "extremely partisan response"?
Mike, Mike, Mike....
"If we calculated how many times the LPOC is seen on television and the length of time and the extent of National medias that support them. you will be surprise what you find."
I bet you WILL be surprised.
AG - it is news because, as Russo says:
"The Conservatives used taxpayer dollars for this purpose, lied about it and then tried to obliterate the record about their lies."
Now, I appreciate that you may think the government stealing our tax dollars and using it for their own purposes is news when the LPC do it, but, in fact, for most Canadians it is news when any government does it.
Apparently, no government advertising rules have been broken.
Liberals and their media can go all pissy about PMSH taking credit for the govt initiatives,
but the credit is ALL his.
'Harper gets to wear this recession' and it's looking good on him.
Inserting a photo from a photo-op, on a website, is not even close to stealing tax dollars Gayle.
Stealing tax dollars means lining ones own pocket, setting up phony business arrangements so as to have the money returned to party members, and the party.
Or rigging a government loan to a bankrupt business, that you happen to own part of.....
Ok Wislon,
So why did the PMO deny they took down the pictures?
And Wilson, using a Gov't of Canada website as your own political venue is not legal. It constitutes political advertising. You wanna advertise, pay for it.
Ha !
Now here's an online disappearing act worth investigating:
Sponsorship tell-all book disappears
Book appeared online for a while, then it vanished
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/23/sponsorship-tell-all-book-disappears/
Mystereeoso..
I am partisan and I admit it.
But come on, the media is trying to create the scandal of the week and being complete hypocrits while doing so.
"the promotion of that budget has been blatantly partisan in violation of the government's own rules by repeatedly referring 'the Harper government' in promotional material rather than the government of Canada. It has also plastered that material with dozens of promotional photos of the prime minister"
How many times have you see the Canadian Press or other news organizations use the term "The Harper Government"?
Or how about the lack of proof around this
"when the PMO was caught breaking its own rules, it went back into its website, removed the photos and then lied about them ever being there in the first place"
20 pictures got changed or re positioned or deleted out of 34,500.. And somehow this is proof?
Or how about this..
"when our technical people were able to resurrect a webpage that proved they were lying, they responded with silence"
What technical people? And do you really think that the evil Conservative government is that stupid to not know that Web Servers and search engines do not keep a cache of previously created content?
Funny, if you read Stephen Taylors blog and read this quote
"Monday evening, the same PCO spokeswoman called The Canadian Press with a single talking point that can in no way be reconciled with the altered appearance of the site:
“We have not removed any pictures of the PM,” said Myriam Massabki."
So who is lying, The Canadian Press or the PCO?
I think the media is trying to grasp at something that doesn't exist. They are trying to create a scandal.
Perhaps the Canadian Press could do a story on all of the Lies that Michael Ignatieff is spewing instead of manufacturing a conspiracy when there is none! Because as they say
"At The Canadian Press, we believe that Canadians need to be informed about this kind of behaviour by any party."
SQ, for something to be illegal, there has to be legal ramifications, which there are not in this case.
So 'outing' the govt is all you can do,
you have, and we all
thank you for drawing Canadians attention to the Harper Government's Economic Action Plan!
I guess the Stephen Harper Party of Canada's economic plan is more important than swine flu education, eh?
Wislon, the pictures were removed because Canadian Press embarrassed Harper's Government.
Harper's "Conservative" Government with their spanking new $5mill tv ad buy linking to the action plan website, still hadn't managed to run a single whiff of H1N1 preparedness material - or was the body bag to the Native Communities stunt supposed to do the trick?
from CP
"There are also strict Treasury Board rules on government branding, including using "Canada" in any department or agency name, and including "Government of Canada" in close proximity.
However, the actionplan.gc.ca website makes numerous references to the "Harper government" - common journalistic shorthand but questionable when used in official government communications.
Repeated inquiries over more than a week to the Privy Council Office have not produced an explanation of how the "Harper government" moniker fits into the rules as written."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iOGciJEPU7gXijdlYj14Y0XzMX6A
Also:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12316§ion=text#sec5.23
$30 M is going into swine flu ads.
Note to Liberals:
healthcare delivery is a PROVINCIAL juridictaion,
and thusly all 3 levels of govt (fed, prov, munic) are contributing to the $30M in ads.
'...For a short time, Le rouge et le noir: les secrets du Parti libéral du Canada
(The Red and the Black: The Secrets of the Liberal Party of Canada),
co-authored by Benoît Corbeil (pictured), the former director of the Liberal party’s Quebec wing, was displayed on the publisher’s website,
along with a picture of the book’s cover.
Then all traces of it mysteriously vanished.
No one has come forth to explain this bizarre vanishing act. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that Corbeil recently pled guilty to charges of fraud and influence peddling.
Or maybe the book was pulled because it would have been a major embarrassment for the Liberal party in the event of a fall election...'
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/23/sponsorship-tell-all-book-disappears/
Mike, partisanship is one thing.
Ardvark wants to know "in the interest of openness, fairness, and public information ... the names of these 'critics' who spawned this story?"
Just think about the difference between that question (the way it is worded) and your own when you ask "So who is lying, The Canadian Press or the PCO?"
You can argue all you want about the content on the site and if it is against the rules or not (which was not my point) but the story stated that 40 pictures were removed from the site when that appears to be totally false.
Lets dumb it down. Does anyone have a screenshot of a picture that WAS there that can no longer can be found somewhere else on the site?
M, where in that story does Chantal say that pictures have been deleted?
"$30 M is going into swine flu ads.
Note to Liberals:
healthcare delivery is a PROVINCIAL juridictaion,
and thusly all 3 levels of govt (fed, prov, munic) are contributing to the $30M in ads."
Would it be too presumptuous for Canadians to expect Stephen Harper's Conservative Minority Federal Government should take the LEAD in this effort?
Ardsy, since Hebert wrote the piece in March......do you mind my asking what planet you are on?
Myself, honestly, I don't think you can dumb it down ayfurther than that. Sorry.
any further
So the quote you posted really has nothing to do with the reporters claim that 40 pictures have been removed from the website. Ok got it.
So how did the CP reported come up with the deletion angle?
"So the quote you posted really has nothing to do with the reporters claim that 40 pictures have been removed from the website. Ok got it."
No, I don't think you do.You wanted the names of scare quote critics who spawned the story. The Hebert piece shows that criticism of the website dates all the way back to March.
yes wilson - all those so called LPC scandals TOTALLY exonerates the CPC for being complete hypocrites when it comes to spending my tax dollars for their partisan purposes.
Well Gayle, at least you recognize that 'partisan purposes' is not the same as 'stealing taxpayers money',
I accept your come-down from that position.
Yah, the 'Harper Government' has taken the website to the line,
and all the bitching and moaning just draws people into checking out the website.
Thanks for that!
wislon just conceded to Gayle.
Woo Hoo!
There are still some pretty UNKosher things about the site. Among them the page of testimonials.
M, I will agree with you that my original question was poorly worded, and I will fix that later when I get a chance.
So to clarify: Who were the critics that spawned this story and the headline "Harper photos removed from government website. Only a half-dozen of PM's 40 or more photos survive the cut after boosterism accusations."
The pictures are of the Prime Minister of Canada
fh
Also Gayle, pointing out Liberal's Adscam, the theft of taxpayers money that went directly into Liberal pockets,
is not meant to exonerate the Conservatives for something they did 'not' do.
The purpose is to remind Canadians what REAL scandal looks like,
as compared to the faux scandal being generated by Liberals and their luvin' media.
Conservatives put photos of PM on government website
vs
Liberals set up phony contracts in kick-back scheme to funnel money into Liberal coffers
wislon just conceded to Gayle.
Read it again mysery.
Awh man. You just dumbed down the dumb down.
The answer is the same.
Chantal Hebert March 13, 2009:
"Its home page features no less than five pictures of Harper and he is sporting a different tie on four of them.
That's a good thing because very little else differentiates the pictures from each other and they take up most of the page.
Its focus is squarely on Harper as an action man rather than on the government's action plan and the rest of the website fully lives up to that advance billing.
In less politically mature countries, it could be construed as an effort to substitute a cult of the personality for solid policy dialogue. Here, it is just the latest silly production of a muddled Conservative brain trust.
Every link leads to more pictures of the Prime Minister.
On the page devoted to so-called real action, the government's web masters have actually managed to fit in a dozen postage-stamp-size shots of Harper. "
http://www.thestar.com/Comment/article/601640
In honour of Gayle let me try out some totally ridiculous spin myself:
It is Ignatieff's fault! The government is only complying with Iggy's "report" provisions and like all good students they are only trying to boost their mark by adding images to their report.
What better way to show that the money is being spent and where it is being spent than with a photo of a Minister handing out a giant novelty cheque. =)
Yes wislon, people WILL be checking out the website.And they will be taking into account the budgetary figures cited by CP.
Ardsy you can't spin slop.
M, where did the reporter come up with the missing photo's angle? Chantel says nothing about removed photos ( didn't we just go over this/)
So was it based on something somebody told him or did he go all Hardy Boys and come to this (wrong) conclusion all by himself?
Think Wafergate M. Don't say that it is not possible that this was directed from somewhere else.
I don't know myself and that is why I asked the question.
''On the page devoted to so-called real action, the government's web masters have actually managed to fit in a dozen postage-stamp-size shots of Harper.'' says hebert
Yah, and what's the point?
The govt website should have no pics? should have opposition leaders pics?
Now, if Ignegative was winning the hearts and minds of Canadians,
which he is not,
if Liberals were not back in-fighting,
which they are,
msm would not need to go all nutz on photos of the Prime Minister on the government website!
'Yes wislon, people WILL be checking out the website.'
Mission accomplished, mysery.
Grab a sense of humour M.
Ardsy, read CH's description of the website - and look at it now. You don't need a screen shot (though believe me they are out there) to detect he difference.
Re "grab a sense of humour"
I am laughing my lungs out.
Yes but the thing is that the photos are STILL there. They may have been rotated off the front page but they still exist and have not been removed from the website as claimed by that CP piece.
That must be a special blogalicious action plan website for those wearing blogging tory coloured glasses.
Hebert was too kind in her criticism:
In less politically mature countries, it could be construed as an effort to substitute a cult of the personality for solid policy dialogue. Here, it is just the latest silly production of a muddled Conservative brain trust.
So you are maintaining that multiple photos have been removed?
BTW the claim is only 6 of 40 photos remain and that 34 have been removed.
Tell me M, in any of those screen shots that you say exist are there any that have 40 photos on the MAIN page? If there were never 40 photos on the page, how can some reporter now make the claim that 34 are now gone?
Ardsy,
Your line of questioning supposes that CP doesn't employ fact checkers, that the PM automatically has the ethics the press automatically lacks. The tags at the end of your post support this assertion.You know how to use google's cache, why don't you search out the pages. Try March 13th. Your commenter Mike opened a dialogue with Robert Russo. He responded and it was civil. Why don't you call him up and ask him your questions directly? Otherwise those reading here will give credence to the idea your posts are those of a party minion rather than a concerned Canadian.
"So let us know CP we will be waiting."
Like I said, why wait?
So no answers to my last questions M?
Hebert:
"Its home page features no less than FIVE pictures of Harper and he is sporting a different tie on four of them."
"Every link leads to more pictures of the Prime Minister."
"On the page devoted to so-called real action, the government's web masters have actually managed to fit in a dozen postage-stamp-size shots of Harper. "
Are you going to call Chnatal Hebert a liar?
Just go to google and type something like:
Canadian Economic Action Plan, cached, March 13, 2009 and see what comes up
Chantal not Chnatal
"Tell me M, in any of those screen shots that you say exist are there any that have 40 photos on the MAIN page? If there were never 40 photos on the page, how can some reporter now make the claim that 34 are now gone?"
They weren't on the main page. If you want to see, go here...
http://impolitical.blogspot.com/
We know you have to stick to the PMO talking points, so it's hard to deal with reality...
No one ever said there were forty pics of Harper on the front page.
Dear wilson
Please look up section 322 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
It defines theft, and includes taking money that is not yours and converting it to personal use, thereby depriving the lawful owner of that money.
Kind of like taking taxpayers' money and using it to create advertisements for a political party in the guise of giving information on behalf of the government.
Look it up if you do not believe me.
And I will thank you in advance for conceding as I will be away from my computer for the rest of the afternoon.
CHeers!
In all your denials, Ardsy and Alberta Gril and wislon... the germane point is that H1N1 messaging should be a significant part of the "action plan" because if everybody gets sick what kind of economic recovery is going to happen?
Well I took a look at the evidence presented here, in google and even at Impolitical and guess what?
The pictures are all still available on the website.
Original post updated.
''It defines theft, and includes taking money that is not yours and converting it to personal use, thereby depriving the lawful owner of that money.''
Dear Gayle, had the advertising been diverted to production of the CPC website INSTEAD of the Govt of Canada website,
you'd have a case.
They did not and you do not.
There is and has been a govt website for years.
There are pictures on the govt website that show your Prime Minister at government sponsored events......
The pictures of PM Harper were not of him attending a party function,
these were functions of the Government of Canada.
Ardsy are you saying there are still forty or more images of the PM on the action plan website?
I mean you did say "The pictures are all still available on the website." Do you mean all forty of them?
40 is not my number, nor is the 34 that is being claimed by the CP to have been removed.
So far the evidence points to none being removed but I am listening.
What evidence?
That is right; what evidence?
There is exactly none to date that ANY pictures, never mind the 34 claimed by CP, have been removed from the website.
M do you have any evidence that it wasn't you who gave the CP this tip?
Kind of hard to disprove something that has not been proven in the first place isn't it?
Of course it was me. I give CP all their tips, goofball.
Ok we hit the tipping point.You have no argument so now you're deleting comments.
Ah yes, go to the name calling when you have nothing to back up your claims.
Find me the 34 pictures M.
You fail to address the subject of the post which is the claim by the CP that 34 pictures of the PM have been removed from the website and go to name calling and distraction from the topic at hand.
I know it is hard to believe M but there is no conspiracy here, the CP is wrong and are not addressing the question.
Email Bruce Cheadle for gosh sakes. The whole premise of your post is that some unnamed critic is running around making unchecked allegations. You've been pretending all day no one knows who wrote the piece.
It's very weak to delete comments. Goofball is putting it kindly.
I did email the CP. The answer I got back was a refusal to answer.
I don't know where this 34 number came from, and no one has yet to show me an example of any picture that has been deleted from the website.
Was it a tip, was it the reporter himself, or someone else?
If the story is accurate this is not that important, but if the story and the 34 number turns out to be false (and it sure looks like it) it is a BIG deal.
Keep it clean and relatively on topic ( sorry my call as to what is on topic or not) and the comment should be safe. Otherwise say bye bye.
Well how come Mike got such a thorough and polite response from Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Russo and you got nothing?
"Keep it clean and relatively on topic ( sorry my call as to what is on topic or not) and the comment should be safe. Otherwise say bye bye."
You forgot to mention - and never ever ever criticize a Harper Conservatron website
I notice that the reporters are every where else but none of them seem to be sitting out the LPOC with lights, cmeras demanding 'our money' back. Are they afraid to ask?
Now why is that AA.
You see that is a good example of the type of smart ass inflammatory troll like comments that I should be deleting.
"You forgot to mention - and never ever ever criticize a Harper Conservatron website."
It is pointless unless the point is to inflame.
See ya M
Think of the positive re this story. Many libs will be visiting the site and they might get an education and take off their rose colored glasses. Notice nanos says we are gaining ground in Toronto.
Great to see all the kudos re Canada walking out yesterday at the UN. And if ignegative disses the PM for walking out he better diss all the other world leaders who did the same, including the USA. Canada leads.
Post a Comment