Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

What goes on here

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:29pm - 0 Comments

A former anonymous source, who once publicly lamented the use of anonymous sourcing, currently oversees a national news bureau that ran today an anonymously sourced story about official sleeping arrangements that is being vehemently refuted by the prominent individual in question.

Tags: Elizabeth II, Government House, Jean-Daniel Lafond, Kory Teneycke, Michaëlle Jean, Queen Elizabeth II, Rideau Hall

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Wow, Aaron has foresworn ever using an anonymous source.

Standing By

When did he do that?

John D

All I have to say to David Aikin: <sigh>

David G

You do you spell hack? A-K-I-N

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

David Akin has some explaining to do…

The Real Jan

Where's 'big scoop Kory' hiding today?

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

This is a hatchet job by David Akin. I have no love for the Separatist Lafond but fair reporting is fair reporting. To quote an anonymous source to malign the GG indirectly is unconscionable. I want Sun TV News to report politics differently in Canada. That is what Canadians are crying for and want badly. However, Akin's column shows nothing is going to change. If this is how Sun TV News is going to conduct their reporting I won't be watching.

The Real Jan

He needs to name his source.

http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

Should he continue to defend the story, he may well find himself engaged in a test of the most recent Supreme Court ruling regarding anonymous sources.

I guess based on the context of that ruling, he has to ask himself…"is this a pressing matter of the public interest, worthy of source protection?", or will he withdraw the story?

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Actually, I'm surprised that David Akin, who I used to respect as an honest journalist interested in facts. He's going down hill – could be mud at the bottom.

Dave

Isn't the Sun bottom already?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

"It was a bizarre request that raised more than a few eyebrows in official Ottawa, partly because Rideau Hall is, for all intents and purposes, the property of the Queen." – Akin's article linked above

It was so bizarre that no one in official Ottawa could speak on the record or provide anything to corroborate the request.

Amateur Hour

Nor did they appear to give Lafond an opportunity to go on the record BEFORE they trashed him publicly.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

Another great point. Sometimes the best source for a story is also the subject of the story…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Well, here's what he tweeted:

We aren't the Tor Star… @davidakin confirmed story of original source with others, and no, I am not the source.

http://twitter.com/KoryTeneycke/status/1795186810…

Loraine Lamontagne

Are readers supposed to give KT's prepubescent response any credibility? Why? Because he has heard the rumour and checked with others who have also heard the rumour…??!!???

Loraine Lamontagne

The last time I read something this outrageous, involving a lie about a liaison between former GG and a diplomat, the journalist was fired. In light of Mr. Lafond's vehement denial I think firing the journalist is in order. Unless he can prove that Lafond is lying…

http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

He might not get fired but his reputation is damaged.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Is it really considered good journalism to run an anonymously sourced story like this without seeking comment from the person being implicated by the anonymous source(s)???

It seem that the second he found out about the story Lafond denied it thoroughly. He's also correct that it makes no sense that he would have no problem at all with the Prince of Wales staying at Rideau, but that he'd somehow object to the Queen staying there. Even leaving aside the fact that it's the Queen's house, and that the GG and her husband are actually technically her guests, not the other way around, I can't imagine ANYONE, even Lafond, objecting to an important dignitary staying in Government House – let alone our very own Head of State.

Would asking Lafond for a reaction before running the story have been so hard? 'Cause the story doesn't even make any sense, not to me anyway, and Lafond's denial seems much more credible to me than even an on the record source would be.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I should say, props to Akin for blogging Lafond's response, but still, should a link to that response (if not the text itself) not also appear on the Sun story itself by now???

Me, as so often happens when I read Sun stories, I've moved on.

"SUNshine girl Stacee, 24, loves watching the Pittsburgh Penguins play, especially her favourite player Sidney Crosby. The 5-foot-6 Taurus also loves bar hopping, dancing on tables and spending time with her boyfriend, Greg."

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Even if the story were entirely true, I'm not sure why I should care about it. The spouse of a departing governor general makes a rude request, without her knowledge, that is ignored. I'm actually pretty sure I can pick up the pieces of my shattered life and move on after learning that.

http://www.TennisVagabond.com Tennis Vagabond

No, you'll never be the same.
Anon 001

I think you should care because a Press Gallery colleague of yours, the Bureau chief of a major media organization, has published a story about the GG's husband without including in it a response from the husband. It would be like one of the London tabloids publishing a story about Prince Philip without including in it a statement from the Prince or the palace.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Inkless..the pot calling the kettle black. Everyday I see columns/opinions on MacLeans that I could care less about and in fact delete them rather than reading them. So if the sole reason for a story is public interest the media will be without anything much to say.
Having said this Akin has hit a new low and if this is the kind of journalism the new Sun TV News is going to report on based on anonymous sources etc. I certainly won't be watching.
s_c_f

There is some merit to the story, that the Queen was not welcome at what is ostensibly her Canadian residence (if it's a true story). If we intend to maintain Canadian traditions and protocol, then this story matters.

Having said that, it's rather low on my scale of interest as well. It's more interesting that Wherry is lambasting Akin.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

EXACTLY. and if this is the heroics that this news thingy is gonna give us, well hurrah hurrah hurrah.

Orson Bean

Whether the story is true or not, it was a clear matter of public record at the time of the GG's appointment that her hubby was a separatist. So we all knew the risk we were running by making the appointment. Those who are decidedly pro-monarchy should probably be relieved that he didn't throw a drink in the Queen's face or put a poisonous snake in her bed.

The Real Jan

That's a bit over the top Bean, even for you.
Lord Kitchener's Own

So, if the story's not true, should we all still be relieved that something even worse than the thing that didn't happen, didn't happen???

Orson Bean

Actually, per Jan's comment, I probably just shouldn't have made that post in the first place.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Orson Bean…..agree…you should not have made the post in the first place. This is sleaze and yellow journalism of the worse kind.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

A poisonous snake? In her bed? Too funny. More like the wrong tea bag in her tea.

Anon 001

Well, David Akin, polish your resume, old boy, because you'll be moving soon.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

I doubt it. I think this might be a precursor of what we see at Sun/Kory TV.

I half expect Stephen Taylor to be hired on there.

Lord Kitchener's Own

You only half expect that???

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Me thinks you are wrong… he will get a raise and for good reason.

David works for Kory now. He seems to have successful accomplished a highly successful drive-by slander. Mr. Bean's response above is both idiotic and typical for the Sun's audience. They "know" Lafond is already guilty and so this just confirms it. Lafond's denial just helps keep the issue alive a little longer. If he continues his denial eventually in an editorial they will misquote Shakesphere and "methink he doth protest too much", or that sage bit of wisdom about smoke and fire.

We all are sometimes guilty of projecting our own values onto others. Akins was not shooting for truth, he was shooting for Jean. He did a pretty good job of it.
officerfarva

After that, he'll probably be moving into a better office. WHo knew that Akin's spiritual home would be Con-TV.

Stewart_Smith

Does anyone know how Akin's scenario was supposed to work. I presume that Lafond did not call Buckingham Palace directly. I also presume the the GG office has a permanent, professional staff. Again, not just anyone on that staff would make contact with "the home base", certainly not with an actual request for the Queen. So who exactly was far enough up the line to have actually made the call, but so hopeless uninformed to have made the call?

If you are going to pass off questionable journalism… it would be good if it was a least plausible fiction.

Lord Kitchener's Own

That's the thing about this story. It makes no sense on it's face. Plus, he was fine with Charles and Camilla, but draws the line at the Queen?!?!?

Seriously, whoever Akin's "source" was, I hope he at least said to the source, several times, "Wait a sec, can you explain this to me one more time, because what you're telling me Lafond did makes no sense whatsoever".

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

I know David Akin has a solid reputation that must be taken into account, but I don't see any compelling reason to even believe there was a source. Then again, I am such a cynic that I didn't people Tiger Wood's account of his traffic accident either.
http://www.dangardner.ca Dan Gardner

The Queen has a constitutional role and what she does and does not do — like signing legislation personally, which Adrienne Clarkson stopped the Queen from doing when asked by Ralph Klein — can become grist for subsequent constitutional interpretation. It's not the same for Charles and Camilla.

See, that's the thing about all this coverage. People — like pretty much everyone posting on this thread — treat it like a soap opera but these are real constitutional offices. Sometimes what looks like angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin protocol really does matter. I'm not saying that's what was involved here — I don't know anything about it — but I do wish people wouldn't automatically assume this is all fluff.

Lord Kitchener's Own

So, are you suggesting that Lafond actually did try to get the Queen to stay somewhere other than Rideau Hall, or at least that IF he did, that that was because he thought it was constitutionally inappropriate for her to stay there (as opposed to Charles and Camilla, for whom it was fine because they have no formal constitutional role)? To me that just seems even more ludicrous. Charles can stay here because he's NOT the Head of State, but I think we should get the Queen to stay in a hotel, because she IS the Head of State? I'm not sure I get what you're getting at.

I happen to take the Queen's role very seriously. I'd be mad as Hell if I thought someone tried to stop her from staying at what is essentially her own home. However, I still think the suggestion that Lafond tried to stop her from staying at Government House is laughable, and I'd like to see or hear some actual proof that he did so if anyone wants me to stop laughing.

http://www.dangardner.ca Dan Gardner

As I said, I don't know anything about it. I do know, however, that recent GGs — not just the current one — have made strenuous efforts to keep the Queen from exercising any royal prerogative, even in what most people would consider to be a strictly symbolic form. The legislation Klein wanted the Queen to sign being a case in point. It was, if memory serves, fluffy stuff, but Clarkson intervened. Most people treated that story as trivial, at best. But the evolution of constitutional practice matters to constitutional interpretation, and this sort of thing, cumulatively, can amount to considerably more than a hill of beans.
Again, I don't know anything about this story and I'm not about to speculate. But it is NOT laughable to suggest that it actually may matter how the Queen is received at Government House — ie. is she just another dignitary visiting "Canada's head of state" (remember that?) or is she the owner of the place? Protocol counts.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Ah, I totally agree. I don't think it would be laughable if this happened, I think it's laughable for anyone to believe that it happened based on anonymous sources in the face of a pretty strenuous denial.

One thing I didn't like was Lafond's characterization of Canada's close ties to the "British" monarchy in his denial of the charge made against him. I didn't like that one bit.

John W.

Rather amusing that the National Post is all gooey, gooey over the latest real, actual, quotable Lafond comments on separatism. The link is on Newswatch.
Anon 001

Should the Government of Canada, on behalf of the GG, now sue SUN TV for what is so obviously slander?

Orson Bean

SUN TV does not exist yet. It is not possible to sue an entity that does not exist. At least not successfully.

The Real Jan

Wouldn't they sue Sun Media?

Orson Bean

Umm, yep, that would be the target. Anyone who published the alleged libel/defamatory statement. You usually sue the author and the publication/media outlet in which the article appeared.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

On a related note, the misinformant of the fake Liberal crossers was I believe Alykhan Velshi who works for Jason Kenney. We have had a couple of interesting notes about proceedures for journalists to use sources… including one by wow David Akin. http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009…

Anyway my question for the professionals, has Velshi suffered at all for his misdeed i.e. do journalists really treat information from that office differently?
The Real Jan

The Ottawa is running a poll -
Is the GG's husband an embarrassment to Rideau Hall?
Hard not think there's an organized attempt to discredit the outgoing GG. But why – maybe the incoming one has some real baggage?
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

It's pretty immature stuff. Kory is pretty childish, even for 39. Maybe he's going through pre-mid-life crisis.

If this is a sample of what's to come – I'm not watching.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Did everyone watch that movie with Jennifer Garner about the only guy in the world who didn't have to tell the pure truth?

Didn't any of you hear/read that "news" item and immediately dismiss it as ridiculously untrue?

For myself, I wondered if the two couples had gotten together at some point and perhaps the Queen said, "Ah yes, Rideau Hall. I've stayed here so many times and you haven't changed a thing" at which Lafond replied with something like, "well if you are looking for something different there are a number of good hotels in the area" Haha. Joke. Made a funny.

But seriously, why would anyone believe this bit of drivel on its face?
Emily

Well, our media has now officially gone into the dumpster with the advent or 'right-wing news' here.

Fox North.
http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

The unwritten rule in the Canadian media that outlets don't criticize each other or point out each others' mistakes is clearly out the window for the new black sheep of the family. Gee, I wonder why…

David Akin is quickly going to regret the career choice he's made. No more free passes on any mistakes he makes.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Twisted_Mentat Twisted_Mentat

Well, to be fair, Teneycke did warn us that the new SUN TV News would be, "My objective is to have the debate be more real, more raw, and more reflective of the issues that people are actually talking about."

Too bad this news item excludes priorities one & three and leaves us all with a number two feeling.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

This whole thing makes me suspicious. Why are they trying to discredit the GG & spouse so badly? It makes me wonder if those 'sources' are worried what the very popular GG might say about certain requests made by PMH while she was in office. I know I'm sure hoping she explains some of her decisions once she's out of office. Clarification and all that.
Lord Kitchener's Own

This does seem like a hatchet job on someone's part, but to me, as suspicious as I am of the PM, it makes no sense to me whatsoever that this smear would come from there, or really anyone in the PMO or Cabinet. Everyone knows the Governor General is leaving her office soon, it's all quite open, and her new role as UN envoy for Haiti would seem to me the kind of thing that Jean would be looking forward to. I see no reason for the PM or his office, or anyone in the Conservative government to try to discredit the GG, or her husband even, not at this point. The only reason that would even make ANY sense, imho, would be some sort of personal animosity, and even I don't think the PM and his people are that petty. Nor do I think they'd embarrass the Queen by trying to discredit the Vice Regal couple like THIS.

I'm highly suspicious too, and I do think this was some sort of "attack", but the notion that it comes from the PMO, or anyone in the government seems as ludicrous to me as the notion that Lafond would have even thought of thinking about attempting what was alleged in the original story. Even if deep down inside Lafond would want to do something like this, the man's not an idiot. And if anyone wanted to keep the Vice Regal couple "quiet" once they're out of office, I'd suggest that getting Lafond's picture on the front page of the Sun, in full colour, with the word WANKER in bold print right next to him was probably not the best way to get he and his wife to AVOID trash talking once out of office (though, the idea that the GG would even do that is, like, the fourth LUDICROUS suggestion to come out of this story…)
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Lord Kitchener…..I agree there really is no advantage for the PMO etc to try and make the GG and her husband look foolish when she is virtually out of office. I suspect Harper initially objected to the Jean appointment given their activist history in Quebec and that she knew little about the country. Having said that the GG has done a good job and her husband has remained silent during her time. So for this to come out now smells to high heavens.
Akin should be ashamed of himself as well as the publisher/editors of Sun Media. As Inkless points out this is hardly information the country was thirsting for. It is gossip to put it kindly which rightly belongs in a Jane Taber column rather than a David Akin column. So unless the anonymous source can be outed then Akin has hurt himself and his new employer badly.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

You make a good point about this seeming personal. Regardless of who this idea started with, it's shameful cowardly act. Anonymous style.
Loraine Lamontagne

I can't imagine the PMO being behind this either. Last week Monsieur Lafond was quoted all over the QC media on an interview he gave to French magazine L"Express.
http://www.lexpress.fr/emploi-carriere/jean-danie…

You anglos think of Sun/Quebecor as the boîte that employs Akin and Teneke. I think of it as the place that employs convicted a FLQ kidnapper to write about James Cross' dislike for his captors' pâté chinois. Maybe Akin and Teneke are more 'à l'aise' with this kind of nationalism than Lafond :

Ah, non! On ne peut pas flirter avec le nationalisme québécois. C'est: "Marche ou crève!" J'arrive dans un monde traumatisé par octobre 1970, un monde blessé par l'erreur tragique et grotesque que fut la mort de Pierre Laporte [N.D.L.R.: homme politique enlevé et tué par le Front de libération du Québec], accusé de traîtrise – une accusation dont je ferai l'objet plus tard quand nous nous installerons ici. Je n'ai pas été fasciné par le nationalisme mais j'ai compris que je ne pouvais pas ne pas vivre avec. C'est autre chose. Mais je ne me suis jamais senti à l'aise avec ce nationalisme.
The truth

I would not be suprised if the GG's Husband actually did this. They shut down the use of the cricket pitch at Rideau Hall, for over 2 months. Cricket has been there for over 150 years and they have been there 2??? I would say there is definately an abuse of power and I am not suprised with the story. The Queens representatives would definately know the truth to the matter.