Did Globe’s Martin intentionally miss “not for public” disclaimer in robocall emails?

In an email exchange (which I wrote about yesterday (see here) where the CBC’s errr… the National Post’s Andrew Coyne called me a “liar“) the Globe and Mail’s Lawrence Martin printed off-the-record emails from ex-Harper Chief of Staff Ian Brodie:

Martin, who didn’t realize the comments were not for publication, posted them in a story on iPolitics.ca, which the political website later took down 

Of course, that sent alarm bells off in my head. How does a journo who has been around as long as Martin not realize when comments are off record?

Then this morning, details started to come out. I am being told that Martin is saying that Ian Brodie’s disclaimer used in his emails was in very small text but that was countered by Norman Spector telling me:

“In e-mails that I’ve received in the past from @irbrodie the disclaimer appears to be the same size as the rest of the text @bcbluecon”

My response:

@nspector4 “Question then, did @irbrodie use a different font size and make it hard for Martin to see?”

Stay tuned for updates and if anyone has any additional info, please pass it along.



15 Responses to “Did Globe’s Martin intentionally miss “not for public” disclaimer in robocall emails?”

  1. Bocanut Says:

    I’m sure that Don Burroughs has the inside scoop.

  2. Liz J Says:

    Well, if “not for public” disclaimer interfered with an agenda………

  3. Lynn Says:

    Nothing that is said to the media is off the record or not for public consumption. Thinking that this is so is the first mistake.

    You can dig into the details of someone’s personal life and not publish; but that doesn’t stop you from shopping it around and then publishing after someone else does.

    There are all sorts of ways of getting around the “off the record, not for public consumption” rule especially if you don’t specifically say that you agree that it’s off the record. That doesn’t necessarily stop you from giving that information to someone else either. And it will also be used against you.

    If you don’t want something on the record; especially your personal perspective of the moment; then it’s best not to say anything. If your perspective changes based on further information or developments; there is no changing what is already on the record.

    All considerations take a backseat to the “story”.

    • BC Blue Says:

      That applies for Brodie’s political decision in emailing Martin but it would be a firing offence if a journo intentionally used off-the-record information.

      • Ed the Hun Says:

        And to be a journalist (good or otherwise), it will be a difficult haul if ‘insiders, contacts, or otherwise’ don’t trust you.

        Sources will dry up pretty quickly and then he’ll be left having to beg for a job with the CBC who won’t care about the quality of this journalism.

        • socialistslayer Says:

          That’s not a problem for these clowns. One reporter quotes another and soon they are all using the same quote. Slap “confidential insider” or “high ranking Conservative” and bingo all bases are covered.

      • Lynn Says:

        I don’t understand why he made the statement in the first place.

  4. Martin Says:

    I would caution that once you hit the send button on anything, it may well end up on the public record, especially if you are e-mailing a journalist.

  5. Dirt Says:

    Ordinary people read the entire email, not just the bits printed out in large font. I hope this closes the door on any Conservative ever talking to the press on or off the record in future.

  6. Sean M Says:

    From what I’ve seen over the years regarding Martin, I would have to say he is lying. Lying to continue a narrative is what Liberal/ progressive media soldiers do all the time. In this latest Media Party ambush the narrative ( “the biggest electoral fraud in history” ) has gone off the rails, so they are desperately lashing out and continuing to play fast and loose with the rules, just to keep a flawed manufactured narrative alive. I have no doubt Martin knew what was on the record and what was off the record, he just didn’t care, and is now playing dumb, like he’s some rookie. Media Party soldiers like Martin are professional manipulaters, and in being so, need to lie, and have no problem doing so, especially when they’re in the middle of a manufactured smear campaign where rules of decency and truth don’t apply. Brodie should know better then to deal with these vipers… hopefully he’s learned a valuable lesson… never trust the Media Party as they are in a self declared “war” against the Government Canadians chose to elect. Martin is a professional liar, just like Coyne, the Glob@Plop, CBC, CTV, etc. etc. The Media “war” against the Government continues.

  7. Brian Says:

    nah … probably just assumed disclaimers only apply to Conservatives , Global Warming Deniers or anyone else who does not agree with the liberal agenda … because they (liberals) are always correct and on the side of whatever is best for YOU .

    • jon Says:

      Specific to the Media Party, they’ll argue that the criticisms against them for both the angles they play up and those they play down are strictly opinion-based; subjective rantings that have no basis in reality, unsubstantiated and completely without merit. But the subjectiveness is removed when you compare like things and expose how, in spite of that, they’ll cover the story differently depending on which side of the political spectrum the group or individual happens to be on.

      We’ll get plenty of that in less than 2 weeks when the federal and Ontario budgets are delivered. The Flaherty budget, the Media Party, will play as slash and burn, cutting in the wrong places, with plenty of “but critics say” throughout their reports — “but critics say” being a favourite tool the Media Party uses to rebut Tory policy and positions, often times when — in the event that they have to report immediately following a Tory minister’s announcement at a presser — they have no actual quotes on hand from the opposition, instead channeling them by stating, “What the opposition might say to criticize the gov’t on this issue is this…” It’s a “clever way” (not really) to insert their own biased position to the report while “appearing” to provide neutrality.

      With Ontario’s budget being handed down just 2 days earlier by a Lib gov’t, the Media Party”s focus will be all about the gov’t’s attempts in “finding efficiencies”, bringing about “transformational change” in current program spending, and with a specific emphasis on the ultimate goal of reaching a “balanced budget” and when happy days will be hear for all again — much like the reporting was for FM Paul Martin in the ’90s.

      2 budgets handed down by 2 gov’ts of different political stripes provides for a great opportunity to analyze media bias. Both will be austerity budgets and yet both will be covered differently by the Media Party.

      Just a side note, Ont’s McLiar won’t cut 16% of gov’t spending as Don Drummond recommends but the cuts he will impose — 7, 8, 9 or even 10% — will be double or even triple that brought in by “Mike The Knife” in the ’90s..But don’t look for the Media Party to point that one out. They only compare the 2 premiers on any given issue when they feel the current one appears kinder and gentler. As a result, they’ll be making the Drummond-McLiar comparison instead and saying to Ontarians, “pain from the cuts could’ve have been felt much deeper but the premier chose a more balanced approach”.

  8. Stan Says:

    This dog is done, the robocalls smear is dying.
    The next media smear is well on the way, my bets are it will be the liberal media telling us that Harper is trying to frame the new NDP leader, whoever it is, if he doesn’t actually become orgasmic when commenting on him/her.

    Perhaps we should have a contest or a poll?

  9. marco Says:

    Wow font size becomes contentious! WRT to nspector’s font comments – it’s possible that his mail reader is set for plain text only – in which case font sizes are ignored and all text is rendered uniformly.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: