Angry in the Great White North

For the worst example, consider the Globe and Mail yesterday afternoon:

"Ethics watchdog gives Sgro qualified thumbs-up"

And now today:

"Ethics czar blasts Sgro for abusing visa power"

How does one go from thumbs up to blasting in 12 hours?

Did anyone actually read the report yesterday, or was the Globe and Mail depending on the CP news wire reports?

Well, I read the report, and I thought it showed a clear example of the personal example ignorance of Judy Sgro when it comes to using her ministerial powers for personal gain, and how the Liberal Party as a whole used her ministry as a tool for re-election.

You can read my full analysis here. It was posted at 1:18pm.

Now amazingly, the Globe and Mail is carrying the same story:

Former immigration minister Judy Sgro handed out special visas to friends and relatives of campaign volunteers during last year's election campaign, and overwhelmingly granted requests backed by Liberal MPs, a report issued by the Ethics Commissioner says.

Although that case sparked the inquiry, it was overshadowed by the conclusion that a host of special visas were rushed out of the minister's office in the last days of the campaign, that several went to friends and relatives of her campaign helpers, and that 97 per cent of the requests for visas she granted came from Liberal MPs.

Of the 76 permits that were granted during the campaign, 74 requests came from Liberal MPs and two from Conservatives. In all, 24 were "identified directly" with Ms. Sgro, and 19 of them were approved in a three-day period in the final week of the campaign. A total of 43 were issued in the seven days before the election.

Now I am not faulting the Globe and Mail for getting their story out 12 hours after me. For one, their story is more complete than mine, but then I have a day job. Second, they have a responsibility to do background checks and to give time for people mentioned in the story to respond if they chose to. Then there is the editiong and the fact checking and the review by the legal department. All this takes time.

But in the rush to get something out, the paper embarrasses itself with the incredible flip-flop we see today. I wonder if anyone at the Globe and Mail is thinking that perhaps they were too quick to write a conclusive headline yesterday. A better one might have been:

"Ethics czar releases Sgro report; Report being analyzed"

Not as catchy, but a lot better than:

"Globe and Mail promises to takes time to read reports before opening its mouth"

Giving credit where credit is due, the National Post seemed to be on the ball. Yesterday's headline:

"Report fails to quell Sgro controversy"

and today's:

"Sgro guilty of conflict of interest"