Angry in the Great White North
Retraction: An apology to Carol Jamieson and the Globe and Mail [updates]
Thursday, September 08, 2005 at 05:05 PM

Read other posts by Steve Janke published by the National Post
Leader

[The latest on the Carol Jamieson story]

Based on information from a trusted source, I posted a story yesterday in which I repeated an allegation that Carol Jamieson was not a current member of the Conservative Party of Canada. This was important because of this quote from the Globe and Mail:

Deputy Leader Peter MacKay, former leader of the PCs, said it was simply part of a planned organizational restructuring and "these changes are nothing to be alarmed about."

But others from his wing of the party said it was a deliberate move to entrench the dominance of the former Alliance.

Those who have been fired "are either people who are dissenting about what Harper is doing or they are former Progressive Conservatives," said Carol Jamieson, a party organizer in Toronto.

"It looks to me right now that within four weeks, the entire structure will be Canadian Alliance."

If she were not a member of the party, then her opinion would be that of an outsider, no more valuable than mine, and I said as much.

I also tore into the Globe and Mail, and into reporters Brian Laghi and Gloria Galloway, for having printed this quote from someone who was not a party organizer.

Well, so much for trusted sources. I learned some important lessons, and I'll share them with you, even though I'll take a well deserved beating for it:

  1. There is no such thing as a trusted source. Period. Everything gets checked and double checked. That has been my habit. Now it is my rule.

  2. Apologies have to be public and have to be big. I hope this counts.

  3. Never rush anything.
With my doubts multiplying quickly over the 12 hours since I posted the piece, I decided this morning that I needed to treat this as any other story I post, worthy of research, contacting original sources, scouring databases, and so on and so forth. In other words, what I do every day. So I started by contacting Carol Jamieson. This is her response (actually two emails stitched togther) to my initial query:

I am a member of the CPC, and previously the PCPC and have been since about 1967. I am a current Director of the Riding Assoc of Etobicoke Lakeshore and Etobicoke North, and as I suppose you know, you cannot sit on a riding bd unless you are a member.

As for participation, I have been both a paid and volunteer organizer for the party over the years I have been a member. I currently serve as Vice Chair of the Presidents Council of the GTA ridings.

According to the constitution of the CPC, you cannot sit on a Bd unless you are paid up member. I sit on 2, and, as I said before, am the Vice Chair of the Presidents Council of the GTA ridings. Also, you cannot be a delegate to a policy convention or annual meeting, which I was in March.

I currently have a 3 year membership and have a receipt for same.

And OBTW, there is more than one Carol Jamieson in Ontario, and I have never contributed 1 dollar to the Liberal party.

Here is close-up of that receipt:


The date of the receipt is 6/1/2005 10:18 AM; it appears at the bottom.

As for the election database lookup, I did not realize that her first initial was "M" (and I'm not apologizing for that -- "Carol" never appears in the correct entries). I checked back, and the correct Jamieson was a long-time, generous, and exclusive supporter of the Progressive Conservatives.

Remember this name mix-up -- it's important.

What is going on here? Was someone** using me? I think there are still serious issues inside the CPC between the Alliance wing and the PC wing, and some bright spark thought he could use bloggers to punish the other side. Or perhaps this is a fight based on some other issue unrelated to Alliance vs PC, driven by other divisions and rivalries within the CPC.

More from Carol Jamieson (quoted with her permission):

Although I am not supposed to know this, certain National Councillors and staffers would prefer that I not be a member of this Party, and removing my membership is being discussed at the highest levels.

Personally, I find it fascinating that people on National Council and in the Leader's office have the time to be bothered with this sort of petty BS when they should be trying to figure out why they are unable to get any traction with the electorate, despite years and years of corrupt Liberal governments. That in a nutshell is my issue with this lot of losers.

[I'm] the same nobody who personally put over 500 delegates on the convention floor for Peter MacKay as co-chair for Ontario and was Ontario Chair for Belinda Stronach.

I've forgotten more about Canadian politics in the last week, than the current party staff ever knew!

In the touring that I've been doing this summer to Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa and the west, I have found very few CPC members who feel any differently than I do about the current state of affairs. In fact, many good organizers have just given up and will not work for the party in the next election. It's a very sad situation that's going absolutely no where.

A sad situation indeed. At least my feeling that it was difficult to imagine Jamieson and Harper in the same party was not far off the mark -- I take what little solace I can in that.

If these same people think that their time is best spent sniping at each other, it's no wonder the Liberals are in power.

I'm not going to get into a debate over which side is better at politics, or whether Carol Jamieson is actually being discussed at "the highest levels", or if she just wishes that were true.

You have to decide who has more credibility on these subjects.

But I will take a stand against feeding bloggers bogus information. So how did this happen? Why did someone think that Jamieson was no longer a member? According to Stephen Taylor, the expired membership was under the name "Carol M Jamieson". As the receipt I obtained shows, the new membership is under the name "Margaret Jamieson".

An innocent clerical mix-up, right? Well, not really. Though I understand how the mistake was made (recall that I made exactly the same one when I was checking the Elections Canada database), the fact remains that one Conservative thought it would be clever to take a pot shot at another Conservative, and thought bloggers would be a good way to deliver that shot.

That was his second mistake. You don't use bloggers for your personal vendettas. Ever. We find out the truth, and we post evidence and, if necessary, corrections and retractions. If we're wrong, we take our lumps. Maybe this person is hoping I will not backpedal for fear of looking stupid. That I would sweat at the possibility of issuing a retraction.

I've looked stupid before, and I'm sure in the future I'll look stupid again. It's no big deal. Better stupid and honest than a clever liar, now that I know the truth. Hey, I've got kids. I want them to remember that Papa was an honest man, always. For me this is the easiest choice in the world to make. Heck, even if it kills my blog and my dream of going into media full time, leaving me in this dead-end and boring job, so be it.

Spreading falsehoods, maliciously or not, and damaging someone's reputation? No dream is worth that.

Now to some specific messages.

To Carol Jamieson: I am sorry. I besmirched your reputation and for that I am ashamed. Politics can be a dirty game, of course, but that doesn't excuse what could have easily been avoided by a quick and easy email. I was lazy and for that you've suffered (though hopefully not too much). If you'd like to respond, I'll post any response you care to send to me, unedited, on this blog. It is the very least I can do, and hardly enough by my reckoning.

To the Globe and Mail, and to Brian Laghi and Gloria Galloway: I am sorry. I thought I had something here. You guys are the pros, and I should remember that and think carefully before I alleged a serious mistake. As with Carol Jamieson, if you want an opportunity to post something about how arrogant two-bit bloggers need to calm down, I'll put it up here for you.

To the trusted source: Don't call.

To my readers: What a screw-up, eh? Well, at least I pulled the story in under 24 hours (with minutes to spare). Posting this correction took a bit longer in order to incorporate last minute details of the events that transpired. I hope you take away from this a lesson in skepticism. Being skeptical has served me well, and when I put my skepticism aside, like I did here, I get burned. So don't trust anything you read, even if you read it here.

There might be more fallout from this. I'll let you know. I do expect that I won't be welcome any time soon as a member of the CPC.

Well, that's it for now. I debated about turning off comments for this post, since sometimes you just have to say your bit, step away from the podium, and walk away. But what the heck, say what you've got to say.

**By the way, that "someone" is not Stephen Taylor. He's just a blogger, like me.

Update: I received an unsolicited email from Globe & Mail reporter Gloria Galloway (who knew she was keeping tabs?):

Wow. Thanks for the mea culpa.

But we’ve got broad shoulders. And, as you correctly point out in citing the Bouchard brouhaha, we are capable of making mistakes that far outstrip a misunderstanding over party memberships.

Cheers

Gloria

Thanks Gloria, I appreciate your understanding.

, , , , , , ,

Main Story

Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords