So why did CTV have to do an on-air apology?

You can hear the entire editorial here. It's the first part of the podcast, right off the top, after the obligatory commercial. 

Chrisphen wrote:

SpinningWheel wrote:

Chrisphen wrote:

So why did CTV have to do an on-air apology?

Apparently CTV spliced a PP interview, producing a misrepresentation of what he really said.     Their noses are understandably out of joint.  'The Conservatives are slamming CTV News for splicing a clip of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.According to Sebastian Skamski – Poilievre’s Director of Media Relations – CTV ‘cut and ordered’ a clip of Poilievre “in such a way as to imply to viewers that the basis of our opposition day motion and confidence vote is to defeat the Liberals’ dental care program.”'
 

Oh. I guess they wanted to frame that policy change themselves.
 

 The coming election will be marked by kindness.

I caught Agar yesterday morning and at first I thought he was kidding around but realized very quickly he wasn’t.  He made some great points and was fairly passionate but I think Agar should be careful as Bell Media likes swinging their axe. My favourite part was his ending with radio waves travelling in space forever…..

RadioActive wrote:

SpinningWheel wrote:

Chrisphen wrote:

So why did CTV have to do an on-air apology?

Apparently CTV spliced a PP interview, producing a misrepresentation of what he really said.     Their noses are understandably out of joint.  'The Conservatives are slamming CTV News for splicing a clip of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. According to Sebastian Skamski – Poilievre’s Director of Media Relations – CTV ‘cut and ordered’ a clip of Poilievre “in such a way as to imply to viewers that the basis of our opposition day motion and confidence vote is to defeat the Liberals’ dental care program.”'
 

According to some anonymous sources, at least two people have been "moved out" of the CTV newsroom as a result of this incident, with at least one person saying he believes they've been terminated for the mistake. Names have not been announced but I should also stress that nothing has been confirmed as of yet. But it's a major embarrassment, so having someone (or two) walk the plank would not surprise me.  

Boom!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ctv-journalists-pierre-poilievre-1.7335509
 

I have _NO_ idea what happened, nor did I talk to anyone about it or ask about it.  K?

So, what I mean to say is "I have _NO_ idea what happened, nor did I talk to anyone about it or ask about it.  K?"

But being a smartass I've seen this happen and been a part of it happening many times.  Someone 'creates' something funny that is for 'your eyes only'.  Sometimes funny, sometimes just showing off what a great editor or whatever they are.  They get tossed around, and end up on the Christmas boot tape or forgotten.  Every so often that 'clip' ends up making it to air.  Either because someone enters the wrong file number, because the title looks legit and the first 5 seconds seem okay, or because someone doesn't like the person and decides to sink them.  

I know that sense of feeling every hair on your head as your blood runs cold when you think that the 'creation' you made has made it to air.  I've been lucky to date; they were all false alarms, but that doesn't mean they weren't close to disastrous for my illustrious career.

As I said, I honestly have no idea how this happened, but for a clip, this bonehead stupid to make it on-air; my guess is it was a behind-the-scenes control room laugh that got fucked up and escaped into the ether. 

Or some dope that ha a clip that ran 17 seconds over and assumed they could 'edit' the clip not understanding the context.  This one is worse because it would suggest stupendous ignorance as an editor, as opposed to just being an idiot out to get attention.

ig.

{edit} Wasn't there a morning show bit called Fractured News or something where they did exactly that?  Took current news stories and edited the stories to be out of context or stupid.  This must go back because I remember Trudeau's office (P, not J) going ballistic at one of the reports.  The bit was clearly presented as parody, but had one of those clips accidentally made it into a newscast..  there would have been hell to pay.

RadioActive wrote:

I don't want to get overly political here, although with this story it seems almost inevitable. What I can say is I've worked in a TV newsroom for over 25 years and been in more than my share of editing suites. I simply cannot fathom how this could have happened by accident or because a rookie was behind the controls. It just doesn't work that way. 

Putting a clip together like this would have had to be deliberate. It simply could not have taken place any other way. 

The fact these people were "moved" (you'll notice it does not say outright fired) out of the newsroom, may indicate it wasn't an accident or a mistake. Whether you're on Team Blue, Team Red or Team Orange, I'm sure we can all agree it has to be kept out of reporting. Newsrooms cannot be found to be doing stuff like this. It hurts everyone's credibility at a time when the press is already under suspicion from way too many members of the public.

I was floored and dissapointed by Andrew Scheer's video on the subject.  I honestly believed he was better than that, but in the end, he's just another muck raking politician.

paterson1 wrote:

A mistake in my opinion for the leader of the opposition, in question period to accuse that the CEO of Bell had something to do with this.  That is a bit much and falls into the conspiracy file which is something to avoid.

It is interesting that other than the official apology on the CTV National News, the network has been silent on this story .  This to me makes sense. CBC has given the controversy a fair bit of airplay and has been quite fair.  Power and Politics with David Cochran seemed to be of the take that mistakes happen but this one was was a stretch to be a mistake. Although at times CBC host Cochran seemed to be sticking up for CTV's news department.   They pretty much discounted that the CEO of Bell would have anything to do with this.  

Whatever happened, I can tell you there's a big difference between editing video and audio than just audio alone. The former takes a lot more time because of the visual component and you have to find cutaways to cover some parts of it, especially a clip of a person, because it's otherwise painfully obvious where something was cut out. 

That's why I question how they blamed an inexperienced editor. And they almost certainly would not have cut ties with two people if it was all just an innocent accident.