Car Explosion/Accident at Rainbow Bridge?

[The Bread Guy]

That a reporter called PP out is part of the story.

The rest of the story is PP rebutted by saying he was referring to "The CTV News story reported the Canadian government was operating under the assumption that the crash was terror related."

Conclusion: PP was accurate and the media wasn't.

If Team Blue & supporters thereof typically trash MSM as being biased, bought-and-paid-for by government grants & not being trustworthy, maybe they should consider that before basing statements in the House (not made under oath, admittedly) on reports from those media, especially in situations that are unfolding. Or is it a case of believing MSM when it fits the preferred narrative or supports a political attack on the other side, and dissing MSM when it doesn't?

Or maybe in a fluid situation, he should have held his tongue and let investigators do their jobs…

As others have said, dare to dream when it comes to politicians.

NEW ANGLE: Pierre Poilievre schools CP reporter over Niagara explosion​

Good to see Rebel Media held it's own tongue when initial reports were coming in to set the example & lead the way - oh, wait ...

Two dead in suspected terror attack on U.S.-Canada border

Two people have been confirmed dead following a car explosion in the Niagara Region that prompted four border crossings in the area to close.

www.rebelnews.com

Archive link also here

 

[QV]

Here is this situation in a nutshell


PP: in the house, "the media said this... do you have a comment?"
Gov: "waiting on more info"
Biased media and easily lead voters: "How dare PP!"

 

[Navy_Pete]

Here is this situation in a nutshell


PP: in the house, "the media said this... do you have a comment?"
Gov: "waiting on more info"
Biased media and easily lead voters: "How dare PP!"

His statement in the house that came out before the CTV story that he keeps pointing to?

He's being a smarmy prick on a tehcnicality and this is why so many people think he's eminently punchable; he acts like someone who was bullied as a kid then gets a bit of authority as store manager or something and uses it to be a petty tyrant.

If he was responsible he may have asked for an intel brief, instead of suggesting in the house that the government of Canada had failed to protect the security of Canadians, based on previous false reports from right wing MSM in the US that had the car on the Canadian side.

It's entirely reasonable for investigators and initial responsders to assume it's a worse case scenario like a terrorist attack, and then walk back precautions from there; it's a cheap political shot to make uninformed attacks on the GoC when something is happening like that where he obstinately refuses to be informed about like a funcitoning adult.

 

[Remius]

This is part of the issue. He’s quoting a tweet that actually came out 20mins after he made his own statement in the house. What media reports then was he relying on then?

He doubled down on what was a reasonable question to ask. The CP reporter was actually pretty measured in how the question was asked.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... PP: in the house, "the media said this... do you have a comment?" ...

In his own words, from Hansard ...

... Mr. Speaker, we just heard media reports about a terrorist attack at the border in Niagara. Two people may have been killed and a third injured. Can the Prime Minister give us any information about this terrorist attack?

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard media reports of a terrorist attack with an explosion at the Niagara crossing of the Canada-U.S. border. At least two people are dead, and one person is injured. It is the principal responsibility of the government to protect the people. Can the Prime Minister give us an update on what he knows and what action plan he will immediately implement to bring home security for our people? ...

MSM may have jumped the gun on using the T word, but PP closed the deal by saying it was a terrorist attack. And since I can't read minds re: what he meant to say, or what he really meant, I can only go by what he said.

Potential lesson learned: Instead of blaming the source when you decide to use early information & treat it as final, maybe treat said initial reports with a grain of salt.

 

[QV]

His statement in the house that came out before the CTV story that he keeps pointing to?

He's being a smarmy prick on a tehcnicality and this is why so many people think he's eminently punchable; he acts like someone who was bullied as a kid then gets a bit of authority as store manager or something and uses it to be a petty tyrant.

If he was responsible he may have asked for an intel brief, instead of suggesting in the house that the government of Canada had failed to protect the security of Canadians, based on previous false reports from right wing MSM in the US that had the car on the Canadian side.

It's entirely reasonable for investigators and initial responsders to assume it's a worse case scenario like a terrorist attack, and then walk back precautions from there; it's a cheap political shot to make uninformed attacks on the GoC when something is happening like that where he obstinately refuses to be informed about like a funcitoning adult.

I think we all get it... you don't like PP for a host of subjective (and immature) reasons.

It sounds like you've already talked yourself into hoping for another Trudeau win. This is ok by the way, it's totally allowed in our society. I am not opposed to that electoral outcome either, just for very different reasons than you. .

 

[QV]

In his own words, from Hansard ...

MSM may have jumped the gun on using the T word, but PP closed the deal by saying it was a terrorist attack. And since I can't read minds re: what he meant to say, or what he really meant, I can only go by what he said.

Potential lesson learned: Instead of blaming the source when you decide to use early information & treat it as final, maybe treat said initial reports with a grain of salt.

Clearly in that statement when he says "this terrorist attack" he is referring to the "media reports about a terrorist attack" only a few sentences before that. But keep digging.

The Leader of the Opposition should be asking questions about things like this in the HoC.

These are demonstrably weak criticisms.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You'll have to forgive me but what is the big deal in calling this a terrorist attack ? It was labeled as that all over the media when this happened.

Of all things going on, and all the F-ups our Gov is currently pushing; this is a big deal ? Really ?

Grasping at straws the LPC and their supports are, me thinks.

 

[lenaitch]

Because 'gotcha politics and media.

 

[Furniture]

You'll have to forgive me but what is the big deal in calling this a terrorist attack ? It was labeled as that all over the media when this happened.

Of all things going on, and all the F-ups our Gov is currently pushing; this is a big deal ? Really ?

Grasping at straws the LPC and their supports are, me thinks.

When your side is down in the polls you latch onto anything you might be able to use as a weapon to weaken the other side.

It makes sese that the LPC want to keep this in the news.

 

[QV]

When your side is down in the polls you latch onto anything you might be able to use as a weapon to weaken the other side.

It makes sese that the LPC want to keep this in the news.

Which is the LPC making another mistake because I think the majority of sensible voters see what is going on here.

 

[dimsum]

You'll have to forgive me but what is the big deal in calling this a terrorist attack ? It was labeled as that all over the media when this happened.

I wasn’t following in the first few hours but aside from right-wing sources, was it definitively called a ”terrorist attack”? I am being specific here because it is a different kettle of fish if they said it was possible, but not the same as the links I posted earlier.

Of all things going on, and all the F-ups our Gov is currently pushing; this is a big deal ? Really ?

Grasping at straws the LPC and their supports are, me thinks.

I would think that this one is closer to home (literally) than most because it‘s a physical thing that happened next to our border. That, and the right-wing commenters were out in force.

Also, if the CPC is attacking like it’s an election, is it that crazy to have the LPC (or anyone, really) call out something that was proven factually wrong? If Poilievre retracted his statements (maybe that will be a push on today’s QP) then that would be fine.

 

[QV]

I wasn’t following in the first few hours but aside from right-wing sources, was it definitively called a ”terrorist attack”? I am being specific here because it is a different kettle of fish if they said it was possible, but not the same as the links I posted earlier.


I would think that this one is closer to home (literally) than most because it‘s a physical thing that happened next to our border. That, and the right-wing commenters were out in force.

Also, if the CPC is attacking like it’s an election, is it that crazy to have the LPC (or anyone, really) call out something that was proven factually wrong? If Poilievre retracted his statements (maybe that will be a push on today’s QP) then that would be fine.

Was PP factually wrong when he stated "we just heard media reports about a terrorist attack"?

Are you saying there were no media reports about this and PP made that up?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I wasn’t following in the first few hours but aside from right-wing sources, was it definitively called a ”terrorist attack”? I am being specific here because it is a different kettle of fish if they said it was possible, but not the same as the links I posted earlier.

Maybe its because I am on the right coast of Canada, but the only mention of this whole situation, that I saw, was from postings on this forum. It made little to no news out this way.

I would think that this one is closer to home (literally) than most because it‘s a physical thing that happened next to our border. That, and the right-wing commenters were out in force.

Again, the only people seemed to notice the explosion and reaction at all were in Ontario... Fair, that makes geographic sense.

Also, if the CPC is attacking like it’s an election, is it that crazy to have the LPC (or anyone, really) call out something that was proven factually wrong? If Poilievre retracted his statements (maybe that will be a push on today’s QP) then that would be fine.

No, you have a point. Its also not crazy to ask if this is really what they are getting all spooled up about ? PP is not a hard target, they can find better things to wedge on.

 

[dimsum]

Maybe it’s because I am on the right coast of Canada, but the only mention of this whole situation, that I saw, was from postings on this forum. It made little to no news out this way.

No, this isn’t really national news.

Again, the only people seemed to notice the explosion and reaction at all were in Ontario... Fair, that makes geographic sense.

Also because the Rainbow Bridge is a very big border crossing. If it was some random crossing in SK or NB, I could guarantee it wouldn’t have received this coverage.

No, you have a point. Its also not crazy to ask if this is really what they are getting all spooled up about ? PP is not a hard target, they can find better things to wedge on.

This is the most recent, and physical, example, so it’s easier for someone to grasp if there is a video of something blowing up. It’s harder to make random Canadian perk up about [insert political policy gaffe].

 

[Remius]

Was PP factually wrong when he stated "we just heard media reports about a terrorist attack"?

Not at all. But you forgot the second part.

“Can the prime minister give us any information about this terrorist attack?”

Not “reported” not “alleged”, not “can you confirm”. Just a stated that it was a terrorist attack.

Are you saying there were no media reports about this and PP made that up?

The only part he made up was the part where he claimed to have read it from a CTV tweet. Only that tweet happened after his question.

In the end this didn’t have to be a big deal. Even conservative pundits like James Moore have said he should have just owned it. But he didn’t so now we are where we are.

 

[QV]

No, I did not forget. You and other PP detractors are relying on ignoring the first part to focus on the last. I am saying the first part accompanies the last, he clearly lead with "media reports", does he really need to repeat that in each sentence thereafter? You're trying to find nuance where none exists. This is an example of an unconscious bias and is indeed picking fly shit out of pepper.

But this whole issues does have value for two reasons. First, it outs all of the closet Trudeau supporters or petty fence sitters desperately trying to find a nugget to validate their position. Secondly, it further highlights the media is generally not to be trusted and should probably be defunded.

 

[RangerRay]

Or, it’s a warning to PP and the CPC the smarten the f@$& up if they want to, you know, win the election. I still assume that’s their goal.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No, this isn’t really national news.


Also because the Rainbow Bridge is a very big border crossing. If it was some random crossing in SK or NB, I could guarantee it wouldn’t have received this coverage.


This is the most recent, and physical, example, so it’s easier for someone to grasp if there is a video of something blowing up. It’s harder to make random Canadian perk up about [insert political policy gaffe].

As for PP I don't see what the hubbub is about...

Like I said before this isn't an issue. I don't see it having an impact on PP, but maybe I'm wrong. And it looks to me like a desperate MSM and LPC trying to find something to counter the absolute floundering of their ideologies and party.

I've sad many times on here this country needs 1 more term of JT and crew. I may vote LPC just to help it happen.

 

[The Bread Guy]

You'll have to forgive me but what is the big deal in calling this a terrorist attack ? It was labeled as that all over the media when this happened.

The initial reports called it a possible terrorist attack, but he closed the door by confirming it by calling it one for sure.

Of all things going on, and all the F-ups our Gov is currently pushing; this is a big deal ? Really ?

Agreed re: far from the biggest fish to fry, and I agree with your read re: not a significant impact on PP, but similar fry-up's have been made out of other politicians saying one thing when the situation was something else, so there's that.