Harper says national media are biased against him

[Vicious]

Re: RE: Harper says national media are biased against him

Perhaps you haven't read my posts in their entirety, Vicious. My opinion on this matter is that the Conservative Party of Canada should use this as a "learning experience", if you would, to the effect that managing the books is not as easy as they may have thought during the previous Parliament of Canada. The Government of Canada, in opposition, pushed the opinion that surpluses were a bad thing, to be condemned — I think it was a hasty decision to oppose surpluses in previous years, and I hope that they realize now that they can be a very good thing, for programs, and for the debt.

Are you mixing threads or am I. No worries, It's friday soon I'll be mixing drinks.

To be quite honest, it's near impossible to read your posts in their entirety what with all the colours and pedantic use of correct names and titles. You're the only high schooler I know who's worst nightmare would be a cabinet shuffle. I usually skip the first paragraph since it's usually the worst for the colours and titles.

Since the question is about the surplus thread I'll go over there to kick this around some more.

 

[Jo Canadian]

As far as the Reform party goes, they'd hardly be Fascists...That's an extreme left thing isn't it??

But the Racist remark does label a few there...but then again I think all parties have had an individual or two have a Faux pas with a racial remark or two, in the last few years.

Personally I find the issue similar to a coreographed* dance with much practice in the answers before the deliver of the selected questions. Kinda reminds me of the Town Hall meetings, done by the gov't of our neighbours.

 

[BitWhys]

whether fascism is defined as "left" or "right" depends very much on your definitions of "left" and "right".

typically in the economic realm fascism denotes government controlled private ownership. hopefully you can see how things get tricky from there.

 

[Jay]

Are you mixing threads or am I. No worries, It's friday soon I'll be mixing drinks.

Good call! I think I will have one now...

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says national media are biased against him

whether fascism is defined as "left" or "right" depends very much on your definitions of "left" and "right".

typically in the economic realm fascism denotes government controlled private ownership. hopefully you can see how things get tricky from there.

Yes I agree, it gets tricky, because I've always had a problem with National socialism being deemed as "right wing". But I'm from a younger crowd and who is who seems to change from time to time.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Harper says national media are biased against him

Yes I agree, it gets tricky, because I've always had a problem with National socialism being deemed as "right wing". But I'm from a younger crowd and who is who seems to change from time to time.

good observation. If you read Hayak's stuff (Harper loves the guy) you'll find his definiton of socialism tends to be very all-encompassing (makes it rather tough to deal with moderately well-read libertarians). At the time it made sense but over time much of what he called socialism in the majority of his works has evolved into what he later referred to as the Welfare State. Of that he was of course cautionary but surprisingly to many, rather tolerant.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You may have forgotten how happy the media were with Paul Martin's promise to get to the bottom of it.

Really? *ALL* media? Surely you recall that some of the more rightist media were skeptical? Maybe even cynical?

And how willing they were to go along with waiting for the final Gomery report before an election call.

That seemed a perfectly reasonable position to me at the time: wait for the information before making a decision. How does that demonstrate bias?

They were far from howling for blood.

Is that your measure of unbiased media, they must howl for Liberal blood? You might want to rethink that.

The initial report exonerated Martin remember?

Sure I remember. Do you remember that it was Gomery, not the media, who did that?

If you're going to claim the news media are biased against the right, anecdotes about the news coverage you happen to remember aren't going to cut it. You're going to have to go through every major newspaper over at least several months worth of issues, every tv and radio news broadcast from CBC, CTV, Global, and anybody else with national or large regional coverage over the same period, Maclean's and the Canadian editions of Time and Newsweek magazines for the same period, pick out every political story reported, and justify the claim that it's biased against the political right.

Like I said before, people believe what they want to believe, the facts don't matter. If you believe the news media are biased against the political right, as you obviously do, you'll remember reports that support that belief and forget ones that don't. It's a common logical fallacy called confirmation bias. Do the homework and prove your case, and until you do that I'm calling BS on you and everybody else who claims a liberal-left bias in the news media. Some news sources have it, certainly, and no thoughtful person doubts it or relies on a single source of information, but you're claiming it's all of them, and that's nonsense.

 

[Jay]

Like I said before, people believe what they want to believe,

Like you not believing the CBC has a left bias....

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Like you not believing the CBC has a left bias....

Where'd you get that from? I know perfectly well the CBC's inclined to lean left, at least in terms of conventional definitions of left and right. That's why I also read the Globe&Mail (center-left), the National Post (clearly right), Maclean's (mostly right lately) (I subscribe to all three), I watch tv news on CBC (center-left), CTV (center-right), Global (right), Fox (very right), CNN (very right), and of course I have my own biases and preferences too, which would no doubt be perceived as generally leftist by most measures. The CBC, both on radio and tv, is as close to perfectly balanced as I've ever seen in news coverage, with the possible exception of the BBC. It's not perfect, no media outlet is, they all reflect the values and attitudes of the people who run them. How could they not? Trust no single source, inspect as many as you can, if you want to form a legitimate, defensible, and thoughtful opinion on what's going on.

 

[Jay]

Like you not believing the CBC has a left bias....

Where'd you get that from?

That's fine...I will go dig up those old post of yours where you said this wasn't the case. I haven't anything better to do and besides, your getting old anyway and I don't want to put you through more hardship then necessary.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Harper says national

I have noticed a slow but steady drift of the CBC into the right, mostly I notice ommission of storys that would be contriversial, I'm not surprised at this percieved drift because of the weight of corporate pressure, but I am afraid that we will end up with total American cloned media something that's close at hand I fear.
The internet and alternative journalism are the only reliable source of information mostly because you can find multiple sources for most storys the mainstream stuff I find to be totally unreal.

 

[Vicious]

Really? *ALL* media? Surely you recall that some of the more rightist media were skeptical? Maybe even cynical?

You're right it was primarily the CBC, Globe & Mail and Toronto Star. The National Post is a bit closer to the centre to these firmly left organizations

That seemed a perfectly reasonable position to me at the time: wait for the information before making a decision. How does that demonstrate bias?

The information was in the first report. The recommedations were in the second.

Is that your measure of unbiased media, they must howl for Liberal blood? You might want to rethink that.

Please review my 'crayons' response to BitWhys. The opening statement of which was accurately described as bluster.

Sure I remember. Do you remember that it was Gomery, not the media, who did that?

Yep. However in my world if you are responsible for something the buck stops with you. Minister of Finance is responsible for the finances of the country for knowing where all the money goes and for striking the fear of Hell into all ministers that do not account for their dollars appropriately. So exonerated from illegal activity, fine; exonerated for not competently doing the job assigned to him, no.

If you're going to claim the news media are biased against the right, anecdotes about the news coverage you happen to remember aren't going to cut it. You're going to have to go through every major newspaper over at least several months worth of issues, every tv and radio news broadcast from CBC, CTV, Global, and anybody else with national or large regional coverage over the same period, Maclean's and the Canadian editions of Time and Newsweek magazines for the same period, pick out every political story reported, and justify the claim that it's biased against the political right.

I did, what do you think took me so long. I came up with an overall percentage of 83% of media kissing liberal ass and 17% holding their feet to the fire. I base my statistics on the scratchpad in front of me and weighted it by readership numbers. What were your numbers? hahahaha. Oh and by the way the story and thread is genereally centred on the national media and the press gallery. So you think that either overall media coverage or the press gallery coverage has accurately reported the reform/alliance/conservative position over the last 10 or so years?

Like I said before, people believe what they want to believe, the facts don't matter. If you believe the news media are biased against the political right, as you obviously do, you'll remember reports that support that belief and forget ones that don't. It's a common logical fallacy called confirmation bias. Do the homework and prove your case, and until you do that I'm calling BS on you and everybody else who claims a liberal-left bias in the news media. Some news sources have it, certainly, and no thoughtful person doubts it or relies on a single source of information, but you're claiming it's all of them, and that's nonsense.

Something on which we can agree. People bring their own personal bias into their reading/watching. So everytime you have a negative knee jerk reaction to something the conservative government does, is reported to have said or says I expect you to ask the following questions.

1. What does the writer of this article want me to take away from this. Why?
2. What is the writers affiliation with political parties, with organized labour, with the arts/cultural community.
3. What are the actual facts in the article and what is the analysis and spin put on those facts
4. Can I find the complete quote of the statement instead of the 10 second sound bite that was selected. The hansard is good for this if the quote occured in the house.

Do this activity for the next year and then we'll talk about personal bias.

 

[Vicious]

RE: Harper says national

Anybody read Andrew Coyne's piece today?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=b981b03c-9e15-416e-b907-e46c0efbb019

I liked especially liked these two paragraphs:

"I don't want to shock you, but I'm told these leaks go disproportionately to reporters considered "friendly." (Perhaps the gallery should take charge of the leaking process, too.) And what gets a reporter counted as friendly? In part ideology, either that of the reporter or his news organization. And in part a dedicated and sustained campaign of flattery, including sympathetic coverage: what's known in the business as "cultivating your source."

Were they not fed such a consistent diet by their political and government sources, many of these reporters would be out of work. And indeed, the "independence" they are asserting now is mostly a demand that the government keep them supplied with clips and quotes in the usual way. It is the independence of the junkie from his pusher."

 

[Colpy]

Excellent article..........Coyne, although I don't always agree with him, has a certain clarity of vision......

 

[Dexter Sinister]

your getting old anyway and I don't want to put you through more hardship then necessary.

Gratuitous insults don't improve your credibility.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

[The National Post is a bit closer to the centre to these firmly left organizations ...

Just cited that so it'd be clear what I'm responding to here. The National Post is nowhere near the centre of the political spectrum in this country. But that's not really my point either.

Leery as I am about engaging in discussion with somebody who calls himself Vicious... You're claiming 83% Liberal ass-kissing and 17% holding Liberal feet to the fire in the national media reportage. You haven't yet produced anything but anecdote in here, and those unsubstantiated numbers. That doesn't make your case, and frankly I doubt you can credibly make the case at all, your own right wing biases are too obvious.

Do this activity for the next year and then we'll talk about personal bias.

Don't be telling me what to do. I'm at least as smart as you think you are; condescension will get you nowhere.

 

[Vicious]

Just cited that so it'd be clear what I'm responding to here. The National Post is nowhere near the centre of the political spectrum in this country. But that's not really my point either.

I should use the emoticons more then people would understand my dry wit and sarcasm. My response about the National Post was a poke in the eye. What I'm saying is people view the political spectrum from where they sit on it. If your politics are left you view the things you agree with as centre, and the things you disagree with as extreme right. My personal politics are just fiscally and socially left. It's a bit harder for me to lump everything I disagree with as left, but oftem that happens.

Leery as I am about engaging in discussion with somebody who calls himself Vicious...

Sid was great. No pretentions at all what you saw was the real Sid. If you gave him trouble, you got trouble back. Strange comment from someone who label's himself Sinister and Dexter. Is that dexter as in Dexter played by Kurt Russel in the Disney flicks or as in Buster Poindexter the 80 lounge rock pseudonym of David Johansen? I'll change my name to Kettle and you can change yours to Pot.

You're claiming 83% Liberal ass-kissing and 17% holding Liberal feet to the fire in the national media reportage. You haven't yet produced anything but anecdote in here, and those unsubstantiated numbers. That doesn't make your case, and frankly I doubt you can credibly make the case at all, your own right wing biases are too obvious.

So your numbers were different than mine? :lol: (which one of these f'in emoticons means sarcasm???)That was a indirect way of saying, have you done a similar amount of research? Have you met your own qualifications for entering this debate?

Don't be telling me what to do. I'm at least as smart as you think you are; condescension will get you nowhere.

So you don't take homework assignments from forum members either. Good - there is at least something we can agree on.

 

[mabudon]

RE: Harper says national

hey tough guy, I think )if I got it right) that Dexter Sinister is a JOKE of sorts, right/left kinda thing, not everyone tries to inspire fear or respect with their handles (this from a guy who is "named" after a misnamed japanese noodle dish as prepared by the Urban Peasant)

Continue

 

[sanch]

Buster was more 90's. I saw him a bunch of times. Johansen then played with the Harry Smiths and now gigs with Hubert Sumlin and the Dolls occasionally. David Johansen is a great singer. I see him at very opportunity.

The most notable thing about Sid was that he was an unqualified mess.

As you are more conservative than Johnny Ramone may be a better alias. There was a poster named Johnny Ramone on thorn tree. Johnny hated liberal Canadians. Johnny Ramone would like Harper. This is the alias. The real Johnny Ramone is dead. So is Sid Vicious.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

RE: Harper says national

I think that its time to get off the tip and get to the bulk of the iceberg on this situation.

It's not just about the communications between the PMO and the National Press Gallery. There are a number of things going on..I am listening to Sunday talk shows on CPAC... and i woud like everyones POV on the following thought threads.

1) If Harper is only going to speak effectively to regional reporters....that the problem i see is that the reporter from Vancouver will ask policy on how it only affects Vancouver...and does that matter to me who lives in Edmonton or someone else who lives in Pictou? Regional questions get regional responses. That is why it is somewhat important to have a national media to ask the general questions that will affect the nation as a whole.

2) Canada is ever evolving. So its fine that Harper wants to promote some key issues per week. In that regards hes no different than any other gov't. But because Canada has other issues that come up from the week that don't fall into the key issues he want's to promote...do we not have a right to get answers and not get stonewalled on that because its outside of the image Harper wants to extol.

3) "Bias is only used and alleged when someone elses' bias disagrees with my own." ~ Paul Wells. Great quote.

4) Finally. a caller on this show who clearly indicated she was an Alberta Conservative supporter had some concerns because where she used to be able to go to her MLA with questions, she could no longer, and was getting stonewalled. ANd that when she attended town halls, questions were limited to select few and issues discussed were clearly controlled by her MLA and his staff, so certain questions were dismissed.

The last point to me is what concerns me the most really, because now the grass roots are being affected. And fine, most people don't bother contacting their MLA generally, but when you do, you should be able to at the very least get AN answer.