Here is an example of rationalization after the fact. CTV News is apparently now offering a defence to the airing of the Dion interview where he had to repeatedly ask for a clarification of the question to the effect of what Dion would do differently than Harper "now" if he were Prime Minister.
The question was ambiguous in that "now" could mean if Dion was PM for the same time Harper had been like 2.5 years, or during the current election campaign or afterwards in how he would govern differently if Dion won the election. Dion was seeking a clarification as to which time frame the interview was referencing. The answer would be significantly different in each case.
CTV thought this was so critical to quality journalism that they has a "responsibility" to air it. They had a responsibility all right. Starting with a responsibility to clarify the question would have been a professional place to start, especially in a second language.
Harper spun the event in yet another direction, being the congenitally misleading politician that he is...but that is just the same old mean-spirited politics that seem to be standard in Canada these days.
CTV- this just doesn't cut it. At least CTV you didn't go as far as the RCMP did in the last election and announce a criminal investigation publicly on Income Trusts. The spirit of "being responsible" sure seems to be in the same vein. Later the RCMP found no wrong doing by any politician and only some bureaucrat benefited with insider information. But those facts and that story got little to no play after the "facts."