By now, everyone knows about the sexual misconduct allegations made against former provincial PC leader, Patrick Brown, which resulted in his resignation just 5 months before the provincial election. The allegations were first revealed by CTV.
Now, however, new statements from one of the two women who accused Brown of sexual misconduct contradict earlier statements, according to a new CTV report released late yesterday.
In the original CTV report, the first accuser said the alleged incident took place when she was still in high school, and that Brown gave her a tour of his home, went to his bedroom and closed the door behind him. In a recent interview with Post Media, Brown says that based on the first accuser’s timeline, the allegations are impossible because he lived in a small ground floor apartment in 2007, and he did not have an actual door to his bedroom.
After the Post Media report was published, the accuser changed key elements of her allegations, including how old she was when the alleged incident took place, which would remove an important facet of the story – that she was drinking underage at the bar where she claims to have met Brown. This would also undermine a key part of the overall narrative against Brown – that he was trying to ply an underage girl with alcohol. This narrative has been front and center in subsequent articles that have helped dismantle Brown’s reputation.
An element of the story that has not changed is that the mutual friend who accompanied the first accuser to Brown’s home still has no recollection of the night, which would include whether or not the incident took place. The first accuser now says she left Brown’s two-storey home and went to a friend’s house who allegedly lived on the same street as Brown.
The second accuser, whose name is still unknown by the public but known in media circles, including by this reporter, issued the following statement to CTV.
“Having read the statements made by Patrick Brown to Postmedia and in his Facebook post over the weekend, I continue to stand by the detailed account of these events that I have previously provided to CTV.”
The second accuser claims that Brown and his male friend accompanied her to Brown’s bedroom, and that Brown’s friend left the room, leaving them alone together. CTV News failed to disclose an account from Brown’s friend who says he was at the same party but that he never saw the woman alone with Brown. The friend told Post Media he gave these details to the CTV reporter when he was contacted before the publication of the first story, but that they neglected to include those details in the original report.
Much of what has and has not been reported has done some damage to CTV’s reputation, especially in regards to its objectivity. CTV is facing criticism after stories and pictures were unearthed that strongly implies a friendship existed between Rachel Aiello, one of the reporters who broke the story, and the second accuser. Initially, CTV failed to mention the connection between Aiello and the accuser, then through CTV lawyers said the two were not “close friends”. Yesterday CTV reported the following:
“CTV News took steps before publication and broadcast to ensure there was no previous contact with any of the journalists that would influence the reporting.”
Most major outlets have a general rule when it comes to objective reporting; any connection whatsoever with a subject of a report usually means the reporter is swiftly removed from the story.
About the author: James Di Fiore is a freelance journalist focusing on politics and media. He is also a radio host at chcr.org in Killaloe. He will occasionally contribute articles to the Current.
Pingback: House of Cards has nothing on Ontario provincial politics – Madawaska Valley Current