Most commenters on Stephen's blog felt that this was the best we could expect from the CBC although some were of the opinion that the apology was totally inadequate.
Far from displaying the merest hint of contrition, the tone suggests that they are reluctantly obligated to apologize because of the poor comprehension skills of those who complained. "It appeared as if the Prime Minister was responding directly to that particular protester."
Well no, it didn't. How could the PM, at a later press conference, possibly have been aware of and responding to the CBC's selected soundbite from a protest? The issue is that Lawand and her producer tried to make it look that way.
The CBC manipulated the edit to serve an obvious editorial agenda. They apologize, in effect, for a supposed editing mistake that accidently gave a false impression, when it is baldly obvious that the edit served the purpose of the entire piece, and was completely congruent with the editorial tone.
What about the totally gratuitous Bush/Harper slur in the piece? What about Lawand's insinuating tone of voice in the opening line when she refers to Harper meeting "a safe distance away"?
[...]A credible apology involves acknowledging what the wrong behaviour is, and a promise to change. I don't see a hint of that. We shouldn't be so credulous.
While I agree that the apology was inadequate and failed to acknowledge that the "misunderstanding" had been deliberately engineered, I am heartened that the CBC felt obliged to address this issue publicly. This is a tacit admission that they were surprised by the volume of complaints and felt the need to do damage control. I hope it also means they are aware now that any future shenanigans run a real risk of being exposed. We owe Taylor a debt of gratitude.
Technorati tags: CBC, Christina Lawand