But if false stories about terrorism matter, you should indeed also want to look into the who, what, where, when and why. Right now you just seem to want to bury the fact the false story was debunked!
I'm still not following your line of reasoning here at all.
False: Something that is in error, incorrect, inaccurate but in good faith.
Hoax: Something designed to deceive, a fabrication, a fiction.
So, is that some holes exist in the Canadian Parliament from a shooting, this was reported to the press, and when the media were given access they filmed every single blemish on all the walls and some were mislabeled?
Or 'someone' wilfully misled the CBC, added some obviously parallel and precise holes to the story, to add extra drama, (because, you know, a guy running around Parliament with a rifle shooting people just would
not be dramatic enough, they just HAD to add the legacy repair work from way back when), in order to support (insert hidden agenda of choice)?
The CBC then corrected their reporting error, but you still smell a rat?
Nick, when a traumatic event happens, do you imagine the press, witnesses, government or police are going to get every detail perfectly correct and accurate first time?