May 14, 2008 The Commission of Inquiry into Hormone Receptor Testing, led by Madam Justice Margaret Cameron, has generated a lot of controversy and polarizing commentary. The extensive media coverage that the Cameron Commission has received reflects the many twists and turns the process has navigated since it began. The dynamic nature of the Inquiry and the controversies that have swirled around it, particularly in recent days, can trigger strong emotions. In this environment, there is an elevated risk of misinformation. Given these circumstances, it is important to ensure that all members are fully apprised of the NLMA’s position with respect to the Cameron Commission.
It is a bit of damage control. I guess neglecting to accurately relay a factual representation of a meeting with the premier could be called misinformation. Doing a media interview refuting the Premier and undermining his credibility in the midst of a very public, emotional and controversial discussion is much more than misinformation. It is scandalous. I do not agree with government's public approach to its concerns with the inquiry, but I feel suckered in by yesterday's false and misleading story based on inaccurate comments from the NLMA boss.
If you're interested in the NLMA position it is posted with some comments from Dr. Joseph Tumilty in which he says the organization supports the inquiry, will participate and looks forward to the recommendations.As well there is some spin on what was discussed with the Premier. For the record the NLMA did not suggest the mandate of the inquiry should be curtailed or modified in any way. Does that mean they are opposed to an extension because that would be a modification?
4 comments:
Doing a media interview refuting the Premier and undermining his credibility in the midst of a very public, emotional and controversial discussion is much more than misinformation. It is scandalous.
Scandalous indeed. Speaking to media without using the script provided or vetted by the Premier's staff should be a crime. It's a wonder we've allowed this type of behaviour in the past.
Mark:
Okay lets play your game. Prime Minister Martin has a meeting with a group. One of them makes a statement which is incorrect. Not wrong, utterly incorrect. Would you have let it stand? Of course not.
If this guy had a different interpretation of something that was said sure.
I'll take it a little further. The story was in Monday Mornings paper. So it was not a go for Saturday. Which means chances are the interview was arranged with the Telegram not the other way around. And yea, funny that the Telegram was the only media to have the story on Monday morning.
Who arranged the story over the weekend and suckered this fella into taking the Premier on over this issue?
I could care less about the Premiers line. I disagree with that as well but at least I can get past the blind partisanship to make an unbiased observation.
Why is it that if I rail on the gov it is okay but when I am off page on the anti-Danny line I am to be scorned. Sounds like the type of control you purport to be opposed to. Or is it that control of the message is only wrong when it is not Liberal Party Speaking notes.
More than meets the eye Mark.
Why would anyone, after all the examples that have come to light in the Williams Government era, ever, ever, EVER have a "private" meeting with Williams Government ever again?
Ed:
You defend him liek you woudl a boss, what gives?
Post a Comment