Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Paging Stephen Taylor

Taylor needs to wipe away some of the egg on his face
 Stephen, try to check your facts before you run with a story that makes you look like a petty, partisan hack (oh wait).

Courtesy of the Pundit's Guide, the actual transcript of the interview, the one Stephen Taylor most likely has little want to read because it'll expose how little he thought things through. I mean, I know Conservatives are always rattling on about the "liberal media," but is it really so hard to have critical thought about media stories that they like as well?

Does anyone think he'll have the integrity to post a retraction? Hm. Wait and see, I guess.


Close enough:
"Ignatieff talks a good talk about getting away from identity politics, asks for a fight on quality of the candidates and suggests that the press is trying to frame the fight inappropriately. This is a good sign. As for the Winnipeg Free Press? Terrible. Opinion of an exchange is healthy, but do make sure that it has foundation in fact."


  1. I read this post and I don't really know what happened or what Taylor's mistake was.

  2. Did you click the links? That may have helped.

  3. Interesting analysis. Taylor slams the editorial once the record is corrected.

    Reminds me of the time I corrected your version of TV rating for Keith.

    What was your excuse again? People who live in Glass houses should learn to not throw stones.

  4. Note, CS, I updated the post when he did change his tune. You cannot, however, disregard how quickly Mr. Taylor jumped on the story when he thought it was gold.

  5. That would make me a hypocrite if I selected one person (partisan blogger) for being too quick to weigh in on an allegation. I am confident in my blog I have made "error of fact" in a posting. A pattern for partisan sniping? No

    Do you think he has?

    New information can make the original position invalid. In this case it did. Responsible people offer apologies or retractions when this new information invalidates their earlier statements of beliefs.

    Kevin Page/AG have refuted most of the rhetoric from the cheap seats regarding Summits.

    The facts don't support the "security breach" at Charlottetown airport. Please link the apologies from the opposition parties and the outing of the author of that "employee" who wrote that letter or the MP that read the letter, the prop dependent Liberal MP.

    The PBO has stated other G8-G20 events are NOT transparent and costs are not being included and he can not compare them to ours. (His report is being ignored)Canada is transparent.

    It will take time. See AG report EAP wins praise. Opposition keep citing favouritism without proof and ignore AG Report.

    Paul Dewar is demanding PBO can only be trusted on costs for new mission in Kabul.

    S. Taylor is not an MP, our MP's should be held to a higher standard and should correct and retract their statements?

    My expectations main focus of criticism is on our Parliament, candidates and not us fellow partisan bloggers.

    See the difference?