(bumped with Update #2)
CBC;
We made a mistake.
The photo shows smoke billowing from stacks at the old Lakeview coal-fired generating plant in Mississauga, once said to be the world’s largest. The Ontario government called it a heavy polluter when it was shut down a couple of years ago not only because of the quantities of greenhouse gases it produced – difficult to photograph – but because of the noxious fumes and particulates that contributed to the murk obscuring downtown Toronto seen in the photo.
The stacks were demolished a few months ago but it remains a powerful image of the kind of emissions the Kyoto Accord wants to limit and that is why we used it in the April 19 story on John Baird’s concerns about the “risks” of meeting Kyoto.
(Did you catch the scare quotes on the word “risks”?)
It was the right photo, but not the right version.
CBC.ca uses images in number of ways: It is our policy not to alter those accompanying news stories and depicting actual events or people. Those used as graphics in promos or to illustrate feature stories, columns or the like may be changed in minor ways – slightly heightened contrast, different colour filter, slight cropping – to enhance their visual impact and appeal.
In this case, the original image was treated with a “warming filter,” which gave it the sepia tone, and cropped slightly to use as a graphic image. Fair enough, except it was – mistakenly – dropped in a file accessible for use with news stories and subsequently posted with the Baird story.
It was an inadvertent error, but I should also point out that the “dramatically different” versions the blogger found are, in fact, exactly the same photograph both showing exactly the same thing – emissions from an acknowledged heavy polluter. There was no “misrepresentation” and no attempt to mislead.
That’s the copy from the main page at Insidethecbc.com. Inexplicably, clicking on the permalink and comments brings up a blank page. (Note: This one works.)
Well, who to believe? The CBC or my own lyin’ eyes?
Of course they’re the “same photograph”. That was the rather the point – the question was why the photo was run through such a “warming filter” in the first place. I know what it took for me to run the original through the GIMP to approximate the change. This was (quite obviously) no mere bump in contrast.
And if the CBC felt that “warming” the photo was an acceptable alteration, then my question is this – was the blue-toned version that has appeared at least 3 times on their website just a different, enhanced version of the original?
Original post here.
| Tod Maffin at Inside the CBC – “I know CBC.ca executives are discussing this particular issue today. I expect to hear from them soon about it.” |
 |
Even without the photoshopping, the picture is, arguably, a misrepresentation of the Toronto millions of us know and love and call our home. You would have to go out of your way to capture a picture of Toronto that looks this polluted and smoggy.
Plus, with its juxtaposition to the accompanying article, the implicit message of the picture is, “Conservatives don’t care about the environment.” Since it’s apparently a stock photo, the picture was probably snapped during the reign of the Liberals, while they were huffing and puffing about Kyoto — and doing nothing.
If anyone really wants to reduce world pollution DO NOT BUY, MADE IN CHINA.
…dang! My post wasn’t quoted by the CBC…
Totally agree with you Western. Unless we stop now, Soylent Green will become a reality.
Gives new meaning to energy bar…
That’s not where the issue has to be discussed!!!
It has to be discussed by those, who pay CBC bills, i.e. in the Parliament.
Aaron? You, me and every other tax payer are the ones paying the CBC bill.
Love some of the comments, especially one by Mr. Whittingham:
“…I may be an naive country boy from Saskatchewan…”
and
“…Kate and her bloggers are CBC conspiracy theorists. It keeps them busy and out of trouble. If they didn’t have this to occupy them, they’d probably be shootin’ their guns off randomly.”
Ah, so sad to see a native Saskamite so indoctrinated by eastern mentality.
Bet he also thinks AdScam, Gun Registry, and Kyotot is part of Kate’s conspiracy.
Poor boy probably forgot how to load his gun also…
The CBC has been a disseminator of left wing propaganda virtually since its inception, along with the National film Board.
It should come as no surprise to discover manipulation of photos, we already know they frequently nuance facts, as witnessed by CHRISTINA Lewand about Stephen Harper in a piece piece months ago.
Sadly Canadians are forced by law to maintain the CBC with our tax money.
The best Harper can do is privitize the CBC.
Who knows they may even discover a whole new market if they shifted their focus to the right like Fox News in the USA.
what PMSH needs to do is just shut down the heritage ministry. isnt that the one that funds the cbc?
Well, I suppose it’s slightly encouraging to think that the CBC has at least been provoked into CYA mode. Reading “CBC Ethics” post (second one) made me think of Ken Finkleman’s character from his own show, The Newsroom: maybe George was just a lightly satirized version of the CBC executives Finkleman had to deal with every day.
Many Ontarians have for a long time referred to Toronto as the Big Smoke and occasionally on a hot summer day it can take on an orange hue. Either that or my eyes were burning.
What I find interesting is that this picture must have been taken when the Liberals were in power after having signed on to the Kyoto accord, and I don’t remember the CBC raising such such a big stink about it. The bias and contempt for all things Conservative seems to be reaching a fevered pitch.
I believe Canadians want TV programming to reflect our values not TV that attempts to program us with new values. More Canadians would support a politically neutral CBC but since they don’t seem capable of operating without trying to redefine our culture it is past time we threw the CBC to the wolves. The CBC does not reflect Canadian culture and will continue to lose market share either way.
About the picture.
Note that the dramatic smoke on top of the picture is black on top and light on the bottom.
The way the smoke looks, it seems that the camera was placed near the source to make it look so dramatic. To see the cropped parts would make it clearer what’s the deal.
The composition of the picture is, to make the place look like Chemical Ali would have a hand in it. Probably used filter to enhance the pollution, which ordinarily nobody wants.
Just some observations. The whole thing may just be what it is.
“…dang! My post wasn’t quoted by the CBC…”
Check out those comments. Are they a fair and balanced representation of the 164-or-so on SDA?
Heh heh…
Notice that the CBC asks its readers for their opinion. But it has already skewed their responses by self-describing their action as only done “to enhance image clarity” – an innocuous action done to clarify borders of colours/black and white.
But the CBC action wasn’t to ‘enhance image clarity’. It was to send a message of alarm, an image of smoke-filled pollutants over our cities.
The fact that this wasn’t ‘smoke’ (particularate matter) but steam or water vapour; that the emitters (the four stacks) were demolished several years ago; that it took place under the Liberals – all these facts are hidden by the CBC.
Instead, they focus only on ‘image clarification’. What about factual clarification?
He’s going to hear from them soon? Yeah. And my f**king rebate check from Queerbec is in the mail too
The CBC itself just proved Kate’s whole point. The CBC intentionaly skews the “news”.
There were 164 comments posted on kate’s sda site concerning CBC bias on the “smoke” story.
The CBC then pays someone to filter through the comments and pick out the most favourable six.
Alby was in the ‘top six’ according to the CBC.
On sda, Alby represents a small %age of the comments and less than 0.00005% of the intelligence. Sounds Like Canada. Sounds Like CBC Mentality.
It IS hard to take a photo of CO2. It makes up a very, very, VERY small proportion of our atmosphere. And CO2 is an insignifigant GHG compared to water vapour.
This is a movement that we have to get started, it will shut down the global warming hype overnight:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070423-104948-7992r.htm
Sorry, I’m not buying. Having grown up in Port Credit the “Four Sisters” of the Lakeview generating station are instantly recognizable. While you can obviously see the CN Tower from the Lakeview Promenade you would most definately not be getting that picture of First Canadian Place. We’re talking a distance of 20km. If you were to zoom in enough to get the CN tower looking that big the stacks should be substantially bigger. In addition, the angle is all wrong. You can’t possibly get that view of the stacks in the same picture as the tower without one hell of a wide angle lens. If you’re not familiar with the locations do a quick direction search on Mapquest from Hydro Rd in Mississauga to Rees St in Toronto (the stacks were parallel to Hwy 2 before they were demolished). There is more going on here than a simple change of hue.
Bit OT here(again),but I find this really fascinating!The response,and the attention from so many avenues,to all of us”talking back to the radio”
Another example,is the whole Hollandgate affair.As I mentioned few days ago,it had all but dropped off the radar..but also,Holland had appeared to have been told to STFU…he was of late pretty much invisible.Then,after it was pointed out here,on Kate’s blog..lo and behold,Marky Mark is up in the House yesterday asking question for 1st time in weeks!They ARE paying attention people,you are making a difference,and it is truly gratifying to behold!To all of the contributors..keep up the great work.I for one appreciate the blinders being removed!
Hi Kate — FYI, the CBC has sent me its response. You can find it at http://www.insidethecbc.com/policies/news/photoshop2/
Would love to know what you and your readers think.
Tod
CBC blogger
To read the letter from the CBC don’t use the link . It doesn’t work. Just click on Tod Maffin at the bottom of the post and it will take you to his website with the posted reply
Just read the CBC response. It’s pitiful and would insult the intelligence of a goat.
PB,
I wrote as much when the picture was first discussed. I’d like to know where the photographer was standing to get that snap – I can’t think of any nearby elevation that would allow for it. Thanks for confirming what I believed.
‘Mistake, but not an attempt to mislead’: CBC on altered photo [ibid}
Translation:
Fake? Yes. So, ff off, rednecks.
The best lies contain 99% truth and 1% lie. Such a premise makes photoshopping images ideal for the job. The CBC puts not only pictures through “filters” to enhance interest, they also openly admit to filtering words (one example – the leadership debates during the last Federal Election where a “knowledgeable” CBC radio panel said they’d filter the debates for Canadians to prevent listeners from having to suffer through the boredom).
The problem with filtering is with the motives of those doing it. Changing details skews facts which affects opinion. Does the CBC really know when enhancing interest becomes deliberate misrepresentation? Do they care?
Makes it sound like, all we added wasa sepia tone not realizing what effect that would have.
It was done to get an effect….admit it and we will all respect you more.
I would like to give them credit that they’re doing a follow-up based on Kate’s earlier post. They’re obviously listening. How well they listen, and the end results of it are not yet apparent, but the potential for reform is there.
‘Mistake, but not an attempt to mislead’
It absolutely was an attempt to mislead. Because, by their own admission in that letter, CO2 is hard to photograph. Why? Because it’s invisible. And smog is a problem in the GTA and the people of Toronto have an emotional investment in the issue. And so the CBC falsely linked smog to Kyoto, which is about CO2 and NOT smog so that the people of Toronto, and anyone else from a city with smog problems, would react emotionally negative to Baird, the Conservatives, and their stand that to implement Kyoto would be economically disastrous.
It’s no different than showing ice normally melting in the spring or a polar bear on a tiny piece of ice (which is a few feet away from shore) before every story on global warming. It’s an intentional misrepresentation of the facts in order to promote an agenda.
And what’s absolutely hilarious about this story is that taking the Lakeview power plant offline was the equivalent of removing 30,000 cars from the roads. There’s over 5 million people in the GTA. To account for minors and commuters let’s assume only half those people drive on any given day. So shutting down the Lakeview power plant was the equivalent of taking 1.2% of the cars off the road. And under Kyoto we need to reduce by 30%. You do the math and it’s obvious that Baird’s “fear mongering” report is not far off the mark.
Shane O,
They are embarassed by the exposure and are dissembling.
When Tony Burman explains the event away or apologizes, then the lesson is learned.
I would argue they are a biased news source but internationally they are an outlet of some repute.
They owe Canadian’s a public explanation.
There is so much wrong with this photograph.
Firstly, the stacks are emitting water vapor.
Secondly it would be impossible to include them in a photograph with the background showing. They just don’t sit where the photo tells us they are.
Air Pollution in Southern Ontario is NOT generated in Southern Ontario. It originates in the Ohio Valley.
Water vapour? The Four Sisters were the smokestacks at a coal-fired power plant!
Rattfuc is right (or partially so).
Coal fired generating plants heat water with burning coal to produce steam. The majority of the bad stuff is removed by scrubbers. What you see in the picture is mainly steam/water vapor being vented.
If you believe that coal-fired power plants emit nothing but water vapour, you’re delusional.
Why did the Harris government order Lakeview to stop burning coal in 2001 if it’s so nice and clean?
I hadn’t read the CBC reply when I posted my comment. It doesn’t seem to be truthful.
No one is suggesting that all that is emitted is steam. Indeed residue from the burning of coal is a problem, especially with older facilities like Lakeview. Harris had it decomissioned because of the costs of upgrading it to the standards that exist at facilities like Nanticoke. Contrary to what the media would like you to believe, Nanticoke is indeed quite efficient. High-tech and only burns soft coal imported from Utah.
Soft coal is the bad stuff. Lots of sulfur, burns smoky. Try again.
Get off your computers and get a life. I can’t believe that anyone could be remotely interested in something like this for more than 30 seconds. It’s a CBC CONSPIRACY, everyone!!!
Now that we know that CBC religiously follows this blog, they know that we know that the anti-semitic and anti-Conservative government pose written all over Mansbridge’s face is the typical attitude of all the CBC.
And no one was even complaining to them about the clip.
It’s just the way they are.
John: “Soft coal is the bad stuff. Lots of sulfur, burns smoky. Try again.”
This statement is ridiculous. It’s like saying fish tastes fishy… yuck! I hate all fish.
The fact is that lignite coal (low quality) is the primary coal used for power generation. And that soft coal (bitumous) is of higher quality than lignite.
Bitumous coal has several uses which depend on the grade of the coal itself.
The bitumous coal that is used for power generation is of the highest quality and has low ash, sulphur, and carbonate contents.
So burning bitumous coal in the boilers produces LESS garbage to have to scrub from your flue gas than lignite coal.
And for the record John, I’m an engineer who has spent several years (in the past) working in coal fired power plants. Where do you get your knowledge from?
Reid: Very well. As an engineer, what comes out of a coal-fired plant’s smokestack?
Well John that depends on a couple of things.
1. Is the power plant in a 1st or 3rd world country?
2. Is the power plant vintage or modern?
The reason these questions are important is because there’s lots of bad stuff that, left untreated, can be emitted out of a coal fired power plant’s stack(s). Things like NOx, SOx, ash, heavy metals, CO2, water.
Technology exists to remove nasties like NOx, SOx, ash, and heavy metals in the newer, or upgraded, plants of North America and Europe. CO2 is another matter. However, that’s not what you were talking about since you mentioned that soft coal burns “smokey” and is “bad” and smoke consists of particulates (mostly ash, NOx, and SOx).
In older plants and those being constructed in places like China you’re going to get all kinds of nastiness being emitted out of the stacks. Which is why it’s important to get the Chinese on board with clean coal technologies. The only way we can meet all the energy needs of the planet is to utilize fossil fuels and nuclear energy (or kill off a couple of billion people or so). And since nuclear is currently a small percentage of the total production this will require the construction of hundreds upon hundreds of new nuclear power plants.
There’s only so much power that can be generated by wind, solar, tides, etc.
There’s only so many rivers you can dam up and valleys you can flood.
These stats are from 1998 (the most recent I can find) from the USGS and represent world wide energy production based on fuel type (first number is Quad BTU and second number is percentage of total energy production).
Oil 152.0 40.0 %
Natural Gas 85.5 22.5 %
Coal 88.6 23.3 %
Nuclear 24.5 6.5 %
Hydroelectric 26.6 7.0 %
Other 2.5 0.7 %
Other includes biomass, geothermal, solar, wind
Reid,
With respect to the portion of the photo that shows the Four Sisters and the emission of thick plumes, do you think that is a natural photo or doctored?
I don’t like either photo. Having worked at the power plants around Lake Wabamun, AB I have seen ancient & modern power plants in operation. What I have personally seen, even at the older plant (built in the 50’s), coming out of the stack looks to be mostly very white (steam) with a small amount (10% or less) as residual orange/brown haze remaining after the steam dissipates.
My opinion of that photo is that the smog haze over Toronto is what it is, smog from a multitude of cars & factories from all around the Great Lakes. And that photo was chosen because the extra “smoke” coming out of the stacks adds to the dramatic effect.
But my own personal experience tells me that if you were the one standing there taking the picture, what was coming out of those stacks would look very different to your naked eye than how it looks on the photo (original or doctored).
I’m an amateur photographer and love taking pictures of the horizon when there’s blue sky mixed with white clouds. The reason I love this is that when you “develop” the pictures you can get very dramatic looking clouds if you’ve used the right filters. And the clouds in the pictures do not look like they did to your naked eye.
What’s really amusing about their choice of “illustration?”
Those smokestacks are the “four sisters” of the coal-fired Lakeview Generating Plant in Port Credit. The plant has been closed and the stacks have since been demolished (June 2006). Here’s a short video of the demolition:
http://tinyurl.com/2hsm25
“We found a photo of a generating plant that was shut down a couple of years ago and gave it the “global warming filter” treatment to make it more appealing to our brain-dead readership. But we never intended for it to be used! Somehow it ended up in the news image grab-bag and was mistakenly chosen to illustrate the concerned John Baird Kyoto “risk” story. Screw you blogger.”
What a crock.
Seeing as how you posted beautiful images of houses in Kurdistan on this blog last year neglecting to mention that they were CGI this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Toronto “smog” comes from the Ohio Valley heavy industry, where the pollutants move over the waters of Lake Ontario and are exposed to sunlight UV rays which converts it into noxious smog that settles on Toronto and even well inshore. Yes, the local pollution does contribute to the total smog, but the other sources are equally important.
Toronto is just at the bottom of the environmental sewer and sits in it’s pollution, hoping that the prevailing winds will change from SW to NW.
Huh Jose?
What ever does a picture of Kurdistan have to do with the topic at hand??
Seems that the direct link to the story posted above has been clipped by the CBC. If you go to http://www.insidethecbc.com you’ll be able to scroll down to the article, but all of the readers comments have been pulled offline. Seems that CBC didn’t like the heat they were taking. CBC has a toll free at 1-866-306-4636 if anyone wishes to enquire as to why all of the readers comments were pulled.
…and besides, Jose, Kate responded to your allegation several posts ago. As I recall, she had expressed some negative opinion about your intelligence. Where’s your proof, Jose? Or do you think unsubstantiated blather is enough?
Tod asks: “Would love to know what you and your readers think.”
I think Sue Gardner, the person who wrote the non-apology, is subhuman filth, unfit to lick the shadow of a real human off a pile of cur dung. I’m revolted that my tax dollars are paying for such bald faced lies. Thanks for asking.