This post is a friendly counter-point to Cjunk's earlier post here. I'll start with an excerpt from a column by a Conservative Senator Michael MacDonald:
With only one previous prorogation in almost four years in office (when Prime Minister Stephen Harper rightly stopped the Liberal-NDP-Bloc "coalition" from subverting the will of the electorate), it’s not unreasonable that the PM ask for Parliament to be prorogued — as all previous prime ministers have done — to write a throne speech, shuffle the cabinet and prepare a budget.
Pierre Trudeau prorogued 11 times in 16 years; Jean Chretien four times in 10 years, including a four-month delay after Paul Martin became PM, to give Martin time to get his government ready. Newly elected governments take over within a few weeks, yet we’re asked to believe a sitting cabinet minister needed four months to set up shop!
Of course, Mr. Chretien’s true agenda was distancing himself from the auditor general’s report on the sponsorship scandal and dropping the mess into Paul Martin’s lap. I don’t recall manufactured outrage at the time by either the press or the opposition — certainly nothing resembling the contrived performance Canadians have been subjected to of late. Senator Moore was in that Liberal caucus and ignores their conduct, yet now expresses concern about an "affront to our democratic process."
I suggest that the Canadian broadcast media's decision to elide, during their coverage of the prorogation "outrage", such factual context as MacDonald provides is professional malfeasance of the highest order, and that such a double standard, writ large, has an effect on poll numbers, and therefore on public policy.
The fact that one single group of highly influential players on the political scene are uniquely exempt from ever having to account for their actions isn't a "media issue", it's a spanner in the works of our democracy. Producers and anchors and reporters at broadcast networks know full well that they will never be cornered on camera and forced to answer, on the public record, questions about the nature of their campaigning, which is viewed as a private, priestly prerogative. You can see the effects of this special dispensation in the Father Christmas mannerisms of people like Peter Mansbridge, who float above the political scene they affect as they compile and dole out, for private reasons, such partisan spin as they wish to provide to Canadians, all the while pretending to be trusted, impartial observers who are merely providing facts and impartial analysis.
The bottom line is that Mansbridge and the producers at the CBC wouldn't survive a one-hour, on-the-record grilling at the hands of Conservatives like MacDonald: "In light of the fact that you didn't make any kind of an issue at all of the Liberals' far more frequent prorogations - and it's on the public record - what was the basis, how can you possibly justify as a journalist, your decision to treat what was only the second prorogation in four years by the Conservatives as an outrage and an assault on democracy?"
Fortunately for them they'll never be in such a position, and if they did find themselves in such a position, they would, unlike all other political figures, be entitled to sneer and walk away without any consequence.
What happened to the who, what, where, when, why and how of traditional news reporting? When did the news become mainly partisan opinion pieces?
" Father Christmas mannerisms of people like Peter Mansbridge"
Good line. It's too bad some of the people at cbc couldn't be fired with just cause and be stripped of all their perks. Pension included.
Chuzpahticular, it's been a gradual process wherein the analysis - the equivalent of an opinion column - started to be treated as the actual news story. So when The National, for example, covers one of the PM's trip abroad, they'll go straight to someone like Boag of Miliewsky who'll "interpret" - i.e. spin - what went on, in lieu of, say, showing clips of the PM speaking.
I think certain media players also figured out that they can slip in bias without being called on it by simply eliding information such as the fact that the Liberals prorogued more frequently and vigorously than the Conservatives have.
Great post.
Fact most Canadians don't watch the CBC including the alleged "news" programs. The ratings are very bad.
I can't remember the last time I tuned into a live broadcast of our tax funded cesspool.
I review per recommendation from bloggers and vist the webclips.
I'll second the "Father Christmas mannerisms" gord!
EBD that would be Olympic Gold double standard.
The pro rogie double standard is a canard which no serious observer would give even a moments creedence.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"
Somehow, the story has expired.
The other big lie the MSM has been pushing about this is that it's giving Parliamentarians a three-month holiday that 'ordinary' Canadians don't get (thus Iggy's pantomime of 'working' in Ottawa for a week) when it only extended the usual Christmas-New Year break for 15 days.
Nonpartisans like Ted and, I assume, an 83-day vacation (try not typing when you're screaming at the p.c. screen, Ted, it might aid your cogency).
Excellent comments, EBD. Many thanks.
And yes, it's disgusting that the naive consider that govt shuts down when parliament is prorogued. No, the massive bureaucracy continues. And, the MPs aren't off on some vacation, well, maybe the Bloc and Liberals are, but the others are in their offices working.
Yes, it's quite something to recall how Chretien prorogued parliament to prevent the sponsorship from being announced on his watch, despite it being a set of actions carried out by him and his team, to ensure that he was re-elected in Quebec. Chretien used tax dollars for power.
The malice and indifference to the well-being of Canadians displayed by the Liberals and NDP over the past few years is astonishing. Their coalition, the most vicious attack against Canadian democracy in our history, was only stopped by Harper's proroguing parliament - and the public finding out about this backroom deal by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.
We don't have a single objective news system in Canada. The National Post and a few columnists elsewhere are about all. Can you imagine, a country the size of Canada without a news system of integrity. We rival the socialist dictatorships in that respect.
I've always been a bit pro rogue, myself.
Ted
[......Harper has prorogued Parliament 3 times in 4 years, three times in the last three years in fact: 2007, 2008 and 2009. He has shut down Parliament and killed all bills on the order table 4 times in 4 years, if you include the promise-breaking election he forced on us in 2008.
But what is really pretty surprising is that you guys are still arguing about the number of times prorogation has occurred. You clearly still. do. not. get. it.]
Put on a clear bib!
3 times becomes 4 times.....even your lies/spin ARE juvenile.
Wipe your mouth!
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
A socialist dictatorship? Please stop, I hate exaggeration. News media all over is biased and dumb. Furthermore, Ted makes a decent case. Harper was supposed to bring accountability and other feely-goody stuff to government, and now he's being excused for breaking that because "the Liberals did it before." So the Liberals are now our moral standard. Brilliant.
Gunpowder plot!
"It is and has always been not about prorogation on its own...."
Absolutely, one-hundred percent, it's about any prorogation that has the word "Harper" attached to it.
The Liberals' "committee" excuse is pretty much wasted air, inasmuch as it would be pretty much impossible to find a week when some Liberal drummed-up scandal-of-the-week "committee" isn't sitting. Of course the Liberals wish to keep feeding soundbites and images of their little vile, specious "torture scandal" committee through their PR office in the CBC building, but the fact remains that Stephen Harper is entirely within his right to prorogue Parliament (losing, what, 15 or so sitting days?), just as Jean Chretien was entitled to prorogue for four months to avoid the fallout from Adsc....ooops, sorry, to allow Paul Martin to break in his desk chair.
Here's how assessments of prorogation work: if Harper does it, it's a self-evident outrage.
Got it.
It is and has always been not about prorogation on its own.
Yeah, it's about prorogation only being good when Liberals do it. We. Get. It. Your CBC-and-Ignatieff-approved message has been received LOUD AND CLEAR.
No, Ted, I'm saying - read the post - that the media didn't attack Chretien, or Trudeau, for proroguing.
Are you saying that Gary Coleman drives an orange motorboat while waving a piece of gum on a stick?
Ebd:
you bring up an interesting proposition - the grilling of the msm leadership by partisan - or at least individuals with public political identities.
Imagine mark steyn having a go at Katie couric or mansbridge etc. Let left-wing op-eds have a go as well. Do it once a year - say around Xmas. Imagine how much more
careful the "journos" would be if they faced being publically called to account annually.
Seriuosly i think this idea has merit. It would
make for fantastic television (read: you could sell ad time for
sure). The question is: who would be the broadcaster? CPAC perhaps?
Gord (11:48), I'd love to see it too but it's never going to happen in a million years. It'd be like asking a gazelle if he'd mind putting his head in the lion's mouth. Lib-proxy journos are the only political figures of import in this country who have an absolute exemption from having to answer questions about their political connections, their ideology, etc. They can influence politics in this country without being accountable for it. Why would they risk giving that up?
It would be great to see an extensive, behind-the-scenes investigative hidden-camera report on the workings of the CBC, and their bureaucratic connections, and sources, etc., just as it would be great to see Amelia Earhart landing at JFK tomorrow morning. Same odds, functionally speaking.
Gord Tulk, that sort of jousting would work well on HBO... ;) fair's fair, I'd love to see it.
"The media and the opposition parties were slow to take up the issue of prorogation at all. They reacted to the reaction of many Canadians across the land."
Fail. You've got it absolutely backwards. The CBC started covering it as a real "issue" when there was a trivial - 15,000? - number of Facebookers (at a time when some of the more ridiculous petitions pertaining to quasi-celebrities had over a hundred thousand "clickers") and they kept hammering on this putative "grass roots" movement because it suited their campaigning on behalf of the Liberals. I mean, how many people showed up at any one anti-prorogation rally relative to the people that clicked a button in passing? Facebook petitions are a cheap, thin coin.
Anyway, Ted, it's been fun, but you can do this all year - the possibilities are mindless, as they say.
You've made your point, and no one's buying it, so toodle-ooo now!
Ebd: never say never. They said the big three networks hold on things in the US was unassailable. Not anymore. Such a process as that above may be the only way the msm can reestablish the trust they need to bring their ratings back from the brink. They need to see this as an opportunity not a negative. (it occurs to me that Hugh hewitt already does this kind of thing to a small degree - he's taken people from the left and right and the MSM to task on his radio show.)
Other than MP's screaming at each other during Question Period daily ... hold on, maybe ‘democracy' means people have to scream at each other during Question Period.
So, Ted, lets give a pass on the Adscam thing. After all, that's just giving his successor a bit of a lift.
How about the one during the Somalia affair? Was that, as you say, a "substantive issue of democracy"? Or was it an embattled politician using the tools available to eliminate the hounding questions from the public?
Ah, the old ‘Harper's not as perfect as I am' gambit.
hi y'all. Curious George the inquisitive primate here. uh, "they all do it".
The slant of the MSM is obvious. Journalists are held in lower regard than politicians as a result. While the biased coverage of prorogueing may hurt the CPC in the polls it will hurt the MSM more in the long-run. Just look at what climategate is beginning to do them here and in other countries.
Consider this,
The rules of parliament allow for this to happen, if what Harper is doing is undemocratic, then the rules of parliament are undemocratic.
Don’t like it, though it is what it is.
The opposition can’t complain, they have the majority, they can take down the government, so far they have not.
Never mind that Harper preempted the cabal, they still have the power to do it.
Why is it that the opposition is charging Harper with dictatorship when they themselves are supporting it. Perhaps Harper should ask the opposition if they want to change the rules. Don't think they would agree for after all they plan to rule the same way, if they did not have the device of prorouging how could they get away with corruption and such.
“Journalists” are product of schools that, it seems, don't teach the art of reportage, rather the schools teach how to interpret the news to the plebeians since plebeian brain, they think, is not capable of correct thought.
Apparently, reporting the news is a kind of old hat, really not part of “journalist’s” job, they have to be creative, have to feel the pain, have to teach the plebeians lessons, lead them along the shining path.
“Every time you piss on the genuine feelings of Canadians, …. you infuriate Canadians even more.”
Psychological projection involves an individual imagining or projecting their own feelings onto others. The weaker they feel, the angrier they become so they project their feelings onto a large group to bolster their “argument”. The left doesn’t disagree intellectually they disagree emotionally. It’s a psychological condition not an ideological argument.
"The opposition can't complain, they have the majority...the opposition is charging Harper with dictatorship when they themselves are supporting it." - Lev
I never could figure that out either. Reminds me of the Democrats, who have a majority in both houses, blaming the failure of the health care bill on Republican obstructionism.
Here is some oats for the Troika coalition (do you know what a Troika is Ted?) to chew on - PMSH has stated that since the coalition opposition are so outraged to not be 'producing' (performing) for Canadians in parliament, he will cancel the spring break holiday and the Easter Holiday, I wonder how the media will 'handle' that? I can just see Graham with Scott Brison sobbing in his arms because he can't join in the Easter Egg hunt in Nova Scotia!
Another home run for you, EBD.
Those who complain about prorogation had better be careful about shutting down Parliament for a six-week election period, followed by a normal two-month recess until the new government is ready to take over.
Keep it open or shut it down? Which one will will the hypocrites decide on?
Actually Ted, it was Kim Campbell's gov't, but then, that's just nit-picking.
The inquiry was stopped because of an election. I seem to remember that you included the adjournment of Parliament as a prorogation earlier in this thread.
Which is it, eh?
EBD, the analogy isn't complete.
Two party dynamic in the the States. Four parties here, three of which claim the title, "Progressive".
Machinations within machinations.
The answer to Biased Media is legislation.
All news articles should be governed by law similar to truth in advertising laws.
All editorial pages, and all newscasts should be required to lead with this header or announcement.
The following article/comment is an EDITORIAL and mat NOT be based on fact or reality.
Force it on them, or at least threaten it.
Maybe then, the journos will wake up, and we'll be able to have this discusion about propaganda in Media and who should pay for it.
Billy in Ajax said, "The answer to Biased Media is legislation."
Go away, more gov't is _never_ the answer.
The answer to biased media is to ignore them.
Contempt breeds familiarity.
Media bias has a real-world effect on our ship of state, Vitruvius, and for that reason shouldn't be ignored.
Yes and no. Fortunately, between us, we've got it covered.
William in Ajax at February 14, 2010 2:35 AM
Be careful what you wish for.
Lance...I'm not talking about more government.
I'm saying we have to challenge the media head on.
Propose a law like I suggest and watch how the
discussion of Propaganda opens up.
MsM bias needs exposure.
CBC bias needs exposure.
A threatened legislative end to (printing lies) for political purposes, should bring all the usual suspects out of the woodwork.
Let the discussion begin!
I would add...
Make/keep any editorial laws simple, along the lines of the (truth in advertising laws) already in place.
Back-up any claims with facts or face the label your article could be fallacy.!
simple - defund the CBC - let them dry up in the sun of their incessant bias
Liberal IggyIffy: Mr. Green Energy & The AGW Red-Green Fraud.
…-
Michael Ignatieff:
“The liberal dilemma
New demands for economic intervention leave the role of government in a free society anything but clear”
>>> “But we want the scarce resources of government to be invested strategically on public education, science and technology and the infrastructure, especially green energy, that creates long-term growth.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/12/liberal-economic-intervention-government
...-
"“Climategate’s Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud
By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let’s get right to it. In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.
Of course, much will be made of Jones’s claim that the refusal to share raw temperature data was partially based on the fact that it “was not well enough organized.” And rightly so, as the very idea that the major datasets CRU released for use in vital anomaly and temperature reconstructions were based on data not “organized” enough to be made public reeks of fraudulent behavior.
Then there are the statements Jones made regarding relatively recent temperature trends which truly boggle the mind.
Imagine a man who has spent the better part of the past 25 years toiling to convince the world of CO2-forced 20th-century warming now admitting that the difference in warming rates for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-40 and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant. Jones even acceded that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002, although he denied the statistical significance of the -0.12C per decade decline.
Yet as incredible as those concessions truly are, they pale in comparison to this response to a question about the significance of the Medieval Warm Period:" (more)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html
Cytotoxic: "Harper was supposed to bring accountability and other feely-goody stuff to government, and now he's being excused for breaking that because 'the Liberals did it before.'"
He's not being excused by me "because the Liberals did it ..." He's being excused by me because it's so clear that the case against him has been rigged by his political enemies -- mine, also, BTW, because of their dirty tricks -- and their allies in the media.
Ted: "So issues of perceived media bias are more important to you than substantive issues of democracy and accountability."
The bias is far more than perceived: It's a cold, hard fact at the Mother Corpse, observed and documented. I've even, on occasion, had the CBC Ombudsman/toady confirm it.
As for "issues of democracy and accountability": It's all very well, Ted, for you to bring them up, but given the Pravda-like proclivities of the Canadian MSM (I'll give the National Post a pass), it's clear that democracy and accountability on their watch -- while they cherry pick the issues (L/lib-left good, C/conservative bad) -- are deeply compromised and imperiled.
The often malicious lib-left bias of the CBC is particularly egregious given that the Canadian taxpayer foots their yearly billion-dollar budget.
Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the CPC formed the government in 2006, the media have been contemptuous not only of him and his government but Canadians also. We rarely see footage of him when he's on foreign junkets, we never get the full story and often have to go to international news outlets to find out how effective our PM has been, and we pretty much NEVER see him with Laureen. I posit that if the Right Honourable Stephen Harper was a Liberal prime minister, photos of him and his very photogenic family would be plastered across the front pages of most of our newspapers and television broadcasts all the time. As it is, our MSM have relegated them to the closet under the stairs.
"Perceived bias"?
I don't think so. Just open your eyes and ears, Ted.
Attention Liberal Iffy/Rae, et al:
Gaia, your mistress, is “naked, scantily clad,”.
AGW’s Red-Green Fraud exposed to the Cold Frigid Fisk of Fate.
…-
“Specifically, the Q-and-As confirm what many skeptics have long suspected:
* Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
* There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
* The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.
* This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.
* The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
* The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
* There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.”
“Phil Jones momentous Q&A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues
14 02 2010
Professor Phil Jones unwittingly(?) reveals that the global warming emperor is, if not naked, scantily clad, vindicating key skeptic arguments
Annotated Version of the Phil & Roger Show – Guest post by Indur M. Goklany”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/02/13/it-could-be-worse/#comment-74908
"Producers and anchors and reporters at broadcast networks know full well that they will never be cornered on camera and forced to answer, on the public record, questions about the nature of their campaigning,"
Why not? Why not a Canadian media accountability center on the i-net with a streaming daily or weekly netcast reporting on the media malfeasance of the day and video of getting into the media player's face with a camera and tough questions?
We are late to this media accounting game US and UK have been at it for over 5 years and it has been impacting yellow journos there negatively.
I've never seen the media go after an elected government with such fervor as they have Mr. Harper's. I expect that those who go into journalism have a tendency to the left and that is further encouraged by the types of schools that are available to attend. Then you get the CBC which is accountable to nobody dealing with a guy who just doesn't suck up to them. I think it's that visceral. They don't like being reminded that they're the caboose and not the train. So much of this p*ssing match between the media and the government is simply to try to restore their damaged egos and to re-establish their power.
I was sorry when Mr. Harper prorogued Parliament because I immediately saw how it would play. I can't believe that he didn't see it either. So I'm hoping there's a long view here that isn't apparent to me because otherwise Facebook, Twitter and the CBC will manage to take down the only government that makes sense these days.
Rita said "So I'm hoping there's a long view here that isn't apparent to me.."
To use an old poker term, I'd say he is "slow playing" his hand. He's holding some good cards that the opposition is unaware of so they keep raising the stakes. I'm sure he has something planned for after the Olympics.
If you listen to the media, Dalton proroguing in Ontario is completely different, or barely worth mentioning.
There is a bias.