News v. Analysis
The Globe's top story today is a preview of the second Gomery report, due to be released to the government this week (when it will be properly released remains to be seen; does anyone remember the stink raised by Harper when Martin got a few hours' headstart on the first report?). My concern about the Globe article is that there is absolutely no attribution for what the report is "expected" to contain. There are quotes from Justice Gomery (taken from the hearings), quotes from the first report and recycled quotes/promises from the Tories. The only new quotes are from an inquiry spokesman who declines to give details and just says that the recommendations are very precise. I accept that an informed journalist can look at Gomery's first report, look at the testimony and extrapolate what will be in the second report. As a matter of fact, I've essentially done the same thing at work, where I've been so fortunate as to read about 90 per cent of the testimony and the entire first report myself. But I labelled my report "analysis" because that's what it is. The Globe should have done the same thing. This isn't news, Daniel Leblanc hasn't read the second report (or if he has, he should say so), this is analysis. It should be flagged as such.