Those Kool Aid stains are tough to get out

Sun is conservative... Don't make me laugh! Their idiotic counter-self defense comments to the letters to the editor make conservatives vomit.

Me thinks he doth protest too much.
Sheakspear I think, sorry if I quoted him wrongly.

We need to make the distinction between the orientation of media ownership versus the orientation of media staff. Ownership tends towards the right of the political spectrum; staff will be all over the place.

It's also a mistake to associate the political affiliations of punditry with the leanings of the publications in which they appear. Both David Warren (who leans right) and Susan Riley (who leans left) appear in the Citizen's editorial pages; which way, then, does the Citizen itself lean?

What is important to remember is that the media allows the Liberal Party of Canada to establish where the center is on the political spectrum in Canada (that would be wherever the current Liberal ideology is).

So currently Gay marriage supporting, Kyoto boosting enviro radicalism, pro abortion, US loathing, anti Conservative everything is where the center of the political spectrum is in Canada according to same media.

From that point of view most things to appear to the right.

I wonder, who is paying for a huge ad display of Suzuki promoting a fluorescent bulb, that I saw on Derry road at 410 in Mississauga?

There is no Conservative representation on the TV news at all. The networks idea of fair and balanced is a discussion involving 1 conservative ,3 socialists and a left wing news corespondent. This to be followed by an interview with a left wing professor.

Given Mr. Lawrences' viewpoint, it isn't hard to understand how he see's "Neo-cons" coming out of the wood-work.

Same goes with James Travers....that guy is not only blatantly left-wing, but like most lefties, he's also a piss-poor writer. Makes one wonder what has happened to journalism school.

Bang on Ward. It is all relative. I am sure that all of the media Martin listed is Right wing when viewed from the eyes of a communist. Lenin would be shocked at how far right our media is.

geez, you do not see the leftoid media saying anything about the mess in Somalia....they cannot ask for troops - been there, done that, cut and run leftoids had their way, and look at the clusterf@#$ that was left behind.....all these moronic journalists are so quick to condemn our troops for doing their job, maybe they should start doing a little more reporting of the facts, and a little less reporting of their leftard opinions

Holy frig, Lawrence Martin is one of them. Just like all the rest, he denies it and thinks we believe him.

The Ottawa Citizen is and has always been heavily Left leaning. They always deny it but many readers disagree and they've lost readership to it.

Bias is not objective in any case.

Ward's got it!
Next?

Anyone who uses the term "neo-con" these days is bound to the pleasant chaps at the Tin Foil Brigade.

*
"CTV is conservative"

what??!!?

if lloyd robertson and company leaned any more
to the left, they'd be in bed with hugo chavez.

*

I totally agree with Kevin, Posted @1.49 pm.

While there may be a very few centrist to right leaning radio personalities on Canadian Radio they do not have a National audience like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham do in the USA, nor are they as strident in outlook.

Dave Rutherford was the closest to a right winger CTV had ever offered on air while Puffy Duffy was laid up was and even he couldn't quite come off as a powerful right winger.

Lawrence Martin is a left wing journalist, his passion for things Liberal and ND is palpable.

If he truly believes he is a right winger writer, then he is in the same predicament is, as a goldfish, which doesn't understand it lives in water.

Bill O'Reilly at FOX cable news is the best example of a right wing commentator.

Will Canada ever have one?

Not as long as the current corporate ownership structure of Canadian MSM remains as it is now.

I agree there are conservative newspapers in this country, but the television news, where most people get their news, is almost universally pro-Liberal.

David Hasselhof is a practicing physician. Moms Mabley was of Norwegian descent. Truman Capote won a silver medal in the decathlon at the Tokyo Olympics in 1960.

CTV leans Conservative.

CTV is right leaning, G&M conservative??? Please, only a Marxist-Leninist could come to such a conclusion. I consider myself a right of centre type and find the media here firmly entrenched to the left of left of centre. I have seen far left wingers whine about how CBC is becoming the mouthpiece of mini-Satan (PM Harper) The only paper that I would consider right of centre is the National Post.

Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin - all from the US. There's NO-ONE in Canada allowed to be right of centre.

The G&M editor (greenspon) is firmly left; so are most of its writers - that vapid empty drone Simpson - only Margaret Wente is usually clear-headed - and Christie Blatchford. John Ibbitson is a 'good Canadian', ie, multicultural small l-liberal.

The Toronto Star is a socialist rag - with Travers - who rages when you call him a Liberal (I guess he's NDP or Communist?!)...and that ignorant Siddiqui.
Tons of Liberal MSM - Greg Weston who has a pathological hatred of Harper for some personal reason I suspect; Susan Riley - empty headed; Galloway, Duffy, Newman, Kevin Newman -oh, the list is endless.

Andrew Coyne - he's a centralist, so he's not really a conservative (decentralist).

We just don't have any hard-hitting fact-based journalists/newspeople in Canada.

"CanWest Global is the country's biggest media empire by far. It is devotedly conservative. "

Which of course explains why it was founded by the former head of the Liberal Party of Manitoba and why they are spearheading a campaign to remove 'God' and sexist language from the Canadian national anthem:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/flash/referanthem2/referanthem.html

This is what happens when people (Lefties) move the language around to suit themselves.

We don't have a large "C" Conservative paper in this country. Western Standard possibly excluded. What we have are some papers willing to scold the Liberal Party when they really, really deserve it.

Even the CPC isn't Conservative. More like Kinda-Less-Socialist-Than-Normal sort of thing. 1% off the GST, wowee. Not as pink as the old PCs, but still a wee bit pink.

I'll believe the CPC is Conservative when we don't have gay marriage any more, when Harper doesn't kowtow to The Fruitfly Guy, when I can buy a gun without an anal exam and when my tax bill gets cut by 25% minimum.

All things being equal, I'd like to start with the tax cut part. Now please!

when reading, watching, or listening to the msm, just observe how often government is perceived to be the answer to any problem and critically look at what is said about any conservative. you will find very few comments that could be considered as right wing.

Liberal Bias

Warning: What follows is assertion more than argument. Argument seems to be almost pointless on this subject. If you actually believe that CBS News is biased but Fox News tells it straight, our common ground of perceived reality is too small to rumble in. There are all sorts of possible standards for and definitions of bias. There is even a respectable view that Fox News is a terrific innovation in open bias. In fact, that's close to what I believe, though I can also appreciate the view that Fox and CBS are both unacceptably biased, or that CBS is acceptable—B-plus for effort—but Fox is not. What I can't conceive is a serious test of bias that Fox would pass but CBS would flunk. Anyway, for what it's worth, here's what I believe—undefended, but sincere.

1. Are most journalists—on balance, with many exceptions both within and among individuals—inclined to be politically liberal? Sure. Just as most major corporate executives tend to be Republican. In both cases the reasons are fairly easy to speculate about, mostly involving the psychology of people who are attracted to and do well in these different careers, though in the case of top businesspeople the nexus between political views and self-interest is more obvious.

2. Which has more impact on the shape of society and even the direction of politics: the liberal tendency of journalists or the conservative tendency of business executives? Probably the business folks (through lobbying … campaign contributions … advertising and PR … the general allure of large piles of money), possibly it's a tie. Unlikely that it is the journalists. Furthermore, even within journalism, the influence of reporters, producers, even anchors is diluted by that of the pundits, the owners, the editorial pages, all of which tend, on average, to be conservative.

3. There is a difference between having an opinion and having a bias. Polls revealing the political preferences of journalists are beside the point. An intelligent and patriotic citizen ought to have informed opinions on the issues of the day, and those opinions—with occasional exceptions—ought to be consistent with one another and with some underlying set of values. Journalists are, by and large, intelligent and patriotic and not exempt from the obligations of citizenship. They also—on average, with exceptions, etc.—tend to be more engaged, both professionally and by disposition, in the issues of the day. So, it is neither practical nor desirable to expect journalists to be ideological eunuchs.

4. The definition of bias depends on the particular institution and the journalist's particular duties. What is bias at a newspaper like the Washington Post might not be bias at a magazine like Time or Newsweek—or a whatever we are at Slate. What would be bias at Slate might not be at an overtly political journal like The Nation or the National Review. What is bias for a White House correspondent is proper or even obligatory behavior for an editorial writer. "Liberal bias" obsessives often overlook these distinctions as well as other practical realities of journalism. (The main piece offers some examples.)

5. Most journalists of all political stripes do a pretty good job of preventing their opinions from leading to bias. But no one is perfect and some folks are far from perfect. Since journalists are disproportionately liberal, the bias that creeps in is probably disproportionately liberal as well.

6. Whatcha gonna do about it? If it is wrong for journalists to be disproportionately liberal, what is the proper situation? There are three possible answers, all inadequate. a) Journalists should be ideologically neuter—neither realistic nor desirable, as explained above. b) Journalists should be disproportionately conservative. Many conservative press critics might like this situation, but I cannot imagine a persuasive justification for it. c) The politics of journalists should roughly reflect those of the general population. There is actually an interesting case to be made for this, which I've never seen made. If journalists tend to be disproportionately liberal, achieving ideological balance would require giving hiring preference to conservatives—allowing politics to trump individual merit, if merit is defined as the best possible assessment of a person's potential as a journalist. Actually, I believe that a lot of this goes on already. The constant drumbeat of "liberal bias" has mau-maued many media institutions into actively hiring conservatives. But it's not surprising that conservatives have hesitated to make this argument explicitly, as it inevitably raises the question why they oppose affirmative-action-style favoritism for other underrepresented groups. Somewhat less inevitably, it also raises the question why there shouldn't be favoritism for underrepresented liberals in corporate executive suites.

7. Bottom line: Yes, as a gross generalization, there is some liberal bias in the media. But not nearly enough to explain or justify the obsession with it. Given all the mitigating and complicating and countervailing factors—and assuming that they don't have the stomach for 6 c—liberal-bias obsessives should calm down and learn to live with it. It's really no big deal.

So, that's what I think.

Micheal Kinsley

When one is hamstrung by 40 years of more or less LIEberal apparatus it will take some sustained effort to truly see a conservative political take on things in Canada.

As for the notion of God among the LIEberal party, I think that got murdered off some time ago.

Hey Joe Comuzzi is jumping ship, so maybe he sees something we don't. He didn't have much truck for the concept of SSM and had the jam to say so. Even the Anglican bishops gave the idea the deep six for the moment.

It is pretty obvious that there is a normative secular ideology being promulgated amongst the secular media and if you don't fit it; then the powers that be, will try to 'clock you'.

If one espouses a more traditionalist views, according to popular press you may as well hail from the Jurrasic era dinosaur age. Drumheller anyone?

At the end of the day it is just more politically correct clap trap that the nanny state and its accolytes in the media will try to feed you, instead of thinking for yourself.

If people want to swing like monkeys in the tree, they are welcome to it. It does not however mean that everyone has to join them, regardless of thought, belief or opinion. People have a right to be different. If the MSM is discomfitted that people want to live differently from what they consider normative; too damn bad.

I thought that is why they have promulgated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; precisely because the individual does not have to conform to mob mentality or modalities of political correctness.

Or is it as Mussolini suggested:

"Men have become tired of freedom."

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

There is no such thing as unbiased media coverage. Everyone has a bias,its simply human nature. What bothers me is that the few conservative commentators that we do have, ie. talk radio hosts, announce up front that they are conservative thinkers, whereas the rest of the liberal msm commentators don't come straight with the public and admit they are liberals.

michael kinsley/conrad - so what's your point? You've watered down the issue to old dishwater, effectively deny everything - from bias to facticity. That dishwater approach leaves you to conclude that there's 'some bias' in the media. Rubbish. There's LOTS of bias in the media. So - what's your point in trying to deny it?

You don't seriously accept affirmative action, do you? Why on earth should a group be 'represented' in a committee? Are individuals clones of groups or are they individuals? Have you ever heard of achievement by merit? Or do you think that results should be based on 'origin' (ethnic origin, religious origin, linguistic origin, etc).

Importantly, you've left out the ONE item that journalists ought to follow. Facticity. The facts - without the spin. Whether the journalist is, himself, liberal or conservative is irrelevant. His job is to provide us with facts. Not opinions. We don't get that. As for those journalists who are providing opinions - we get either grossly misrepresented facts or no facts at all. We can get that at the local coffee shop. Who needs to pay someone huge salaries to provide us with misinformation?

There is a difference between Liberal, liberal and left wing. Most media in this country is certainly Liberal biased and is probably even liberal biased (the current definition, not the 19th century one), but the majority is definitely not left wing.

Most people in this country are liberal (small 'l') so it should not come as a big surprise that this is the opinion reflected/promoted by the media. They are, after all, a business whose purpose is to make money and not neccessarily provide "facts." One can assume that state run media exists to promote the government's viewpoint or policies, something that the CBC did well when the Liberals were in power. Now that the Conservatives have morphed into Liberals, this will probably carry on without any major changes.

Michael Kinsley,
I don't think any reasonable person would deny that fox news has an overt right wing bias. What makes this more acceptable in many peoples minds is that fox news is up-front about the sort of bias they are presenting. As sg just pointed out, very few (if any) other (liberal)media sources are as open about the fact that they are presenting the news from a certain point of view.
I don't necessarily have a problem with newspaper editorials or talk shows presenting a certain bias so long as it is understood by the commentators and spectators. However I do think that a more concerted effort should be made to remove opinionated view points from what are actually supposed to be news stories, espescially on the CBC or other publically funded networks such as CBS.

Michael Kinsley,
I don't think any reasonable person would deny that fox news has an overt right wing bias. What makes this more acceptable in many peoples minds is that fox news is up-front about the sort of bias they are presenting. As sg just pointed out, very few (if any) other (liberal)media sources are as open about the fact that they are presenting the news from a certain point of view.
I don't necessarily have a problem with newspaper editorials or talk shows presenting a certain bias so long as it is understood by the commentators and spectators. However I do think that a more concerted effort should be made to remove opinionated view points from what are actually supposed to be news stories, espescially on the CBC or other publically funded networks such as CBS.

"but the majority is definitely not left wing."

Hmmm, have to disagree with you there. Then again, I think the majority of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives are left wing; they saw what happened to Gwyn Morgan when he expressed the slightest reservation about our immigration policy, and don't want that to happen to them. To name but one example.

Quantifying political beliefs isn't rocket science. We're smart guys, lberia; shouldn't we be able to quantify what is and isn't left wing?

Journalists are, by and large, intelligent and patriotic and not exempt from the obligations of citizenship.

Wow, really ?

Seems our fallen Journalist Hero Dan Rather had different ideologies. Once when asked at a VetNam Debate if he was filming and stumbled on Vietnamese Soldiers fixing to make a raid on American Soldiers would he warn the Americans. Dan said he would not that he was an International Journalist and the story came first. The Debating Marine Officer sternly informed Rather he better hope he didn't get caught in the crossfire and then request American Troops bail him out, because, guess what, ain't no help forth-coming, period.

The majority of the media is hopelessly slanted to the left even a blind dumb deaf ratt can see that.
,

(Sigh)

Your concept of reality is going to skew your perception. If you believe in God, then you see God's handiwork in everything; if you don't believe in God, then you don't see it. If you are completely colour-blind, then you see shades of gray; if you have normal vision, you see a myriad of colours. If you occupy the left-side of the political spectrum, then everything else seems to be skewed to the right; if you occupy the right-side of the political spectrum, then everything seems to be skewed to the left.

I agree a TINY bit with SOME of what michael kinsley/conrad says...most journalists and the editors seem to be biased and most journalists are liberal in their perspective. But that's about all.

I agree whole-heartedly with ET et al who say they want the news straight-up with no spin. Just report the facts and leave out the colourful adjectives and adverbs. Neither a rightie nor a leftie be!

I will tend to believe that a newspaper/radio station/TV station is "conservative" when it primarily refers to "left-wing" this or "ultra left-wing that"...I will tend to believe a newspaper/radio station/TV station is "liberal" or "socialist" when when it primarily refers to "right-wing" this or "ultra right-wing" that. From my experience, I rarely if ever hear or read the term "left-wing" in the MSM, while I hear "right-wing" several times every day.

Since you can't reasonably have a right-wing without a left-wing, I consider those entities that don't acknowledge left-wing organizations or viewpoints are left-biased. Therefore, I believe that the MSM is heavily left-biased.

Micheal Kinsley:

Your post supposes a certain dynamic. That journalists whether left or right, are telling the truth as they see it - the "journalistic integrity" is intact on both sides and what we are seeing is just a bit of disagreement on perspective. No big deal.

If only that were true.

Of course members of the media are going to have a certain bias. So I think it is important to examine just what supports and fuels that bias.

Warren Kinsella did a good job on describing what Canadas two main political partys and their adherents stand for in a post on his site last June 21. It is as follows:

· Conservatives' ideology is their ideology: tax cuts, law and order, and so on. That kind of stuff. The Liberal ideology is, to be blunt, winning. Grits like to win, and they've had a lot of practice at winning. They're good at it. Right now, they're miserable, sure, because they LOST. But there's no better motivator for a Liberal than a loss. It gets them to where they most like to be: with their foot on a Conservative or New Democrat windpipe, watching them gasp for air until Election Day. That's when Liberals are happiest. It makes them smile.

So if you are a a journalist with a conservative bent, according to Warren, you are concerned with "tax cuts, law and order, and so on". What he calls "stuff" . Conservatives are attracted to conservatism because of things like law and order, good public policy, good governance.

To ascribe to a conservative belief system requires one to think with order and logic and truth. There are rules to be followed. Following these rules also lends itself to good journalism. I think that a couple of good examples of this are Lorne Gunter and William Watson.

Modern day Liberalism (born April 20 1968)has metastized from whatever vision Pierre Trudeau may have had in mind to what Mr. Kinsella describes it as today. A Party whose ideological agenda is definded by one word. Winning. Thats it. As such anything goes.

There is no right and wrong, no real ideological path to adhere to or to guide you by - only by doing and saying and embracing whatever it takes to realize the goal of winning.

So the modern Liberal movement, bereft of any guiding path or attachment to those boring ideologies that Kinsella refers to, instead now defines itself by being NOT conservative, or opposite of Conservatives - while using any tactic to achieve their guiding principle which is to win. Period.

So what kind of column do you think that an individual who identifies with modern day Liberalism will write?

I would suggest that it would be against whatever Conservative policy is being discussed, that it will be very selective on facts and points of reference, and blinkered from any committment to any prior Liberal actions don't agree with the current Liberal position on the issue.

In short it will tend to be a column that more identifies with the columnists Liberal political leaning than with the tennets of good journalism.

And that is why I disagree profoundly with your closing assessment that "it's really no big deal". Modern day Liberalism is a poisoned ideology that is actively engaged in both denying realities and promoting misrepresentations that advance its agenda of winning at all costs, and too many of its most strict adherents seem to be national media commentators.

(Given enough time and enough amplification in the media what kind of future will this kind of negative, anchorless ideology produce for Canada?)

wanna bet this won't be on CBC or CTV ??

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007...288192-sun.html

"Even the CPC isn't Conservative. More like Kinda-Less-Socialist-Than-Normal sort of thing."

Agreed. Despite the fact that I went 'door knocking' and supported my local CPC candidate during the last election, the will not find me supporting them in the same fashion this time.

I just received a CPC mail request for further financial support. Instead of writing a cheque, I wrote that they'd receive my money when I receive a conservative agenda. Then I sent it back in their own postage paid envelope.

Maybe, just maybe, if enough Conservative supporters did the same thing, they'd rethink trying to be Liberal Lite.

There was an interesting survey of news director's political leanings done in 2002.If you google, toronto sun goldstein sept 29 2005,you should come up with Goldstien's column on it. Basically,the news directors at cbc were asked which party they favored,not one of them were Alliance supporters. All were either liberals or dippers.No bias there.

"Basically,the news directors at cbc were asked which party they favored,not one of them were Alliance supporters. All were either liberals or dippers.No bias there."

That only demonstrates that they were capable of rational thought. I doubt if any supported the Natural Law Party, either.

Jim Travers of the Sun and CBC firmly believes he is balanced in expressing his opinions of the political parties in Canada. He gets very defensive when his clear left wing leanings are pointed out.

Journalists generally have very thin skins and take criticism very badly.

Bloc Cuebecois = Racist Marxists
Green Party = Stupid Marxists
NDP = Psycho Marxists
Liberal = Secret Marxists
Conservatives = Pretend Socialists

The belief that dares not speak
its name today: conservatism.

Instead of decrying bias we should be decrying opinion. Once MSM consumers realize they are receiving only opinion and not facts the influence of the MSM wanes significantly.

There is a problem with our mainstream media today, and it isn't bias one way or the other. People aren't idiots -- a consistent bias is easily accounted for. What we're lacking is good quality journalism. Newspapers, for instance, have fewer reporters covering files, which necessarily means that important stories go untold. There is also an increased preoccupation with sensational stories (Spring Election!!), which are shallow and don't really do much to enlighten us.

Continuing the people aren't idiots theme, I'm willing to bet that most would prefer a smart columnist over one that merely cheerleads for their particular leaning.

There is something that's not clear to me... why is Bill O'Reilly being celebrated here as one of the good conservative pundits? Give me William Buckley any day of the week. In print or on tv, the guy outclasses O'Reilly by a country mile.

Damn. Where'd this Ward guy come from? He's got this issue NAILED! Good work and good reading. Thx ward.

Someone mentioned they should state their bias up front but that would render them impotent.

The game is to present skewed facts and spin the news stories to manipulate opinion.

It's not that we can't figure out their biases, they ooze them, but telling it upfront would lose clout with the people who are not so observant. They always suck in a few.

Our two political shows are hosted by Newman and Duffy, both Liberal and it shows. The atmosphere is entirely different when Conservatives are interviewed. They love the Liberals and enjoy Jack Layton but tighten up with Conservatives.

When Bill Casey voted against a budget bill and got booted from caucus they were all over it, he was their new star for a day or two. When Joe Comuzzi decides to go to the Conservatives it will get little attention, just a note in passing.

Wajid Kahn was a story for a while, they kept opining he wouldn't get re-elected as a Conservative in his riding, yadda, yadda.

Don't know what is taught in what passes for journalism schooling in this Country but one would think honesty in reporting would be first. That honesty would include stating upfront if they're straying from the story to give their opinion, then it becomes an opinion piece. We can all form our own opinions but we need the true facts first.

Bill O'Reily is a Long Island liberal (small l) who makes a living yelling at people on TV. He only appears conservative by contrast with the likes of Larry King because he sticks up for religion some times.

He's a "keep the idiots under control" type, which isn't Conservatism at all.

Some of the commenters here at sda are simply amazing !! Better than one would find in the national media anyday.

Ward 5:10pm; [ Modern day Liberalism (born April 20 1968)has metastized from whatever vision Pierre Trudeau may have had in mind to what Mr. Kinsella describes it as today. A Party whose ideological agenda is definded by one word. Winning. Thats it. As such anything goes.]

Anything alright!! Allowing Hell's Angels to destroy kids lives by citing 'charter-rights', apologizing for Islamic terrorists, pitting one part of the country against the other, undermining our military, ---- anything.

Very good work Ward !!

Also, WK may be some what of a 'blow-hard' at times but he does see the rot that is the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Canadian media 'does' allow the LPC to define what is the centre.

Trudeau took it far to the left. Chretien about 4 blocks farther into socialistic territory. And Dion would have us another kilometer left into -- who knows what -- in bed with Islamic terrorists or whatever.

The media is a huge problem. They also will do 'anything' to win.(sell dead trees) It will even 'dumb-down' the news to laughable degree. Tabloidism.