CBC business reporter uses two partisans as sources to attack Conservative’s child benefit ads


CBC business reporter Sophia Harris’ piece titled “Universal Child Care Benefit ads misleading families say critics” set the alarm bells off in my head as all Media Party headlines with the words “say critics” do. It’s one of the laziest and most blatant ways journalists attack while hiding behind others pretending to be objective.

The first person Harris quotes is David Truman:

“There are going to be a lot of very angry parents when they go to file their 2015 tax returns,” warns Langley B.C. accountant David Truman.

Who Harris later mentions is a Liberal:

Truman, who is also a federal Liberal Party member, claims the ads are not transparent. “They are misleading because they’re only telling part of the story.”

The CBC needs to answer why would Harris even use someone who she knows to be a partisan.

And while Harris is explaining that, she should also tell us what kind of background check did she before using Harris as a source because it didn’t take me long to find this gem:

truman cbc sophia harris

Moving on, the other person Harris quotes in this Conservative hit-piece is Rasho Donchev:

But that’s cold comfort for some, like Rasho Donchev who feels duped by the advertising.

“The government is misrepresenting the facts,” says the Oshawa, Ont. father after learning the full details.

Again, what kind of background check did Harris do because tell me it’s just a coincidence Donchev happens to be a pro-CBC advocate and a NDP supporter:

donchev sophia harris cbc

And this same “outraged father” also just happens to be an union official:

Rasho Donchev from the CAAT Support Bargaining team visited the Barrie Campus of Georgian on May 27 to update members on this round of bargaining. (see here)

But even more damning, Harris used the same guy as a source in a previous story:

That’s exactly what Rasho Donchev is doing. On top of his mortgage on his Oshawa, Ont., home, the college support worker owes $30,000 on a line of credit.

But rather than get another loan, Donchev has decided to work on becoming debt-free. (see here)

Why does a business reporter have an union official on speed-dial?

I’m thinking a CBC Ombudsman complaint may be needed to get Harris on the record and find out if the CBC management believes this follows their journalistic standards.

3 Responses to “CBC business reporter uses two partisans as sources to attack Conservative’s child benefit ads”

  1. Centurion Says:

    Valuable information for our campaign. Good work Blue. I shall also make sure that Pierre P sees it.
    By all means complain to the ombudsthingee and to Hube, Morrison et al. It IS important that CBC knows that we the ignorant masses know what they are doing.

  2. Ken Says:

    Good catch Dean. You do a great job exposing their reporting. On another note regarding the election date, have you considered the possibility that Harper may drop the writ on Sunday – but not for a 78 day election period ending on the fixed election date of Monday Oct. 19 but instead for a traditional 37 day election period ending on Tuesday September 8, the day after Labour day. There is nothing preventing an earlier date.

    Political campaigns are like war. The element of surprising your opponent is a great strategic and tactical weapon. Since the timing of an election is only something the Conservatives can do, why should they let it go to waste. I’m very suspicious that the Conservatives would leak the timing of the dropping of the writ to CBC unless it was to set up the media, Liberals and NDP to give them ample time to make public statements in advance condemning a long election campaign as costly to the taxpayer and giving the Conservatives an unfair financial advantage. Harper can now use these statements to justify calling the election earlier to save the taxpayers money and to not try to have an unfair advantage over the opposition.

    Moving up the election date has many advantages to the Conservatives:
    1) The Liberals are in free fall. There is tremendous infighting in their leadership, and their fundraising is disappointing. Why give them 77 days to change advisors and try to right the ship?
    2) The unions and anti conservative third party groups would be for the most part immediately shut down before they had a chance to spend their war chests.
    3) The consortium debates would have to be rescheduled or cancelled. Since Harper and the other leaders are already committed to several debates in August there would be no time for the consortium debates and they would become redundant.
    4) Volunteers are the foot soldiers of a campaign. This is where the NDP and Conservatives have a big advantage over the Liberals. But a surprise early election call would hurt the NDP more than the Conservatives as many of their volunteers are public sector workers who schedule their summer vacations for August – especially teachers.
    5) University students who vote Liberal and NDP will still be on summer break. This could help the Conservatives in several ridings
    6) Finally, politics is all about momentum – the big MO. The Liberals are falling; the NDP seems to have topped out in the polls and stalled around 33%; while the Conservative are surging in the polls in the last couple of weeks moving into a tie with the NDP. I remember Bill Bennett once saying he would rather go into a election trailing by a few points but with momentum behind him – than to go into an election a few points ahead but stagnant or falling in the polls.

    So, its just my speculation, but I think Harper has set up the media to drop the writ on Sunday but surprise everyone by moving the election date to Sept. 8.

  3. Frances Says:

    Ah, yes, the new improved UCCB. Anyone currently receiving same will know that it is taxable – always has been – and is income to the lower income spouse. Single-parent household has some nuances: parent can elect to declare the UCCB on his/her T1 or, alternatively, elect to have all the UCCB the household receives as income of the child names as the “eligible dependent” if this is more advantageous to the family.

    The UCCB first appeared in 2006, and the T1 for that year clearly shows where it had to be reported on Line 117 (the government issues RC62’s for the amount). Until the recent changes, the benefit was given for any child five and under. This is now 2015. So the five-year-old of 2006 would now be 14. His/her parents would have received the UCCB back in the day and HAD TO REPORT SAME ON THE T1 for 2006. Okay, maybe they’ve forgotten, but all this horror about – oh, heaven forfend, this benefit is TAXABLE – is phony. Although I do agree the government should have – in the adverts – said taxable but everyone gets to keep something.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: