Recycle Journalism: Brian Stewart Rebrands Vague Former CSIS Official's Quote to Offer 'Sleeper Cell’ Theory to Explain Canada’s Iranian Embassy Closure

Editorial*
by Keith Edmund White

Brian Stewart yesterday made a bold theory: that concerns over Canadian-based sleeper cells may have caused Canada to shut down Iran's embassy in Ottawa.  But guess what?  It's not his theory--but rather that of former Canadian Security Intelligent Service assistant director Ray Boisvert (who never said "sleeper cell"), while talking on CBC television.  Boisvert's vague statement was then recycled by the CBC's Daniel Schwartz in an CBC.com article two days ago.  All Stewart added were the words "guerrilla cell" and cloak a very vaguely worded concern from Boivert with a piece of public testimony regarding suspect Iranian sleeper cells by a top U.S. intelligence official eight months ago. The result?  Suddenly this non-story from Monday is grabbing headlines Wednesday.  If all of this sounds like a house of cards, that's--well--because it is.  The CBC should stick to reporting news, rather than recycling a vague quote for 48 hours to attract readership.

CBC News reporter Brian Stewart made waves yesterday by implicitly suggesting that Canada shut down the Iran's embassy in Ottawa because Canada suspected the embassy was supporting Canadian-based Iranian "guerrilla cells."

Naturally, other news-organizations took his painfully organized and confusing article and ran with it.  But these organizations changed "guerrilla cells" (whatever that means) to "sleeper cell" and "sleeper cells."

iPolitics's take on Stewart's story:

Still with the Middle East, Canada's sudden decision Friday to close its embassy in Iran and to give the bum's rush to Iranian diplomats in Ottawa appears to have been prompted by credible intelligence, said Brian Stewart of the CBC. He said the embassy in Ottawa is suspected of creating and handling a network of sleeper cells in Canada that could launch terror attacks in the event Israel, Canada's close ally, launches a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The ambassador, Kambiz Sheikh-Hassani, denies any allegations of wrongdoing by his staff.

Macleans, actually citing the article, highlights the pertinent section of Stewart's piece.  But guess what Macleans title is?  Were we worried about an Iranian sleeper cell?  From Maclean's provocatively titled, quote-recycling piece:

Brian Stewart offers a theory on the Harper government’s decision to cut diplomatic ties with Iran.

I believe Harper acted on new intelligence. But the warnings were likely more about the Iranian embassy activities in Canada than they were about the safety of our personnel abroad. Indeed, the sheer number of reasons given for the diplomatic break may mask the true one: Iran’s aggressive use of diplomatic cover to prepare guerrilla cells to attack in the west should Iran itself be attacked.

Western intelligence has been ringing top-secret alarm bells for governments for over a year, warning of an extraordinary build-up of Iranian personnel in Europe, Africa and particularly in Latin America, many of them believed to be linked to Iran’s notorious Quds Force. That’s the elite arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, tasked with “extraterritorial operations.” Iran has powered up its diplomatic arm in the Americas, from a handful of embassies a dozen years ago to 10 today, along with 17 “cultural centres” in various countries. Most posts are staffed with far more officials than required for normal duties – 150 in Nicaragua alone. In January, America’s top intelligence official, James Clapper, publicly stated that Iranian diplomats abroad were setting up sleeper cells designed to attack U.S. and allied interests around the world in the event of war.

Now Macleans is correct to reiterate Stewart's claim is only a "theory." Stewart offers no direct evidence for any motive behind Canada's closure of the Iranian embassy.  Instead, Stewart (1) points out that Canada hasn't shut down embassies in the past save for grave circumstances, (2) highlights DNI head James Clapper's January public statement that Iranian diplomats were setting up sleeper cells to attack U.S. and U.S.-allied interests, and (3) a quote from former assistant director of Canada Security Intelligence Services Ray Boisvert.  This is what Boivert said:

Boisvert insisted the Iranian embassy was “running some kind of threatening operation aimed at the Iranian community in Canada that absolutely poses a security threat in Canada."

But Stewart did not get this quote himself.  It was first written by Daniel Schwartz on Monday, who was merely summarizing a CBC television segment that Boisvert was on.

So, let's boil this down.  CBC airs a (presumably) live segment on TV with three experts discussing why they think Canada may have closed the Iranian embassy.  One panelist says something that could be construed as a possible sleeper cell worry (without ever using the words "sleeper" or "cell").  A CBC writer then writes a summary, burying this quote half-way through his article.  The next day, CBC reporter Brian Stewart slaps on 'his' "guerrilla cell" theory--while ever so careful to hide the source of his information at the bottom of his article.  Why?  Because he knows his theory, if fairly presented, looks pretty flimsy.

Naturally, it would have been 'amateurish' for the CBC to call Boisvert up, clarify his quote, perhaps obtain comments from other relevant sources on the topic, and then write an accurate report.  That process is otherwise known as journalism.  Instead, CBC took the 'professional' route of publishing Stewart's theory.  In return, they've grabbed readership by triggering frightful headlines throughout Canada.

That's what I call solid journalism.

*This is a personal editorial by Keith Edmund White.  As such, it does not reflect the views of CUSLINexus, other CUSLINexus writers and staff, or the Canada-United States Law Institute.