If we follow the Conservative’s Party’s telling of events, late last week Canada’s self-proclaimed “most watched” and “most trusted” news channel purposefully and maliciously manipulated the words of Canada’s next prime minister.

In a broadcast segment focused on the federal Conservatives’ attempts to bring down the Trudeau government through a non-confidence motion, rather than portraying Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s efforts as his stated major objective—to end the consumer carbon tax—CTV journalists instead framed the leader’s efforts to appear like he was triggering an entire election to eliminate the government’s dental care plan (a plan he hasn’t said he’d axe).

In doing so, two of his words were edited out and another two he said later were stealthily moved up to replace them. Any mention of the carbon tax was removed.

Conservatives were outraged.

“CTV gets caught pumping disinformation to protect the Prime Minister who subsidizes them,” fumed Conservative Deputy leader Melissa Lantsman.

“[A] total fabrication designed to deceive Canadians” and “propagate the Liberals’ narrative” claimed Poilievre’s spokesman Sebastian Skamski.

“We can never believe anything they say,” concluded former leader Andrew Scheer.

CTV and then chief anchor Omar Sachedina apologized on-air for their “misrepresentation” that was “taken out of context”; the result of a “misunderstanding during the editing process.”

But that mea culpa wasn’t good enough for the party. The Conservatives said they will refuse to interact with any and all CTV journalists, executives, and lobbyists, until they acknowledge the clip had “malicious” edits.

Yesterday, CTV announced they conducted an investigation, finding that two staff members had “manipulated” the clip and violated editorial standards. They appear to have been fired.

The next move Poilievre makes will set a real precedent for the relationship between conservatives and the media.

Inside the edit suite

I like to think I know my way around a TV news edit suite. I worked as a TV producer for the current affairs show The Agenda with Steve Paikin for almost a decade, where I made thousands of editing decisions. I even worked for a few months as a TV writer for CTV National News, the same show where that infamous segment was aired. I may have been in the room where that edit took place.

In broadcast journalism edits are made constantly. Our hope is that you never notice them. Sometimes it’s because your interview subject coughed or said something too quietly. Sometimes it’s done to shorten a piece and get it “to time.” Sometimes it’s because your subject said something that isn’t verifiable. Other times, it’s because they made an interesting point, meandered, then got back to that initial point.

But any time I’ve told an editor to snip, the decision has been made with extreme caution. While the odd tweak is appropriate, you do not want to misconstrue what someone is saying. You don’t want to eliminate valid context. You certainly don’t want to accidentally have them appear to say something they never said in the first place. That would be journalistic malpractice. Deceptively and deliberately put words into their mouth? That should be grounds for dismissal.

When we had a prominent public figure on The Agenda, there would often be upwards of three journalists (producer, broadcast series producer, executive producer) in the room to consider making a significant edit.

It doesn’t seem like that happened here. From my sources at CTV, the word around headquarters earlier this week was that while there were not nefarious workings at play, “it [the report] was rushed and they’ve [the journalist responsible, has] been spoken to.” Yesterday we learned those involved are no longer working for CTV News. I reached out to the journalist behind the report, but have yet to get a response.

Budget cuts continue

Early this year, Bell announced it was making significant cuts to its national and local news programming. This was after the Trudeau government provided them with $40 million in annual regulatory relief, with a promise from the telecom to continue funding journalism. The company is also entitled to millions from Google’s Online News Act payout. And yet, Bell, and especially its news arm, doesn’t seem to be doing too well. Poilievre recently revelled in the fact that their credit rating has been downgraded to near junk-bond status due to debt.

The folks at CTV I worked with were professionals, but their newsroom resources have now been cut to the bone. I’ve been told it’s meant less oversight and vetting, fewer technical capabilities, and fewer senior staff with institutional knowledge. It’s also likely meant fewer people in that edit suite.

When I started at CTV News and was introduced to the newsroom, a voice piped up from a shadowy corner, letting me know what a slog I was in for.

“Good f***ing luck buddy!” I recall him yelling.

Still, budget cuts are no excuse for shoddy work. Especially when the Conservative politicians you are covering and Conservative-voting Canadians (now 43 percent of the population) you are trying to inform are already primed to distrust you; looking for reasons not to believe you.

This week journalists truly shot themselves in the foot. Many Conservatives now likely  believe the private CTV is just as dishonest as their long-maligned public cousin, the CBC. If the trust gap between mainstream media and conservatives was wide last week, today it’s a chasm.

Conservative trust wanes

In exclusive polling done for The Hub this summer, a mere 8 percent of Conservative supporters reported “getting the truth from the mainstream news.” Fifteen percent said news coverage in Canada was “fair and transparent.”

This is the Conservative audience that mainstream media are left to win over. It’s a near Sisyphean task. These folks don’t see themselves reflected in mainstream journalism. News coverage gives them the impression that the leaders they like are “dog whistling” from the “far Right,” and have dangerous “hidden agendas.” They’re angry about it and want a leader who will call it out. These Canadians believe the media doesn’t understand them or value what they care about. And, in many cases, they are right.

Our poll also revealed that 40 percent of Conservative voters believe “a lot of news is just government propaganda.” The sentiment was echoed by Poilievre this week, who alleged CTV “pushes” “pro-Liberal news” to receive favours from the Trudeau government.

I think he’s incorrect. There is no red telephone in the offices of mainstream media executive producers with a direct line to the Liberal PMO so they can receive their propaganda marching orders. What there is instead are rafts of journalists who are largely progressively minded, sympathetic to social justice issues (for instance, thinking federally-funded dental care programs are just morally the right thing to do), and blind to many of the cares and concerns of conservative-minded Canadians. Camera operators may be the last people left in TV news studios who consistently vote Conservative.

“By attacking the media he [Poilievre] is attacking Canadians because the media ask questions on behalf of Canadians,” said Liberal government House leader Karina Gould this week.

I think she’s incorrect as well. The leader of the Official Opposition has every right to ensure he is being accurately portrayed by the journalists who cover his remarks. He should also be free to challenge journalists who ask him questions, without having done their homework. Not to mention the fact that many mainstream journalists seem to ask more questions “on behalf” of the Left-leaning part of the population.

What the leader should not be doing is intentionally creating an antagonistic relationship with the media. He should not be further adding to this breakdown of trust, merely to feed a salivating segment of his base that wants to “own” the press, when reporters are actually covering him accurately and trying to hold him to account. He does not need to go out of his way to jump down every journalistic throat that challenges him.

Years ago I had coffee with a director of media relations for Premier Doug Ford’s office. I told her that the relationship between a conservative government and journalists didn’t naturally, by default, have to be so damn adversarial. I’m not sure I got through.

An election approaches

And so here we are, ambling towards a federal election where one of the biggest, most watched broadcasters in Canada may be blacklisted by the political party likely to form the next government.

Only in the 2024 media environment could a federal leader afford to make this move. Today, what was once a symbiotic relationship between media and politicians has almost completely eroded. We need them far more than they need us. Politicians, especially Conservative politicians, don’t need the remaining legacy journalists and their dwindling (predominantly centre-Left) audiences. They can project their messaging through their own social media channels or appear on entertainment outlets, free from the gaze of pesky fact-checkers.

Poilievre will spend the election campaigning not just against Trudeau and Singh, but also against a mainstream media machine he and his followers are convinced are misrepresenting and maligning them. And journalists have now given him some real evidence to point to.

I’m worried. I’m worried that chasm between mainstream journalism and conservatives will become even wider. I’m worried blind spots will grow for a media that for the life of them doesn’t “get” conservatives. I’m worried their errors will increase as cuts continue. I’m worried conservatives are beginning to not just distrust mainstream news, but increasingly distrust journalism as a profession.

While that once mutually beneficial relationship may be dead in the water, one hopes that we can end at least some of this vitriol by understanding that we need to be fair and civil with one another if this country is to function. I’m not optimistic.

By the time these words have been posted to the World Wide Web and arrived in the inboxes of The Hub email subscribers, this correspondent believes the premier Canadian allotment of the 2021 vintage of Sassicaia, which is for sale through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario at $316 CAD a bottle, will have sold out. Those that secured a bottle on the Thursday before will this morning be waking up secure in the knowledge that their cellar will soon hold a perfect wine.

The Tenuta San Guido Sassicaia 2021 was, earlier this year, given a perfect score of 100 points by Monica Larner, Italian critic for Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate. In her review, she writes: “Here it is: A quintessential Sassicaia that represents the excellence of the vintage and also respects the unique taste profile of this distinguished Tuscan blend of Cabernet Sauvignon and Franc.”

I’ve met Larner on the wine trail. I remember going out for a drink after dinner with a group of journalists and winery owners in Sicily. I sat next to her. When one of the producers decided to play host and pick-up the round, she politely refused in a friendly but firm way and insisted on paying for her drink herself.

Larner would not risk any question of her independence over the price of a cocktail on the piazza. If Monica Larner gives a wine 100 points, it’s because she has decided herself it’s worth it.

On the Tuesday morning before the Thursday 2021 Sassicaia Ontario release (there are also releases this year in Quebec, Alberta, and B.C.), I was unaware of Larner/Parker’s 100-point score when a glass of the wine sat before me. This is not because I don’t read other reviews before I taste famous wines. I do—I just hadn’t seen Larner’s, and instead had read another critic who I respect. That score was high, though not perfect.

The 2021 Sassicaia that I tasted was put in a vertical with a glass of the 2020 and 2019 beside it. It was the second flight of a trade and media tasting held in Toronto and overseen by Priscilla Incisa della Rocchetta. Signora Incisa acts as a brand ambassador for her family’s winery in the Tuscan coastal region of Bolgheri, Tenuta San Guido. I wrote about her, her family’s history, and some earlier vintages of the San Guido wines at The Hub after her last visit to Toronto in 2022.

The Incisa della Rocchetta family only makes three wines and all of them are red. The line begins with Le Difese, named after the tusks of wild boar. It’s blended with estate Cabernet Sauvignon and Sangiovese from inland Tuscany. We had the 2022 which was delicious, ready to drink now, and played between clean black fruit from the Cabernet and red from the Sangiovese. If I saw this on a wine list in the next few years for around $100 I would order it right away.

Then, we tasted through the 2022 and 2017 Guidalberto wines made with an estate blend of Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. My note on the 2022 included an underlined phrase: “clarity + balance.” There is certain elegance to all the Tenuta San Guido wines and this showed it well, and though the fruit was quiet and shy it showed as dark red and Mediterranean. I would come back to it in a decade.

On the other hand, the 2017 Guidalberto, made from a warm year, veritably exploded out of the glass. Black currants, blackberries, Violets, and a bit of scrubby herb. I would look for it on lists now. Since the Guidalberto wines retail around $80, they should list around $200.

Primed for the main event, the Sassicaia’s did not disappoint. The most approachable was the 2020. The wines are made to age, but they show great promise of depth and fruit young. The 2020 the most; though the tannins were certainly present and happy to make themselves known, they were kind enough to let enough purple bramble fruit and violet florals through, especially after a vigorous swirl in the glass.

The 2019 I had tasted previously and it, again, really brought back the idea of Sassicaia as a Tuscan take on Bordeaux with a dominant cassis note. It’s own wine, but somehow reserved and precise in a Gallic way. I would give it until the end of the decade to really start stealing the show. Or decant it at least an hour before serving now. Even then, I would be tempted to leave half of the wine on the sideboard to be revisited the next day, if I had the self-control. (I probably don’t.)

The 2021, the star of the show, the focus of commerce this year, the perfectly scored wine, very much echoed the 2019. It’s not that its tannins caused friction or even a pronounced dryness in the mouth. I think it’s more like they lay like a blanket over the black currant fruit and somehow savoury, herbal character. But from under that blanket would poke out that clarity of flavour and absolute equilibrium.

The aspects that had made the Le Difese fun and jovial seemed to have grown up in the Sassicaia, especially the 2021 and 2019, in a real way. A serious way to pleasure. Whoever has a bottle of either in their cellars today will have a very good time tomorrow.

But, is the 2019 Sassicaia a perfect wine? Does such a thing even exist? The easy answer is of course not. Do perfect people exist? They do not, though we still manage to love imperfect ones very much. And the right wine at the right time, like the right person at the right time, can complement, if not bring, much happiness.

To be fair to Larner, who has dedicated her life to being fair to the wines that she reviews, her 100 point score may not be meant to be an expression of absolute perfection. Wrapped up in the score and the review is the potential of the wine not yet realized.

The potential looks as good as it could. And on Tuesday, I thought the 2019 Sassicaia was as good as could have been. The fun will be to see how it turns out the next time we meet.