Media Bias [Merged]

[a_majoor]

Another view:

http://www.doggerelparty.ca/2008/01/cbc-buys-new-carpet.html

CBC Buys New Carpet...

... sweeps Krista Erickson under it.

On CBC Radio Ottawa tonight, the news contained the snippet that Krista Erickson did in fact feed questions to 'an MP' (note, not a Liberal MP, just 'an MP') on the committee investigating the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. However, CBC management had determined that she had no partisan intent and there was no bias in CBC news coverage.

She feeds questions to a Liberal MP who is not ordinarily part of the committee, and which have nothing to do with the matter before the committee. The only goal of the line of questioning was to link Mulroney to the present Conservative government. But she had 'no partisan intent'? Oh, I get it, she was just bored!

CBC: Not just rotten to the core, but rotten at the top to. Mr. Cruickshank, you're a liar and you know it.

Posted by Clive at 1/21/2008 07:53:00 PM

 

[Reccesoldier]

A new carpet and a promotion to the head office...

CBC News management has made the decision to reassign its reporter from the story and to Toronto, effective Jan. 21.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

A new carpet and a promotion to the head office...

Yes that's what most bureaucracies do with those who embarass them...promote them and send them to head office.

 

[armyvern]

I seem to recall a thread on here somewhere where one of our site emebers had sent in a complaint to Mr Carlin about a video that CBC aired (and which ended up on youtube) where one of their reports had filed the video report and they had deliberately edited in the PM responding to another topic on another day -- to make it look as if he was giving that response to the protestor who had just asked him a question.

I also seem to recall that they noted that there was "no bias", but that the reporter was acting with forementioned "journalistic zeal" with his actions and that they was no deliberate attempt to cast the Convservatives in a bad light.

Seems to be a recurring theme. There's no bias at all - it's simply "journalistic zeal."

My thoughts? It's "Journalistic zeal" that happens to be occuring much more frequently and obviously -- and funny thing is -- it's never overly "zealisitic" AGAINST the Liberals or FOR the Tories. What are the odds of that being just a random occurance? If that's the case, shouldn't it happen against/for ALL political parties ... thereby giving the CBC some kind of "unbiased" credibility? Sadly, it doesn't -- and that's exactly what makes them biased.

 

[Neill McKay]

A new carpet and a promotion to the head office...

Being transferred to Toronto is a promotion???

 

[Rifleman62]

The bottom line to me is that a Liberal MP was fed questions by a CBC repeater, The Liberal MP appeared (not as a regular member, but as a "guest" member) before the Commons Ethics Committee (CEC), as approved by the LPC (the leader, the Whip?).The Chairman of the CEC, who is a Liberal MP, allowed the guest interrogator to ask out of context questions. Exposure. Liberal MP repeatedly denies being fed the questions. CBC investigates and proves the Liberal MP was fed the questions. The irony is that the LPC was using the Commons Ethics Committee to try and expose the Government of Canada and a former PM (from another political party) perceived lack of ethics. So we have the LPC, a LPC MP, and a LPC Chairman in a conspiracy during the conduct of business of the Commons Ethics Committee. Should these acts of collusion, which clearly show a lack of ethical behavour, not be investigated by the Commons Ethics Committee? This is not so much about the CBC as it is about the conduct of the LPC and its elected members

 

[midget-boyd91]

What are the odds of that being just a random occurance? If that's the case, shouldn't it happen against/for ALL political parties ... thereby giving the CBC some kind of "unbiased" credibility? Sadly, it doesn't -- and that's exactly what makes them biased.

  There's where I see the problem. The CBC, funded by tax dollars should be a service to all Canadians, left or right. But by taking their not-so-subtle left leaning stance, they've effectively quashed the fact that they are a service to all Canadians, and begin serving only those to the left.
I would be equally tired of the CBC if everything was reversed and they began leaning to the right. I have no problem with left or right leaning TV stations, as long as they've stated publicly where they stand, and are privately funded. The CBC however, are funded by tax dollars, and therefore should report the headlines for the facts..you know, News. Either get rid of the bias within the station, or say bye-bye to funding, get CTV to buy Hockey Night in Canada, and dry the station up.

Midget

 

[midget-boyd91]

Forget bias within the CBC.. take a look at the first few paragraphs of this article from the Calgary Herald.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=a20d5185-ae51-43ca-8dc9-c6151100ff62

Canada fighting losing battle in Afghanistan
Don Martin, Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The mission is a mess.

In a devastatingly frank assessment reflecting the sad reality of military forces in Kandahar, an independent panel says Canada's losing battle against the Taliban demands a desperate measure for a desperate time.

It suggests a form of diplomatic blackmail against the 39-nation international security force guiding the ailing Afghanistan mission: bail us out with another 1,000 fighting soldiers or we're bailing out of the conflict.

That contentious bottom line is not what Prime Minister Stephen Harper had in mind when he summoned former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley out of political retirement to consider four options for Canada's future role in the conflict.

None of the above, declared the five-member Manley panel, after digesting 200 submissions and taking a bear-witness tour of Afghanistan.

They found Canada's too-few-by-half combat troops are ill-equipped, poorly co-ordinated and losing ground to the enemy while failing to deliver adequate humanitarian aid or reconstruction help to average Afghans.

That ugly scenario has been poorly communicated to voters back home by governments that haven't shown prime ministerial leadership on the file, Manley argues.

Well, ouch.

No wonder Harper stayed mum on the report recommendations Tuesday until he could figure out a decent public relations salvage strategy.

mmhmm... :

The Calgary Herald, owned by CanWest Global, publicly funded..

Midget

 

[Kirkhill]

The Don Martin article also appears in the On-Line edition of the National Post.
The National Post also posted this article by John Ivison.

Manley report invokes the spirit of Pearson
Comment: Manley's message aimed at Stephane Dion

John Ivison, National Post 
Published: Wednesday, January 23, 2008

John Manley was asked Tuesday if his panel's report on Canada's future in Afghanistan was consistent with Liberal tradition. He was about to blow off the question, when he seemed to think again.

As a Liberal shorn of his party gag, Mr. Manley let rip and gave an impassioned defence of the report's findings, invoking the spirit of Lester B. Pearson as the "father" of U.N.-authorized interventions in war zones.

"Absolutely this is in the Liberal tradition," the party's former deputy leader thundered. "I think that countries like Canada have an important, meaningful role to play in protecting our values, standing up for the rights of individuals [and for] the human security of people whose government can't protect them -- that's something we as Canadians have talked a lot about."

The journalist who asked the question was about to pose his supplementary but Mr. Manley was in mid-stride. "We're a rich country, we've got to do some of this stuff ... The world isn't a pretty place but I happen to believe that the people who came before me in the Liberal party believed in a strong role for Canada on the international stage and would say there are times when we have to be counted, times when it matters." He concluded his extraordinary outburst by almost whispering, "that's what I think."

Journalists looked at each other, wondering at whom the tirade was aimed. A read of the report makes it clear -- Stéphane Dion. ......

I disagree with Martin.  I agree with Ivison.  I don't like Martin's article.  I like Ivison's article.
This is even handed treatment. 
This is what I expect from the CBC if I must pay for it.

I am free not to buy the Calgary Herald. They are free to publish whatever claptrap they see fit.

 

[Rifleman62]

I used to enjoy Don Martin. Dry wit. Lately he has appeared very regularly on CBC's Politics with Don Newman, and CTV's Question Period. Draw your own conclusions. To me he is now one of the boys/girls of the lieliberal media. I only skim his pieces now.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/editorsblog/

CBC News Editors' Blog

We have to stand apart

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 | 04:37 PM ET
Posted by John Cruickshank, Publisher CBC News

“When, as in the present instance, it is revealed that a reporter has been collaborating, even if only obliquely, with one party or another, an appearance of partisanship emerges that cannot be dispelled by claims that this is how political reporters interact with their sources”.

“In this case, our reporter provided questions to two Liberal MPs using her BlackBerry in the hope that these would be put to the former prime minister during the committee hearings”.

Two liberal MPs?  Who was the second one?

 

[Hunteroffortune]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/editorsblog/

CBC News Editors' Blog

We have to stand apart

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 | 04:37 PM ET
Posted by John Cruickshank, Publisher CBC News

“When, as in the present instance, it is revealed that a reporter has been collaborating, even if only obliquely, with one party or another, an appearance of partisanship emerges that cannot be dispelled by claims that this is how political reporters interact with their sources”.

“In this case, our reporter provided questions to two Liberal MPs using her BlackBerry in the hope that these would be put to the former prime minister during the committee hearings”.

Two liberal MPs?  Who was the second one?

That's a VERY good question. We know Pablo (look at my hair) is one of them, who's the other Liberal MP?

 

[Reccesoldier]

http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2008/01/cruickshank-redemption.html

Yes, lets see some of that CBC bias free transparency...

 

[Reccesoldier]

To be fair, it isn't just the CBC...

While it’s indisputable that the Harper government has imposed a strict discipline on government communications and spokespersons (an understandable policy for a conservative government), this can hardly be described as giving reporters the “back of the hand.” What it has given the back of its hand to is the old style of media relations under the Liberals.

Under that style, Hill reporters were not treated with independence or distance; they were treated as pets to be cultivated and – if deemed sympathetic – rewarded with leaks from inside government, weekly caucus meetings, and not-so-underground leadership campaigns.

Read the whole piece[/url

 

[RangerRay]

This incestuous relationship between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Liberal Party makes me sick to my stomach.

Unfortunately for the PM, by putting them in their proper place, they will wage a war in which they control the message, thereby giving them the upper hand.  I don't know how the PM can get the upper hand when his enemies control the message.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

To be fair, it isn't just the CBC...

Read the whole piece[/url

Nope it's not. The libs oughtta be hauled up by the short and curlies also. However, in typical fashion for them, they've abandonded their partners to shoulder the blame while they scurry back to and cower in their rat holes. They have no honour. Lie down with a liebral, you won't get fleas, you'll get bubonic plague.

 

[RangerRay]

Further example of not just a biased CBC, but of a biased Parliamentary Press Gallery, who control the message.

A little long, but worth the read, only to know the full extent of the biased nature of the MSM.

<a href="http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2008/02/pablogates-two-dead-myths-roadkill-of_07.html">The Black Rod</a>

-snip-

Then National Post columnist Don Martin wrote (Open season on Ottawa's flacks, Feb. 1, 2008) that the Parliamentary Press Gallery isn't even pretending to be detached and fair in their latest trumped-up "scandale du jour" where they're attacking PMO (Prime Minister's Office) communications director Sandra Buckler over something about something nobody outside their little circle cares about.

A "full-court-press-pile-on is taking place atop Stephen Harper's closest aides", he wrote.

"It appears to be a gleeful media overkill, which smacks of personal payback..."

And why? Because the press wants to punish the Prime Minister for the Krista Erickson-Liberal Party collusion scandal.

"Given this bitter, show-no-mercy reaction against a reporter with friends in the governing party, the PMO shouldn't be surprised if journalists cut them little to no slack when they make mistakes." said Martin. Or when they just feel like it, professional standards be damned.

Not convinced? Remember the truth serum.

On a recent broadcast of CBC Newsworld's "Politics" hosted by Don Newman, Toronto Star columnist Susan Delacourt (whose live-in whatever is, according to bloggers, a Liberal strategist) confessed that she and her media colleagues were making it personal in their reporting on the firing of nuclear regular Linda Keen. You remember her, don't you?

Keen was the bureaucrat who put the lives and health of thousands of cancer patients at risk because she refused to approve the reopening of the only nuclear facility making cancer-detecting isotopes. She was repudiated by every single member of the House of Commons and every single Senator, all of whom unanimously voted to overrule her and see the Chalk River reactor reopened.

Delacourt said the Parliamentary Press Gallery was using their on-going war with Stephen Harper over rules governing press conferences, cabinet meetings, and photo-ops to spin their Keen stories.

-snip-

A few months later, National Post columnist Warren Kinsella was even more blunt in a column (Time to make nice, Mr. Harper. The Press Gallery will get its revenge when it counts -- at election time, Warren Kinsella, National Post, Thursday, May 31, 2007)

-snip-

 

[a_majoor]

This incestuous relationship between the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Liberal Party makes me sick to my stomach.

Unfortunately for the PM, by putting them in their proper place, they will wage a war in which they control the message, thereby giving them the upper hand.  I don't know how the PM can get the upper hand when his enemies control the message.

Although the PPG can filter and control the feed to the MSM, there is "new media" (i.e. bloggers) that can bring the story to demographics the MSM doesn't reach. As well, the Prime Minister has had reasonable success going to live radio call in shows, providing unfiltered access to voters. Imagine if the technique is expanded to include all Ministers and MP's.

There is enough overlap between the various media audiences that there will be plenty of WTF moments as voters hear the Prime Minister then see/hear/read something totally opposite in the MSM. How this will shake out in practice is hard to predict, but I suspect the biggest losers will be the MSM, as the audience becomes increasingly sceptical of what they are being fed. (My moment of truth was actually academic, since the Keynesian economics I was learning in school were totally out of sync with the real world of "Stagflation" and the triumphant arrival of "Reaganomics". Since Keynesian economics explicitly denies that things like "stagflation" can even exist, much less offer a solution, I had to throw out the "accepted wisdom" and go with the real world).

 

[RangerRay]

I wish I could believe you about the power of bloggers but from my vantage point, most people I know still get their news and information from the MSM.  Only those of us with interest in these matters (i.e. the Choir) tend to go to blogs for unfiltered information.  As well, the only talk radio that people here can tune into is CBC.  'Independent' talk radio only exists in the large cities.  Sure, you can get streaming radio via internet, but again only those of us in the Choir seek it out.  I am the only one I know amongst my friends and co-workers who seek alternative sources of information not normally available in rural areas.  The masses don't seek it, so what they are exposed to is the same-old, same-old.  People are fed spin and do not even know it.

 

[Roy Harding]

I wish I could believe you about the power of bloggers but from my vantage point, most people I know still get their news and information from the MSM.  Only those of us with interest in these matters (i.e. the Choir) tend to go to blogs for unfiltered information.  As well, the only talk radio that people here can tune into is CBC.  'Independent' talk radio only exists in the large cities.  Sure, you can get streaming radio via internet, but again only those of us in the Choir seek it out.  I am the only one I know amongst my friends and co-workers who seek alternative sources of information not normally available in rural areas.  The masses don't seek it, so what they are exposed to is the same-old, same-old.  People are fed spin and do not even know it.

That pretty much sums up what I see, too.

I can get CBC on the radio (which I enjoy, just to be candid) - but other than that, I'm restricted (on the airwaves), to a country station, and a "First Nations" soft rock station.  That's it - that's all she wrote out here.

I DO seek out alternatives on the 'Net.  BUT - as RangerRay outlined above - I think I'm a minority.