former PM on stand: Straightgoods.com
 
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:46:09 -0600 (CST)

from: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=646
Downplaying Mulroney's offence

Far from digging for facts, media seem to be looking for excuses for PM
accepting cash.

Dateline: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

by Linda McQuaig

The media often are accused of fanning the flames of controversy. But in
the drama surrounding Brian Mulroney, it seems to be trying at times to
bring a raging fire under control.

With some notable exceptions such as investigative journalists Harvey
Cashore, Linden McIntyre, Greg McArthur and commentator Andrew Coyne
there's been a surprisingly blasi attitude from some leading journalists
and media commentators toward the startling implications of the
Mulroney-Schreiber saga.

In an extreme example of journalistic indifference, Ottawa Citizen
columnist Dan Gardner suggested that the $300,000 cash payment former prime
minister Mulroney received from lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber shortly after
leaving office is "greasy and dubious but it barely raises the needle of
public significance above zero."

And last Thursday, when TVO host Steve Paikin asked political scientist
Heather MacIvor what she found newsworthy that day a day of explosive
testimony MacIvor responded: "I'm not sure there was anything particularly
newsworthy."

MacIvor apparently didn't find newsworthy testimony that suggested the
payments to Mulroney came from a Swiss bank account, which contained
"success fees" from projects advanced under the Mulroney government,
including the $1.8 billion sale of Airbus aircraft to Air Canada. Later in
the show, MacIvor, who teaches political science at the University of
Windsor, commented that her students couldn't understand the "beating up on
poor Mr Mulroney."

Perhaps they don't understand because their political science professors
don't explain why the public might be exercised over a former prime
minister accepting envelopes full of cash from a man who had been a
notorious lobbyist.

Schreiber testified that Mulroney had been told he would receive funds from
a lobbying firm representing Airbus after he left office. If Schreiber's
allegations are true and they have not been proven in court it suggests
that Mulroney may have agreed while he was in office to accept what amounts
to a secret commission. Canadian law prohibits government officials from
accepting secret commissions.

It is irrelevant whether a benefit is only received after the official has
left office, if an agreement was made while the official held office,
according to Fred Fedorsen, a criminal lawyer who has handled cases
involving secret commissions.

Meanwhile, on CBC's The National, Rex Murphy complained that we're paying
too much attention to Schreiber, a man fighting extradition. "Why are we
listening to Schreiber?" Murphy asked.

Well, the reason we're finally listening to Schreiber is that his
allegation about the $300,000 payment to Mulroney long ignored by the media
was recently demonstrated to be true, when Mulroney admitted to belatedly
paying tax on the money....

whole article at: http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=646

Penney Kome, author and journalist
http://penneykome.ca
Editor, Straight Goods, http://straightgoods.com