That is a good question Mr. Ignatieff

Michael Ignatieff asked a good question yesterday.

“Well, who's the third party? I mean they've simply got to come clean here with Canadians,” Ignatieff told reporters outside the House of Commons.

When dealing with 'third parties' one can never be too careful; so what would you do Michael if you were Prime Minister?

Say you had an MP, lets use Wayne Easter as an example, who happened to receive allegations from a third party against another MP that some would consider serious enough that they would warrant a call for that MPs resignation.

So what would you do Michael? Would you demand that your MP come clean with Canadians and identify the third party making those allegations, as you currently are of the PM, or would you just ignore it and hope nobody noticed?


BTW Michael, we noticed.

CP. Just one question.

Dear Canadian Press: Since your story about pictures of the PM being removed from a government website has proven to be totally false; I think in the interest of openness, fairness, and public information that you should provide your readers with the names of these 'critics' who spawned this story spawned this story and headline? (edit: added 'and headline' to my poorly worded question. Thanks M)

The Canadian Press

Harper Photos Removed from Government Website.
Only a half-dozen of PM's 40 or more photos survive the cut after boosterism accusations

OTTAWA–The Government of Canada website set up to promote the Conservative economic action plan had a leaner look yesterday: more than 30 photos of Prime Minister Stephen Harper had been removed.

"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.

You might want to check those credentials

From the Toronto Star: "He cited a letter by constitutional lawyers to the Montreal newspaper La Presse, saying that a "growing body of expert opinion suggests the Prime Minister may be violating the Constitution by making these appointments without the confidence of the House of Commons."

If ANY constitutional lawyer believes that the PM does not have the right to make these Senate appointments, they should either have their credentials reviewed and or be made to pee into a cup because they have no clue as to what they are talking about.

I do not have the time but does anyone out there have a copy of this letter with the names of these so called constitutional lawyers? Drop a link into the comments if you come across the info.

Unnamed sources and spreading smear.

From the MSM who are always hot on the trail of real news we get this story in the aftermath of Barneygate.

White House sources who did not want to be identified are denying the rumour that Vice President Dick Chaney has been secretly training Barney for the last month by holding up pictures of Wolf Blitzer and poking Barney with a stick. Another anonymous source commented that Sarah Palin was supposed to do the training but declined because she did not know how to speak Scottish to Barney, a Scottish Terrier.



Hey, my story is about as credible as this nonsense, but yet this story garners 4000* stories in the MSM. (* Google search)

We really are in trouble when anonymous smears get this kind of coverage by the MSM.

When is that asteroid arriving anyway?

In my opinion...

In my opinion the first line of this Canadian Press news story is opinion.

OTTAWA — It will probably be a very short meeting.

NDP Leader Jack Layton has agreed to sit down with Stephen Harper on Saturday, but said he believes the prime minister has already decided to throw in the towel and call a fall election....

------

But whose opinion is it?

I really have no idea why the CP didn't think it important enough to include the authors name along with the authors opinion, but I am not a journalist and I am unfamiliar with their ways.

A picture says a 1000 words

But what are the words this one is trying to say?


Blogging will be light due to a busy schedule and great weather!

Zytaruk wrong. There was only 1 meeting.

Statement from Mr. Dan Wallace (Chuck Cadman's assistant)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 2, 2008

Today Mr. Wallace issued the following statement:


“The May meeting date included in a soon to be released book about Chuck Cadman is inaccurate. Unfortunately, because of that error, some media are now reporting that there were two meetings, one on May 17 and another on May 19, 2005, between party officials - Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan - and Chuck Cadman. For the record, there was only the one meeting between my former employer, Chuck Cadman, with Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan and it took place in his private office on May 19th. As I have stated publicly last week, I was outside that room and not privy to the details.”

The scoop, MSM style.

The rumour that Hunter from Climbing out of the dark was going to break a big, yet strangely familiar story on how the media tweaks the news; was confirmed to Albertaardvark by an insider at the MSM, who stated they had gotten this exclusive off the record comment from their deeply placed source within the LPC.

The source went on to say......