20

And for their next trick, they’ll make the prime minister disappear

Dozens of Harper photos removed from government site—but by whom?


 

Just one day after Canadian Press reported on the millions of dollars being spent to promote the Conservative economic action plan, more than two dozen photos of Stephen Harper have apparently vanished from the EAP website—but at the moment, nobody in government seems to be willing to own up to pulling the pics. When initially contacted by CP over the weekend, Privy Council Office spokeswoman Myriam Massabki had defended the Harper-heavy imagery, telling Bruce Cheadle that the PM was “the chief spokesperson … for the plan.” Last night, in a response that CP characterized as a “single talking point that can in no way be reconciled with the altered appearance of the site,” Massabki denied that any pictures had been removed.

Canadian Press


 
Filed under:

And for their next trick, they’ll make the prime minister disappear

  1. Caught with their hand in the cookie jar. No such thing as google cache right?

  2. If only it were actually that easy.

  3. How terribly unfair, because it gives the impression that Massabki is lying.

  4. Ok, this counts as a massive communications failure. The spokesperson should have stood his ground and not agreed to say something so obviously stupid.

    • Myriam M. is a woman and she's been at PCO Comms for a while. She (unfortunately?) knows what she's doing.

    • Myriam M. is a woman.
      She's been at PCO Comms for a while.
      She doesn't speak for the CPC, which is responsible for this breach.
      She (unfortunately?) knows what she's doing.

      • Ah, thank you.

        That said, as a communications professional, I'd quit before I was forced to make a ridiculous statement like that.

        • I think, to be fair, that Miriam responded, "no picture has been removed" because nobody at PCO, who probably thought they were in charge of that website, removed it. I wonder if this is a bigger story than it appears at first glance, in that the Conservative party appears to have unfettered access to Government of Canada websites. Isn't that a security breach? Like, a major, systemic security breach? I think I want a lot more information.

  5. Bloody incompentents.
    Look, if you screwed up, just say it.
    "We're sorry, we were just so proud of the Economic Action Plan that we wanted to make sure everybody knew we were getting it done. We didn't think of it in relation to campaigning. On having that pointed out, we realized our error and took steps to fix it."

    Story would have been done, and anybody who wanted to go on about it would have been shooting themselves in the foot (as Ignatieff does when he goes back to the body-bags incident now)

  6. Bloody incompentents.
    Look, if you screwed up, just say it.
    "We're sorry, we were just so proud of the Economic Action Plan that we wanted to make sure everybody knew we were getting it done. We didn't think of it in relation to campaigning. On having that pointed out, we realized our error and took steps to fix it."

    Story would have been done, and anybody who wanted to go on about it would have been shooting themselves in the foot (as Ignatieff does when he goes back to the body-bags incident now)

    But this knee-jerk reaction of trying to hide things, and coming out with the most ridiculous lies, you want to know what adds to the fire of the "hidden agenda" message? It's stuff exactly like this. If the reflexive response of the Harper party is to lie about when they've done something they shouldn't have, why on earth should we ever trust anything they say?

    • I'm not sure it's a yawn that the government is using public money to create partisan advertisements.

      • At least the CPC isn't connected to any of the advertising firms involved in the work.

        • So that makes it okay to use taxpayer funds for election advertising?

          • Hmmmmm….OK, a hint: Adscam.

          • And the judge said "adscam" wasn't okay, either. So, how does one bad action excuse another?

            (Oh no, I'm not using talking points!!)

          • Sheesh, perhaps it will help if you reread my original post on this thread and realize that it has a mildly sarcastic tone?

            As I have said elsewhere, it looks like it is going to take me a while to get the hang of this whole comment thing…..

  7. Sadly, sarcasm in print has a way of going horribly wrong. It's happened to me many times…

  8. Quite the scandal ,another Watergate.Harper derangement syndrome at it's finest.As for the comment of using tax payer funds ,all the Party's get tax payer funding.

    • Oh Lordy. Yes, Michael, yes they do. But it isn't called the Government of Canada coffers for all the other political parties. For the other parties, it is $1.95 per vote per year, it is campaign expense reimbursements, and it is donor incentives. The money we are talking about in this thread (you might want to read at least the post before the comments) is money of the Government of Canada.

Sign in to comment.