Media Bias [Merged]

[Greymatters]

Please clarify references to 'Pakistan footage', 'single incident', and 'the red they flaunt'... 

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is a subtext to the story below, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC website, which, to its credit, the CBC is making on air. Someone in the audience of the “closed” meeting recorded Harper’s speech and sent it to the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party of Canada sent it to the CBC.

Now the CBC is right to run, even highlight, this story. It is news. There is no political bias in this action – in fact, in highlighting how it came by the story the CBC is being very responsible.

The “rest of the story” is related to the Liberal Party of Canada’s choice of media outlets. It appears to have assumed that the CBC is most likely to run a story that puts the Conservatives in a less than flattering light; a story that brings us back to the hidden agenda® and all that. Did the LPC think that CTV or Global would be less compliant?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/09/prime-minister-stephen-harper-video-marjority.html

Majority government in reach: Harper

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper believes a majority government "is in reach" for the Conservative party the next time Canadians go to the polls for a federal election.

In candid remarks made last week to Conservative supporters in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., at a meeting that was closed to the media, Harper stressed the need for the party to capture a majority.

"Let me be clear about this, we need to win a majority in the next election campaign," Harper said. "I am not just saying that because we need to win a few more seats."

He said that if the Conservatives don't succeed in getting a majority he predicted the Liberals will govern in a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

"If they get together and force us to the polls, we have to teach them a lesson and get back there with a majority, and make sure their little coalition never happens," said Harper.

Harper's speech was videotaped by someone in the audience and a copy of the address was sent to the Liberal Party of Canada, which sent it to CBC News. The Liberals claim the tape shows that Harper doesn't want to work with the other parties in Parliament and therefore justifies Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff's threat to force an election.

Publicly, the Conservatives have said it will be irresponsible of the opposition parties to bring down the government and send Canadians back to the polls.

The Liberals have said they will try to bring down the Conservative minority government at the first opportunity.

Parliament resumes Sept. 14, and the Liberals will have their first opportunity to present a no-confidence motion on Oct. 1.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said earlier this week an election appears to be inevitable.

"Mr. Ignatieff doesn't seem to look like he's going to back down, and Mr. Harper is not the kind of man who makes compromises or who achieves consensus … so I think the chances of an election are great — more than great," Duceppe said.

The Liberals and the Bloc Québécois have both released a round of election-style advertisements.

 

[GAP]

Does anyone seriously think the Ignateiff is not extolling the virtues of the LPC gaining a majority....even Jacks fun pack envisions this in his/their nightly dreams....what's so controversial about this?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I see nothing earth shattering, conspiritorial or dasdardly in what Harper is saying. He's just speaking the truth and not doing the regular politician sugar coat.

He has not done anything other than tell people to be ready when the liebrals pull the trigger and what their goal should be.

Librano hyperboyle.

 

[Rifleman62]

Sending it to the CBC just shows you how screwed up the LPC is as only (according to the last BBM ratings), only 8% of Canadians watch the CBC. Probably about the same on CBC radio which varies from city to city. Seems higher in Ottawa and Halifax for example. (I heard it on CBC Radio One this a.m.)

BBM Radio S2 2009:  http://www.bbm.ca/en/radio_top_line.html

I have no doubt the CTV and Global would run it. I believe the head of CTV national news took a leave of absence to be director of publicity or such for LPC during two elections. CTV/G & M owned by same corporate beneficial owner.

P.S. The Cons should add to their election platform the elimination of public election funds (as attempted previously) and legislative revision of private political financing to eliminate jump to the pump whenever the LPC gets another leader (Bob Ray of sunshine in 2009!). I am sure it is a winning plank.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sending it to the CBC just shows you how screwed up the LPC is as only (according to the last BBM ratings), only 8% of Canadians watch the CBC. Probably about the same on CBC radio which varies from city to city. Seems higher in Ottawa and Halifax for example. (I heard it on CBC Radio One this a.m.)

BBM Radio S2 2009:  http://www.bbm.ca/en/radio_top_line.html

I have no doubt the CTV and Global would run it. I believe the head of CTV national news took a leave of absence to be director of publicity or such for LPC during two elections. CTV/G & M owned by same corporate beneficial owner.

P.S. The Cons should add to their election platform the elimination of public election funds (as attempted previously) and legislative revision of private political financing to eliminate jump to the pump whenever the LPC gets another leader (Bob Ray of sunshine in 2009!). I am sure it is a winning plank.

Nope. It's him:

or someone else from la belle province.

See this in the Election 2009 thread.

Remember the custom, since 1880: Blake, Laurier, King, St Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, Turner, Chrétien, Martin, Dion, Ignatieff, _______ .

 

[Rifleman62]

Yes, I remember your post. I agree (incl your characterisation) and hope it is Denis the Menace. That would surly alienate lots of folks you would think. Sunbeam would give him a run though.

 

[dapaterson]

Nope. It's him:

or someone else from la belle province.

See this in the Election 2009 thread.

Remember the custom, since 1880: Blake, Laurier, King, St Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, Turner, Chrétien, Martin, Dion, Ignatieff, _______ .

Question: Must it be a Quebecois?  Or would a Quebecer do?  Or an Acadian?

The custom may require some clarification... we live in intersting times...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Question: Must it be a Quebecois?  Or would a Quebecer do?  Or an Acadian?

The custom may require some clarification... we live in intersting times...

That's a great question which only a real Liberal insider could answer. But I, a card carrying, paid up, true blue Tory will give it a try.

Prior to the 1960s it could have been an Acadian or a Franco-Ontarian (which, by the way, was the "slot" Paul Martin Sr filled in St Laurent's cabinet) but the quiet revolution changed all that. Now Québecers are fully imbued with the deux nations theory and, as I read their minds, they now believe the leadership must rotate between the two nations: Canada and Québec.

If Dominic LeBlanc wants to be PM he has to do so as an Anglo. Ms Jennings is a black, female Paul Martin – just another Anglo who happens to live in Québec.

 

[The Bread Guy]

....quoting a former (W) Bush official saying how sad it would be to see Canada leave AFG:

A former head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security calls it "regrettable" that Canada plans to withdraw from the conflict in Afghanistan.

"The consequences of failure in this part of the world will not be limited to the United States," said Michael Chertoff, who served from 2005 to 2009 in the administration of former president George W. Bush.

"They will be felt by everybody," Chertoff said in an interview broadcast Wednesday on The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti.

"Support by our NATO allies is a very, very important element of the strategy (in Afghanistan)"....

What are the odds this story would have run on either "The Current" or on CBC.ca, say, when Mr. Chertoff was in power?  To be fair, I can't guess what he would have said at that point, but I never heard such a story.

Is this an example of not necessarily POLITICAL bias, but a STRUCTURAL bias of "whatever government wants to do, it's our job to oppose it point out its problems?" 

Along the same lines, where was THIS Globe & Mail story a year ago?

One of Canada's leading observers on Afghanistan is pushing back against growing doubts over the merits of its mission there, calling for more international troops on the ground and a renewed focus on attacking militant targets in Pakistan.

Chris Alexander, who served as Canada's first ambassador to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, said Canada and its allies should hold an international conference on Afghanistan later this year to set new goals to reflect the changing reality.

“Yes, this mission is taking longer than everyone had hoped, or than we expected because the conflict is getting worse. So we need to have a serious discussion about how we can succeed with the investments that we are prepared to make,” Mr. Alexander said in a wide-ranging interview with The Globe and Mail Wednesday....

 

[Roy Harding]

...

Along the same lines, where was THIS Globe & Mail story a year ago?

I dimly recall this story being on the radio - although not the details.  Either The Current, As It Happens, or perhaps The House.

I'll see if I can dig up a reference on the CBC site later today.

 

[The Bread Guy]

...one person's "censorship" is another's "protection of proprietery or competitive information" - this, from the Canadian Press:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. has locked horns with Canada's information ombudsman over the public broadcaster's right to keep information about its journalism and programming secret.

The information commissioner of Canada issued a subpoena to CBC ordering the Crown corporation to hand over hundreds of pages of sensitive records in the first test of a new provision of the Access to Information Act.

In response, the CBC went to Federal Court this week, asking a judge to rule on whether the commissioner has any right to inspect the records and review the decision to withhold them.

(....)

Suzanne Legault, the acting information commissioner, says the fundamental issue is whether CBC has the unchallenged authority to decide which of its records to withhold - or whether their decisions can be reviewed.

"It's such a fundamental tenet," Legault said in an interview. "You need an independent third party."

The 16 requests named in the subpoena cover a broad range of material. Some examples:

-"A copy of the audits of last three Olympics performed by Deloitte Touche or equivalent auditing organizations."

-"A copy of all records on the costs of running the contest to find the new Hockey Night in Canada theme song."

-"A copy of all records concerning the handover of the position of CEO from Mr. Robert Rabinovitch to Mr. Hubert T. Lacroix."

(....)

Something about sauce, geese and ganders comes to mind?

 

[40below]

Sweet, sweet FOI request.

The poster above me already knows this, but if any of the rest of you aren't familiar with the system, once an FOI is fulfilled, the records released are part of the public record and can be accessed by anyone, in full and for free, with none of the typical fighting that the story references. Just call the FOI co-ordinator for the org in question and they'll often fax or email you the docs within minutes.

(This applies to all federal and provincial ministries and agencies and many, like DND, maintain a running log of fulfilled requests you can scan for anything that piques your interest, but I will definitely be piggybacking this CBC one when it comes to fruition.)

 

[ModlrMike]

Public funding, public access. Period! I'm sure the CBC has genuinely secret information (much like DND), but these requests do not qualify.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I'm not sure that CBC deliberately tries to maintain a liberal (or Liberal viewpoint.)  I think it is simply a reflection of the liberal tendency to see all viewpoints other than their own as irrational.

Ted Byfield, publisher of the Alberta Report magazine eons ago, said that it was easier to hire a conservative and teach them journalism than hiring a journalist and teach them conservatism.  Alberta Report took pride in its conservative slant and despite a large circulation had no access to national advertising and ultimately failed.  For a short period of time they did have access to national ads but people who disagreed with their viewpoints put a quick stop to it, portraying them as racist, sexist etc etc.  I loved it.  It is rare for a conservative to actually read something he agrees with.

The history

https://www.albertaviews.ab.ca/issues/2004/mayjun04/mayjun04byfield.pdf

 

[kratz]

CBC.ca is selectively trying to stir the pot with this news story. They state the actions of the Liberals today, but not the reason why the government was compelled into deficit budgets through the Dec/Jan power play.

 

[Rifleman62]

Old thread, but CBC continues to fail to represent all Canadian taxpayers with "fair and balanced" news reporting. The CBC serves some taxpayers who believe in it, but not the majority. CBC's market share has dwindled. We now have three Canadian TV networks, and numerous radio networks., availabilty of foreign TV/radio networks, the internet, satellight media, etc. Gone are the days when the CBC was the only national provider in Canada.

Variety, http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010702.html?categoryid=14&cs=1, on 31 Oct 09 reported on the CBC News division:

For years, CBC was the go-to source for TV news in Canada, and "The National" was the uncontested ratings leader. But it has slipped dramatically over the past 15-to-20 years as its commercial rivals carve into its share.

This fall, CTV’s "CTV National News" at 11 p.m. had an average audience of 1.2 million, up 37% from last fall.

Even Global, a perennial also-ran in the news sweepstakes, has assumed a much stronger position. Its "Global National" had an average audience of 979,000 this fall, up 23%, beating "The National’s" average audience of 477,000, which is down more than 20% on last fall.

CBC NN and the CTV News Channel have similar market shares, at just over 1% of the ratings pie.

The following did not get comenteted upon at Army.ca

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0511809220100306

Canada weighing gov't asset sales-finance minister
Fri Mar 5, 2010 11:36pm EST* Finance minister sees opportunities for sales

Currencies  |  Mergers & Acquisitions  |  Bonds

TORONTO, March 5 (Reuters) - Canada may announce plans in the coming year to sell government assets following a review of its operations, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said.

Flaherty, who this week outlined the Conservative government's plan to bring down its budget deficit, told CBC Radio a lot of work had been done on the review and "there's more to be said about that before too long."

"There are some opportunities there for some privatizations of businesses that one questions why the government is in them anymore. So we'll look at those and I expect that in the next year we'll be able to make some announcements," he said in an interview posted to the cbc.ca website on Friday.

"It's actually an asset review. Why does the government own A or B or C? Why are we in that business? Do taxpayers really need to own this?"

He did not elaborate on what assets might be sold or how much this could raise.

Canada, with strong, well-capitalized banks, was hit less severely than most other rich nations by the world recession. But it still expects to report a record C$53.8 billion ($52.2 billion) budget deficit in the current fiscal year.

Flaherty presented a budget on Thursday that outlined spending curbs to help close the budget gap.

My hope is that the CBC in its entirity, or less the Northern Service is on the chopping block. The CBC has outlived it's usefulness or any requirement to have any public funding. Selling the CBC would save a billion dollars anually in operating funds, plus the sale of CBC assets (buildings, equipment, etc) would bring in a few billion to reduce the debt.

From small dead animals is but one example of the regular antics of the CBC:

http://smalldeadanimals.com/

March 13, 2010

"Now, leaving aside the facts, just for a few years..."
Everyone knows the details already, but the basic facts are essential here: former MP Rahim Jaffer was charged last year with drunk driving and drug possession. Several days ago, under an agreement reached between his lawyer and an Ontario provincial Crown prosecutor, Jaffer pleaded guilty to lesser charges. The provincial prosecutor said there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction on the more serious charges; according to this report, police sources said that "a rookie OPP officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer."

Now, keeping in mind that at the time he was charged Jaffer was neither a Conservative MP nor working for the Conservatives in any capacity whatsoever (they had long since elbowed him out of the nomination race in his riding), and that his plea deal was reached with the Crown prosecutor, not the judge, in a provincial jurisdiction that the federal government absolutely has no say in, take a look at a sampling of what various media and opposition members had to say:

David Akin: "Turns out the judge in the case, Doug Maund, is a long-time Tory." Jane Taber: "Stephen Harper’s tough-on-crime Conservatives were accused of being not-so-tough when it comes to one of their own..." Akin, again: "Jaffer's former caucus colleagues immediately tried to distance themselves from the (Crown prosecutor's) decision." Peter Mansbridge, introducing the top story on The National: "As a Conservative Member of Parliament Rahim Jaffer was known for his tough stand on crime. Now, the opposition says he's a Tory example of another kind: hypocrisy!" Liberal MP Anita Neville, seen bellowing in the HOC on The National: "The Conservatives are conspicuously silent...when the law is being flouted by one of their own." Toronto Lawyer Russell Silverstein, on The National: "You know, when the public sees somebody charged with drunk driving and possession of cocaine who's politically connected..." Unidentified man-on-the-street, on The National: "Ex-Conservative MP, married to the Minister of State for Women's Affairs - I mean obviously they're going to drop the charges, they had no choice." (all emph. mine)

The attempts to attach Jaffer's actions to the Conservative government ("one of their own") were pure partisan ridiculousness, and almost laughable; what was not even slightly laughable, in those several days of coverage, were the efforts of various media and opposition members to raise, in a sideways fashion - i.e., without being accountable for it - a constant insinuation that the Conservative government interfered behind the scenes in a decision made by a provincial crown prosecutor. For two days and nights, a serious allegation which there was no evidence for became unmistakably threaded into the subtext of the coverage of what was, unaccountably, the biggest news story in the country.

While various other media members also joined in, it was once again the CBC who led the charge, displaying a perfected reversal of the sort of coverage they gave the Liberals. When in 1996 Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien was ordered by a judge to answer a charge of assault, and Quebec's Justice Minister announced a few hours later that he would not allow the case to proceed, there were no insinuations that there had been any political interference. When Jean Chretien's son Michel was charged in 2002 with sexual assault, illegal confinement, and sodomy, the mother of the victim stated that she had been pressured by a sitting Liberal MP to not press criminal charges. She said the MP told her -

"...(Chretien) is the Prime Minister, he has all the power and he will fight this case for Michel. Then she told me that 'a lot of dirty things are going to come up about your past and the media will be there'...I almost changed my mind (about pressing charges) because of that."
Remember the CBC's top-of-the-hour news story on that? Well, me neither, because there wasn't one. And yet somehow, in the last two days, a provincial crown prosecutor's decision, in a case involving a former MP, now a private citizen, somehow managed to become attached, with great deal of hyperventilating outrage, to the Conservatives. How does that happen, exactly? Only Mansbridge's hairdresser knows for sure, but consider, in isolation, the CBC's decision to nationally broadcast, in their top-of-the-hour story, the following statement:

"Ex-Conservative MP, married to the Minister of State for Women's affairs, I mean, obviously they're going to drop the charges, they had no choice."
Interesting. Suppose some non-taxpayer-funded news network - let's call it Fox News Canada - aired an unidentified man-in-the-street's assertion that Michael Ignatieff beats his wife if she leaves dirty dishes in the sink. The network, and the reporter, would surely be required to provide some evidence to back up the statement or else face very serious consequences. It wouldn't t even begin to suffice, as either a legal or moral defense, one wouldn't think, for the network - or the reporter or the producer - to say "hey, we didn't say that at all, it was some guy in the street." To the contrary, the only justification for airing such a statement would be if it was made by a known public figure, at which point there might be some justification for covering it, albeit without repeating the allegation, and only in the context of a story noting that politician X made a serious allegation about Ignatieff without any proof to back it up; there could certainly be no journalistic justification whatsoever for airing such a statement from some unidentified man in the street, and any broadcaster who aired such a serious accusation without proof would be liable for it, and held to account.

Someone at the CBC made a decision to broadcast, coast-to-coast, an unidentified individual's statement that a particular provincial Crown prosecutor - someone who has a name, a professional reputation, and a family - rendered a decision based not on the law he's been sworn to uphold but on political interference from someone outside his jurisdiction, and that our sitting government illegally interfered in a court case in a provincial jurisdiction - and all without one single shred of evidence.

Was it urgent, serious, and of public importance for the CBC to nationally broadcast a categorical, unproven allegation of serious wrongdoing made by an unidentified member of the public? Was the unidentified individual's honest statement of opinion in any way based on fact? Has the CBC - would the CBC - ever broadcast an allegation of serious wrongdoing by a Liberal government that had absolutely no basis in fact?

No, no, and no.

Vile, unethical, unprofessional journalism - and it only costs us a billion dollars a year.

You know, there oughta be a law...

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I am hoping that axing CBC is part of the Conservative hidden agenda should they ever get a majority.  The unfortunate thing is that they probably don't have a hidden agenda.  Governments live and die by how well they serve the centre and Harper is a more of a pragmatist than a conservative.  Still it would be a nice touch in the first year of a majority.  They could give Global and CTV $20 million each for northern service and pocket $960 million.

 

[a_majoor]

More on how they operate:

http://ezralevant.com/2010/04/unethical-pollster-frank-grave.html

Unethical pollster Frank Graves must be fired
By Ezra Levant on April 22, 2010 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments

Frank Graves is the president of a polling company called Ekos Research.

Graves is a partisan Liberal, having personally donated more than $11,000 to that party over the past decade.

But it has paid off handsomely for Graves. When the Liberals were last in power, they steered more than $61 million in government contracts to Ekos -- literally 1,600 contracts.

For every dollar Graves gave the Liberals, they gave $6,000 to his company.

That would probably be enough to make me a Liberal, too.

And by the way, there's nothing wrong with being a Liberal partisan (although, of course, there was something terribly wrong with the way the Liberals handed out their public opinion contracts under the Liberals -- it was positively criminal, in fact.)

But the Liberals aren't in power any more and their bureaucrat who doled out the polling contracts, Chuck Guite, went to jail. I'd bet that Ekos's government contracts have fallen precipitously.

So Graves keeps busy by, amongst other things, being CBC's pollster of record.

I guess the CBC is where left-wingers go for a soft landing when they're down on their luck. I mean, they actually gave a whole show to radical environmental lobbyist David Suzuki.

So we've got another Liberal working at the CBC -- that's hardly news. But today the Globe and Mail's Lawrence Martin carried a stunning interview with Graves, about his continuing role as an advisor to the Liberal Party. Here's an excerpt:

    In his advice, Mr. Graves could hardly have been more blunt. “I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.”

Let's take this one step at a time.

The CBC's pollster of record is major Liberal donor. He plots out strategies to beat the Conservatives. And he gives that strategic advice to the Liberals in private -- a fact that we only learn about because he blabbed about it to Martin.

Yet Graves appears on the CBC not as a "Liberal pollster" or "Liberal strategist" or "Liberal donor" or "Liberal", but as the CBC's trustworthy, neutral, reliable, independent analyst, who cares only about enlightening viewers.

What a scandal.

Could you imagine if the CBC were to hire a Tory strategist as their chief Parliamentary correspondent -- while secretly allowing him to continue to work for the Conservatives, and donate thousands upon thousands of dollars to them?

It's too absurd to even ask the question.

I mean, the media positively had a freak-out when it was revealed that a CBC reporter who is dating a Tory MP was given spousal travel benefits.

Graves's case would be like the Tory MP himself working for the CBC -- and not disclosing it.

I say again, it is fine for partisan hacks to be on TV. But it's not fine when their hackery is kept secret from the viewers.

Don't take my word for it -- take a page out of the CBC's own code of ethics.

Here's a paragraph from their rulebook regarding political partisans:

    The hiring of persons identified with political parties or pressure groups may only be authorized if the person concerned has resigned his or her functions within the political party or pressure group and has refrained from public activity in the party or group or in a related capacity for at least two years.

    This policy is not designed to prevent the participation of public figures invited to comment on current events provided that, on the air, there is no ambiguity regarding their status.

So Frank Graves can continue to be a top Liberal -- a top donor, a top strategist, a top advisor -- as long as he doesn't hide that from viewers. But he does hide it -- his partisan links are not disclosed.

That's unethical.

But you'll notice, dear reader, that I haven't even yet discussed the substance of Graves' advice to his boss.

And by boss, of course, I don't mean the CBC, I mean Michael Ignatieff.

Just what did the CBC's "neutral" pollster tell Ignatieff to do?

He told Ignatieff to pit Canadians against each other.

Region against region, class against class, province against province, race against race, and even sexual orientation against sexual orientation.

He actually called it a "war" amongst Canadians. As in, Ignatieff should try to start one.

It's insane advice: a strategy of attacking national unity, instead of building it.

Treating some Canadians with respect but others with contempt.

Provoking dischord and sowing seeds of dissent, for raw political gain.

My, how the Liberal Party has fallen.

This was once the party that owned the brand of national unity and national pride. It was the party of the flag, the party of section 15 of the Charter -- the equality provision. Now it's the party of dividing Canadians to conquer them.

And the horrific thing is that Michael Ignatieff has clearly been listening to his man in the CBC.

Just look at Ignatieff's two signature issues over the past few months: forcing abortion onto the national agenda; and vowing to enforce the gun registry over the objections of rural Canadians.

He's doing it. Ignatieff is actually implementing the Graves Strategy: divide Canadians against each other, to conquer them politically.

It's the kind of machination that must appeal to a Russian Count.

The CBC must fire Graves: he cannot be their "neutral" pollster of record. He should be invited on every week as a Liberal strategist -- he clearly has great influence in the party. But he cannot continue to pretend to CBC viewers that he is non-partisan. It's not only dishonest, it's against the CBC's rules.

But Ignatieff must fire Graves, too. He must renounce the Graves Strategy of scorched earth. He must publicly distance himself from the idea of a national enemies list, with whole provinces and religions and races on it.

It's one thing for Graves to hold such cynical, corrosive views. At the end of the day, he's just a talking head.

But it's quite something else for the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to be guided by such a mean-spirited, bitter strategy.

Let Frank Graves continue to make his five-figure Liberal donations. Good for him.

But the CBC must fire him -- their code of ethics demands it.

And Michael Ignatieff must renounce his advice -- his civic responsibility to Canadians requires it.

Say your piece: http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/contact.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good catch, Thucydides - funny how this latest tidbit came out so quickly, eh?    Full statement attached (in reference to statements made to the Globe & Mail):

.... First of all, let me make it clear that I have never been a member of any political party. EKOS Research has never conducted polling or other public opinion research for any political party, nor has it ever been retained to give advice of any kind.

Journalists frequently ask pollsters what advice they might offer to a party or politician. This journalistic device does not imply that the pollster is in fact a political “adviser”. In the course of the interview with Lawrence Martin I offered the Liberals some unsolicited strategic “advice”. To the extent that readers may have taken the inference I had previously proffered this advice to the Liberal Party of Canada, it was a mistaken inference.

As to the specific issues raised in relationship to EKOS’ work for media organizations:
• Since we do not do any work for any political party, either paid or pro bono, there is no question of any sharing of resources whatsoever;
• The data collected in our polls for media clients, as for any client, are held in strict confidence. The political parties get the information at exactly the same moment that the public does: when the media organization chooses to release the numbers.

EKOS takes great pride in the history of superior accuracy of its polling, demonstrated in election after election. We consider it an honour to work with some of the most respected names in Canadian journalism, including the CBC, particularly given its rigorous methodological oversight and high journalistic standards.

Let the "reading between the lines" begin...