Did she confirm that she wrote that comment on your blog?
"an Ontario contact"? Why would that person (and she, by extension) think it was "relevant" to write that story? I'm still not convinced this wasn't a tory setup.
Thank you Ross,
Without getting into motivational psychology – at least not yet, this is getting, as Alice would put it, ‘Curiouser and curiouser!’
So, Kim Bolan does have a source. Moreover, that source, in Ontario apparently, when contacted by Ms Bolan, did give her a particular answer about a specific person or so we are told.
In addition, the information Kim Bolan posted (I assume that's confirmed now too) yesterday - let's quote it here:
"I just learned (through Sikh community contacts, not POLICE) that Saini was the father-in-law of Bains. I did not know that until very recently. I called up Saini and Bains and they confirmed it. I thought it was relevant."
Is this entirely forthright, given what Ms Bolan says tonight?
I suppose the words 'I just learned' could be used to cover Ms Bolan's latest version of events, but, in all honesty, I didn't take them to mean that last night when I first read them. In fact I’d have thought standard usage implied something quite different.
How about you?
I believed, on the basis of last night's unsigned message that the most likely interpretation was that the 'information' had come looking for her.
In any case, Ms Bolan went looking for information; it did not come looking for her. Which is well and good and, for her February 21 story, is hardly objectionable. That’s what good reporters do, isn’t it?
But, that's not the whole story either?
In fact, on February 20, the day before the Bains story, Ms Bolan wrote a very different piece of journalism, and it ran complete with a very different sort of picture and a very curious headline.
Without even discussing the Bains matter for the moment; what exactly was the purpose of that Feb 20 story and the photo that ran with it? The headline on the story was: Ex-PM sought support of terrorist group
I do have a problem with that story. I doubt I’m the only one and I’m about as far from a Paul Martin apologist as you can get this side of anywhere: I think it was disingenuous and I think it was written, in anticipation so to speak, of the Feb 21 story. Something, as it were, to prime the pump. And I suspect most impartial honest readers will think so too, if they take the time to read the Feb 20 story about Paul Martin with a little care and some close analysis.
I'm going to go through it line by line and when I'm done, I'll post my thoughts about just what I think that story was all about, if anyone's interested.
After she finished answering my question in the Email then Ms. Bolan said, and I quote:
"Again - no conspiracy."
Given the final line in the original comment I take this as confirmation that she did, indeed, write that original comment.
GWest, I take your point re: the other story. However, I did not ask Ms. Bolan about the Feb 20th story as I wanted to make sure I got an unequivocal answer, for the record, to my specific query re: who asked who'.
And I think we have received that answer, unequivocally.
lc--
The important thing to realize here, is that Ms. Bolan has gone on the record.
And, based on the fact that she answered my question after I told her that if she were to answer it I would be able to update my original post one way or the other, I think it is fair to assume that she has gone on the record publicly.
This is important, very important, for future reference and/or future comparisons to anything else that may come to light down the road.
OK?
.
Absolutely. I think we can say that her answer, with respect to the matter of the Bains question, is that she says there was no conspiracy.
Which is fine as far as it goes.
But, as I've just been confirming with a few careful queries, the reputation of a certain ex-prime minister is now thoroughly saddled with the accusation that he is, or at the very least was, soft on terrorism.
Now I think that's a characterization the current Prime Minister, at this time, would be very happy to have abroad in the land and it is, to my way of thinking, a reflection both upon Paul Martin and the current Liberal leader that is neither fair, nor reflective of the facts. And it is, I'd say, as much a consequence of that Feb 20 story as it is a result of the Feb 21 story.
And, when you look at it, on the face of things, the Paul Martin - 'constructed' story is really irrelevant to the Feb 21 matter, as is the photo, the confusing headline and the YouTube video. Another small item whose source I haven't yet chased down.
This was not done for information or for human interest, in my view. In fact, on the basis of the confusion of the references and the way the story has been pulled out of context, it has all the earmarks of a purposeful hatchet job. I'm still trying to find some contemporaneous evidence of Mr. Clark's external affairs advisory about the dangers of 'politicians' associating with any members of the ISYF. DO you have a reference for it?
GWest--
I don't have a reference for it, and if you find one please let me know either here, or by Email if you like, which is:
pacificgazette at yahoo dot ca
Thanks
(and thanks for the interesting analyses and insights)
.
Damn, Ross, but that was really fine.
You had a suspicion, you went out on a limb with it, you were given new info, you went to that source, you asked the specific determining question, you posted the answer, and you're still listening.
Thanks for the story, Ross, but more for the example.
Ditto Alison's comments . . .
Perhaps you could give lessons to MSM folks here in the States? It would be greatly appreciated . . . .
RossK & G West, Super Citizen Journalists !
Whatever it is you guys do in your day jobs certainly hasn't stopped you from writing a new lesson in journalism.
Well done all around, including Kim Bolan's demonstration of responsible reporting.
I'm a bit sorry to relinquish my own tidy theory, that maybe the RCMP had leaked their confidential list of Air India witnesses to even the score after being blamed for the Legislature Raids in that Globe and Mail story at Christmas.
.
Thanks all - Alison's comment gets to the heart of the matter for us here in the Bloggodome, especially given the temptation to jump into what you think might be a right and righteous whirlitzer that could be used to counter the spin that so many pro-pols spend all their waking hours trying to generate......
______
Mary--
Just to be clear, the subject of your 'theory' is not the same one that I have attempted to deal with unequivocally here.
RossK.
.
It was a counter-spin to be sure, RossK, if not exactly a right and righteous whirlitzer.
However, like I said, I have given up my tidy theory.
.
From the original article:
"The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe."
The way it was written certainly implies knowledge of RCMP information.
This is what Bolan originally wrote. Only a handfull of people would know who is on the secret list. They include the police and the folks in the justice department (no one in the Sikh community would be in a position to confirm who was on the list for the reporter).
"The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe."
Brendan and um--
And this is what Ms. Bolan said in her comment to GWest and my original speculation:
"It was very apparent from sitting through 19 months of the Air India trial who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings"
I would agree that that statement and the statement you have quoted are not equivalent.
"It was very apparent from sitting through 19 months of the Air India trial who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings"
But the thing that Bolan is not saying is...Saini was never once asked during the trial or the inquiry....to testify(because of his lack of any direct connection to the suspects or air-india in any way).....and all that time the law was there if they needed it. So, if his name didnot come up as a witness in the trial how did Bolan pick Saini out of hundereds of other more important witnesses directly linked to air-india case and its suspects???
And what about the description of now defunct Babbar Khalsa Panthic as a terror group instead of sepratist or extremist......although it was never banned or branded as a terror group by Canada during its brief existence.....is it not an attempt to mislead readers into thinking that it is somehow the same as Babbar Khalsa International, a group that was banned by the liberals in 2003.
Commenting by HaloScan
