Media Bias [Merged]
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
It's really a bit hard to blame the media, not just the CBC, for trying to stir the pot.
Look at this graphic, from ThreeHundredEight.com:
Source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-okzuXeGEha4/TbXMTo6MIKI/AAAAAAAAE6s/yInG6jbgW_Y/s1600/Canada+Polls.PNG
The voting intention have been pretty well stagnant - 38% =/- 3% for the Conservative and 27% +/- 3% for the Liberals ever since the campaign started. The boys and girls in the newrooms play "gotcha journalism" these days, with the aim being to move those steady numbers. Until late last week it hadn't worked and the media cannot take any real credit for Jack Layton success (except for usually giving him a free pass on the tough questions).
The media are not above manufacturing content (pace Noam Chomsky) when they think it will help, but, on balance, I think they have been trying hard, but within what few "rules" there are, to penetrate Harper's armour and to provoke Ignatieff. Mansbridge managed the latter when he gave Ignatieff a chance to screw himself with the coalition question: Ignatieff took the bait; Harper has not been provoked.
I do agree that most journalists appear to be anti-Harper. Some are, probably, just naturally (as a result of their education and life experiences) anti-conservative; some are, probably, committed Liberals (BIG government) or Dippers (silk stocking socialists); most are probably just trying to poke sticks at the guys in power because they actually buy into the "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" rubbish.
Look at this graphic, from ThreeHundredEight.com:
Source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-okzuXeGEha4/TbXMTo6MIKI/AAAAAAAAE6s/yInG6jbgW_Y/s1600/Canada+Polls.PNG
The voting intention have been pretty well stagnant - 38% =/- 3% for the Conservative and 27% +/- 3% for the Liberals ever since the campaign started. The boys and girls in the newrooms play "gotcha journalism" these days, with the aim being to move those steady numbers. Until late last week it hadn't worked and the media cannot take any real credit for Jack Layton success (except for usually giving him a free pass on the tough questions).
The media are not above manufacturing content (pace Noam Chomsky) when they think it will help, but, on balance, I think they have been trying hard, but within what few "rules" there are, to penetrate Harper's armour and to provoke Ignatieff. Mansbridge managed the latter when he gave Ignatieff a chance to screw himself with the coalition question: Ignatieff took the bait; Harper has not been provoked.
I do agree that most journalists appear to be anti-Harper. Some are, probably, just naturally (as a result of their education and life experiences) anti-conservative; some are, probably, committed Liberals (BIG government) or Dippers (silk stocking socialists); most are probably just trying to poke sticks at the guys in power because they actually buy into the "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" rubbish.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
It's interesting that the rise and fall of the undecided line most closely mirrors the fortunes of the NDP. It's as if the undecided voters are, on their "decided voter" days, whimsically favouring the NDP. That's easier to do for all polls except the one which counts, so I will stick to my belief that the people who believe the projections of an NDP surge are on political crack.
- Reaction score
- 1,721
- Points
- 1,090
Brad Sallows said:
I agree. The NDP numbers in Quebec are skewing the national numbers. One doesn't see the same degree of gains being made in the other four regions, most notably Ontario, where they're actually quite flat. If you exclude Quebec, the NDP polls closer to 21%. In fact, if you take Quebec out of the equation for all parties you get:
Tory 49.8
Lib 23.4
NDP 21%
(data taken from ThreeHundredEight.com)
- Reaction score
- 1,721
- Points
- 1,090
From a purely mathematical approach: (let's say status quo in Quebec)
Tory 116 (+ 11 in Que) 126
Lib 54 (+ 14 in Que) 68
NDP 48 (+ 1 in Que) 49
That leaves 20 seats unaccounted for, so from a math perspective, it doesn't work.
If you look at the riding details, only one seat is forecast to go NDP; one they already have. They've come up, and are leading in Gatineau, but that's it. Nationally, they look to gain one more at the expense of the LIbs.
We should really move this over to the Election 2011 thread I guess.
Tory 116 (+ 11 in Que) 126
Lib 54 (+ 14 in Que) 68
NDP 48 (+ 1 in Que) 49
That leaves 20 seats unaccounted for, so from a math perspective, it doesn't work.
If you look at the riding details, only one seat is forecast to go NDP; one they already have. They've come up, and are leading in Gatineau, but that's it. Nationally, they look to gain one more at the expense of the LIbs.
We should really move this over to the Election 2011 thread I guess.
- Reaction score
- 4,708
- Points
- 1,160
Technoviking said:
That's the big question. A party could poll well in popular vote, but fail to gain any seats: Green Party. Or the other way, where a party say polls only 40% but that 40% is enough to win 155 seats in the house. Can you imagine all the electoral reform bandwagonners if Harper pulls out a majority? Probably the same crew that though it was ok for the Liberals to ignore Western Canada to gain its majorities in the 90s.
- Reaction score
- 1,400
- Points
- 1,160
PuckChaser, with your ability to see into the future, you can make a lot of bucks!
- Reaction score
- 4,708
- Points
- 1,160
With the cost of gas, I think I'll need that million bucks soon. >
- Reaction score
- 1,721
- Points
- 1,090
OK, I don't know if this is bias, or just plain stupidity:
(Reproduced with the usual caveats)
Support for independent swells in Ottawa riding
CBC News
Posted: Apr 25, 2011 6:20 PM ET
Last Updated: Apr 25, 2011 6:20 PM ET
With a week to go until the federal election, the controversial Conservative incumbent in the riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke will have to contend with a last-minute surge of support for a 61-year-old independent candidate.
More at link.
Now we hop over to ThreeHundredEight.com to look at the latest riding numbers:
C = 63.5, L = 21, N = 9.9, G - 5, I = 0.7
That's one hell of a surge!
(Reproduced with the usual caveats)
Support for independent swells in Ottawa riding
CBC News
Posted: Apr 25, 2011 6:20 PM ET
Last Updated: Apr 25, 2011 6:20 PM ET
With a week to go until the federal election, the controversial Conservative incumbent in the riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke will have to contend with a last-minute surge of support for a 61-year-old independent candidate.
More at link.
Now we hop over to ThreeHundredEight.com to look at the latest riding numbers:
C = 63.5, L = 21, N = 9.9, G - 5, I = 0.7
That's one hell of a surge!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
E.R. Campbell said:
I think a simple statement that the government is not in the business of running business would suffice. We got rid of Petro-Canada, CN Rail and Air Canada with no problem.
As no-one would actually pay for a business that loses a $ 1 billion yearly, it would have to go as an asset sale. If it was done as part of a first majority budget and done immediately and completely it could be successful.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
ModlrMike said:
ModlrMike
Both Cheryl Gallant and Hec Clouthier are idiots of the highest order. Neither listen to their handlers, nor do their handlers listen to the advice given by others. I personally know people who have worked for Gallant and the level of frustration they have had with her, and in particular her personal manager is through the roof. Prior to Clouthier, the former Liberal member of the House, losing the seat to Gallant, he attended a Parade at the RCD to commemorate the winning of three Victoria Crosses at the Battle of Leliefontein in South Africa. His office was given the Parade format and the reading of the Battle. The reading of the Battle was said on Parade. At the reception after the parade, Hec gave a short speech to the Regiment and their guests and went on about how the bravery of the men at Paardeburg would live on in the Regiment. Hundreds of his potential voters looked at each other in awe. This guy was so out of touch with what was going on, that he lost their votes on the spot.
That riding will have quite an interesting evening. Both the Conservative and Independent candidates are fools. The Liberal candidate is a former resident parachuted in from Southern Ontario. The other candidates are so far behind in the woods that there will likely be little mention of them. If the Independent candidate does win, I do see him becoming a Liberal soon after he takes his seat, as he is a die in the wool Liberal.
- Reaction score
- 1,400
- Points
- 1,160
This is the best summary of what actually happened.
A Wpg Blogger: http://blackrod.blogspot.com/
Monday, April 25, 2011
The unfettered bias of Terry Milewski, Robert Fife, Bruce Cheadle and Bruce Campion-Smith
The pack journalism of the Parliamentary Press Gallery was on display like never before this past weekend. We got to see the extent to which they're willing to go to inject their personal political biases into the election campaign and to pass off their own opinions as news.
But, sadly for them, we also got to see how the days of the mainstream media are numbered.
It all began at a Conservative Party election rally in Mississauga where Prime Minister Stephen Harper was answering questions from reporters. Harper-hater Terry Milewski of the CBC got to the microphone with a list of carefully prepared ambush questions which he, himself, confessed were the talking points of Harper's critics.
The next day, press gallery reporters for CBC, CTV, CP, the Toronto Star and even Postmedia spread stories across the country that the audience, prompted by Harper aides, drowned out Milewski's questions to protect the Prime Minister.
The stories are lies.
The reporters knew it.
And, thanks to the new media, the public can, too.
* It begins with Milewski at the mic. Contrary to the meme being spread by the press gallery that Harper's media access is scripted and controlled with reporters limited to 4 questions, Milewski, following other reporters, asked three questions himself and wanted answers in English and French for each.
His "question" consisted of three mini-speeches. He spoke for almost two minutes.
To understand how the press gallery spins the story you have to hear Milewski's condescending, contemptuous, insulting questions for yourself. Here, then, is a transcript, with a few choice phrases highlighted.
Terry Milewski:
"Thank you. Good morning, sir. "
"You have been portraying yourself in this campaign throughout as tough on crime and a friend to victims. And I'd like to put to you, if you don't mind, um, some items which suggest to your critics otherwise, and to have your comments on these in both languages, if you could."
"First, your candidate in Scarborough, we all know, was an enthusiastic cheerleader for a terrorist group, the Tamil Tigers. Now one of your own ministers, Peter Kent, has repudiated him. You haven't. Why not? Why is Mr. Paranchothy still your candidate?"
"And, second, you promised in your 2006 platform Stand Up For Canada to create a national Security Commissioner. You broke that promise and you continue to break it even when a judge that you appointed, John Major, urged you to keep it, said it was essential, would require no new bureaucracy. So the second question is why you broke your promise on such a basic issue of public safety."
"And finally your campaign has now issued what seems to be a completely preposterous statement on the decision of your candidate in Vancouver South, Wai Young, uh, to, uh, meet with and receive the endorsement of a well-known member, founder member, of the Babar Khalsa terrorist group who paid over $100,000 to the bombmaker in Air India. And, sir, the point here is that Malik was front page news for five straight years in the biggest criminal case in Canada history in her town and Wai Young now (says she?) didn't know who she was, who he was, went to his meeting, heard him endorse her, didn't know who she was."
"Isn't that a slap in the face to the Air India victims's families and why is Wei Young still your candidate?"
* Harper then answered the questions.
All three of them.
The questions that were asked without interruption from the audience.
Stephen Harper:
" First of all, 3 of these things...First of all our candidate in Scarborough has been very clear on his rejection of the Tamil Tigers.Very clear on that. That is the position of this party and this party is the one that listed the Tamil Tigers organization.
" In terms of the national Security Commissioner...we looked at that some years ago and concluded that the current arrangement where we have a national security adviser coordinating a number of agencies within the Privy Council office is the way we wanted to go. I think that is the most effective way to go and we've looked at the various options."
" Finally, in terms of our candidate in Vancouver South...she was invited to attend a school, she attended, in good faith, uh, she has been very clear, she and her campaign have no links and do not welcome in any way Mr. Malik into this party. We're absolutely clear about that."
* Barely had he stopped speaking when Milewski began to argue with the P.M.
"Do you actually believe, sir..."
And the applause started. The audience just realized the Prime Minister had finished his answer. They clapped politely, then louder, then joined in a standing ovation and ended with chanting Harper's name a few times. It lasted about a minute.
And then, Prime Minister Harper.... answered Milewski's 3 questions again---in French.
Far from silencing Milewski, Stephen Harper gave six answers to three questions from one reporter.
* How did the Parliamentary Press Gallery report the exchange?
Canadian Press
Cheering Conservative partisans shield Harper from awkward terrorism questions
By: Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press
04/23/2011 8:22 PM | MISSISSAUGA, Ont. - Partisan supporters of Prime Minister Stephen Harper — led by Conservative staffers — purposely drowned out media questions Saturday about a controversial endorsement from a man with links to the Air India bombing.
A reporter attempted to ask Harper if he actually believed Young could not know who Malik was when she received his endorsement.
A Conservative staffer near the reporter prompted the crowd of about 500 into sustained, aggressive applause that lasted more than a minute, drowning out the reporter's repeated efforts to get a response from Harper.
The Toronto Star
Party favours: Election ephemera
2011/04/23 14:14:00
Bruce Campion-Smith (Ottawa Bureau chief , the Toronto Star)
Stephen Harper’s relations with journalists hit a new bump Saturday when a crowd of partisan supporters shouted down a reporter as he tried to get an answer from the Conservative leader.
CTV
Cheering partisans shield Harper from questions
Updated: Sat Apr. 23 2011 6:07:55 PM
CTV.ca News Staff
Conservative Party staff helped a crowd of Ontario supporters to drown out reporters' questions Saturday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper about a controversial endorsement in B.C. from a man with links to the Air India bombing.
When a reporter attempted to follow up with a question about whether Harper actually believed Young did not know one of the most high-profile characters in the Air India saga, Conservative staff rallied the crowd into loud applause. As staffers led cheers of "Harper!" the crowd surged to its feet.
The Globe and Mail
Tory crowd drowns out question about support from man acquitted in Air India
STEVEN CHASE (Parliamentary bureau reporter, The Globe and Mail)
MISSISSAUGA, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update
Published Saturday, Apr. 23, 2011 11:29AM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Apr. 23, 2011 6:33PM EDT
Conservative partisans deliberately drowned out a journalist’s question to Mr. Harper during a Greater Toronto Area campaign stop Saturday as he was being asked about a Vancouver candidate’s endorsement by a man acquitted in the Air India bombing.
*************
* Milewski was interviewed Sunday on Newsworld.
"So the idea that she somehow didn't know who he was seems almost too bizarre to believe. Yesterday, as you know, an attempt to get Mr. Harper to confirm that he actually believed that story was unsuccessful due to the enthusiasm of his supporters who kind of drowned out the question. We asked Harper again, the question he wouldn't answer yesterday."
* Robert Fife, CTV 's Parliamentary Bureau Chief, discussed the incident on CTV Newsnet.
Female Host: Somehow they were encouraging the crowd to essentially drown out those media questions. Is anybody talking about that today?
Fife: When a reported asked 'do you believe, do you believe her?'... when he asked that question, people from the Prime Minister's office were on a stage encouraging people to clap and shout the reporter down. So on a matter of principle we asked Harper about this today.
* The pack was in full howl. The saintly reporter was shouted down and drowned out when all he wanted to do was ask a follow-up question. Oh, those evil Conservatives.
What the press gallery reporters still haven't learned is that their day is long gone.
On Small Dead Animals, this comment popped up on the thread about the Milewski incident:
Here is the video...the media are liars on this story
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110423/conservatives-mississauga-110423/20110423?hub=OttawaHome
Posted by: Ontario Girl at April 23, 2011 9:39 PM
Video? Yep. And on the CTV website, too. Watch it before they take it down.
You will hear for yourself Milewski's sneering questions and insulting behavior towards the Prime Minister. A perfect example of CBC manhood.
You will see that Stephen Harper answered all of Milewski's questions, twice.
You will see that Milewski wasn't asking a follow up question; he was starting to argue with the P.M. His mind was already made up. The answer from Harper and his camp was , in his opinion, "completely preposterous" and "almost too bizarre to believe."
What, then, did he wish to get from his "follow-up" question.
Obviously, he wanted to goad Harper into a sound bite that could be used by the Liberals, especially Ujjal Dosangh, the source of the Vancouver South complaint in the first place, which Milewski freely admitted ("some items which suggest to your critics otherwise").
Milewski was acting as a foil for the Liberals. The audience realized that.
This wasn't CBC's Liberal election rally. This was a Conservative Party rally, and they let their voices be heard.
The Parliamentary Press Gallery was incensed. So they simply ignored the truth and went with the lie. Poor Terry got shouted down. How can we help the Liberals if we let that sort of thing happen.
But they didn't count on the new media---the internet. The video of the entire exchange was online and available for anyone to see.
The gatekeepers have lost control.
And all their credibility.
Is there anyone left who believes the "national reporters" are impartial reporters who don't inject their personal opinions into their, ahem, "news" reports?
If you find someone, show them the Milewski video. Be sure to issue the "barf alert.
A Wpg Blogger: http://blackrod.blogspot.com/
Monday, April 25, 2011
The unfettered bias of Terry Milewski, Robert Fife, Bruce Cheadle and Bruce Campion-Smith
The pack journalism of the Parliamentary Press Gallery was on display like never before this past weekend. We got to see the extent to which they're willing to go to inject their personal political biases into the election campaign and to pass off their own opinions as news.
But, sadly for them, we also got to see how the days of the mainstream media are numbered.
It all began at a Conservative Party election rally in Mississauga where Prime Minister Stephen Harper was answering questions from reporters. Harper-hater Terry Milewski of the CBC got to the microphone with a list of carefully prepared ambush questions which he, himself, confessed were the talking points of Harper's critics.
The next day, press gallery reporters for CBC, CTV, CP, the Toronto Star and even Postmedia spread stories across the country that the audience, prompted by Harper aides, drowned out Milewski's questions to protect the Prime Minister.
The stories are lies.
The reporters knew it.
And, thanks to the new media, the public can, too.
* It begins with Milewski at the mic. Contrary to the meme being spread by the press gallery that Harper's media access is scripted and controlled with reporters limited to 4 questions, Milewski, following other reporters, asked three questions himself and wanted answers in English and French for each.
His "question" consisted of three mini-speeches. He spoke for almost two minutes.
To understand how the press gallery spins the story you have to hear Milewski's condescending, contemptuous, insulting questions for yourself. Here, then, is a transcript, with a few choice phrases highlighted.
Terry Milewski:
"Thank you. Good morning, sir. "
"You have been portraying yourself in this campaign throughout as tough on crime and a friend to victims. And I'd like to put to you, if you don't mind, um, some items which suggest to your critics otherwise, and to have your comments on these in both languages, if you could."
"First, your candidate in Scarborough, we all know, was an enthusiastic cheerleader for a terrorist group, the Tamil Tigers. Now one of your own ministers, Peter Kent, has repudiated him. You haven't. Why not? Why is Mr. Paranchothy still your candidate?"
"And, second, you promised in your 2006 platform Stand Up For Canada to create a national Security Commissioner. You broke that promise and you continue to break it even when a judge that you appointed, John Major, urged you to keep it, said it was essential, would require no new bureaucracy. So the second question is why you broke your promise on such a basic issue of public safety."
"And finally your campaign has now issued what seems to be a completely preposterous statement on the decision of your candidate in Vancouver South, Wai Young, uh, to, uh, meet with and receive the endorsement of a well-known member, founder member, of the Babar Khalsa terrorist group who paid over $100,000 to the bombmaker in Air India. And, sir, the point here is that Malik was front page news for five straight years in the biggest criminal case in Canada history in her town and Wai Young now (says she?) didn't know who she was, who he was, went to his meeting, heard him endorse her, didn't know who she was."
"Isn't that a slap in the face to the Air India victims's families and why is Wei Young still your candidate?"
* Harper then answered the questions.
All three of them.
The questions that were asked without interruption from the audience.
Stephen Harper:
" First of all, 3 of these things...First of all our candidate in Scarborough has been very clear on his rejection of the Tamil Tigers.Very clear on that. That is the position of this party and this party is the one that listed the Tamil Tigers organization.
" In terms of the national Security Commissioner...we looked at that some years ago and concluded that the current arrangement where we have a national security adviser coordinating a number of agencies within the Privy Council office is the way we wanted to go. I think that is the most effective way to go and we've looked at the various options."
" Finally, in terms of our candidate in Vancouver South...she was invited to attend a school, she attended, in good faith, uh, she has been very clear, she and her campaign have no links and do not welcome in any way Mr. Malik into this party. We're absolutely clear about that."
* Barely had he stopped speaking when Milewski began to argue with the P.M.
"Do you actually believe, sir..."
And the applause started. The audience just realized the Prime Minister had finished his answer. They clapped politely, then louder, then joined in a standing ovation and ended with chanting Harper's name a few times. It lasted about a minute.
And then, Prime Minister Harper.... answered Milewski's 3 questions again---in French.
Far from silencing Milewski, Stephen Harper gave six answers to three questions from one reporter.
* How did the Parliamentary Press Gallery report the exchange?
Canadian Press
Cheering Conservative partisans shield Harper from awkward terrorism questions
By: Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press
04/23/2011 8:22 PM | MISSISSAUGA, Ont. - Partisan supporters of Prime Minister Stephen Harper — led by Conservative staffers — purposely drowned out media questions Saturday about a controversial endorsement from a man with links to the Air India bombing.
A reporter attempted to ask Harper if he actually believed Young could not know who Malik was when she received his endorsement.
A Conservative staffer near the reporter prompted the crowd of about 500 into sustained, aggressive applause that lasted more than a minute, drowning out the reporter's repeated efforts to get a response from Harper.
The Toronto Star
Party favours: Election ephemera
2011/04/23 14:14:00
Bruce Campion-Smith (Ottawa Bureau chief , the Toronto Star)
Stephen Harper’s relations with journalists hit a new bump Saturday when a crowd of partisan supporters shouted down a reporter as he tried to get an answer from the Conservative leader.
CTV
Cheering partisans shield Harper from questions
Updated: Sat Apr. 23 2011 6:07:55 PM
CTV.ca News Staff
Conservative Party staff helped a crowd of Ontario supporters to drown out reporters' questions Saturday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper about a controversial endorsement in B.C. from a man with links to the Air India bombing.
When a reporter attempted to follow up with a question about whether Harper actually believed Young did not know one of the most high-profile characters in the Air India saga, Conservative staff rallied the crowd into loud applause. As staffers led cheers of "Harper!" the crowd surged to its feet.
The Globe and Mail
Tory crowd drowns out question about support from man acquitted in Air India
STEVEN CHASE (Parliamentary bureau reporter, The Globe and Mail)
MISSISSAUGA, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update
Published Saturday, Apr. 23, 2011 11:29AM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Apr. 23, 2011 6:33PM EDT
Conservative partisans deliberately drowned out a journalist’s question to Mr. Harper during a Greater Toronto Area campaign stop Saturday as he was being asked about a Vancouver candidate’s endorsement by a man acquitted in the Air India bombing.
*************
* Milewski was interviewed Sunday on Newsworld.
"So the idea that she somehow didn't know who he was seems almost too bizarre to believe. Yesterday, as you know, an attempt to get Mr. Harper to confirm that he actually believed that story was unsuccessful due to the enthusiasm of his supporters who kind of drowned out the question. We asked Harper again, the question he wouldn't answer yesterday."
* Robert Fife, CTV 's Parliamentary Bureau Chief, discussed the incident on CTV Newsnet.
Female Host: Somehow they were encouraging the crowd to essentially drown out those media questions. Is anybody talking about that today?
Fife: When a reported asked 'do you believe, do you believe her?'... when he asked that question, people from the Prime Minister's office were on a stage encouraging people to clap and shout the reporter down. So on a matter of principle we asked Harper about this today.
* The pack was in full howl. The saintly reporter was shouted down and drowned out when all he wanted to do was ask a follow-up question. Oh, those evil Conservatives.
What the press gallery reporters still haven't learned is that their day is long gone.
On Small Dead Animals, this comment popped up on the thread about the Milewski incident:
Here is the video...the media are liars on this story
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110423/conservatives-mississauga-110423/20110423?hub=OttawaHome
Posted by: Ontario Girl at April 23, 2011 9:39 PM
Video? Yep. And on the CTV website, too. Watch it before they take it down.
You will hear for yourself Milewski's sneering questions and insulting behavior towards the Prime Minister. A perfect example of CBC manhood.
You will see that Stephen Harper answered all of Milewski's questions, twice.
You will see that Milewski wasn't asking a follow up question; he was starting to argue with the P.M. His mind was already made up. The answer from Harper and his camp was , in his opinion, "completely preposterous" and "almost too bizarre to believe."
What, then, did he wish to get from his "follow-up" question.
Obviously, he wanted to goad Harper into a sound bite that could be used by the Liberals, especially Ujjal Dosangh, the source of the Vancouver South complaint in the first place, which Milewski freely admitted ("some items which suggest to your critics otherwise").
Milewski was acting as a foil for the Liberals. The audience realized that.
This wasn't CBC's Liberal election rally. This was a Conservative Party rally, and they let their voices be heard.
The Parliamentary Press Gallery was incensed. So they simply ignored the truth and went with the lie. Poor Terry got shouted down. How can we help the Liberals if we let that sort of thing happen.
But they didn't count on the new media---the internet. The video of the entire exchange was online and available for anyone to see.
The gatekeepers have lost control.
And all their credibility.
Is there anyone left who believes the "national reporters" are impartial reporters who don't inject their personal opinions into their, ahem, "news" reports?
If you find someone, show them the Milewski video. Be sure to issue the "barf alert.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
ModlrMike said:
This reminds me of a 2006 by election here in London where Elizabeth May decided to run against Glenn Pearson (Liberal) and former Mayor Dianne Haskett (CPC). May finished a distant second, and Haskett had about a 1% lower vote count. Naturally, the London Free Press and other local media covered themselves in glory by crowing that Haskett came in a distant third...
(numbers here)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
518 votes? That's a pretty narrow margin to be calling "distant". :facepalm: I hope someone called them on that one.
When I first started watching CBC on a regular basis this year (my parents had American satellite ;D) I began to perceive bias in their reporting. Initially I wrote it off as a result of something called the "Hostile Media Effect" which I had read a very short article on at some point. The more I've examined their stories though, the less convinced I am that it's the HME at all. Frankly, I'm disappointed by the MSM, I understand that many of these agencies are a business, but any other business which blatantly lies to the public comes under intense scrutiny when people call BS on them. Why are so many individuals so ready to allow themselves to be spoon-fed fabricated nonsense just because it comes from "news" agencies? Disappointing. :
Unfortunately, I've noticed that many of my friends are buying into the BS that's sold by CBC and others and making ill-advised political decisions based on misrepresented stories.
Quite the age we live in when a taxpayer subsidized news network can create better fiction than some of Canada's aspiring screen writers. People deserve better.
When I first started watching CBC on a regular basis this year (my parents had American satellite ;D) I began to perceive bias in their reporting. Initially I wrote it off as a result of something called the "Hostile Media Effect" which I had read a very short article on at some point. The more I've examined their stories though, the less convinced I am that it's the HME at all. Frankly, I'm disappointed by the MSM, I understand that many of these agencies are a business, but any other business which blatantly lies to the public comes under intense scrutiny when people call BS on them. Why are so many individuals so ready to allow themselves to be spoon-fed fabricated nonsense just because it comes from "news" agencies? Disappointing. :
Unfortunately, I've noticed that many of my friends are buying into the BS that's sold by CBC and others and making ill-advised political decisions based on misrepresented stories.
Quite the age we live in when a taxpayer subsidized news network can create better fiction than some of Canada's aspiring screen writers. People deserve better.
and the smear campaign continues on "As it Happens" tonight on CBC....they dragged out the victim's ombudsman (the one they didn't renew his contract) to whine about the programs is a PR program and the Conservatives aren't really doing anything about most of the victims......
uh, most of the victims don't come under the Federal jurisdiction, it provincial.....
Rob Nicolson followed the twit and mostly put paid to the accusations.....but what bothered me was the constant tone by CBC that the Conservatives are BAD, BAD....... :
uh, most of the victims don't come under the Federal jurisdiction, it provincial.....
Rob Nicolson followed the twit and mostly put paid to the accusations.....but what bothered me was the constant tone by CBC that the Conservatives are BAD, BAD....... :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
This morning on CTV Ignatieff repeated the statement that his government would quit subsidizing big oil companies. Note that the government does not subsidize oil companies. The government provides accelerated capital cost allowances which are a tax delay not a forgiveness. The higher rates are already being phased out.
Alberta is just pulling out of a recession that also affected Ontario. While the government was writing $ billions in cheques to big auto, they compensated for the low oil price with a delay in paying taxes. I don't know if it's just CBC but I suspect a big factor is lightweight journalists. They just assume that Conservatives would subsidize big oil instead of finding the truth. Some of it may be that they are just stupid and not evil.
Alberta is just pulling out of a recession that also affected Ontario. While the government was writing $ billions in cheques to big auto, they compensated for the low oil price with a delay in paying taxes. I don't know if it's just CBC but I suspect a big factor is lightweight journalists. They just assume that Conservatives would subsidize big oil instead of finding the truth. Some of it may be that they are just stupid and not evil.
The above contains a very interesting statement - Mistakes are made regularly in journalism. Academic studies indicate roughly one in two stories contain a factual error, a rate that hasn’t changed much over the decades despite better educated journalists and more sophisticated and familiar guest commentators.
Some of that is attributable to human error, and the hard wiring of the brain, while I suspect that the short deadlines and competitiveness inherent in journalism contribute as well. Other factors are the tendency to see conspiracies and deceit where none exist, and just plain nastiness. I would be more inclined to accept their human failings if journalists as group were willing to accept them in others. I would be even more so inclined to be forgiving if they displayed a willingness to admit their errors, rather than claiming near Papal infalliability.
Rant off.
Some of that is attributable to human error, and the hard wiring of the brain, while I suspect that the short deadlines and competitiveness inherent in journalism contribute as well. Other factors are the tendency to see conspiracies and deceit where none exist, and just plain nastiness. I would be more inclined to accept their human failings if journalists as group were willing to accept them in others. I would be even more so inclined to be forgiving if they displayed a willingness to admit their errors, rather than claiming near Papal infalliability.
Rant off.
