In another thread, the subject of Evan Solomon came up like an unlanced boil in 35 degree heat and 80% relative humidity, as a result of the "Power and Politics" infomercial after Jack Layton's press conference Monday.
Solomon has a face that makes you want to make excuses to like him, and watching "PP" from time to time, it took me a bit to run out of them.
What struck me off the bat is how many of his "experts" are turd polishers from "Public Relations" firms. I used to hate that when Don Newman had them on, but at least Newman would concude with a blurb about the "experts" having no conflict of interest, meaning that their "opinions" weren't in fact work on behalf of a client. And it was left for us to believe, or not believe the answer. I never believed it.
But I've never seen Solomon do this. He has these turd polishers on regularly, giving "analysis".
The question is, if those turd polishers analysis turns out to be benefiting the interests of a client, does that not constitute a lie? Well, of course it does, but I mean, a lie the way the CRTC might define it?
I guess we'd have to monitor that and collect information. Any one up for it? It could be like a group effort.
That's my particular bug a boo with Solomon, maybe there are others?