Thursday, March 08, 2007
CanWest? YooHoo? Ya there, CanWest?
.
Has anyone seen any mention today in either of CanWest's 3 big B.C. daily newspapers concerning the events which occupied 90 dramatic minutes in B.C. Supreme Court Room #73 yesterday? Anything at all?
Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, presiding at a pre-trial conference on 7 March 2007, said significantly: "The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else."
She also said, following discussion among the judge and counsel, that - apparently because of the public interest in this B.C. Rail trial - all documents not under publishing ban will be available upon request from Criminal Registry (perhaps for a slight fee). Madam Justice Bennett graciously opened up scrutiny of documents concerning this trial ... remarking that there is a presumption in the law of public access. CanWest, please note.
And didn't we, on this web-site, receive the assurance of the Editor-in-Chief of the Victoria Times Colonist that "if there is news, [they] plan to publish it" ... ?
Well ... we've got news for CanWest. The B.C. Rail case is inching toward trial. It's a trial which will shake the very foundations of our province. CanWest: this is news. Big news.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Has anyone seen any mention today in either of CanWest's 3 big B.C. daily newspapers concerning the events which occupied 90 dramatic minutes in B.C. Supreme Court Room #73 yesterday? Anything at all?
Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett, presiding at a pre-trial conference on 7 March 2007, said significantly: "The public interest in having this case heard outweighs just about everything else."
She also said, following discussion among the judge and counsel, that - apparently because of the public interest in this B.C. Rail trial - all documents not under publishing ban will be available upon request from Criminal Registry (perhaps for a slight fee). Madam Justice Bennett graciously opened up scrutiny of documents concerning this trial ... remarking that there is a presumption in the law of public access. CanWest, please note.
And didn't we, on this web-site, receive the assurance of the Editor-in-Chief of the Victoria Times Colonist that "if there is news, [they] plan to publish it" ... ?
Well ... we've got news for CanWest. The B.C. Rail case is inching toward trial. It's a trial which will shake the very foundations of our province. CanWest: this is news. Big news.
- BC Mary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Comments:
<< Home
There definately seems to be a blanket over this subject in B.C. as far as the Can West Group is concerned. As Justice Bennett said the public has a great interes in the sale of BC Rail. But Canwest seems to want to set up special sections in print for the Picton Trial (not that is not as interesting) But I, as others, have said, in the main print the silence is deafening.
After reading almost every line in these papers I discovered a place in a couple of them where they allow the public to suggest news stories. I'm going to start suggesting. And maybe if others did the same we might get some actions
After reading almost every line in these papers I discovered a place in a couple of them where they allow the public to suggest news stories. I'm going to start suggesting. And maybe if others did the same we might get some actions
# posted by 
: March 8, 2007 at 12:41 p.m.
: March 8, 2007 at 12:41 p.m.
Sorry to pop everybodies bubble but Canwest broke the story about the motion that was filed in court. I am not a defender or supporter of Canwest but the facts are the facts.
# posted by : March 8, 2007 at 1:32 p.m.
: March 8, 2007 at 1:32 p.m.
Gary:
No need to be sorry ... but for Pete's sake, tell us which newspaper, and what headline.
"Broke the story?"
What motion?
No need to be sorry ... but for Pete's sake, tell us which newspaper, and what headline.
"Broke the story?"
What motion?
I think that anon is speaking about the past - like about a week ago - and I'm not even sure that's accurate. I'm not sure where Madame Justice read about the application she hadn't seen yet when she was back in Quebec. I doubt it was a Vancouver paper...but of course I could be wrong.
In any case, that red-faced aspect of this story has been kinda overlooked. Too bad! It's actually pretty interesting too.
anonOmous
In any case, that red-faced aspect of this story has been kinda overlooked. Too bad! It's actually pretty interesting too.
anonOmous
# posted by : March 8, 2007 at 3:08 p.m.
: March 8, 2007 at 3:08 p.m.
Anon, you're wrong. Here's Bill Tieleman with the tally: only 5 newspapers, but not CanWest's big B.C. dailies, carried yesterday's news of the B.C. Rail pre-trial conference. Bill says in 24 HOURS:
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Just 5 newspapers in BC report on Basi-Virk trial update
Disappointing to discover that just 5 newspapers in British Columbia bothered to report on the latest developments in the trial of David Basi and Bob Virk, two former provincial government aides charged with breach of trust.
My own newspaper, 24 hours, ran my report from the BC Supreme Court hearing Wednesday, the Globe and Mail ran a report by Mark Hume, who was also there, and the Kamloops Daily News, the Nelson Daily News and the Prince George Citizen ran stories written by Canadian Press reporter Camille Bains.
This according to an InfoMart database search of newspapers conducted this afternoon.
That means neither the Vancouver Sun, the Province nor the Victoria Times-Colonist reported that the most important political criminal trial in British Columbia has been delayed again, or that serious questions were raised about the evidence and about the lack of public access to court documents.
I am also unaware of any radio reports based on reviewing BC radio websites but the story may have been broadcast without being posted on their sites.
One can only hope that this omission by so many prominent media will be corrected shortly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many thanks, Bill. And for you, Anonymous, a trip to the woodshed for your "facts are facts" hogwash when you're making up fake news.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Just 5 newspapers in BC report on Basi-Virk trial update
Disappointing to discover that just 5 newspapers in British Columbia bothered to report on the latest developments in the trial of David Basi and Bob Virk, two former provincial government aides charged with breach of trust.
My own newspaper, 24 hours, ran my report from the BC Supreme Court hearing Wednesday, the Globe and Mail ran a report by Mark Hume, who was also there, and the Kamloops Daily News, the Nelson Daily News and the Prince George Citizen ran stories written by Canadian Press reporter Camille Bains.
This according to an InfoMart database search of newspapers conducted this afternoon.
That means neither the Vancouver Sun, the Province nor the Victoria Times-Colonist reported that the most important political criminal trial in British Columbia has been delayed again, or that serious questions were raised about the evidence and about the lack of public access to court documents.
I am also unaware of any radio reports based on reviewing BC radio websites but the story may have been broadcast without being posted on their sites.
One can only hope that this omission by so many prominent media will be corrected shortly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many thanks, Bill. And for you, Anonymous, a trip to the woodshed for your "facts are facts" hogwash when you're making up fake news.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I too, believed Anon-At-The-Top was referring to the story about the original defense motion which, of course, was whole different bit of stenography......errrrr.....reporting.
.
(hope you don't mind Mary but I couldn't resist reprinting TC Editor-in-Chief's Email to you back in September followed by the question...... 'Is it News yet?)
.
.
(hope you don't mind Mary but I couldn't resist reprinting TC Editor-in-Chief's Email to you back in September followed by the question...... 'Is it News yet?)
.
Sorry to pop your bubble again but Global news reported on the motion that was filed by the defence the very day it was filed. It was the only news cast to report this fact. Thats right cbc, ctv couldn't be bothered. Last time I checked Global news was a part of the Can West Global News Group!! For added verification feel free to call Tieleman, he seems to be one of the few reporters who is really on top of this case and looking at the facts from a realistic point of view as opposed to the paranoid fantasies some people tend to engage in.
# posted by : March 8, 2007 at 8:23 p.m.
: March 8, 2007 at 8:23 p.m.
anonymous March 8. We were talking about newspapers. Bill Tieleman wrote the story about CanWest's no-show in newspapers. And I don't understand what you're defending here -- Global TV mentioned something? Big deal. That's not really giving the people of B.C. the coverage they need to know about.
The fact is: this very important trial preparation was not given anything like adequate coverage.
The fact is: this very important trial preparation was not given anything like adequate coverage.
"reported on the motion that was filed by the defence the very day it was filed." anonotop.
You're apparently referring to the situation more than a week earlier.
Time to wake up.
This discussion is not about filing the 'notice of Application for disclosure' to give it its proper name, that happened on February 26 and Global did report on it.
The discussion here is about what happened on Wednesday March 7.
And, as noted above - no one is dealing with the point Madame Justice Bennett actually made relative to the earlier 'unauthorized and/or improper' early release.
They jury is still out on that one.
Can West still has it's pants around its knees on yesterday's story. My understanding anyway.
anonOmous
Post a Comment
You're apparently referring to the situation more than a week earlier.
Time to wake up.
This discussion is not about filing the 'notice of Application for disclosure' to give it its proper name, that happened on February 26 and Global did report on it.
The discussion here is about what happened on Wednesday March 7.
And, as noted above - no one is dealing with the point Madame Justice Bennett actually made relative to the earlier 'unauthorized and/or improper' early release.
They jury is still out on that one.
Can West still has it's pants around its knees on yesterday's story. My understanding anyway.
anonOmous
# posted by : March 8, 2007 at 11:31 p.m.
: March 8, 2007 at 11:31 p.m. << Home
