Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
In some of these cases though you really do have to wonder about the ethics and accountability of this government. They came to power promising accountability and openess and instead this is a short list of their scandals...I'm not even going back to the first term! I'm not adding in things like the doctored photograph from this week. I can see how people would skim over one or two issues...but seriously there are some major issues on that list.
|
Doctored photo? The picture had poor resolution. How does that qualify as being doctored?
From the link that you originally provided:
Quote:
|
Our preliminary analysis of the picture concluded that it was real and had not been tampered with, and a lot of the information contained in the report was very convincing, including a clip from a Pentagon press briefing in which an American colonel thanked Michael Ignatieff specifically for his work in preparation for the invasion, and this on the day before the U.S. launched the attack. As well, we had submitted the picture to Ignatieff and his spokesperson who never formally denied that it might be him.
|
This is what I am talking about when it comes to manufacturing controversy and scandal. Someone in the CPC campaign party did an online search, found some information that, if true, could be very embarrassing to the Liberal's campaign, so they turned it over to the media to verify the story's accuracy. The media dug a little deeper and found that the allegations in the story were untrue. We can theorize that they knew it wasn't Ignatieff from the start, but the reality is, even Ignatieff's own people couldn't answer if it was him or not. There was no doctoring of the photo, and at first glance, the info all seemed legit. Yet, here you are, making it sound like there is proof that the CPC not only intentionally fed the media false information, but that they also manufactured this false info as well. Based on what?