Whoever said that the Taliban, Al Qaeda don't have their own organized propaganda organizations?

Besides Al Jazeera, they also have Al BBC, Al CBC, Al CBS, Al NBC, Al ABC, Al CNN, Al NY Times, Al Toronto Star, etc., ad nauseum.

I can't think of ANY time in Western history where the media have been, as a whole, so wretchedly unpatriotic, disloyal, so totally dishonest in their news coverage.

Ignorance doesn't excuse it, nor does "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press". By intent or by intellectual default, much of the West's MSM are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Dave remember the ad campaign from cbc last summer? Extolling the virtues of their journalists (spit)? (oh and piping in hate emails about OUR neighbours from BBC viewers - no I won't let that one go)

Their whole purpose is to inflame us, said so themselves... " we aim to provoke you the viewer "
Ok cbc, you've provoked me alright, hoping for your downfall real soon, as this viewer has completely turned on your elitist bullshit world.

So glad Harper is stomping down on them.
YEAH!
(glad for blogs like this as well)

The Liberal Party of Canada, aka Librano$, is dead: roadkill; run over by Stephen Harper.

Brilliant tactics by Stephen Harper. Has Stephen read/studied Machiavelli?

"Liberals also noted the absence of the former prime minister Paul Martin who, according to some Liberals, decided to miss the vote "in order not to embarrass his successor Bill Graham."

Note: AdScam Martin tabled a private members' bill that day re "Kelowna Accord": in essence,, (unpaid?)lobbying for the Indian Chiefs. Martin left the House thereafter by the back door hours before the vote was called. ...

The Hill Times, May 22nd, 2006
NEWS STORY
By F. Abbas Rana, Angelo Persichilli and Bea Vongdouangchanh
Afghanistan vote leaves federal Liberals flat-footed
The House vote to extend Canada's mission in war-torn Afghanistan until February 2009 leaves the federal Liberals divided.
The House vote on extending Canadian soldiers' mission in war-torn Afghanistan until February 2009 caught the federal Liberals flat-footed last week, forcing them to look for guidance, or, for cover, say Liberals.

The political disarray within the Liberal Party was evident not just during the last week's dramatic House vote, but also during the weekly caucus meeting and it's shaking down into Liberal leadership camps this week.

In last week's vote, 24 Liberal MPs, including two Liberal leadership candidates--Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont.) and Scott Brison (Kings-Hants, N.S.)--voted with the government. Six other Liberal leadership candidates--Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Ont.), Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan, Ont.), Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Que.), Ken Dryden (York Centre, Ont.), Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, B.C.) and Joe Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Ont.)--all voted against the motion. Gerard Kennedy and Bob Rae said they would have voted against it as well.

But the vote, which happened the same day a female Canadian soldier was killed, is a stark reminder that the party is leaderless and rudderless.

The minority Tory government motion was passed by a margin of four votes. The final tally was 149 to145. But 24 Liberals in total supported the motion, 66 Liberal MPs voted against it and 11 Liberal MPs missed the vote. Nine former Liberal Cabinet ministers who approved the mission one year ago, voted against extending Canada's mission and six former Liberal Cabinet ministers missed the vote including former prime minister Paul Martin (LaSalle-Émard, Que.) $$$

Author:
"Afghanistan vote"
http://www.voy.com/178771/14790.html

Ldd,

Actually, I'm from The Great Satan. I do watch some CBC, BBC, via reading their websites and watching some streaming video.

Like many blog surfers, I get most of my news nowadays from blogs, diligent surfing of alternative websites around the world. I realized that if I were like so many people who rely on the main broadcast networks and newspapers, I'd be half uninformed and half misinformed.

I didn't know anything about that CBC ad campaign you mentioned. However, we see much the same thing down here on the major broadcast networks. With the sole exception of Fox News, the US broadcast and cable networks are also unrelentingly leftist.

The level of dishonest, incomplete, biased news coverage is really one of THE major ongoing news phenomena in America. Naturally, the networks and their talking heads vigorously deny bias. As do their fellow travellers in the print media, i.e. the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., etc.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is just the visible tip of American MSM, indeed the Western MSM's, cultural self-loathing by the Western left. As I see it, this is most obnoxiously and most dangerously manifest in the bulk of the West's MSM.

Here is the problem... Instapundit is not on the ground. BBC, NYT, and other serious news orgs. have their crews on the ground.

It is also not surprising that the Taliban are regrouping: it has been 5 years, they have re-armed, and are now circling back from Pakistan.

The Taliban were - and are - a subsidiary of the ISI. Pakistan has always wanted a reliable (to them) ally on its western front, and it should not be a surpise to anybody knowledgable about the region that they would encourage a Taliban resurgence in the South and Southwest areas of Afghanistan.

No, here is the problem - you didn't read his links.

"BBC, NYT, and other serious news orgs. have their crews on the ground."

On the ground? Bullshit. The MSM reporters are holled up in a luxury downtown Baghdad hotel, content to rely on local youths to deliver them the daily rumors of the "body count" and do nothing but spew their daily rantings of "quagmire" while the camera (located safely on the hotel balcony) films the same black smoke billowing some 10 miles in the distance. (Could be the garbage dump or a tire fire for all we know!)

"Serious" news orgs? Go easy on the contact cement man. The BBC and NYT are nothing more than fiction writers without a book deal, still whining and crying that their man, Captain Ozone (Al Gore) and more recently, the phony war hero turned botox spokesperson (John Kerry) BOTH lost to Bush.

Perhaps these MSM sissies need to hang out with Michael Yon for a few days. Or is Yon "too much of a cowboy" for those on the "progressive" side of the war. Oh yeah, to those on the wrong side of history, this isn't a "war", right? It's agressive yankie imperialism, right? Unconfirmed sources claiming Halliburton is moving its world headquarters to one of Saddam's palaces in Tikrit?

Stock tip: Invest in tin foil futures.

whup whup whup whup whup whup....black helicopters appear as mushroom clouds begin to rise on the horizon....whup whup whup whup whup....

I think the best solution to the very real problem of a slanted MSM is to go after the bottom line.

Write, fax or email the advertisers (forget the media as they seem to refuse to accept the reasons for their ongoing drop in circulation) and explain why their advertising expenditures are just so much wasted money. God knows how many people now depend on alternative venues for their news and this is a trend that will continue. I believe this will result in the media moguls getting a wake up call in that a major shift in focus in their reporting (ie. balance and fairness) is required to enjoy financial survival.

For all of them, media as well as advertisers, the bottom line was, is and always will be most important. Threaten that and things will change, out of necessity and/or desperation if nothing else.

Also it couldn't hurt to pitch yourselves as bloggers. As so many people have abandoned the MSN for blogs and on-line reporting, I'm sure that your advertising rates would undercut anyone in the main stream, be they print, radio or television.

Gerry

I noticed that last night's broadcast of The National lead off with a lengthy story titled Afghanistan Quagmire (echoes of Viet Nam yet again) which claimed Canadian soldiers were being blamed by Afghan villagers for civilian casualties despite playing no part in the recent air strike that killed 60 some Taliban fighters. Typically, the focus of the story was squarely on the injured civilians and not the military success of the air strike. Viewers were lead to believe that the Afghan people were turning against our troops. Interestingly, this story contained no factual information - only the perception of the reporter and a handful of villagers he interviewed that Canadians were somehow responsible for civilian casualties.

The very next story told of how some Afghans spotted Taliban terrorists setting up rockets to fire on our army base near Kandahar. Not only did these civilians chase the terrorists away but also informed the authorities and our troops. This much briefer story simply recited factual information and contained no footage or interviews. Which is it CBC? Are we winning or losing the battle for 'hearts and minds' in Afghanistan? Why is our so-called national broadcaster so eager to spread the idea that we are losing?

Hey Gerry:

What you suggest is a good idea in priniciple. After all, money is all that matters (even to left-wingers). But, I don't think that your idea would work - even if we were able to convince the advertisers to spend their money elsewhere.

Because, you see, if organizations like the CBC (or even private organizations like the NYT) were ever put in a tough financial position, they would just lobby the government for more money...claim that they are a "national (cultural) institution" - like healthcare...and be bailed out so that they can continue their propaganda campaigns.

That's the big problem with [left-wing] government supported "industries." If they aren't good enough to turn a profit - no problem - they can always just dig a little deeper into your and my pocket.

Bryceman

The difference now is that we have a government with a sane view and the distinct possibility that it will be a majority in the not too distant future.

Gerry

Gerry:

Yes, that is something we can hope for. But, a conservative majority or not, I doubt that getting rid of the CBC (or taking it off of the government nipple) is something we can ever look forward to.

I just imagine the average Canadian (no matter what their official political stripe) having a knee-jerk panic attack at the thought of losing Hockey Night in Canada or, as pathetic as it is, the National. As much as I would like to see it, I just don't think that it is in the cards.

Oooooh, Kate, what a (Doctor) Evil phrase:

"... without mentioning that most of those killed are people who should be killed."

I like it.

Globe headline today--"New NATO role leaves U.S. force largely in charge"-- is another dishonesty of the day and does not reflect the text.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060524.AFGHANCOM24/TPStory/International

Unless the meaning is "largely in charge" of combat but that is not what most readers will conclude. They will conclude that the US is running the show overall which it will not be.

The sub-head--"Bulk of combat left to American troops"--is accurate for now.

The headline should have read: "New NATO role leaves most combat to US".

The text itself states:

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will take responsibility for a big chunk of southern Afghanistan some time this summer, but even when that happens, U.S. troops will remain the largest, most powerful force in the country, will shoulder the bulk of combat operations, and will remain under separate U.S. command."

Accurate, for a while.

"Even after NATO expands its responsibilities, Enduring Freedom forces will remain in Afghanistan and continue to conduct the bulk of combat operations in the strife-torn southeastern sector."

Accurate, for a while.

"The two commands are supposed to be complementary, but it is an unwieldy structure that reflects Washington's unwillingness to place large numbers of its forces under foreign command -- even by NATO, which counts the United States as its largest and most powerful member by far."

Not accurate, as the US forces in the east are scheduled to come under NATO around the New Year.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-04T100646Z_01_ISL111238_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AFGHAN-NATO.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=1

"The last phase of the expansion will see NATO taking command of U.S. forces now operating in the east, where Islamist insurgents are also active. No date has been set but it is expected late this year or early next."

The Globe story only states "But the rugged southeastern quarter will remain the focus of the U.S.-led operation." It omits the planned transfer to NATO ISAF, which is bad, misleading journalism. But typical of the Globe news staff, who are clearly trying to undermine support for our Afstan mission.

Mark
Ottawa

Circulation is the most important measurement in determining revenues with print news. That's the bottomline used in negotitating advertising fees. Some of these print organizations have been caught lying about their circulation numbers. Time Magazine comes to mind, I may be wrong. (Who reads that rag anymore that isn't trapped in a dentist office where it is provided gratis!) Advertisers are scrutinizing circulation numbers more.

One simple thing we can all do is cancel the biased local dead tree garbage with a reasoned and clear explanation of why. You can't hide missing subscribers forever and it is dubious they are going to make up the revenue with click thru ads on their websites.