Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

But, if they have no evidence, it does call into question journalistic integrity?

I just can't see then running a story they didn't trust.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I just can't see then running a story they didn't trust.

Yes, at the very least they would have it vetted to some extent/trusted enough to put out into the public sphere.

I also wonder who exactly the source(s) is...

And further, its a bit difficult to give the Premier the benefit of the doubt on things at the moment.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know, it's not a great look when you write that article and basically have no evidence. I'm one of the few (it seems) who is fine with funding the CBC and I actually think they do great work. But, if they have no evidence, it does call into question journalistic integrity?

What’s the journalistic standard though?

Per the article they have at least two sources who the CBC agreed not to identify. Is that sufficient to run this story?

Our commitment to accuracy and integrity means we try where possible to verify the information with a second source. And there may be times when more than two sources are required.

Our stories are based on information we have verified. Wherever possible, our stories use first-hand, identifiable sources – participants in an event or authenticated documents.

The importance of second sourcing is influenced by the nature and quality of the primary source.

If the primary source is confidential, we will, to the best of our ability, attempt to verify the accuracy of the information through independent corroboration.

We will refer any decision to publish a story based on a single confidential source to the Director.

https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/visio...-and-practices

An interesting read on the standards they follow.

[RedHot25]

Yup. They are not going to publicly release that, but you can believe its been put to scrutiny before they hit the "publish" key.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I mean, with how absolutely dog#### Outlook is at searching they could have even spelt it correctly and it would still return 0 results (or conversely, flag 80% of all Server emails as containing the keyword(s))

I'm just dying thinking of them doing an outlook search and saying, yep all good! My outlook search is legit totally useless. More useless than bing.

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Yes, at the very least they would have it vetted to some extent/trusted enough to put out into the public sphere.

I also wonder who exactly the source(s) is...

And further, its a bit difficult to give the Premier the benefit of the doubt on things at the moment.

This is my biggest Q. It seemed in the initial reports that the leak was coming from inside the Premier's team.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Yes, at the very least they would have it vetted to some extent/trusted enough to put out into the public sphere.

I also wonder who exactly the source(s) is...

And further, its a bit difficult to give the Premier the benefit of the doubt on things at the moment.

She's either lying (she literally said she'd repeatedly contacted them) or corrupt. Both is also an option.

[RedHot25]

yup I think the source(s) are key here.

Like Monahammer, I understood Premier's team.

So:
a) the story is right, and, well... (private emails for e.g,)
b) or if CBC got sold a tale, that's pretty bad for the Premier. Someone/people close to her are actively trying to undermine her? Not a good look.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

yup I think the source(s) are key here.

Like Monahammer, I understood Premier's team.

So:
a) the story is right, and, well... (private emails for e.g,)
b) or if CBC got sold a tale, that's pretty bad for the Premier. Someone/people close to her are actively trying to undermine her? Not a good look.

U of C Poli Sci prof's take: https://lisayoung.substack.com/p/manning-the-panel

Bonus feature: but the emails!

As of this morning, no sign of the emails on the government email system.

Where does this leave us?

Probability: Zero - Two experienced reporters just invented them.

Probability: Low - Two or more individuals invented the story and duped the CBC reporters.

Probability: Low - Someone in the Premier’s office mused about sending emails, but never actually sent them. Those who heard the musings leaked it.

Probability: Moderate - Emails were sent to and from personal email accounts.

If that’s the case, I would assume the recipient in the Crown Prosecutor’s office would have an obligation to disclose this to their director. Focus now shifts to that office…

[powderjunkie]

I really wonder how thorough the search could have possibly been on the Prosecutor's accounts...presumably there is a lot of sensitive information there, so I'm incredibly skeptical that the floodgates would have been opened up to investigators on a Friday afternoon.

[RedHot25]

Yup, no personal accounts.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617638450735505408

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617639061669412865

[powderjunkie]

Smith "says" a lot of things. Gonna need a more credible source.

[RedHot25]

No response back yet for Carrie Tait's question, huh .

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617595296942555136

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617645762573373442

[Looch City]

I've seen enough, time to storm the CBC HQ and demand answers.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I mean, with how absolutely dog#### Outlook is at searching they could have even spelt it correctly and it would still return 0 results (or conversely, flag 80% of all Server emails as containing the keyword(s))

"Outlook ... searching".

I can totally see the government being so inept so as to rely on e-mail client searches instead of the built-in service-side eDiscovery tools.

[RedHot25]

Soooo, the reporters....have to respond, in the sense of a story update? Odd nothing on twitter from Grant/von Scheel.

Curious story all around.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617645762573373442

I know you don't actually read what you post, but posting this "source" in a continuing chain story involving the questioning of sources is just... chef's kiss man. Great, delicious, irony.

[RedHot25]

Previous cabinet minister/long time MLA, although no fan of the UCP.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617653258511847425

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1617652520674889728

“We have nothing but doubts remain”

[Fuzz]

Uhm, maybe we shouldn't allow that? What is the point in being able to audit government for accountability if they just hide it?