From: Donna Laframboise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: AT POST ME <email@example.com>
Subject: Fw: I apologize
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:41:56 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael A. LaBerge" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'Donna Laframboise'" <email@example.com>
Subject: I apologize
[Only after a flurry of phone messages and emails between Monday and Wednesday, culminating in this exchange in
which he apologizes for questioning the reporter, did the president of ECMAS-Calgary follow through with his threat
to separate from ECMAS-Edmonton. The crux of it is 1½ pages down.]
> Please do not get me wrong, Donna. --------->
> I understand your position, and respect your research thoroughness in any
> all articles of yours that I have read. I also know you have/will do the
> same here.
> The good ,the bad and the ugly must be told, regardless of which side
> creates it. You are the messenger, not the creator.
> Donna, in no way was I asking or suggesting the article not to be written.
> would not insult you or the National Post in that manner. I apologize to
> for not making that point clear. Secondly, I do not consider you as a PR
> service. My respect for you is deeper than that, nor have I unsolicitedly
> asked for air time from you. I have always viewed your journalism as
> professional, ethical and clear - characteristics of which I wish would
> off onto some other journalists!!
> I guess a delay in writing was suggested because neither the people
> and the process factor were efficient in Edmonton over the weekend subject
> to the imputed timeline. Their decision process last Sunday and their
> methodology did not fit the timeline I presented, so I extended to seek
> answers to the key questions. I also am aware you did the same. I
> that and pointed this out to Bob. The direct questions were not even asked
> at their meeting! We re-directed these specific questions to them this
> I left a telephone message with you at 8 pm Calgary time after I talked to
> Bob Bouvier. I even talked to [Source A] to see if he could relay some
> semblance of sanity this evening. It appears stupidity is long lasting -
> Edmonton group seem to be tightening the noose rather than untying the
> They are not prepared to disassociate themselves from these two
> That being the case, the opportunity to correct their actions has been
> given. Their lack of action is more damaging because it could cause harm
> someone in the future. That is the real misfortune, and we realize it.
> Somehow, I have not found the right method to get that message across, or
> they simply do not want to hear it.
> ECMAS Calgary will cease to exist within the next couple of days when the
> board can assemble. Maybe we will call ourselves "The Family Group
> known as ECMAS".
> Again, Donna, I apologize for my lack of clarity, and do appreciate your
> actions over the past week.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donna Laframboise [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:42 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: re: your comments
> Thanks, once again, for the update.
> Re: the following
> > Donna,
> > If individuals are expendable to further the cause of Family Law Reform,
> > destructive articles expendable as well?
> No offense, but I'm starting to get a little pissed. I can't tell you how
> many times, in the past week, I've been told "you have no idea how much
> damage you are about to do," "you used to be a decent person, what
> happened?" "you're going to destroy everything we've worked so hard to
> build" etc. etc. etc. [Showing anger toward an interviewee is itself manipulative. The rest of her remarks below are also revealing, but use this link to return to the main essay:] [Back]
> I don't make the news - I write about it. It's my job to report on what's
> going on in the community. Sometimes that means telling the public bad
> things about people whose goals I believe in. It doesn't make me feel
> to write these kinds of stories, but that's life. It doesn't make me feel
> wonderful to write exposes on women's shelters or rape crisis centres,
> either, by the way. Those are services I believe in, too. But when they're
> being delivered by foolish people who think that just because they've got
> good intentions all the harm they're doing doesn't count - those stories
> need to be written. I wouldn't let a women's group get away with the kind
> things ECMAS Edmonton has been doing, and I'm certainly not going to let
> family rights community get away with it, either. In both cases, I have a
> moral obligation to expose these problems.
> Moreover, the National Post is not a charity. It has not paid my salary to
> work on this story for the past week (and I did not give up a full day on
> Sunday to go into the office and work on this article) just so, at the end
> of all this effort, we can take everything I've done and flush it down the
> toilet. It's simply out of the question that the story would be killed
> because that's what you'd prefer to see happen. It is well beyond my power
> to make that decision, and I'm insulted that you would suggest that I would
> make such a decision if it were in my power to do so. [Back]
> You know as well as I do that if 99% of the other journalists in this
> country wrote this story, there'd be no sympathetic context whatsoever.
> striven very hard to put that into the story and will work as hard as I
> to make sure it stays in during the editing process. But there really are
> limits to what you can expect, and it might be wiser to start counting
> blessings rather than nitpicking.
> When people in your movement are saying and doing sensible things, I'm
> to report that. When you're being idiots, I have an obligation to report
> that, too.
> In other words, I'm not your PR service. I'm not sure why so many of you
> guys seem to think that I am, but please, let's not have any more
> on that score.
> best wishes,