Sunday, March 25, 2007

Cherniak Apologizes Sort Of

Jason Cherniak just cannot say; I am sorry, I was wrong, I won't do it again. Jason tries to use weasel words to justify what he did, even when he says he was wrong.

In a convoluted legalistic manner he does apologize sort of, after a whirlwind of protests from Progressive Bloggers of all political stripes. But first he whined about the protests;


For the record, I never expected this sort of reaction. The purpose of the post was to argue for a good compromise on the hijab issue. I only mentioned the Chow rumour because I thought it was the best example of why the hijab thing is about voter fraud and not about religion. In hindsight, I wish I had used a less controversial example because the real point was lost in all the yelling. Frankly, though, I didn't realize that so many bloggers were so clueless about the rumours out there.


Then he decided to publish a sort of retraction. And it took him till 11 pm EDT today to finally do it.

However he only links to his apology in a link in his original article and in his second article. Which is not identified as his apology, and is one link amongst many.

He has not removed the offending article perse, nor struck through, nor removed the offending statements about Olivia Chow. Nor has he attached a correction apology statement link at the beginning of the offending article. All these are the proper journalistic procedures to be done to avoid charges of libel and defamation in Canadian law. And as a lawyer and media consultant he should know that.

Instead he posted this;


UPDATE

I'm sorry if you read this and don't like me reporting the rumour about Trinity-Spadina, but it IS a real rumour. It is not the same as accusing her of having relations with sheep, because that is not a real rumour that is circulating in Toronto. Further, I am not demanding that she deny it.


And as you can see below he says in his post I Was Wrong that he made a mistake, but still no; I am sorry I was wrong. Because of course Jason can never be wrong.

Jason there is no such thing as good faith when you rumour monger.


I initially used the Chow rumour as an example because I have heard it a few times from reliable people and thought it was a fair example to give. As a partisan, I think I was too quick to just assume that the rumour was reasonable to believe. The people I have spoken too probably made the same mistake.

So, to be clear, I am sorry for using Trinity-Spadina as an example in my initial post. However, that does not change the fact that I made the mistake in good faith.

My error here was in failing to look more closely at the rumour before assuming that it was believable. The truth is that if the rumour were about a Liberal, I would have done more research and figured out that it was bogus before posting it.

Yes you would have and that shows your intolerance towards other progressive political competitors in the body politic . But the point is you posted it and still have not removed the offending post. So lets get with it and do the right thing, re- write your article and re-post it without the references to Olivia Chow.

See

Cherniak


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,

9 comments:

Erik Abbink said...

Agreed with most of your analysis. Most of his post is everything but an excuse. I have to say that I did enjoy the beginning of Jason's post;

I'll be honest.

Does he mean he's actually aware of being "dishonest" in his other postings?

Erik Abbink said...

Rumour has it that Jason was pressured by ProgBlog members to apologize given the RM precedent.

audacious said...

good commentary eugene .. !

Jason Cherniak said...

I've attached a link to the retraction on the top of all related posts. I think it would be less than honest to remove the posts entirely, since that would actually hide my error.

I'm not really sure how much more I can do.

Ontario Lad said...

I don’t buy this as an altrustic apology. He’s never had a problem with people respectfully disagreeing with him before, so why now? I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that he was……..”encouraged” to do so.

I mean, c’mon, he is still saying that he believes that cheating went on in that riding even though he’s “apologizing”.

Is it a statement of regret? Perhaps. But that is only because of the grief he’s enduring because of it. And to me, that is a world away from an apology.

Apolgies don't come with caveats.

Dr.Dawg said...

It's a classic non-apology. And it isn't even made to the right person (Olivia Chow). And then get this:

I'm sorry if you read this and don't like me reporting the rumour about Trinity-Spadina, but it IS a real rumour. It is not the same as accusing her of having relations with sheep, because that is not a real rumour that is circulating in Toronto. Further, I am not demanding that she deny it.

Does that mean Churn IS demanding that Chow deny the first rumour? Looks like. How dare he?

Werner Patels said...

I agree, Eugene, that was NOT an apology. It only reinforced the original defamation.

eugene plawiuk said...

Jason goes from a rumour about Olivia Chow, personal attack, to a rumour about a riding; Trinity-Spadina.
It's this kind of weaseling around that just infuriates folks.

eugene plawiuk said...

Jason said; "I think it would be less than honest to remove the posts entirely, since that would actually hide my error."
I have checked your articles and the link to your apology is still not enough to correct your slander.
Since you compound the error by keeping the original post naming Olivia Chow, which I said you should remove. Had you even done the decent thing and said that rumours were about voting procedures in Trinity Spadina, then this would have been less offensive, as it is you made a personal slander against Olivia Chow and you refuse to remove it or apologize without weaseling out of it. Just as you did with your smear campaign against DiNovo.