Harper says national media are biased against him
- Thread starter BitWhys
- Start date
Re: RE: Harper says national
I guess Sid Vicious inspired fear and/or respect? I don't think so. The handle Vicious is a Joke. However I guess when you have to explain it, it ain't really that funny. I gotta find me an avatar of my man Sid.
mabudon said: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
I guess Sid Vicious inspired fear and/or respect? I don't think so. The handle Vicious is a Joke. However I guess when you have to explain it, it ain't really that funny. I gotta find me an avatar of my man Sid.
I personally think that Harper has finally exposed the Press Gallery for what it is, a defacto opposition party. Two examples:
On the weekend, the left leaning Calgary Herald blared a headline that said "Soldiers Dad Blasts Harper", or words very close to that. I went on line and read the statement of the father of Ms. Goddard from start to finish. The statement did not "blast" Harper at all, but did gently chide him for not not allowing the families to make the decision about media coverage of soldiers bodies coming home. Once again, a blatant bias against Harper by the lefty Herald.
Second, I heard Mike Duffy today on Charles Adler live. He stated quite clearly that when the H of C was not sitting, it was the duty of the Press Gallery to act as the opposition party, as there were no opposition parties asking questions in the H of C. Excuse me? When the hell did the Press Gallery become a political party? And where were they during the entire Adscam affair with the Liberals? Only when it became totally obvious that something was rotten in Liberaland did the Press Gallery actually decide they had better get something out against the Libs. A little too late, IMO.
The Press Gallery needs to understand something. They are news reporters, not news makers, and they are not a political party. They are also quite irrelavant to most Canadians, as quoted by Adler, who took a poll on his website on the weekend, and 82% of respondents said that this was not an issue to them.
Report the news, boys and girls, quit making it, and quit showing your bias. All Harper has done now is shown their bias, which will make the Press Gallery irrelevant in the next election.
On the weekend, the left leaning Calgary Herald blared a headline that said "Soldiers Dad Blasts Harper", or words very close to that. I went on line and read the statement of the father of Ms. Goddard from start to finish. The statement did not "blast" Harper at all, but did gently chide him for not not allowing the families to make the decision about media coverage of soldiers bodies coming home. Once again, a blatant bias against Harper by the lefty Herald.
Second, I heard Mike Duffy today on Charles Adler live. He stated quite clearly that when the H of C was not sitting, it was the duty of the Press Gallery to act as the opposition party, as there were no opposition parties asking questions in the H of C. Excuse me? When the hell did the Press Gallery become a political party? And where were they during the entire Adscam affair with the Liberals? Only when it became totally obvious that something was rotten in Liberaland did the Press Gallery actually decide they had better get something out against the Libs. A little too late, IMO.
The Press Gallery needs to understand something. They are news reporters, not news makers, and they are not a political party. They are also quite irrelavant to most Canadians, as quoted by Adler, who took a poll on his website on the weekend, and 82% of respondents said that this was not an issue to them.
Report the news, boys and girls, quit making it, and quit showing your bias. All Harper has done now is shown their bias, which will make the Press Gallery irrelevant in the next election.
Re: The Press
I cannot believe that some members here would support the right of a Government of Canada to decide which reporters have "the right" to ask questions of them. It has been reported that the Government has skipped over some persons on the list in recent press conferences — why is this an appropriate practice? The Government should not have the right to decide who can ask questions, in my opinion.
In this case, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, is attempting to put a vice grip on the information leaving Ottawa. The access of the press to the Government is perhaps most important in Ottawa, the centre of our democratic institutions: This is where the decisions are made, and the press should have the right to ask the Government the questions as soon as they come up.
I don't accept the response that the press doesn't "need" to ask the Government questions, since the opposition parties have Question Period; one who pays attention to the Parliament of Canada would know that, in the House of Commons, this Government is even worse than their predecessor in terms of dodging questions — and in the Senate, sometimes the Government decides to just not show up.
I cannot believe that some members here would support the right of a Government of Canada to decide which reporters have "the right" to ask questions of them. It has been reported that the Government has skipped over some persons on the list in recent press conferences — why is this an appropriate practice? The Government should not have the right to decide who can ask questions, in my opinion.
In this case, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, is attempting to put a vice grip on the information leaving Ottawa. The access of the press to the Government is perhaps most important in Ottawa, the centre of our democratic institutions: This is where the decisions are made, and the press should have the right to ask the Government the questions as soon as they come up.
I don't accept the response that the press doesn't "need" to ask the Government questions, since the opposition parties have Question Period; one who pays attention to the Parliament of Canada would know that, in the House of Commons, this Government is even worse than their predecessor in terms of dodging questions — and in the Senate, sometimes the Government decides to just not show up.
Re: RE: Harper says national
Sid Vicious and the punk movement in some aspects promoted elements of anarchy and unconformity.
Yet I read you advocating conformity to Harper's vision of Canada which would be like hearing a punk rocker tell the public for follow the direction of "the (business) suits".
The handle doesn’t make any sense for you.
Vicious said:
Sid Vicious and the punk movement in some aspects promoted elements of anarchy and unconformity.
Yet I read you advocating conformity to Harper's vision of Canada which would be like hearing a punk rocker tell the public for follow the direction of "the (business) suits".
The handle doesn’t make any sense for you.
Jay said:
Why? He can call himself whatever he wants. I wasn't the one to ask him to explain the handle. He did and so it was a topic.
It just doesn't make sense from it's reference and the political position of the poster. Beyond that, I really don't care what anyone calls themselves as it has nothing to do with the value of their contribution.
bluealberta said:
I think it may be a little deeper than that. I was listening to CBC Radio's national call-in program on Sunday, Cross Country Checkup, for a while, and I've done some rethinking on this after hearing many cogent opinions from across Canada. It begins to appear that the Press Gallery, far from being simply anti-Harper, is anti-everybody: anti-institution, anti-government, anti-political parties, anti-union, anti-any-exercise-of-power, just a band of chronic naysayers, and more than a little arrogant about its presumed privileges and prerogatives too.
Harper, however, despite whatever faults anyone might think he has, proved during the last election campaign that he's a smart and skilfull tactician, and what he's done so far is like firing a few warning shots across the bows. Some of it's obvious baloney, like his claim that a Liberal PM wouldn't have had the problems he's had (Turner and Trudeau had some terrible press, for instance, and who was it dubbed Paul Martin Mr. Dithers?), but that's just part of staking out a negotiating position. I don't think Harper says or does much without careful thought; he's going somewhere else with this. I hope it's a better place than where we're at now.
Some good points there it seems some members of the media are not content on just reporting the news,but enjoy creating a headline or two. JMO, but Mike Duffy is a fat,know it all & just seeing him on TV is enough to get me to turn my set off.
it seems some members of the media are not content on just reporting the news,but enjoy creating a headline or two. JMO, but Mike Duffy is a fat,know it all & just seeing him on TV is enough to get me to turn my set off.Dexter Sinister said:
He isn't. I would want an extra critical press that questions much of everything than a press that softballs issues and avoids creating confrontation. I'm not talking about confrontation as in harassment, I'm talking that if there are questions that need to be asked, it is the government's responsibility to be accountable to the public on any concerns. The press needs to ask direct, pointed questions, and if the leadership or government has a leg to stand on, they will make their case and show the strength of their position.
They don't have to answer the questions, but we should be able to see what questions they try to skirt around rather than being denied a media that can even ask.
This isn’t about paparazzi making up stories. Harper just doesn’t want to be in the spotlight and have to justify policy that he knows is questionable or ulterior. Just like putting out an accountability act that would hide wrong doing by the government. That just doesn’t make sense and isn’t justifiable for the well being of our society.
And as for media control, his government has shown it will go beyond that.
Harper isn’t trying to make any point with the media. He is trying to stifle debate on the direction he wishes to take Canada politically. He has no right to make such restrictions on a society he has no ‘personal ownership’ of.
I don’t want to see a society creating new precedents on limiting our freedoms, or our ability to make self-evaulation of our government. Some don’t think this is a problem, but I think such people take our liberties for granted. And I’m sure such people will complain if it is ‘they’ that are targeted next as to what they are allowed to say or ask.
elevennevele said:
Harper has placed no restriction on press freedom. They can print whatever they like.
This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
It is NOT the role of the press in Canada to hold the government to account by questioning it's actions. That is the role of the Official Opposition and Question Period.
You have been sucked into the great American idea of the role of the press as the Grand Inquisitor, necessary in the United Staes because there is no Question Period, no political institution thatt demands the government answer to it.
AND, if I may add, what's the difference? As someone else pointed out, reporters in press conferences raise their hands, and the PM points out those he wants to allow a question. Obviously, PMs pick the reporters they like to speak with.
Colpy said:
Who says "It is NOT the role of the press in Canada to hold the government to account by questioning it's actions"?
Who decided that the press didn't have such a role? Good journalism, when it involves politics, asks any questions that need to be asked, and it is the government which then can chose whether or not it wishes to answer. However an omission is still a form of response and a result of the question at least being asked. We are talking about a government that wishes to place restriction on which questions. It’s not about whether they have a choice or not in answering them.
If they restrict some questions and only allow others, then the message is skewed to the governments control. That my friend is a bias.
If you don’t allow the question, then you don’t know what the Prime Minister’s response will be, if any. And ‘bad journalism’ would be to be left with assumptions on what that response would be, or to have to omit debate because of a lack of info to base an evaluation.
The press is free to ask questions, just as the PM is free to ignore them. Many PM's of both parties have done exactly that.
But, the press does not have the right to be a defacto Opposition party, and that is what Duffy claimed they were yesterday. That very much offends me, simply because IMO the press gallery in Ottawa is lazy and only out for cheap political points.
They quite frankly lost any respect I had when they did not grill the Libs over Adscam during the LIbs years in power. If the Press Gallery knew nothing of this during the years, yes YEARS, it was going on, then why are some of you so upset that Harper wants some type of control on this issue? Appears to me that unless the PG is spoon fed news, they cannot get a story any other way, as evidenced by their relative silence during Adscam. And if they did know about Adscam but did not report it, what then does THAT say about the PG?????????
But, the press does not have the right to be a defacto Opposition party, and that is what Duffy claimed they were yesterday. That very much offends me, simply because IMO the press gallery in Ottawa is lazy and only out for cheap political points.
They quite frankly lost any respect I had when they did not grill the Libs over Adscam during the LIbs years in power. If the Press Gallery knew nothing of this during the years, yes YEARS, it was going on, then why are some of you so upset that Harper wants some type of control on this issue? Appears to me that unless the PG is spoon fed news, they cannot get a story any other way, as evidenced by their relative silence during Adscam. And if they did know about Adscam but did not report it, what then does THAT say about the PG?????????
How would the type of controls that Harper is proposing have made the discovery of ADSCAM easier? So if the Liberals had the same controls over the press, they would have discovered ADSCAM sooner? You just defeated your argument.
These are the reasons why the press needs to not have such restrictions. So they can better uncover issues and it becomes less easier for the government to skirt around it.
Hey, when the discovery of ADSCAM came out, the press were on it, and grilled the Liberals all the way to their defeat. You have no leg to stand on in your complaint. They couldn’t criticize something until they publicly discovered it was being handled in a crooked fashion, and when they discovered it, they took the Liberals to task.
You want the press to be tough, and yet with Harper, you want them to go easy. You are speaking in favour of a double standard treatment when it comes to the Liberals and the Conservatives. The real bias of late seems to be coming from the Conservatives on this issue. I think we all should be talking about this Conservative bias.
“The press is free to ask questions, just as the PM is free to ignore them.”
And I just said exactly that.
We are talking about a government that wishes to restrict the questions. If they restrict some questions and only allow others, then the message is skewed to the governments control and that creates a bias.
Screw Mike Duffy. He doesn’t speak for all the press as to the interpretation of the situation. He can have his own opinion but that doesn’t make the basis for the real argument here.
These are the reasons why the press needs to not have such restrictions. So they can better uncover issues and it becomes less easier for the government to skirt around it.
Hey, when the discovery of ADSCAM came out, the press were on it, and grilled the Liberals all the way to their defeat. You have no leg to stand on in your complaint. They couldn’t criticize something until they publicly discovered it was being handled in a crooked fashion, and when they discovered it, they took the Liberals to task.
You want the press to be tough, and yet with Harper, you want them to go easy. You are speaking in favour of a double standard treatment when it comes to the Liberals and the Conservatives. The real bias of late seems to be coming from the Conservatives on this issue. I think we all should be talking about this Conservative bias.
“The press is free to ask questions, just as the PM is free to ignore them.”
And I just said exactly that.
We are talking about a government that wishes to restrict the questions. If they restrict some questions and only allow others, then the message is skewed to the governments control and that creates a bias.
Screw Mike Duffy. He doesn’t speak for all the press as to the interpretation of the situation. He can have his own opinion but that doesn’t make the basis for the real argument here.
BitWhys said:
Well, if it means the press then doesn’t have to attend meeting only to regurgitate the government's message than I guess it will be a journalistic win for the country. In such case, Harper will have shot himself in the foot and will have limited his own message.