In the House is not a home, former opposition leader Erik Neilson pointed out that the news media had a habit of calling him the interim leader.
That is, of course, completely wrong: Neilson was the opposition leader in the Commons, full stop.
Now cbc.ca/nl has pulled a similar gaffe: “The [provincial Liberal] party hasn't had a full-time leader since the last provincial election in 2007.”
The Liberal Party has had a full-time leader since 2007. The leader’s name is Yvonne Jones.
-srbp-
20 comments:
Ed, that gaffe is not nearly as bad as the one earlier this week when CBC Radio swallowed Premier Rumplestiltskin's tale about the Regie decision and reported that the Quebec regulator ruled Newfoundland power cannot be transported on Quebec's lines.
The Regie's decision did not state anything like that.
You might expect that a politician could get away with that kind of stuff in the "clip and rip" radio journalism of the 1970s. It's inexecusable for the public broadcaster in 2010 to report on such a contentious document without having actually read it.
The story should have been that the premier fabricated a wild claim about what was actually contained in the Regie finding.
Disappointing to say the least.
Craig Westcott.
The Liberal Party has had a full-time leader since 2007. The leader’s name is Yvonne Jones.
THREE CHEERS FOR BEING FULL TIME..HIP, HIP....
The fact they repeated the mistake and never corrected it is the part that gets me, Craig, even after the thing came out in English.
Now today's telly has another story related to that which is even more revealing. I have used it as the basis for a post timed to go live at 0730 tomorrow morning.
Basically, the most important bit of the story is the quote right at the end, the next most important bits are in the middle and the stuff right at the front is the least important of all.
In other words, it is the exact opposite of the way the story is written.
Now if you read the Telly story and then look at the entire line the 8th has been spinning out about the Regie decision you get to the real story.
BTW, you missed the poli sci reunion this weekend.
Well, the Telegram wrote the same thing so it's not only the CBC
"She's been leading the party on an interim basis since former leader Gerry Reid lost his seat in the 2007 general election, which left the Liberals with only three seats in the House of Assembly."
"The party postponed its leadership convention in 2008 and elected to wait until, first the spring, and then the fall of 2010 to choose a full-time leader."
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=311603&sc=79
Then add the Telly to the list of news outlets in desperate need of a fact checker.
Maybe the Ceeb writer on the weekend shift copied the old Telly line inadvertently.
Doesn't matter: it is factually incorrect to state that the Liberal does not have a full-time leader.
According to Wikipedia-----The Liberal Party leadership election is now scheduled for November 19-21, 2010. [6] Jones had previously announced her plans to run for the permanent Liberal leadership in December 2009.Wikipedia
And it's Wikipedia so it must be correct.
Sarcasm aside Mr. Hollett ,I just wanted to add a little more information . I don't know the answer ,maybe I should ask Ms. Jones .
Well, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of accurate information so quoting it doesn't on the face of it saying anything one way or the other about a given topic. Some entries are quite good and some are appalling bad and the vast majority are in the middle, containing all sorts of information.
I've used it if the entry gives what I consider to give a decent summary on something. I just skimmed through several entries on the Liberal Party and the errors are legion. I don't who wrote the entries but they aren't even close to being correct in some cases.
In this instance, the problem with the CBC and Telly description is that they refer to her as running for the "full-time" job as leader.
She has that now.
She is the leader, full-time. What she isn't is the leader elected by a convention.
There is a difference in the two and neither the CBC nor the Telly use of the phrase "full-time" is even vaguely close to correct.
Return to provincial politics
In 1987, he was elected leader of the Liberal Party, succeeding Leo Barry. In the 1989 general election, Wells led the party to power, defeating Tom Rideout and ending 17 years of Progressive Conservative rule. Unusually, however, the Progressive Conservatives had a higher percentage of votes in the election and Wells was defeated by Lynn Verge in his own riding of Humber East despite having led his party to victory. Consequently, a member of his caucus, Eddie Joyce, thus resigned and Wells was acclaimed to office in the riding of Bay of Islands.[1]
Premier Wells became a major figure on the national political stage during the Meech Lake Accord for his opposition to several of its provisions. Wells was heavily criticized for his role in the Meech Lake Accord's failure. Former Canadian
From Wikipedia
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney described it to Maclean's: "Mr. Wells signed a formal constitutional instrument before the people of Canada committing his province to either hold a referendum on Meech, or a vote in the house of assembly. He did not attach conditions to it: the commitment was unequivocal. He canceled the vote - he dishonoured his signature. He'll have to live with the consequences."[2]
Was Mulroney anywhere close to being correct?
Funny you should pick that section because it was one I revised and then someone else came in behind and stuck in that rather biased interpretation of events and, if memory serves, the references to the popular vote and Ed Joyce.
As an example of the unreliable nature of Wikipedia, note in that entry that Wells wasn't "acclaimed to office". He was acclaimed as the member of the House of Assembly for Bay of Islands. He held office (as Premier) by virtue of being the leader of the majority party in the legislature.
As for the Mulroney quote, he was utterly wrong. The vote was not cancelled. The session was adjourned. He was simply trying to manufacture a scapegoat.
And just for good measure, I edited the CKW Wiki entry to correct the mistakes and clarify the erroneous assertions.
Ed..your little exchange with Ursula was kinda of rude don't you think? I think you did too... because you go on spouting about the ins and outs of Wiki to deflect a rather genuine comment
and speaking about spouting off...
Well, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of accurate information so quoting it doesn't on the face of it saying anything one way or the other about a given topic. Some entries are quite good and some are appalling bad and the vast majority are in the middle, containing all sorts of information.
and then you say...And just for good measure, I edited the CKW Wiki entry to correct the mistakes and clarify the erroneous assertions
I presume that the entry you corrected about CKW, would be... quite good and not appalling bad or somewhere in the middle?
You see, Murph, you edited those quotes of mine together without making reference to the intermediate exchange with Jerome.
The changes I made reflected the points I made to Jerome.
Of course, you'd know that if you read my comment to Jerome or the Wiki-entry on CKW. of course, we all know that you don't actually read anything since your sole purpose seems to be to make snide comments that add nothing to anything.
Well done. Mission accomplished
of course, we all know
Who is we?
"Who is we?"
- People who read your comments regularly.
- Everyone except you. I doubt you even read your own comments sometimes.
I have never seen a bunch of people get so up in arms when someone makes a comment they don't like about the Liberal Party.
I agree Jones has been in an interim role as Liberal leader. Does that make her full time or not I don't know. However if I had an interim job I wouldn't consider it to be permanent full time.
I think it comes down to how literal you want to be with the definition and in politics there is always a grey area.
Is she been acting as full time leader for the last 3 years ? Yes. Was she elected to that position in a convention by the members of the liberal party? No.
How about if, just to be a nitpicker, I said you're all wrong?
The terms "interim" and "full-time" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Maybe if the CBC had used the word "permanent" instead of "full-time" there'd be less to quibble about. (Although nothing in politics can ever truly be said to be "permanent" either)
Neither is it necessarily true that one's status as a Leader of a Party, and as Leader of the Opposition are one and the same.
There was nothing interim about Erik Neilson's position as Leader of the Opposition. He was, however an interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Craig: I appreciate your sense of humour, seeing as you are one of the regular crowd of local freshie-guzzlers who will assail anyone who dares suggest the Old Man is less than perfect.
It's not a matter of literal, gray areas or anything of the sort.
Yvonne is the full-time leader.
She was not selected by a convention but, as I understand it she is legally, constitutionally the party leader.
She can be accurately described "interim" but that is not the same as part-time.
And yes Mark, that's why I picked Neilson as the analogy. His situation in 1984 was exactly comparable.
Just to quote the Liberal Party website, under the "history" section:
"Current interim Leader of the Official Opposition, Yvonne Jones, has been a credible and effective voice (November 2007-Present) for the people of the province who feel their needs and issues have not been addressed by the present administration."
It really makes no difference to me how they say it, she's still the leader of the party at present.
Post a Comment