Tim Naumetz uses University of Toronto Professor Peter Russell as a source in his latest anti-Harper piece but omits letting his readers in on some of Russell’s background.
Russell retired from the U of T in 1996 and was used as an expert witness by the Liberals during the defamation lawsuit brought on by PM Stephen Harper against the Liberal Party for accusing Harper of being aware of “financial considerations” offered to entice Chuck Cadman to vote along with the Conservatives. (see here)
Conservative spokesman Ryan Sparrow also notes in this article that Russell is a “close friend and fishing buddy” of then Liberal leader Stephane Dion.
How is it possible that Naumetz did not know the background of this source? No one can convince me that an ethical journalist would not even bother to do a basic Google search prior. (see here)
Also: Check out earlier post on CBC’s Kady O’Malley using (and not disclosing) a Liberal blogger as story source here
January 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM
It is an example if an expert opinion is used to check for bias. Same with a lack of a counter point to balance the “expert” opinion that make the article appear one sided.
If Tim was interested in writing from a neutral position he would provide both sides with equal time in the article.
I always point to the CBC via the “CAGW” agenda vs. Skeptics. It was 99.9% Suzuki-Gore.
The media should not be taking sides but presenting all views and allow the readers and viewers to draw their own conclusion.
This is the sad state of affairs we find ourselves with an Ottawa-Toronto Liberal worldview.
January 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Oh gawd, not Numbo again!
These birds can’t even offer constructive criticism, they’re simply slaggers.