Saturday, August 22, 2015

How Many More Times?...The Changing Of Margaret Atwood's Copy.


Jesse Brown at Canadaland says that Ms. Atwood's 'Hairgate' piece was changed twice.

The first time the changes made were minor and she agreed to them.

As for the second time?


...Sources within the Post confirm that the article went through their entire editorial process in that time. It was read by Comment editor Andrew Coyne, who signed-off on it. 
(Coyne has not yet responded to our request for comment.)
The resulting, senior editor-approved piece was published on the National Post's website yesterday (you can read this original version on The Walrus' site here). 
An hour later, CANADALAND has learned that Comment staff were asked to make two edits. One of these was the addition of some minor, mitigating language to a sentence, the other perhaps more interesting: a reference to Harper's "enemy stakeholders list" was changed to "enemies list." 
These changes were sent to Margaret Atwood for her approval, which she granted (you can still read a cached copy of that version here). 
But then the article vanished completely from the Post's site and was edited again, under guidance from senior Vice President Gerry Nott.
Margaret Atwood was not consulted, and did not agree to these changes.
Journalist Jonathan Goldsbie has made a complete list of these changes. The censored sections are significant, and accuse Stephen Harper of hiding "the two-million-dollar-donors to his party leadership race," and make reference to Harper having given "four mutually exclusive answers" about the Duffy cover-up....

And the explanation now?

It was Ms. Atwood's facts that were wrong.

So management just had to step in and correct them.

In an Op-Ep column-type piece.


Maybe she should have just pulled out all the stops with an advertorial instead.

'Cause everybody knows that's where all the truthiest of most excellent truthyness lies.




Dana said...

Why on earth would Atwood expect journamalistic integrity from the Notional Pout?

Makes me question her awareness of present realities.

G West, Victoria said...

And, BTW, who was it that provided the cash for Pee Wee's leadership campaign? Folks apparently don't want to say.

G West, Victoria said...

Cause people have been asking those questions in print for quite a while....why is it that Ms Atwood's concern merited such high-handed treatment....

Anonymous said...


@ Dana, the unconverted are in more need of a Come to Jesus moment.