Editing: How to do it right
There have been many comments in the media, blogs, and here that have condemned the Conservatives for the sloppy job that they've done of editing. In many places it's a real hack job, and even a bucket of pucks (or grewal) could sense that there was something not quite right with a certain passage. Something about the flow of the narrative or the reaction of the players is just off.
There is one place where the cut is almost perfect. Maybe a forensic expert will have spotted it, but an average listener would never have guessed.
If you have your transcript of the Grewal-Dosanjh-Murphy meeting (which, apart from typos and minor errors, is the written version of the first tape released), go to the last line of p. 10 and the first line of p. 11, where you'll find this dialogue (this is a scan from the last two pages of the Conservative transcript):
One can easily imagine such a conversation, no? Murphy mentions security matters. Dosanjh says "yes, yes. security, that's what matters". And, if you want to emphasize the connection between the two statements, put them in bold, as has been done here.
You'll no doubt be surprised to find 1 minute 20 seconds has been excised from between these two lines:
I have already discussed the significance of this in the previous post. Now there are scores of problems in these transcripts and tapes. Some of them are so incompetent or heavy handed that they could be screw ups. This one is clearly intentional and no one would ever have guessed that there was cut here, since Dosanjh is made here to respond to Murphy rather than Grewal.GG - I do not what to be rude or anything, but I thought it is a sense of security. It could be a question in my decision makingTM - No, I understandUD - (inaudible) That will be consideredTM - I understand what you are saying, security matters.GG -The reason is - is that in my part we have only two seats ethnic minority, women from B.C. So the work I have done I have not done I have not burned any bridges in my party. My party does appreciate the work I have done. My leader does appreciate, he took the bullet for me on this cases which normally the leaders don't. You know thatTM - YaGG In Joe Volpe's case, my leader told me to be quiet and he'll take the bullet for me and he did. It normally doesn't happen that way. So I'm having a brighter future, if we have a government you know, that - so I think that if I'm doing it then it's a kind offer but I must be accomplishing a bit where I stay, if I stay where I am. So if I cross the floor then have some sense of permanent/(equivalent) securityTM - YesGG - Anyways, so we'll leave it there.UD - His wife is not going to win the next seat if she's a LiberalTM - Yeah, No. I understand that.GG -I may, she may not.TM - YaGG - If I'm a Liberal in my riding I will win easily.UD - If he decides to run, if he decides to run.TM - YesGG - Let's say, hypothetically, if I'm in cabinet and I'm running as a Liberal in the next election - not a problem.TM - RightGG - Anyways, so we'll leave it thereTM - OkPage 14GG - I'll leave it there. I'll leave it up to you, but I think that Joe Volpe thing needs time sensitive I should sayTM - I understandGG If it done sooner than tomorrow when we are, if we were to make an announcement tomorrow, I'm prepared because it is done the day before.UD - So you want to talk with - are you comfortable with what Tim has said to you then?GG - What's that ?UD - You agree security matters, he agrees security matters
[Edited for clarity]