The post I made a few days ago (about the CBC reporter allegedly laying the blame for the
Columbia disaster on American "arrogance") also inspired me to write an angry letter to the CBC Ombudsman, spelling out exactly why I thought that the reporter was wrong, and demanding some sort of corrective action. I was angry (and rightfully so, IMHO), but I used rhetoric rather than invective. I kept it on an adult level, and I received this reply from David Bazay, who included the response of Mr. Mark Bulgutch, a Senior Executive Producer at the CBC. I am repeating the entirety of that response here, with his kind permission, followed by my response to his letter. As I said, I respect him for actually stepping up and giving a response.
I wish I had kept my original letter...
********************************************
As is the custom here I have asked CBC News management to respond to your concerns about Newsworld's
coverage of the shuttle disaster. Attached is the response of Mark Bulgutch, Senior Executive Producer of CBC
News and CBC Newsworld.
Yours truly,
David Bazay
Ombudsman
===================================
The CBC Ombudsman has sent me your complaint about part of our coverage of the Space Shuttle disaster last week.
I must tell you that I was driving to the CBC building when the remark in question was made so I didn't hear it. But since I was in our control room producing our coverage beginning about 15 minutes later and ending after midnight, I know the tone we set. There wasn't a hint of anti-Americanism in what we did. So I was very surprised to hear about the nature of the complaint.
I have now watched the videotape of the interview you cited. You are, of course, accurate in saying that our anchor used the word, "arrogance" in a question. It came in a conversation with a writer about how confident NASA had become with shuttle flights. The shuttle had a proven track record, said the writer, so naturally there was a high level of confidence at NASA.
Our anchor then asked, albeit in an awkward fashion, if that "confidence" had spilled into "arrogance". Her intent, it seems to me, is clear. She wondered if healthy confidence had become willful blindness to trouble, based on the belief that any problem could be overcome with NASA's combination of brain power and ingenuity. I think, in the context of the conversation, that was a reasonable thing to ask.
But I concede that the anchor mangled enough words into her question to blur her meaning.
I have spoken to her about the question. She is aghast at the interpretation that some people have put on her words. She says anti-Americanism never entered her mind. I believe her.
I think her true sentiments were expressed just a minute or two earlier when she said, "We are all watching horrified..."
As I am sure you appreciate, anchoring a LIVE news special as a story is happening, is not easy. The anchor is getting information from untold numbers of sources and trying to formulate articulate questions at the same time.
As I said, I think the question could have been worded much more clearly. I'm sorry it wasn't. It left some viewers reaching conclusions we had not intended.
Mark Bulgutch
Senior Executive Producer
CBC News and CBC Newsworld
*******************************************
And my response:
*******************************************
Dear Mr. Bulgutch:
I'm sure you can understand our concern, given the attitudes expressed by your government's senior officials (calling our President a "moron" when speaking to a reporter), and the poll of the alleged "man on the street" (one showing public opinion in Canada) where it was reported that almost 80% of Canadians interviewed believed that the United States and/or its citizens bear at least "some responsibility" for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001.
The recent decisions by your PM concerning the situation in Iraq, and then your reporter using the word "arrogance" (whether it may have been inadvertant or not) when searching for an explanation for the Columbia tragedy tends to make me (among many, many thousands of others) wonder what kind of world-view is coloring these incidents.
The use of the word "arrogance" may have not been the word that was meant, and I understand (perhaps better than you realize) the kind of stress that can come with being caught by a tragic event while in public. But the fact that she even thought the word, and then let it slip out (a "Freudian slip"), makes me wonder what else she might have been thinking without actually saying it aloud.
You know as well as anyone on the planet that there are occasions when a reporter is asked to interview a subject whose opinions that reporter might not personally share (such as the KKK or a Neo-Nazi party member). Those reporters are required to dissemble, evade, and twist their own beliefs, so as not to offend those who are being interviewed. I understand the need to do so. But when something like this incident occurs, it may have been an accidental slip, but exactly what slipped? Perhaps her self-control? If so, what else did (does) she really believe?
I am still disappointed in the Canadian government, and many Canadians in general, and I am also wondering where our international relationship is headed, but I respect you for responding to my e-mail and answering some questions. Thank you for that.
Since I respect your personal and professional right to privacy, I will ask this: With your permission, I would like to post your letter (and this reply) in their entirety on my web site. Please let me know by return e-mail whether you will grant permission for this.
Sincerely,
*****************************************
I'm willing to let it lie at this point, and give the woman the benefit of the doubt. I still have my questions about some Canadian-U.S. issues, but the comment
was made in the heat of a very stressful moment, and I have n oway to prove that I could have done any better. I'd like to think so, but I hope that I would have perhaps used the word "complacency" instead of "arrogance". One suggests contentment; the other, contempt.
We shall see how things go with this
Terrance and Philip thing, eh? ;-)
UPDATE: It turns out that it was basically nothing more than a Press Release sent out as a mass-mailed form e-letter. I shall be keeping a much closer eye on our "allies" of the Great White North.
I know that there are quite a few Canadians who do not agree with their governments position on this issue. It becomes incumbent upon you to let your government know that they are acting "not in your name" to coin the oft-abused idiotarian phrase. If you just meekly acquiesce, that is your right, but be aware that your apathy is included in the rather broad brush being used...
It doesn't matter. We're going to go take down Saddam, with or without help. From anyone.