Media Bias [Merged]

[exabedtech]

Don't you Albertans know that Ottawa knows what's best for you?

Like the great Stewie Griffin once sang... "Establishment, Establishment, you always know what's best"

 

[Maxadia]

Not sure how many of you actually live in the province, but sorry....it's not just another biased opinion (THIS time....someone write down the date  ;D)

Everyone here thought it was going to be a Wildrose majority.....no one ever thought the PC's would come back in again.


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Numbers+tell+story+tight+Alberta+election+contest/6512883/story.html

EDMONTON - With a 61-seat majority handed to Premier Alison Redford’s Conservatives, it would be easy for a casual observer to think Monday’s provincial election was not such a contest after all.

But while the map may paint northern Alberta largely Tory blue and the southern part of the province outside Calgary mainly Wildrose green, a deeper look at Elections Alberta’s unofficial results show many tight races won or lost by just a few hundred votes.

“You look at the seat totals and it’s easy to think landslide, but it hides all the races going on at the constituency level,” said University of Alberta political scientist Lori Thorlakson, who is the lead investigator on an election study that will analyze Monday’s results and voters’ motivations. “They were pretty close. A lot of those I couldn’t believe how close they were....."

 

[exabedtech]

Not sure how many of you actually live in the province, but sorry....it's not just another biased opinion (THIS time....someone write down the date  ;D)

Everyone here thought it was going to be a Wildrose majority.....no one ever thought the PC's would come back in again.


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Numbers+tell+story+tight+Alberta+election+contest/6512883/story.html

EDMONTON - With a 61-seat majority handed to Premier Alison Redford’s Conservatives, it would be easy for a casual observer to think Monday’s provincial election was not such a contest after all.

But while the map may paint northern Alberta largely Tory blue and the southern part of the province outside Calgary mainly Wildrose green, a deeper look at Elections Alberta’s unofficial results show many tight races won or lost by just a few hundred votes.

“You look at the seat totals and it’s easy to think landslide, but it hides all the races going on at the constituency level,” said University of Alberta political scientist Lori Thorlakson, who is the lead investigator on an election study that will analyze Monday’s results and voters’ motivations. “They were pretty close. A lot of those I couldn’t believe how close they were....."

Guess it depends where you are whether or not you thought that were possible.  From my vantage point, the WR weren't going anywhere.  A week ago I felt differently, but the huge grassroots movement to elect anyone but them made it pretty unlikely.  As long as they continue to alienate the younger vote, they won't have a chance.  A ton of people who otherwise would have gone NDP or *spits on ground* Liberal instead backed Allison solely to keep the WR at bay.

Yes, i'm in Alberta, but I have a lot of friends in health care, in community work, volunteer work and education.  On top of that is the fact that the usually absent 'young' vote has been showing a tendency to mobilize over social media to a specific cause.  In this case it was largely the 'conscience rights' that offended the university crowd.  10 years ago, everyone would have said 'who cares', but after the arab spring and our own federal election which put the NDP into official opposition, that group can no longer be ignored.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Not CBC, not bias, but journalistic stupidity of the highest order is reported in this artcle which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

My emphasis added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-plans-for-thomas-mulcair-to-shave-his-beard/article2402968/

This is an interview on a national political/public affairs programme - it airs in the same Sunday morning serious time slot as e.g. "Meet The Press" and "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - and the guest is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the prime minister in f'ing waiting, and numbnuts asks about his goddamn beard! Craig Oliver is both a fool and a waste of bandwidth. Who in their right minds gives a rat's *** about Mr Mulcair's facial hair? Does Oliver think other Canadians are as shallow and stupid as he is? He, Oliver, had precious, expensive seconds to ask Mulcair real, hard political questions but he's a TV journalist and this is Canada so we get juvenile bullshit.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Oliver, and a bit easy on the US programs. David Gregory has been known to ask dumb *** questions all  the time. The worst is the near obligatory "will you run for X" then the insipid parsing of any vagaries at all. He's often off the mark as well with his questioning. That program has really taken a fall since the death of Russert. None of the others really come close. The only reason why I watch that program is to see the insider round table, and there its mainly to hear David Brooks's take on one issue or another.

 

[JorgSlice]

The always fair and balanced, ethical CBC has this headline. Any resemblance to the actual article or the truth? The CBC knows that this PM ALWAYS pays his own way.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/13/harper-baseball-trip.html

Harper's baseball trip hit taxpayers with $45,000 tab
By Louise Elliott, CBC News Apr 14, 2012

A blower's response:

http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/2012/04/will-james-moore-once-again-defend-cbc.html

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Will James Moore Once Again Defend The CBC Over This Crap?

A perfect example of why the cuts to CBC were far short of where they need to be. In what no one could say is not a partisan attack against the PM, CBC gives Canadians a glimpse of paid top-dollar journalism for tabloid worthy news headlines.

In fact, the CBC itself outs itself only two paragraphs after the first, which includes this gem:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Labour Day-weekend trip to Manhattan last fall, which included coveted tickets to a New York Yankees game and a Broadway show, cost Canadian taxpayers at least $45,000, documents reveal."

And if anyone took the time to read the entire story, they come to this:

"A spokesperson for the prime minister told CBC News that Harper covered the cost of both the flight and accommodations for himself, his daughter and two guests on the flight. He also covered the costs of tickets to the game for himself and his guests.

"Prime Minister Harper makes it a practice of reimbursing the government for personal travel," spokesperson Julie Vaux wrote in an email. "As the prime minister is prohibited from flying commercial for security reasons, he also compensates the government for the cost of an equivalent commercial flight. In this case, he compensated for the flight for himself, his daughter, and guests at the cost of a commercial fare for each."

It's time once again for everyone to start sending complaints to the CBC ombudsman, as well as James Moore, telling him this type of trash journalism should not be paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.

I received this reply from the office of the Ombudsman:

Thank you for your e-mail of April 20 addressed to Kirk LaPointe, CBC Ombudsman, drawing our attention to a CBCNews.ca story posted on April 14 under the headline, “Harper’s baseball trip hit taxpayers with $45,000 tab”.  You described it as a “tabloid headline” and a “partisan attack” on the prime minister, pointing out that story reveals that the prime minster reimbursed the government for the cost of his and his guests’ travel.

While I certainly regret you are disappointed in CBC, I must tell you, respectfully, that your view is not one I share. Allow me to explain why.

Over the Labour Day weekend last year, the prime minister and three guests took what was called a “private family trip” to New York to watch a Yankees game and see a Broadway show. As the headline said, accurately and fairly, that holiday trip cost the government $45,000.

Headlines are short, colourful, often provocative, and in a matter of just a few words are intended to attract a reader’s attention with what is new or unusual, and direct him to the story that follows to find out more.  In this case, the most important aspect of the story was that the prime minister’s trip to New York to watch a baseball game had cost Canadians $45,000.

The story that followed quickly explained that the costs included $34,633 for the use of a government jet and $11,026 for the expenses of four employees from the Prime Minister’s Office who accompanied him on the family trip, for a total of some $45,000.  The prime minister’s expenses, those of his daughter and three guests are not included in the $45,000 total.

However, the story pointed out, that $45,000 total did not include the costs of two more aides (the two each filed expenses of some $2,100, less air fare) and a defence attaché who were also on the trip. Nor did it include the costs of an unknown number of RCMP officers who accompanied the prime minister.

The story also explained under the sub-headline, “Harper reimbursed government for flight”, that since the prime minister is prohibited from flying on a commercial airliner that he had “compensated the government for the cost of an equivalent commercial flight” for himself, his daughter and two guests.

So, at the end of the day, while the private trip’s total cost to taxpayers would be reduced by the reimbursement of the cost for four tickets, that payment would be more than offset by the expenses incurred by the four staffers on the flight plus two more aides, a defence attaché and RCMP officers. 

Thank you again for your e-mail. I hope my reply has reassured you of the continuing integrity of our news service.

It is also my responsibility to tell you that if you are not satisfied with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the CBC Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by mail at Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at

Sincerely,

Marissa Nelson
Managing Editor
CBC News.ca
Box 500, Station “A”,
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6

cc. Kirk LaPointe, CBC Ombudsman

Interesting indeed.

I sent a reply stating:

"So why is it then that any other Prime Minister (especially those that are Liberal) were not put into the article to compare with the costs incurred by the current PM, The RHon Mr. Stephen Harper? I am sure he's not the only one to have done this and there's probably one out there that incurred more costs. Where's that information?"

 

[a_majoor]

Given the actual numbers of viewers the CBC has, I'm thinking the Maytag repairman gets more business than the CBC Ombudsman, which may explain his detachment from reality.

 

[Redeye]

Given the actual numbers of viewers the CBC has, I'm thinking the Maytag repairman gets more business than the CBC Ombudsman, which may explain his detachment from reality.

Considering that it records more news viewers than any other network in Canada (and more people watch CNN than either of its competitors, CTV NewsNet or that joke that is Sun News, I'd say that we can fairly safely dismiss this statement.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/sun-news-network-turns-old-continues-spark-controversy-080008845.html

Notwithstanding that, controversy over travel expenses isn't new - and it was made fairly clear, I think, that flight costs include amortized capital costs etc and thus sound wildly exaggerated. I think that while the story is in a sense accurate, it still sensationalizes the event a little.

 

[armyvern]

...
Notwithstanding that, controversy over travel expenses isn't new - and it was made fairly clear, I think, that flight costs include amortized capital costs etc and thus sound wildly exaggerated. I think that while the story is in a sense accurate, it still sensationalizes the event a little.

PM Harper did the normal thing, he reimbursed for the personal portion of the trip costs - voluntarily. Where are the comparisons? Did Chretien do this? Did Chretien or any other PM reimburse the Crown 100% of total trip costs? 

That is what this article infers the current PM should be doing, but isn't and therefore, must be evil.

The bias would be even more so should it be shown that ex-PM Chretien or previous of same redside manner did not reimburse taxpayers any expenses. Where was the outrage then? The headlines from the CBC? Or even a simple statement to that fact in this article? Apparently, when 2 parties share a bedside manner - overlooking is allowed.

 

[Redeye]

PM Harper did the normal thing, he reimbursed for the personal portion of the trip costs - voluntarily. Where are the comparisons? Did Chretien do this? Did Chretien or any other PM reimburse the Crown 100% of total trip costs? 

That is what this article infers the current PM should be doing, but isn't and therefore, must be evil.

The bias would be even more so should it be shown that ex-PM Chretien or previous of same redside manner did not reimburse taxpayers any expenses. Where was the outrage then? The headlines from the CBC? Or even a simple statement to that fact in this article? Apparently, when 2 parties share a bedside manner - overlooking is allowed.

A lot of people got up in arms because the Prime Minister had a the audacity to take a vacation. Given his office, he can't just take a commercial flight and travel on his own. That's what it doesn't really explain very well. His paying his share of the expense is a token gesture, but it's nevertheless meaningful. Couple that with the fact that the cost isn't the incremental cost of the flight, and it sounds outrageous to those predisposed to be pissed off at the PM, even though the amount of money is still really trivial in the grand scheme.

There's a pattern to it though - look at Bev Oda, who reimbursed the extra expenses outside of guidelines - but it appears only after the press outed her for doing so. That's why it draws attention.

 

[OldSolduer]

It all boils down to this:

The CBC hates Conservatives.

 

[Redeye]

It all boils down to this:

The CBC hates Conservatives.

They were just as vigourous in going after the Liberals during "AdScam". That's the job of the press.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It all boils down to this:

The CBC hates Conservatives.

The sooner their funding stops, the sooner those leftist elitists will fade to oblivion. Just one more stepping stone on our country's move to the modern age.

There is no requirement for a State TV station here. It is Canada, not Canukistan.

 

[Redeye]

The sooner their funding stops, the sooner those leftist elitists will fade to oblivion. Just one more stepping stone on our country's move to the modern age.

There is no requirement for a State TV station here. It is Canada, not Canukistan.

What State TV station? If your argument had any validity, then they'd be singing the company song and telling us all about how great the government of the day is - rather than questioning its motives.

 

[aesop081]

What State TV station?

Ok, how about this:

Broadcast arm of the Liberal/NDP parties

??

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have no doubt that the CBC, broadly and generally, is anti-conservative (as the word is broadly used) and that leads it to be anti-Conservative, too. The fact that the Conservative Party is the government and is, therefore, "fair game" anyway just makes the inherent bias 'acceptable.' But I am not convinced that the CBC is pro-Liberal or pro-NDP. I believe the CBC, again broadly and generally, reflects the views and attitudes of the young, generally well educated, urban, Central Canadian, multicultural community from which most of its executive, managers, journalists and programmers are drawn. A Conservative Party that adheres, broadly, to conservative values represents a different community: older, somewhat less well educated, rural, Western Canadian and Anglo.

So: is there a bias? Yes, in my opinion there is. Is it anti-Conservative? Yes. Is it, therefore, pro Liberal or pro NDP? No.

 

[GAP]

As has been stated there are mandates within mandates regarding the CBC.

The vision of providing services to remote areas has, in my opinion, worked well and is valued. I don't know if that day is done, what with satellite TV service available.

The radio service still serves a purpose, again in remote areas.

The rest should stand on a commercial basis.

 

[OldSolduer]

Isn't the CBCs most profitable venture Hockey Night In Canada? I could be wrong.

It seems that the rest of the government agencies are being asked to transform, but CBC seems to be stuck....or am I reading it wrong?

 

[bridges]

It seems that the rest of the government agencies are being asked to transform, but CBC seems to be stuck....or am I reading it wrong?

The CBC has had its budget cut with virtually every government of the last couple of decades.  I don't think this meets the definition of "stuck"... but I could be wrong. 

The CBC is owned by, and exists to provide a service to, the Canadian public - a service that is not always profitable, but is important nonetheless.  People who believe that unprofitable things can be important will tend to support the CBC being partially publicly funded.  Those who think only profitable things are important  will tend to think it should be de-funded.  And so the debate continues - seems to me that it's all about a person's underlying philosophy.

By the way, for those who think the CBC is only for young urbanites:  my older, rural, western-Canadian parents rely on it - as do many of their peers. 

 

[Journeyman]

Those who think only profitable things are important will tend to think it should be de-funded.

I'm just going to assume that you didn't read any of the previous posts.....or the thread's title. It's about bias, not profit.

But thanks for playing along.

 

[Remius]

They need to be more transparent about their budget and expenses.  Tax payers fund it, taxpayers have a right to know.  I realise that they need to keep certain things from getting out, like how much they bid on certain contracts etc.  But things like where their reporters and anchors stayed during the Olympics and what they paid or how much their 65th anniversary bashes are costing are things we have a right to know.