There were some contrasting narratives, but on the whole, the messaging was positive. I guess this is where I would offer, perhaps, some level of criticism over the backgrounder and media release that was issued by the SITE task force at the direction of the panel inasmuch as nowhere did it indicate that there were any of these positive messages. In fact, there was wording to describe the messaging as if Mr. Carney was being targeted or a target. In that sense, I think it's arguable to say that a full and accurate picture of exactly what was going on wasn't provided with respect to the scope, extent and substance of the Beijing-directed influence campaign and how it portrayed Mr. Carney.
