Angry in the Great White North

Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla is facing serious allegations of having mistreated illegally hired live-in caregivers.

She has denied the allegations.

A parliamentary committee reviewed the allegations.  The majority report recommended a formal investigation by federal and provincial authorities (covering immigration and labour issues, respectively).  The minority report written by Liberal Party members concluded the entire business was a political witch hunt.

CityTV, which broadcasts throughout the 416 and 905 areas, originally reported an exoneration.  Then the newsroom realized that the Ruby Dhalla is nowhere near out of the woods, and revoked the stories.

Here is a screenshot of the Google index of the exoneration story:

Follow that link, and you get a 404 Page Not Found.

CityTV also pulled the Tweet for the story, but you can still find the original reference in a search for the article:

Perhaps more embarrassingly, there are links from three other tweeters to this pulled story - Liberal bloggers excited that Ruby Dhalla had been "exonerated".

But then she hadn't.  CityTV's exclusive was just Liberal spin.

How did this happen?  I can only speculate, but the "exclusive" tag suggests a timeline, since it points to CityTV getting information ahead of everyone else.  I think that it is possible that one of Ruby Dhalla's people, or perhaps a Liberal Party staffer, contacted CityTV ahead of the publication of the committee's findings.  This person showed a portion of the minority report, neglecting to mention that the majority of the committee was recommending that Ruby Dhalla be subjected to formal investigations by multiple agencies.  CityTV excitedly published the news of Ruby Dhalla's exoneration.  

Then the real story came out.  Ruby Dhalla was hardly exonerated, except by her fellow Liberals.  CityTV had to pull the story.  But then who knows how many people saw it?

Perhaps CityTV can follow up with a more expansive explanation, instead of simply removing the story.

If my interpretation is correct, then I would guess that people in the CityTV newsroom aren't too happy with the Liberals.

Update: A look at the timeline.

Thanks to reader Dirk, here is a link to the original CityTV story published in June 10:

A few weeks ago, an indignant Ruby Dhalla faced reporters and cameras and flatly denied having anything to do with allegations made by three former caregivers who once worked for her family.

Now an Immigration and Citizenship Committee has agreed with her, finding she had no part in whatever happened to the trio in question. In a CityNews exclusive interview, Dhalla told Political Specialist Richard Madan that she was bothered by how the ordeal affected her family.

The story is attribute to CityTV news staff.

The story does reference follow-up investigations:

The committee has asked the province to further investigate the claims made by Dhalla's caregivers but it's not a binding request and it's unclear if Ontario will follow up.

Here is a different report, also from June 10, from CBC News:

A parliamentary committee looking into accusations that Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla and her family mistreated live-in caregivers has recommended that provincial and federal authorities look into the allegations.

The 30-page report by the standing committee on citizenship and immigration focused mainly on the plight of live-in caregivers in general, mentioning Dhalla briefly and making no conclusions on the allegations against her.

But it did recommend "that the authorized bodies in the provincial and federal governments investigate the allegations of the former live-in caregivers in the Dhalla residence and take measures as appropriate. Further, the committee requests that these government bodies, upon completion of their investigations, sent the result to the committee."

Clearly CityTV had gotten it wrong when it reported that Ruby Dhalla had been exonerated.  So the question remains, who spun the CityTV report in the first place to make it sound like the committee had given Ruby Dhalla a pass?