Afshin-Jam has only herself to blame

Rora

- August 7, 2012 at 00:35:10

Given her position it would have been her responsibility (and easy) to keep the interview on-task with the topic she wanted to discuss: the book. I have done many interviews and a single statement from the interviewee -- in seconds – can change the entire plan for a story. Most of the time you have a great idea and know the angle you want to take, but it is the person you are interviewing who guides the direction. She obviously allowed the interview to go in that direction or it wouldn't have appeared in print with quotes. If that was her statement in an interview there isn't a single good writer on this planet who wouldn't have switched gears from *ho-hum book* and taken the new angle for their story (unless the editor assigned you to do a book review, that is). Don't flame a good writer for doing their job – producing an accurate story based on an interview.

Submit a comment

Frankk

- August 2, 2012 at 13:01:58

the article is objectively accurate. anyone noticed that she hasn't pontificated for a number of days now, thankfully giving peace & quiet to all.

Submit a comment

• 

  Wake

  - August 2, 2012 at 21:00:27

  To all the lonely jealous loosers commenting below. I am happy to say Ms Nazanin Afshin-Jam has come back. Now you can all put your heads down in shame and go back to bed.

karma

- August 1, 2012 at 22:42:38

You guys are so full of it. Welcome to the 'Get Harper' Media Party's ongoing campaign. Do you not think Canadians are smart enough to know what you folks are up to? Your pals on the left can't unseat Harper - so you'll do it for them. Losers!

Submit a comment

Theresa

- August 1, 2012 at 18:28:34

Honeslty, when a 'person' of her 'position' writes a book glorifying her beginnings in 'human rights activism' after agreeing to attempt to assist an Iranian woman named Nazanin (coincidentally, who is now 'missing' or 'not in contact with Ms. Jam', I've read) while using the 'victim's' identity and plight as inspiration for at least one song on her CD, thereby causing the 'delay of the release of her CD', and then referring to the book as HER (Ms. Jam's) 'memoir' and then becoming 'upset' following an 'interview' that appears to be nothing more than another attempt at pulling of the loop de loop, switcheroo publicity stunt designed to make her (Ms. Jam) out to be a victim of a 'politically motivated (?)' journalist (who only wanted to ask for and report the opinion of a self proclaimed 'human rights activist' --- whose 'opinions' (and now one is forced to consider her personal 'associations') could possibly have a negative effect on security related 'issues') - its no surprise the public wonders why politicians are paid as much as they are and why they're entitled to security and pensions. I want to thank the Truro Daily News for publishing another objective, rational, unbiased perspective. Great job done by dedicated, professional journalists/reporters. Keep up the good work. I hope my comment is published.

Submit a comment

miguel

- August 1, 2012 at 14:39:53

As you said , you are owned by the same company as Guardian newspaper. Obviously your report cannot be an honest and unbiased broker in this report here . Mr.Day's report , your colleague in Guardian is, unfair, twisted, manipulative , trickery report . Its better to receive welfare government cheque rather than be a dishonest to your profession, specially in journalism. This also applies to Mr. Day the original reporter. You said : "She was upset the lead of the story referred to her as MacKay's wife. But her name started the second paragraph, which was also just the second sentence of the story. And she was upset with the headline: Time to bring Khadr home: defence minister's wife. " She was upset for receiving invitation to sit for an interview about her book but the talk was about everything except book , and the report was nothing but Peter Mackay's name . She is upset because she repeatedly said , the conversation is her own personal views and she did not want to involve her husband nor the government , precisely for the same reason Mr. Day used Mackay's name in the head line to create controversies , knowing ( this is the lowest of journalism) using " minister of defence 's wife " would bring more readership, more business. Mr. Day wanted to brighten up his Day and his pocket rather than reporting with integrity. you said "If it comes out of your mouth, it may appear in a story." Didn't she say this is my personal view and she did not want her husband's name in the picture? She did not have any objection qouting her viwes ,that was the iterview all about . Why Mr. Day didn't talk about her book? As you know this practice called a "baite and switch" . you said "..... Nazanin Afshin-Jam means less to readers than "wife of the defense minister, regardless of how you wish to be known." Therefore you and your colleagues are looking for your interest and pockets, regardless what you agreed on, this is a deceptive nature of your business. This is called dishonesty . You said " when you say controversial things, they will probably be the focus of the story" She did not have any objection about "controversial things" to be printer, she has enough experience in media , though more internationally to know what's happening ; her objection was 1) the arrangement made prior to the interview was not honoured , 2) contrary to what she requested not to use her husband's name , Mr. Day use it repetedly, and he even did not mentioned these are her "personal views" and not her husband's views . All I can say your report here and Mr. Day's initial report is a cheap and preposterous method of journalism and I will end up saying " you can fool some people sometimes but you cannot fool every one every time" you , Mr. Day and owners of this organization must change this method of trichery , absurd business of bait and switch , and if you cannot be honest runing a business before you know it, you will be a bankrupt organization .

Submit a comment

• 

  Theresa

  - August 1, 2012 at 18:34:29

  Its nice to see she has such unwavering support from the public. People should be spending their time blogging about her accomplishments and how well they know her instead of waiting for the 'media vultures' to pick away at her 'left overs'. I'd love to read more stories about how great she is by people who use information going back to 1997 (before she had plastic surgery).

flogger

- August 1, 2012 at 11:15:47

And the vultures in the press/media (especially CP) wonder why Stephen Harper does not have the time of day for you?? Smart man.

Submit a comment

Brian Innes

- August 1, 2012 at 09:36:33

I think we should say defence in Canada. I presume you're not referring to Secretary Panetta's wife?.....

Submit a comment

Notme

- August 1, 2012 at 01:22:02

LOL-and you call yourself a journalist? Pa-leeze!

Submit a comment