Thread by @DianeMariePosts, CBC The National's coverage of the Vance matter is just terrible. First [...]

Diane Marie

DianeMariePosts

CBC The National& #39;s coverage of the Vance matter is just terrible. First of all, the matter began in 2015, not 2018, when the Harper government apparently knew of a police investigation but appointed the CDS anyway (and the investigation died within hours). /2 #cdnpoli

2/ Then, the Ombudsman received a complaint but the complainant wouldn& #39;t give him permission to pass on the information or her identity - and she indicated that she would not participate in an investigation. /3

3/ The Ombudsman, no fan of the Liberals, testified as much. Instead, the CBC characterized the Committee appearance of Katie Telford as a "hot seat" and permitted opposition members to get away with wondering if the PMO staff told the PM. /4

4/ What would they tell him? They knew nothing except that there had been a complaint, the nature of which they did not know because they were not told. And, it isn& #39;t even correct procedure for politicians to do investigating. /5

5/ And, what was there to investigate, really, considering that the Ombudsman had been directed *not* to pass on any information. Testimony is that all he said was that there had been a complaint. Well, that& #39;s lots to go on. /6

6/ And, then, the CBC decided to make the whole thing about the Liberals& #39; "brand". Would that brand be enhanced by outing a woman who was determined not to provide any information for the purposes of an investigation? I don& #39;t think so.

So, if the story is that a complainant doesn& #39;t feel that there is a safe way to make a complaint about members of the military, that& #39;s the issue, and that& #39;s what has to change, and the government is responsible for action on that change.

You can follow @DianeMariePosts.

Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: