Now this is a real attempt, to control the media...

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Because that is a direct attack on the fifth estate.

The Fifth estate is one conduit for the flow of information to constituents. The whole reason for having freedom of the press is so that citizens can be informed.

The times are changing, and I see no reason to elevate the blocking of information through any channel above that of any other. Controlling information for partisan purposes is wrong, no matter what form it occurs in.

1, We aren't talking about supporters shouting some down for talking out of turn.
I am.

2, We're not talking about the PMO placing gags on his dept's to prevent some of them from eating their own feet.
I am.

3, We aren't talking about limiting the material made public by Federal bodies.
I am.

1, Outside Harper's control.
Ahh, now this is something I never said.

2, Right in line with typical party politics, as you have already said.
Yup.

3, Circumvented by the FoIA.
Ummm, not quite. Access to information is not so easy, and not all information is open for requests.

For instance, in March, The Canadian Press learned of a gag order given to officials in Afghanistan. The government didn't want any information leaking that might influence the election. So, during an election, when we are supposed to make an informed choice, that choice is limited, even when the press finds out about it. Long delays in response time affect the freedom of information. There is supposed to be a 30 day time limit for responses to requests. Almost half are not responded to within that time frame, and one tenth of requests wait in excess of 120 days.
Report Cards 2009-2010 Media

Here's a letter sent by the Canadian Science Writers Association:
Dear Misters Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe, and Ms May:
The Canadian Science Writers’ Association (CSWA) represents science journalists, communicators, publicists and authors—500 and growing. For almost a year now, the CSWA has pushed for changes in the government’s current communication policy to enable timely access to government scientists who have published studies and research in journals. We have documented numerous examples of instances where Canadian journalists have been denied access to government scientists doing research in areas of public interest. The problem is relatively new in Canada, although not unknown. It became critical with new rules and regulations instituted by the Harper government. The CSWA has attempted to work with high-level, senior public servants, those who act as champions of science, to restore journalists’ access to science experts in the federal government. We are frustrated by our lack of progress.

Every year, several billion dollars of tax-payers’ money is invested in made-in-Canada research—from genetically altered life forms, to promising forms of clean energy. We assert that the taxpaying Canadian public has a right to know about the science they pay for and what it can tell us about our health, safety, and the world in which we live. The findings and benefits of scientific and medical research should be available to all Canadians to enable engaged public policy awareness, debate and development.

All political parties repeatedly make promises to promote government openness and accountability. It is in this spirit that we ask you, our party leaders, to tell us and the public how you would guarantee freer channels of communication.

We want to know because the current Harper government’s restricted access to information impedes the public’s right to know about the research and studies it funds. We know that many reporters no longer try to get interviews from government experts because requests for interviews are so often stymied, there is an excessively long turn-around time on getting questions answered, and the now typical boilerplate responses are unsatisfactory. This means federal scientists who do the work miss out on the opportunity of getting some public feedback and the public doesn’t learn of the research being done in Canada.

Media requests that used to be handled by government researchers and communication staff across Canada now require an elaborate process of screening and approval in Ottawa that has been described publicly by one scientist as “Orwellian.”

By the time the “media lines” are approved—at considerable expense to taxpayers whose dollars are used to pay for these extra layers of message approval—the journalist’s deadline has usually long passed and the “lines” are never used.

Is communication staff now more compelled to block access to scientists and information than facilitate communication? As a 2010 document by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) put it, in response to an access to information request, the bureaucracy is now working to create a “zero surprise environment” for the Harper government.

The work of federal scientists is important, and it is often described as science done in the public good. These men and women monitor ozone depletion and air pollution. They work to ensure that drugs and medical supplies are safe. They assess which forms of Canadian energy are most promising, and which are most polluting.

We urge you to free the scientists to speak—be it about state of ice in the Arctic, dangers in the food supply, nanotechnology, salmon viruses, radiation monitoring, or how much the climate will change. Take off the muzzles and eliminate the script writers and allow scientists—they do have PhDs after all— to speak for themselves.

Let the federal scientists inform and enliven understanding. They are public servants, doing science for the Canadian public.

Sincerely, on behalf of the CSWA Board of Directors,
Kathryn O’Hara, President
Canadian Science Writers’ Association
sciencewriterscanada@gmail.com
You can read about the salmon virus gag here.

You can make a freedom of information request too. As far as I'm concerned, anytime politicians make it harder to get information, whether it's threatening lawsuits or otherwise, it goes into the same category of heinous.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Yes, they were hampered left right and center. It was abhorrent, disgusting and one of my greatest issues with Blair's tenure as Police Chief.

Why?
Wouldn't trying to suppress the news as it happens be more a desecration of the fifth estate than moving to silence twenty-year-old trash useful only as propaganda?

Harper used the lawyer-up gimmick. Really sucks when the mouse roars....
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Here's a letter sent by the Canadian Science Writers Association:
Dear Misters Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe, and Ms May:
The Canadian Science Writers’ Association (CSWA) represents science journalists, communicators, publicists and authors—500 and growing. For almost a year now, the CSWA has pushed for changes in the government’s current communication policy to enable timely access to government scientists who have published studies and research in journals. We have documented numerous examples of instances where Canadian journalists have been denied access to government scientists doing research in areas of public interest. The problem is relatively new in Canada, although not unknown. It became critical with new rules and regulations instituted by the Harper government. The CSWA has attempted to work with high-level, senior public servants, those who act as champions of science, to restore journalists’ access to science experts in the federal government. We are frustrated by our lack of progress.

Every year, several billion dollars of tax-payers’ money is invested in made-in-Canada research—from genetically altered life forms, to promising forms of clean energy. We assert that the taxpaying Canadian public has a right to know about the science they pay for and what it can tell us about our health, safety, and the world in which we live. The findings and benefits of scientific and medical research should be available to all Canadians to enable engaged public policy awareness, debate and development.

All political parties repeatedly make promises to promote government openness and accountability. It is in this spirit that we ask you, our party leaders, to tell us and the public how you would guarantee freer channels of communication.

We want to know because the current Harper government’s restricted access to information impedes the public’s right to know about the research and studies it funds. We know that many reporters no longer try to get interviews from government experts because requests for interviews are so often stymied, there is an excessively long turn-around time on getting questions answered, and the now typical boilerplate responses are unsatisfactory. This means federal scientists who do the work miss out on the opportunity of getting some public feedback and the public doesn’t learn of the research being done in Canada.

Media requests that used to be handled by government researchers and communication staff across Canada now require an elaborate process of screening and approval in Ottawa that has been described publicly by one scientist as “Orwellian.”

By the time the “media lines” are approved—at considerable expense to taxpayers whose dollars are used to pay for these extra layers of message approval—the journalist’s deadline has usually long passed and the “lines” are never used.

Is communication staff now more compelled to block access to scientists and information than facilitate communication? As a 2010 document by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) put it, in response to an access to information request, the bureaucracy is now working to create a “zero surprise environment” for the Harper government.

The work of federal scientists is important, and it is often described as science done in the public good. These men and women monitor ozone depletion and air pollution. They work to ensure that drugs and medical supplies are safe. They assess which forms of Canadian energy are most promising, and which are most polluting.

We urge you to free the scientists to speak—be it about state of ice in the Arctic, dangers in the food supply, nanotechnology, salmon viruses, radiation monitoring, or how much the climate will change. Take off the muzzles and eliminate the script writers and allow scientists—they do have PhDs after all— to speak for themselves.

Let the federal scientists inform and enliven understanding. They are public servants, doing science for the Canadian public.

Sincerely, on behalf of the CSWA Board of Directors,
Kathryn O’Hara, President
Canadian Science Writers’ Association
sciencewriterscanada@gmail.com
You can read about the salmon virus gag here.

You can make a freedom of information request too. As far as I'm concerned, anytime politicians make it harder to get information, whether it's threatening lawsuits or otherwise, it goes into the same category of heinous.

This is the exact situation my sister is in. She works for the minstry and has seen many controls on how they communicate with the media since the Harper take over.

Nothing gets through without first going past the PMO.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
As far as I'm concerned, anytime politicians make it harder to get information, whether it's threatening lawsuits or otherwise, it goes into the same category of heinous.
Harder isn't an attack on the fifth estate. Threatening them with legal action is.

If I put a fence across my front yard, but leave the drive way open. You can still visit.

If I put a big assed vicious dog in the drive way. Well you get the picture.

The Afghan papers, sorry, in a time of conflict, you know I'm going to side with caution on military matters.

I checked you link, and I was appalled, you know how I feel about fish. Miller's paper was published though, she was not allowed to discuss it with the press. Where's the stifling of the press? But you're right, that is wrong.

But again, that is not a direct attack on the press. Full stop.

Wouldn't trying to suppress the news as it happens be more a desecration of the fifth estate than moving to silence twenty-year-old trash useful only as propaganda?
Nope, equal. But what do Blair's orders have to do with Layton's threats?

Harper used the lawyer-up gimmick.
Really? I couldn't find anything on that. Please do go on.

This is the exact situation my sister is in. She works for the minstry and has seen many controls on how they communicate with the media since the Harper take over.

Nothing gets through without first going past the PMO.
Is thios right up there with your CUPE membership, buddy Cretien and your green home?
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Even a free press has to act within the framework of the law, that is a basic requirement of
society itself. In addition, if someone has a story that does pass muster it is subject to the
full scrutiny of the law. If the information is not provable it should be challenged, if it is false
or defective it should be subject to the dictates of the law. If information is used by peace
officers retired or other wise from old notes, that were private in view of the fact the information
did not prove an offence was committed it should be investigated for breach of trust
In the old days a story of this magnitude would never have seen the light of day without some
other way to verify the facts. Even today most reputable news people will find other ways to
verify the information before going public and so it should be, I used to try to find three separate
sources of confirm it, if possible.
If the retired cop and the media outlet are sued it is as it should be if they can't prove wrong doing.
There in lies the problem they have, they know and so do we that something happened but prove
it and proof is required without it there will be consequences. I am all for freedom of the press
and media, I used to make my living working in that industry. I am also in favour of the rules and
compliance with the law, and I am for responsible journalists and news people acting in a
responsible manner
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Even a free press has to act within the framework of the law, that is a basic requirement of
society itself. In addition, if someone has a story that does pass muster it is subject to the
full scrutiny of the law. If the information is not provable it should be challenged, if it is false
or defective it should be subject to the dictates of the law. If information is used by peace
officers retired or other wise from old notes, that were private in view of the fact the information
did not prove an offence was committed it should be investigated for breach of trust
In the old days a story of this magnitude would never have seen the light of day without some
other way to verify the facts.
The NDP were obviously contacted, they made their threat, before the article hit the printer.

If the retired cop and the media outlet are sued it is as it should be if they can't prove wrong doing.
They don't have to prove wrong doing, all they reported was he was talked to.

There in lies the problem they have, they know and so do we that something happened but prove
it and proof is required without it there will be consequences.
Olivia and Jack, have already confirmed it.

I am all for freedom of the press
and media, I used to make my living working in that industry. I am also in favour of the rules and
compliance with the law, and I am for responsible journalists and news people acting in a
responsible manner
Then you should have no issue with this piec, other than it was shameful smearing of the lowest order.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Harder isn't an attack on the fifth estate. Threatening them with legal action is.

If I put a fence across my front yard, but leave the drive way open. You can still visit.

If I put a big assed vicious dog in the drive way. Well you get the picture.

The Afghan papers, sorry, in a time of conflict, you know I'm going to side with caution on military matters.

I checked you link, and I was appalled, you know how I feel about fish. Miller's paper was published though, she was not allowed to discuss it with the press. Where's the stifling of the press? But you're right, that is wrong.

But again, that is not a direct attack on the press. Full stop.

Nope, equal. But what do Blair's orders have to do with Layton's threats?

Really? I couldn't find anything on that. Please do go on.

Is thios right up there with your CUPE membership, buddy Cretien and your green home?
Do you have any stronger arguments than the "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" gambit?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I have a feeling that we'll be getting more on this soon.
On what? The smear or the fact that dear leader tried to actually stifle the media with threats?

He's already said, he'll be looking into this after the election.

I read the article, all they did was report the fact that he was cautioned about the allegations against the establishment he got his massage at, and how he came to be cautioned.

Why is discussing the smear, more important than discussing dear leaders attempt to shut down the press with threats?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Here we go with the nasty-bear-got-nose-slapped growlies again.
You slapped my nose? All you did was talk out your ass, cause your dear leader is getting spanked, and you apparently don't like that, but can't formulate a reasoned argument to refute mine.

Feel free to carry on though.

I suppose you'd know if the BS was pure or stepped-on....
Check your shoes. You may have stepped on your post.

Here's one....

PM threatens to sue Liberals over Cadman allegations - Canada - CBC News

Do you want them stacked or sorted?

NOTE: I did NOT say today or against whom....
Fail, the Liberals are not the press.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,785
459
83
On what? The smear or the fact that dear leader tried to actually stifle the media with threats?

He's already said, he'll be looking into this after the election.

Yea, I'm just curious to see how both angles develop.

Believe me, I don't condone this just as you don't. But depending on whether he continues to pursue or not, it will definitely change my perception about him and the platform. I really really hope that this just boils over and he doesn't make any other attempts to threaten democracy. The D in NDP should be there for a reason.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
You slapped my nose? All you did was talk out your ass, cause your dear leader is getting spanked, and you apparently don't like that, but can't formulate a reasoned argument to refute mine.

Feel free to carry on though.

Check your shoes. You may have stepped on your post.

Fail, the Liberals are not the press.
My dear leader is getting spanked? He's laughing at your sorry asses! LMAO!
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Yea, I'm just curious to see how both angles develop.

Believe me, I don't condone this just as you don't. But depending on whether he continues to pursue or not, it will definitely change my perception about him and the platform. I really really hope that this just boils over and he doesn't make any other attempts to threaten democracy. The D in NDP should be there for a reason.
OK, I believe you, very well said too.

Thank you.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
CDNBear you are right to a point, you can run with the story that is in front of you, however
if there is no proof of wrong doing the other person has the right to sue you for defamation
as the law confirms there is no crime as there are no charges and no day in court. That is
a right of any citizen in these circumstances and Jack will do that. The other part of this
story is just as interesting, using the notes of a retired officer on a specific case that bore
no burden of proof and the case against Mr Layton was not pursued, now may constitute
a Criminal Investigation, for Breach of Trust which the RCMP said yesterday they are going
to look into. If they in turn found to be guilty a suit already filed in civil court has a lot more
weight and is worth a lot more money.
You are right about something else too, Layton knew it was coming he reacted properly and
strategically. I would be oh go ahead and we will deal with it later. As soon as they did they
stepped right into the counter action. The problem is the media outlet has to prove they had
facts of wrong doing when they made the story public, if the don't and it turns out the story
has no legs, it is subject of defamation its always been that way.
Not only are they now subject of a police investigation the reporter should be charged with
stupidity but you can't fix stupid. If he were my news guy with this thin an outline and I were
in the Directors Chair said reporter would be looking for work. Not because it was Jack or
Harper, or Iggy, but because this was a thin story, put forward by someone for self interest.
It is a story that does not measure up to being news worthy, like someone guilty of some
crime or offence. In this case the law accepted the explanation and left it there by their own
information and the information in the police report. How do we know this? If the police had
evidence of an offence or crime there would have been charges, none were filed.
I hope the nail Sun Media, the reporter, the retired police officer and the group that decided to
open up a smear campaign because they are becoming desperate to change a situation of
their own making.