Typical filtered, nuanced and biased MSM reporting.
I have been saying it for thirty years.
Good on you Peter MacKay!

A Peter, with balls to boot. Maybe there is hope. Good on you mate, it's about time.

Silly Peter, the Goad and Flail isn't about giving Canadians the news, but about giving them the 'truth', whether its true or not. Fake but accurate.

I see that so far 10:45 EST , neither the MopandPail or CBCpravda has bothered to report the letter.

Peter needs to send one to Pravda as well.

I stand corrected, they have the letter under one of the buttons. no fanfare for when they get a public spanking.

no coverage on CBCpravda yet though.

Todays online globe has a response stating that they stand by their source.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060721.wevacuation21/BNStory/National/home

cal2 --- start a pool to see which if either one of those two dic head organizations will mention the letter.

Since when have, CTV, CBC or the Globe & Mail ever let the facts get in the way of a good story?

That MacKay needed to take the time, precious time, from very important rescue work, to respond to this false accusation is troubling.

And he did need to do so!

The greatest threat to the unity of Canada is proving to be the usual culprits.

Sad, isn't it...and dangerous, for where the discussion is at in the land, on citizenship.

Finally some in the media, are asking the tough questions that will be the center of debate in the months ahead.

Memebers/groups in the Lebanese community are thanking Canada. Where do we hear that at the same volume?

The goal of the government is to get these citizens our safely....That is the key word...safely.

We have no idea of the restrictions and red tape required for each step at the other end in Lebanon.

Any rescue exercise of this magnitude will be examined after the fact; for useful reasons in handling the next emergency.

For now, all else is white noise.

The MSM is on the warpath, that's what the baseless accusation in the initial "objective" "news" "article" means.

Good on ya Pete.

WAY TO STICK TO THEM PETER!!! Good on ya!

I too have a media reaction story. I was on the Toronto Star's website yesterday checking out the pictures of the current events. I found myself disturbed by the bias in the photos posted in their online gallery. What was particularly glaring was the photo of an injured lebanese boy along with 10 other "Arab" victim shots, dispersed among numerous pics of the Israeli army in action (in fact half the images are of the Israeli army). There was only one picture of an Israeli victim, in the process of being buried. It struck me odd that this Israeli victim shot was visually "clean" so to speak while the Arab victims shots were so brutual and disurbing. Not one "dirty" photo of innocent Jewish victims, children in particular in the whole gallery. What made the series even more vivid was how cleverly the Star had mixed the shots of Israeli "aggression" amongst the victim photos. Apparently only Israelis are violent; not one pic of a Hisbully thug even though numerous photos have been wired out of a country that has had it's "infrastructure severely disrupted". I felt very strongly that this whole gallery was blatantly biased (imagine that in the MSM), so I fired off a complaint to the Star's public relations officer. See below:

T.C.

(My original email at bottom. I blanked my name and kept Heather's in because she is paid to be a public relations officer for the Star; I am not.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Public Editor, The Toronto Star [mailto:publiced@thestar.ca]
Sent: July 20, 2006 1:25 PM
To: Terry C********
Cc: Armstrong, Heather
Subject: RE: Online Photo Gallery

Dear Mr. C********,
Thank you for your message.
You are quite right that the photographs in this gallery are primarily of the evacuation of international citizens from Lebanon, the impact of bombs on the city and civilians in Beirut and of the Israeli armed forces.
About ninety per cent of the incoming wire photographs are from Beirut or Lebanon, where bombs are falling in suburbs and it is primarily civilians who are being killed and injured. The country's infrastructure has been severely disrupted, trapping people in the bombing zones and making it difficult to provide aid/supplies.
About 300 people have died in Lebanon and 500,000 have been displaced.
About 29 Israelis have died, including 15 civilians killed by rockets fired by Hezbollah into Israel.
The deaths, damage and the magnitude of bombardment in Lebanon are disproportionate to the damage being done by Hezbollah strikes on Israel and the photographs reflect that. I would suggest that is balance.
Yours truly,
Sharon Burnside
Public Editor

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry C********
To: Armstrong, Heather
Sent: Thu Jul 20 11:18:34 2006
Subject: Online Photo Gallery

Your lack of balance in your on-line Photo Gallery is shameful and clearly indicates the Star’s leftist preference to this most complicated Middle-East situation. Your gallery OVERWHELMINGLY depicts Israeli aggression with numerous military photos interspersed with numerous shots of Arab victims. Where the hell are your photos of the Jewish victims? Does The Star wish to propagate the perception that Arab lives are more valuable than Jewish ones, or that violence is only meted out by Israeli’s?

BALANCE, JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY…. None apparently to be found at the Toronto Star.

Disgusted,
Terry C********,
Cambridge, Ontario
(neither Jewish, nor Muslim)

I totally agree with Peter McKay, the media should stop the deception, and start printing the truth! Let's have some positive media stories, instead of the negative and biased false articles that are printed on a daily basis!

That MacKay needed to take the time, precious time, from very important rescue work, to respond to this false accusation is troubling.

Not to worry; ministers almost never actually write the correspondance issued in their name. That's for advisors and line officers to do.

Yes, the letter is on the G&M website. AND, in another article, Greenspon is 'standing by', not his PM and the work of the gov't in getting these people out, but his 'anonymous source'.

I wrote Greenspon, and suggest many more of us write him, with ccs to various gov't people - that he and the rest of the MSM have transformed this event into a political arena of 'Bashing Harper'. Instead of finding, validating and reporting the news, the factual not fictional news, they have moved into political agendas.

One source, anonymous, provides no validity to any story. The Globe's refusal to validate that data with the PM's office, means that their data and interpretation is completely unreliable.

I also asked why they weren't researching and reporting on some very serious issues; namely, the fact that Canada has more citizens in Lebanon, more than any other country in the world - and the majority are not visitors but permanent residents. Have they ever even lived in Canada, worked in Canada, paid taxes in Canada?

Why is the Canadian taxpayer obliged to foot the enormous bill (and it will be enormous) to bring them out, and house and feed them (since they don't live in Canada)? Note also, that Ontario has waived the three month wait period for OHIP; their medical needs are instantly covered. Even though they may not have lived in Canada for decades. Or ever.

What is wrong with out immigration system as set up by the Liberals? Was this a vote-buying scheme?

These are serious questions that have nothing to do with humanitarian agendas, but a great deal to do with the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Should someone who has never lived in Canada for any appeciable time, if ever; has no intention of living in Canada, has a citizenship with another country and lives there - should this person expect the Canadian taxpayer to foot the bill for their rescue and housekeeping?...until they return to Lebanon?

Good on Peter. The time for them to speak up and fight back is now. As I browse the news media websites in Canada, there are polls, commentaries and editorials popping up that are beginning to ask the same questions that we have been discussing over the past week or so. CKOM has a poll on their website for example that gives 4 options.

Should the federal government foot the entire bill for the evacuation of Canadians from southern Lebanon?
Yes. They are citizens.
1.59%
No. They can pay their own way.
18.25%
Only if you have a permanent address in Canada.
62.70%
Ottawa should only pay for the ships. Evacuees should pay their own airfare.
17.46%

Public opinion is changing rapidly despite their best efforts.

Well said ET! Good for you Peter McKay! The coverage of this has been pathetic to say the least. CTV and CBC have put every negative person that they can find on TV. They showed one lady who was fleeing from Lebanon with her children for their safety. Next breath she said "When they grow up I will send them back to fight Israel." Words that should never come out of any decent mother's mouth. I sure hope that this is not one of the people we are paying for. Priority for the evacuaction should have been for Canadian's that were there on holiday's or visiting family. Vote buying??? This just stinks! Look at what has happened to all of the large cities, where the majority of the seats are held. Where were the immigrants sent to locate? We have some serious problems ahead...

Here's a story about the Iran Hostage crisis in 1979 and the difference between the media's ability to keep a secret then and now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/20/AR2006072001632.html

I don't suppose I have to mention the difference in this story that would most likely have been the most important? That being the US pres at the time was DEMOCRAT uber-lefty Peanut Jimmy Carter?

This kind of reporting is the reason why I cancelled my subscription to the Globe and Mail.

three cheers for peter...
i doubt the other MSM will make reference to the letter as it was directed to the mop and pail specifically.

Canada's next prime minister! (P-Mack, not Greenspon.)

"Not to worry; ministers almost never actually write the correspondance issued in their name. That's for advisors and line officers to do."

Anything signed in MacKay's name, would have been approved and considered by him.

All written material, signed especially, is fodder for the opposition and media. No one knows that better than a politician.

YAHOO! - FINALLY AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE! I have been gritting my teeth, as the daily parade of snide and smirking print and TV journalists make their petty little drive by smears. I'm lovin this response - hope it gets mega play

Greetings:

May I start a bit of a wee bit of amovement here?

How about calling for a full-blown government investigation of this entire incident? One that is irrevocable, regarless of possible future changes in government. The hearing should be required to investigate

1.) Canada's level of preparedness, both at home and in far-flung embassies (where we understand that full-biligualism requirements are certainly heavily monitored), for various emergencies.

2.) Immediate, or prompt availabilty of qualified emergency personnel, fully capable of appropriate, safe and expeditious handling of all facets of various emergency response situations.

3.) Availability of, and/or access to, appropriate government assets (physical and personnel) which would be available for rapid deployment of E.M.O. units.

4.) Full examination of information dissemination, during the crisis period. Examine methods, techniques, sources and accuracy of all proceedings. Examine the appropriateness, degree and level of media output, positive or negative, in contributing to the emergency effort.

5.) Isolate and identify any areas of possible shortcomings. Identify nature and reasons of these hinderances. Identify causes of these failures.

6.) Provide a blueprint for future applications. Make public a full report. Name names. Levy penaties where needed.

7.) ....

8.) .....

etc etc........

Last night, they were reporting that "about" 63 (about?) evacuees had boarded the PM's plane. This morning CTV is reporting that "about" 100 evacuees landed in Ottawa on that flight. Is one to assume that there were "about" 37 births during the flight home? The Canadian MSM is totally without credibility.

And the Ontario gov't is also waiving eligibility requirements for welfare - oops, I mean "social assistance" for those who need it as well as putting those without residences up in hotels near the airport. McGuilty vote buying?

TangoJuliette,

After every disaster or setback there is always navel-gazing and hindsight quarterbacks calling for the government to spend vast sums on studies and inquiries to tell us the fricken obvious.

The obvious is that when S*** happens, S*** happens. Period. In no instance (including Katrina and the tsunami) have western governments failed. The same can't be said of the UN or the media.

Why can't we just realize that the more chaotic a situation, the longer it will take to sort it out regardless of the level of preparedness? If people think that the government has done a bad job they need to better utilize their grey matter cause they're not being even remotely realistic. This is an emergency evac, not a pre-planed, all-inclusive cruise. We're talking a total logistical nightmare. Given the task, the governments (our and others) are doing very well. To not recognize this is to have a fantasy-land level of expectation of the possible. An inquiry is not necessary to tell you that Scotty can't just beam 50 thousand people to the Enterprise - and in first-class comfort!

Also note that the media is driving this. There is no real story. The media is scum and is throwing muck in the hope it sticks to a PM they don't like. The same thing is happening elsewhere.

I love this line:

"no effort whatsoever to contact the Prime Minister's Office to verify the accuracy of the claim"

You mean, like ask a question at one of those "old style" press conference thingies that got cancelled or like a scrum when you sort of make yourself available for questions that also is not done anymore?

I thought all the government needed was press releases, the regional press and dealing "directly with the people". I thought the press gallery was irrelevant. Were conservatives wrong about that?

When you refuse to answer questions or make yourself available to answer questions on a regular basis, why bother going through the headache of being ignored again?

Ted
Cerberus

Mop and Pail receives 'letter bomb' from Foreign Minister. Editorial board scrambles for cover.

Large vacuum is exposed in Mop and Pail editorial board. The editors are lost in a black hole of baseless allegations.

Note to Mop & Pail the election is over, you will have to wait for the next one.

Peter delivers 'ass whipping' to the editorial board in conformity with Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4

A maple switch in full view of the woodshed!

Well done Peter.

"Note to Mop & Pail the election is over, you will have to wait for the next one."

For what? To endorse him yet again?

Bloody conservative-biased media.

Ted
Cerberus

Nice try, cerberus, but your claim is completely invalid.

The Press Gang Club mode of 'you get to ask a question of the PM, only at the Parliament 'scrum' and if and only if the President of the Press Gang Club permits you to ask a question' isn't the only way to ask a question of the PM's office. I bet you didn't know that.

You, the reporter, can actually phone, fax, email the PM's office. All by yourself.

Much more efficient than asking the President of the Press Gang if you can ask your question. Oh, and since it's summer, and parliament isn't in session, then, gosh, it's slightly difficult to even get a 'scrum' together, isn't it? Oh well.

But, did you know that there's no limitation on interviews, question and answers with the PM or Ministers? There's no confinement of interviews, questions and answers to the Press Gang 'scrum'. We have open communication now.

You, the reporter, can get a personal interview with the PM and with Ministers, and many have. Did you know that? You can get immediate answers to your faxed questions, your emailed questions, your telephoned questions.

So- try to get your facts straight. It's called accountability.

That's a little bit over the top ET. Even for you.

Anyone can get an interview, eh? First, how long do you suppose it would take to arrange an interview for a story that is going out the next day on a current topic? Second, do you really honestly believe that the Harper communications people are going to let just any reporter interview him or every single reporter interview him that wants? Press conferences were set up so that the leader and the staff don't spend all their time answering the same questions all day long. Surely even you realize that.

But more to the point, the PMO doesn't respond to inquiries. It's a plain fact. Paul Wells - who has been extremely friendly to the Harper government and extremely critical of his press gallery colleagues - has pointed this out a number of times. Check out his blog or search his columns at Macleans.ca. It's even worse trying to get a comment from a Minister's office because they have to then go back to the PMO.

Any communications problems they have will be of their own making.

Ted
Cerberus

lawyers like greenspon are utterly permanently disinterested in the true unless it dovetails with their agenda.

every, E-V-E-R-Y media story I have EVER been personally involved in or have 1st or 2nd hand knowledge of, the reporters always without exception missed the mark, got it wrong. every time, a total of about 5 or 6 times.

"You mean, like ask a question at one of those "old style" press conference thingies that got cancelled or like a scrum when you sort of make yourself available for questions that also is not done anymore?

I thought all the government needed was press releases, the regional press and dealing "directly with the people". I thought the press gallery was irrelevant. Were conservatives wrong about that?

When you refuse to answer questions or make yourself available to answer questions on a regular basis, why bother going through the headache of being ignored again?

Ted
Cerberus"

cheap shot Ted, tres stupid, but then you are a LPC sycophant . . .

ever heard of a thing called a telephone ??

A whole lot faster than waiting for a press conference.

Warwick:

I imagine that an inquiry would lay bare a lot of Liberal rot and corruption, as well as misappropration of funds with some abuse of power thrown in.

Gutting the military, ignoring the navy and airforce, patronage appointments to various consular and ambassadorial postings.

You can be damned sure that everyone who works in the upper echelons of our civil sevice sure as hell better be fluently bilingual.

Can you do the job? That's not the question.

Who do you know, and can you speak both official languages? Now that's a criteria worth using as a bench-mark.

Whose making cheap shots?

The government refuses to answer questions that are not on its immediate agenda, cancels press conferences, conducts on selective interviews, requires all communications from any ministry including experienced senior cabinet ministers (with Flaherty and Toews being an exception), don't return calls or faxes with questions that are not on your immediate PMO set agenda (as documented by Paul Wells)... and then you whine that the press prints a story without your PMO approved response.

Come on. Sleep in the bed you made folks.

Ted
Cerberus

"Who's". Duh.

Ted

I have an "anonomous source" within the upper management echelon of the G&M who has told me that there is an orchestrated campaign, headed by Greenspon, to drag out the suffering of Canadian citizens to sell papers. Apparently, they are leasing all the cruise ships in the area AND SENDING THEM AWAY EMPTY.

My friend wouldn't lie to me...

Actually Ted Paul Wells has said quite the opposite, that he has had no trouble with communicating with the Conservative government despite the best efforts of the NPG to propagandize to the contrary.

As for the Globe or the Post supporting the
Conservatives in the last election, this only happened after it became clear that Harper and the Conservatives were well on their way to victory and that the scandal a day Martin Liberals were in meltdown mode.

Offering their support so late in the game served only one purpose - to allow lefties to claim that the Conservative victory was due to media support.

Oh, I get it Ward. If a mainstream media actually supports the conservatives then it is common sense, but if they don't support the conservatives or tow the party line, let alone be critical, then it is all part of The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy!!!

Read the editorials in the Globe since the Cons came to power. Easily half of them support actions taken by this government. They post Conservative press releases as news (eg. the announcement today that the Cons still don't have an environmental plan but will someday). They ignore blatant lies and flip flops (eg. the quiet dropping of the most important of The Five Priorities (TM) as a priority of the government: canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/2006/07/promise-what-promise-harpers-hide). They broke the bloody Adscam story!

Oh, yeah, there's a Liberal-biased newspaper for you.

We Liberals could sure use some of that kind of Conservative-biased media right about now!

Ted

Ted,

My problem isn't that the story was run without the PM's blessing (as it isn't the press' job to get it.)

My problem is the story was total garbage. If the media would have fact-checked it, no response from the PM's office would be necessary as the story would be in a shredder in G&M's recycle bin.

Greenspon has ruined the G&M. It was once a very well-respected paper who could be counted on to report the stories straight. That changed with Greenspon. Now its a lying partisan rag to whom facts are as important as they are to the NYT and Dan Rather.

I actually met Greenspon once. He's an intolerably smug, arrogant little (about 5'2") weasel. He's the worst sort of media lefty. He is also a personal friend of Paul Martin and other Liberals/liberals.

I think Peter Mackay has matured as a man & politician. That be has picked up a pair is obvious. I like the fact Him & Harper are not afraid to take them out once in a while.

I will use the obverse of the saying "Bad company corrupts good morals" . In this case its "Good company reinforces good morals."

Our MSM is an utter disgrace with few exceptions. For political goodies they would sell us all out, to an unmerciful enemy. There socialist Utopia has no room for rationality, or factors in human weakness. To that end there are doomed to a stasis, that will only melt into oblivion.

As an aside to the Spain article . In some weird , convoluted way. Brian Tobin was right about them. In any case Spain has just surrendered to a re-occupation in reverse. I pity them all. Until I remember this is what they voted for. Now live with it!!!

It took 300 years to recover from there last Jewish expulsion . They are a dead people , with a dying culture. The sad fact is, they participated out of fear & cringing. In there own demise as a people & society.

I pray Canada never falls victim to this weasel, weakling philosophy of the Socialists.
What’s left of Spain ‘s memory will find no tears.

Harper allows me to lift my head a ee bit higher these days. Stay the course Mr. PM. We need it bad. Forget the gadflys.

It will be interesting on the debate as some have alluded to. On immigration that is sure to follow when PMSH returns.

Even the press can't keep a story hidden anymore, let alone governments. So they had better be prepared.

Where hell is the Ditherer in all this...the guy with world wide contacts...the guy who can lift a finger and have more ships on the way than the Spanish Armada? Yup...Paul Martin....the ultimate citizen of convenience.
Where are his Canadian-shared-values when we need them?
Mr. "Caring" is nowhere to be found....why hasn't the MSM and the lib. party nailed his sorry
carcass to the foc'sle for not being the FIRST to offer help if what the gov't is doing is not enough?
Why hasn't he offered in good faith at a time when politics is not the issue?
Hint....he doesn't get it & the press & libs don't get it.
They are playing silly kids games while the adults are acting.
This is an example of double standards writ large.

Anything signed in MacKay's name, would have been approved and considered by him.

Of course, but your original message seemed to indicate you thought he took the time to compose the letter himself, instead of just reviewing and approving it.

But anyway, no matter; it's good to see inaccurate reporters and editors get bluntly taken to school by such a high level official.

During the last election, stolen money was literally falling out of the liberano$$$ pockets as they were filmed by security cameras running from the crime scene where they left their DNA and prints.
Even the exalted glob and pale can only lead sleepy, trusting, overworked and overtaxed Canadians down that rat infested dark ally to be beaten and robbed so many times.
"F" the MSM they are not only derelect in their duty to freedom and democracy, they are complicit in the fleecing of Canada.
It's criminal.
(More so than my spelling.)

Good for you pete no if only you could stop being a social wanker I'd vote for you as the next PM.

The MSMs deserve blogs,

Ted (Cereberus): I wish to refute what you wrote in the last paragraph of your first comment: "When you refuse to answer questions or make yourself available to answer questions on a regular basis...".

The government did not refuse to answer questions...the PPG refused to submit questions.

The government did not refuse to make themselves available...the PPG refused to submit questions and, given the apparent lack of interest from the PPG, the press conferences were cancelled.

This is NOT about the government refusing to talk, it is all about the PPG refusing to listen.

Plus, as ET pointed out, there are no scrums when parliament isn't in session.

Further, I'm supremely confident that if Mr. Greenspon (or his designate) were to have phoned the PMO and said "We are planning to run this story...do you have any comments?", the PMO would have either responded OR they wouldn't have chastised Greenspon in the letter. THAT, sir, is the express intent of and clear statement in the letter.

Respectfully, I believe you are being purposefully dense on this issue.

Y'all may be interested to know that today's Globe and Mail editorial was unabashedly in favour of Prime Minister Harper's actions, and the letters to the editor they selected were vastly on our side. All I'm sayin' is, if your antecedents are wrong, then your consequents are irrelevant, even if your argument is otherwise logically sound.

Ha! What do you expect from the conservative-biased media!

Vitruvius,

Yes, and they only balanced their pro-Harper article with a lopsided set of letters and columns against Israel by Salutin, Herzog and Simpson.

Your embarrassing yourself Ted.

The Gay & Mail has been a useless piece of crap for a good 2 decades. It was William Thorsell who ruined what was once a fine paper by sacrificing objectivity for ideology - so that he could push his "gay agenda" with touchy-feely emotional left-wing sentimentalities in lieu of hard factual news reporting.

You have repeatedly mentioned how the globe "broke" the adscam story. Funny that you fail to mention that they subsequently endorsed the Liberals in the 2004 election and helped paint the "scary Stephen Harper" picture. Yeah, real balanced.

If you think what Thorsell has done to the G&M is bad (and I still blame Greenspon for it myself,) have you seen the atrocity he's committing on the ROM?

Oh I agree, Warwick, as you know I castigated the Globe and Mail here yesterday. Nevertheless, I remain curious: Why is the general tenor of the reporting and commentary at the Globe and Mail so often diametrically opposed to the positions taken in the lead editorials?

Actually Ted judging by your response, you don't get it.

Vitruvius,

No idea. Maybe their version of balance? Hire 20 raging lefties as columnists and stack the hard news with biased hacks and on the days they have the worst of them writing all at once, fire off a good editorial in order to counter claims of bias.

Who knows these things?

Vitrivius. That is a great question.

Donna worry... Librano$ are ass-embling; Volpe is unass-embling.

CP, aka Ass. Press knows all. ...-

Liberals assembling candidates
OTTAWA (CP) - Federal Liberals are starting to assemble candidates for the next election without waiting for a new leader to be chosen. Full Story

Volpe loses campaign manager
OTTAWA (CP) - Joe Volpe's trouble-plagued bid to become the next Liberal leader has suffered another, possibly fatal blow, with the resignation of his national campaign manager.

Marcus Gee, John Ibbitson (can he fawn over Harper any more than he does?), Eric Reguly, Christie Blatchford, Margaret Wente, Lorna Dueck, heck even good ol' Rex Murphy these days.

Stacked with conservatives of varying degrees of temperament and Christian passion.

Like I said, with "Liberal-friendly" media like this, who needs the National Post, the Sun Media chain, the Western Standard, the CanWest Global network and all of the other outright conservative media that somehow don't count as mainstream media by conservatives wanting to whine about bias.

Stop the conservative-biased media!

Balance is one of the most common theories I have heard proposed by those to whom I have asked that question, Warwick, but I remain unconvinced. Lorne Gunter (great guy) is who the Edmonton Journal (for example) publishes for balance. But the lead editorial? I'm no conspiracy theorist either, but there seems to me to be an unexplained impedance mismatch here. Electrical engineers are naturally suspicious about unexplained impedance mismatches, it's their job.

Even the lead editorial in the Edmonton Journal, which as I have mentioned tracks quite far to the collectivist, regulationist perspective, was relatively supportive of Prime Minister Harper today, quite in opposition to yesterday's front page, above the fold picture of a protester at the legislature holding up a banner that read "Canada is for Peace - Harper is for War".

So my question remains. If we don't understand the cause of the editorial differential phenomenon I have observed, then our understanding is incomplete, which raises the risk of incorrect decision making.

So when columist make sense -its conservative and biased.

and when they spout non-sense- as per Mansbridge and the lot we have???

Ted,

Ibbitson fawn over Harper? You're off your meds.

Wente even says she's a liberal in her own columns (she describes herself as on the economic right of the liberals but still.) She also says all of her friends are liberals almost without exception.

Rex Murphy is about the least biased voice in Canadian journalism. He'll go after anything he doesn't like and praise anything he does regardless of source.

The Aspers (owners of CanWest) have fundraised for the Liberal party for the last several decades. They only turned on Martin because he deserved it.

9 of 10 Blatchford columns are about local criminal law issues and Harper was the defendant in none of those.

As for the Sun chain, if you go to their columnist page, look at the non-Toronto, non-Alberta papers. Val Sears, Sheila Copps, Michael Harris, Eric Margolis... even the Sun has lefties. Most likely more than the G&M or the Star employ per paper...

I suppose it's all where your starting point is and what your definition is. I you happen to be left of the NDP and tripped on Marx on your way by, just about everyone would be conservative in your eyes.

The equation is simple: if you're a Liberal/socialist/lefty and you disagree with what the media says, then the media is "Conservative-biased". If you're a Conservative/capitalist/right and you disagree with what the media says, then the media is "Liberal-biased". Both sides of the spectrum are claiming bias of the media against their positions.

So...what happens when you are independent/moderate/centrist and you disagree with what the media says?

I subscribe to the (probably mangled) Shakespearean quote "Above all else, to thine own self be true"...so I analyze myself constantly. I feel that I can honestly say that I don't BLINDLY support ANY political party. If what they say makes sense, then I agree...and if it doesn't, I disagree. When I read the MSM, I see little else but spin and half-truths...with the majority tending to support that side of the argument that I disagree with. And I disagree with the Liberals/socialists/leftists.

Ted, just because a journalist writes an article that is apparently supportive of the Conservatives, does not make them "Conservative-biased". If they spin the article with half-truths, then you could make that claim. Rather than recite the journalists names that have written articles that are supportive of the Conservatives, how about dissecting their articles and show us the spin and half-truths...then and only then, could you make an argument.

I read the Globe religiously for almost 40 years (I started as a paperboy for them when I was 7). I remember when Richard Needham wrote columns that were funny, and when Geoff Stevens made the Law of the Sea interesting.

But I stopped reading it a few years ago because everytime I read a columnist, I got so angry I wanted to spit. I blame Roy Megarry and William Thorsell for the decline. Thorsell, I believe, read "The Fountainhead" as a youth, and decided he wanted to be a gay Ellsworth Toohey; all his actions seem predicated on that pattern.

But it's not just the columnists who irked me; it was the way the beat reporters managed to work in snarky references to the Tories in news stories, and sneering references to anyone who rejects the multicultural/gay/socialist/secular agenda.

As to the disconnect between the editorials and the rest of the paper; I'm assuming the editorial board is composed of the clearest minds at the paper, and most of the stuff Harper has done has been relatively sensible, while not perfect. So they acknowledge that, while the rest of the Toohey-influenced staff continue with their sniping.
And the Globe didn't break Adscam; Frank magazine did.

Dang, I forgot to let Blatch' off the hook when I castigated the Globe and Mail yesterday. She's great. Hell of a dame (and it's my understanding that she would take that as a compliment). The G&M doesn't let her write about politics much, but when she does it's always very good.

Rex Murphy, on the other hand, is a genius. He's one of the few people who, when I find myself disagreeing with him, I question myself before I question him.

Still, I agree with Hassle. Above all else, to thine own self be true. Overgeneralizing about anything, including the main stream media, will, I suggest, lead one to be less than true to thine own self. That's part of the reason why I remain puzzled by the editorial differential phenomenon.

Maybe, as Kevin suggests, the editorial board is just ahead of the curve, while a significant number of reporters and columnists are stuck in the pandering to their fans rut. If so, that might suggest that we are indeed seeing the realization of the sea change being skippered by the new captain of Canada leak out into the main stream press.

"Ted, just because a journalist writes an article that is apparently supportive of the Conservatives, does not make them "Conservative-biased". If they spin the article with half-truths, then you could make that claim. Rather than recite the journalists names that have written articles that are supportive of the Conservatives, how about dissecting their articles and show us the spin and half-truths...then and only then, could you make an argument."

I trust you meant to address that to the rest of the commenters here and in the conservative blogosphere and not to me.

Or else you haven't read my regular rants on this issue which basically reject the claim that there is a built-in conservative or a liberal bias in the media.

My comments claiming conservative bias are meant somewhat ironically because, as you yourself pointed out, you can selectively take any article, column, passage within an article and, ignoring the rest, claim "MSM bias" like the many newspapers, magazines, TV shows, TV news broadcasts, corporate websites, etc. etc. are all one monolithic beast out to get conservatives. It's a ridiculous claims. Just as ridiculous as claiming there is a vast right-wing media bias/conspiracy.

There are columnists and even individual papers that do have a, I would call it tendencies rather than bias. But The Mainstream Media? No. If there is any widespread mainstream media tendency at all that is common (or more common) it is that they need to make money and therefore tend to the sensationalist side and the over-dramatization side. Thus, conflict is sought out because it sells. The problem is us not so much them - easier to blame them though for our desire to see conflict, death, etc. Thus as well, a silly story like last year's "internal division within the Conservatives" started by spurned Jamieson gets lots of coverage. As does the Emerson floor crossing. As does the evacuation in Lebanon.

If there is another (lesser) common tendency among some media, it is seeing themselves as a check on government, which they most certainly are. How does this play out in the liberal or conservative mind? And here, I think, speaking generally, conservatives demand more loyalty and "patriotism" from the media than liberals so when conservatives become Conservative MPs they view the media anti-government tendency as more of an attack on them personally than do Liberals.

Is that enough dissecting for you Warwick?

Ted
Cerberus

Oops. Meant "Hassle" there not "Warwick".

Vitruvius: I think it can be explained more simply than that. As I said above, conflict, drama, death sells papers and gets viewers. We love to buy and watch that stuff. Like it or not. So the reporting plays that up. The columnists are set off against each other. But when it comes to the editorial - really the heart and not just the brain of the paper - you are addressing the people who have already bought the paper and are looking for serious reflection.

Ted

I find it interesting that, according to Ted, it's OK for the media to make up any shit they want and report it as fact, without doing any checking of facts or balance.

Where did I say that?

"If there is another (lesser) common tendency among some media, it is seeing themselves as a check on government, which they most certainly are."

No they're not, that's why we have "opposition parties".
The media is there to report news and events, that's not too hard for them, is it?

If that's true, Ted, then all indications are that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is doing a good job, much to the chagrin, perhaps, of those who over-invested in denigrating him.

Ted:

I heard that from an "un-named source". Didn't feel like checking with you to see if you really said it or not.

By reporting news and forming conclusions based upon uncovered facts, the press acts as check on government. As it should.

The press has been a fundamental part of the formation of our democracy. The very first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights - the First Amendment - states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It doesn't even say writing or novels or books. It is very precise: the "press". Likewise the French Declaration of the Right of Man and Citizen although it doesn't specify as clearly the "press".

Vast amounts of corruption and anti-democratic behaviour has been uncovered by the press over time. Including Shawinigate and Adscam, by the way. The press didn't make that up, but they sure formed an opinion about it.

Ted

Hang on, Multirec, it certainly is the case that in a modern liberal democracy the press has a role in opposing the government, or at least in holding them up to the light of day. That's why freedom of the press is explicitly mentioned in Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, and Clause 2(b) if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let's not get carried away here.

The pen might be mightier than the sword but not when it is used as a sword.

Your arguments are all well and good Ted but this is Canada./s

And besides the American first ammendment does not appoint the press as a check on government.

The system of government checks and balances is very deliberately set forward in the United States Constitution and accomplished by having three branches of government, a judiciary branch, a legislative branch AND an executive branch.

In the USA no power to check the government is given to the press and the right to free speech protects citizens from each other as well as from the government.

It seems that the Charter in Canada would intend the same but no one is quite sure.

The many very real differences between a Canadian Parliamentary System of government with the vast powers bestowed on the governing party and The American Republic with its deliberate system of checks and balances are big and have little to do with the press.

It's interesting that the people who are complaining that the press should not be a check on government are often the same ones who complained that the press didn't hit the Liberal government hard enough.

As far as I'm concerned, the press has every right and responsibility to speak truth to power, regardless of who's in power.

I agree with you on the relative merits of the state mechanisms regarding the balance of power in Canada and the United States of America, Concrete, but I remain unconvinced that a free press, and I'm including Small Dead Animals in that category, is not a de facto pillar of a modern liberal democracy. If I may borrow a few words from Wikipedia:

"The term Fourth Estate refers to the press, both in its explicit capacity of advocacy and in its implicit ability to frame political issues. The term goes back at least to Thomas Carlyle in the first half of the 19th century. In "On Heroes and Hero Worship" (1841) Carlyle writes:

"... does not... the parliamentary debate go on... in a far more comprehensive way, out of Parliament altogether? Edmund Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important than they all."

"This was not Carlyle's first use of the term. If, indeed, Burke did make the statement Carlyle attributes to him, Burke's remark may have been in the back of Carlyle's mind when he wrote in his French Revolution (1837), "A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up." In this context, the other three estates are those of the French States-General; the church, the nobility and the commoners, although in practice the latter were usually represented by the middle class bourgeoisie."

The problem is not freedom of the press per se, we are not forced to pay for that, and we can always fire up our own presses, as we are doing here. The problems are state restrictions on the media, like the CRTC, and state sponsored media, like the CBC. There is no way Canada should have to put up with any whiff of that aroma here in the third millennium.

The problem with the Globe is not the columnists (as Ted has well pointed out) but the tone of the actual news coverage (as Vitruvius has pointed out). Steady Eddie Greenspon is responsible for both--playing both ends against the middle without intellectual honesty in trying to maximize readership.

Some messages sent to Steady Eddie:

May 8, 2006
'A letter just sent to the editor:

"In the first paragraph of his story, "Liberals ponder role in Afghanistan" (May 8), Bill Curry writes that the Canadian Forces' mission in Afghanistan "...is shaping up to be the most sensitive issue in the Liberal leadership campaign...".

He then writes in the third paragraph--about a major meeting of Ontario Liberals attended by all eleven federal leadership candidates--that "Canada's Afghanistan mission, despite being one of the main political issues at the federal level, was barely mentioned."

These two paragraphs directly contradict each other. One cannot but suspect that the Globe is deliberately trying to sow doubt about the Afghanistan mission. That would be fine on the editorial page; it is not fine when it leads to clearly distorted news reporting."'

May 19, 2005
'Your editorial "Newsweek's stumble" (May 18) warns gravely of the dangers of using anonymous sources in news stories. Yet in Jane Taber's lengthy story the same day reporting supposed details of Ms. Stronach's defection to the Liberals only one source is named, as far as I can see--former Ontario Liberal premier David Peterson. Otherwise Ms. Taber cites: "A Tory insider", "a friend", "a senior Liberal source", "a senior Liberal", "an insider", and "a senior insider". That makes one identified source and six who are anonymous. Perhaps it would be wise if your editorial views and your reporting practices were better co-ordinated to avoid the clear inference of journalistic hypocrisy. And does serious journalism really warrant a full paragraph giving the complete menu and wine list for Ms. Stronach's gastronomic evening on Monday with the Prime Minister?'

June 27, 2005
'The egregious giggling Ms Taber has outed herself politically. She was just interviewed (around 0815) on CFRA, Ottawa, by Daniel Proussalidis about the Liberals' prospects for passing C-38 (same-sex marriage). She replied "What we're hoping", then went the equivalent of "Oops", and went on to explain it was simply that she personally supported the legislation.

Ms Taber is supposed to be a reporter. In that capacity she should not publicly take positions on the substance/substance of contentious political issues.

The Globe should immediately confine her to a columnist's role as a purveyor of opinion--what in fact she already mainly is.'

No responses, naturally.

Mark
Ottawa

what I would like to know as well as I am sure millions of Canadians, is...ARE THE PEOPLE THAT GOT A FREE RIDE TO "CANADA" real Canadian Citizens as in IS THEIR ADDRESS IN CANADA, or are most of these CANADIAN citizens, citizens of Canada, for CONVENIENCE....I would like the lowdown on this...how many had a true Canadian address and how many did NOT but actually reside outside of Canada and just needed a FREE RIDE AWAY FROM THEIR COUNTRY?????? and we have to pay for all this???

I've never worked in the various media industries but do have some respect for what they attempt, in the same way that I can appreciate the motives of those who practiced that fine old Victorian habit of humbug (before it became solely analogous with hypocricy). Originally "humbug" referred to those who made sure that they were rigorous in publically displaying, attending and genuflecting to religious services/tropes on a weekly basis or trumpeting their contributions to charity, doing of good works etc. whilst their private lives or business practices could be contradicing the public image/works. In other words "humbug" was the name for the dues that vice paid to virtue, it was the cost exacted by society on the individual to ensure that public standards were at least seen to be met by the powerful and influencial, and it allows for a non-litigious club to be used against those who transgress too egregiously.
"Humbug"; it is deplorable that it seems necessary to civil life, but, it's absence only leaves legal recourses for bad acts. It is one of the components of the grease that eases the wheels of public life. With it public opinion and the regard for neighbourly good will comes into play, even in the absence of private discipline. I submit that the media, as an industry, may be more prone to its practice than many (but also that none of us as social actors are entirely free of the stain). And what can we do about it? Recognize how deeply embedded it is in media culture and consciouly, selectively, factually expose its presence. Use it as a primary chink in the armour. Embarrass them with humbug exposed, i.e. the "speaking of truth to power", "due diligence for facts", " fair and balanced judgement", "man on the street quotations" etc. Get your ducks in a row before mounting an attack for otherwise you will just be sloughed off by the media as just another special interest and, where possible, kick them in the fork, hard and early (a perfect example being Rathergate where the fonts used in the letter were quickly exposed as complete anachronisms).
Vitruvius, I submit that one possible answer to your query vis. the tension between editorial and journalist opinions can be found in this article
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/tetlock1
(thanks to www.aldaily.com) and that this can be further refined by considering the differences between anonomous and by-lined scribblings. I believe that editorials are written in a collegial way, penned by one person maybe but only after some sort of board/(hopefully)broad discussion and concensus whereas journalists deal with (almost) pure acts of the imagination, unfettered by any except their immediate editor (who may or may not bring substance to the table). Or consider " The Economist", one of the finest international newspapers which is written almost entirely anonomously and by being so grants it writers the freedom to change their mind, retreat from untenable postions, change beats, protect themselves from sneers at trendy PC cocktail parties etc. They work where good writing is rewarded more than the individual voice. By the by, did you ever notice that the best reporting often seems to be done by those with no ambition of becoming "journalists"? , pace the wonderous Blatch and sadly so few others of her ilk.
Sincerely,
Robert Albin
Calgary
But then, I am no expert.

Yes, I think you're on the correct track, Robert; provisos aside, that's at least roughly the case I think I'd argue.

From the Toronto Star today, front: (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1153475348259&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home)
"Lama Ghandour, a 38-year-old mother of three from Ottawa, has not been back in Canada in 10 years and did not want to leave but was doing so for the sake of her children."

Now I don't mean to sound callous, but why the hell are we evacuating people like this? If they are Canadian citizens I think we have the obligation to take them home, but people who haven't been back in Canada for 10 years should probably wait at the back of the line in front of the people who were in Canada 1 week ago and left on vacation. The vacation people are the ones who are going to be running around frantic not knowing what the hell is going on. I would suspect if you've been there for 10 years you know your way around and are in a much better position to handle the crisis. We'll never get our people out in time if we keep evacuating these "has not been back in Canada in 10 years" and "did not want to leave". She'll be back living in Lebanon in no time, still a "Canadian", sort of.

The people who came back from Lebanon pay the taxes that pay for Harper's plane. Like we do. It was their (our)plane that saved them. Steve was just along for the ride and photos.

MacKay is a whiner. He can't have it both ways with the press.

I think the MSM uses the Cretian version of the truth.

truth is da truth, what is true is the truth is de truth, is the truth.

bafflegab in one partial language.

I resent the labelling of the man likely to become our next prime minister as a "social wanker." He's not going to force his social views on anyone, but he will employ some much-needed fiscally conservative tough love on this country. With all due respect to Harper, I can't wait to have a PMPM we can actually be proud of.

mark from ottawa re ms stronach, she has gotten her come uppence by failing miserably
let her fade away..useless twit

If anyone writes Eddie Greenspon and actually gets a reply it will be easy to tell if it truly came from him personally. It'll be the one with the spit and slobber all over it...

kerry that's sad, do you know what "all due respect" means? apparently not because all due respect means just that...all due respect. and I'd venture to guess you don't have that towards our prime minister.

"the people that came back from Lebanon pay the taxes....."

I dont think so. of the 37000 registers so far only 5000 were vacationers-most likely to pay taxes. 32000 are permanent residents of Lebanon- Canadians do not pay taxes on overseas income.many have expired Canadian passports meaning they have been there for more than 5 years without bothering to renew- so even as things heated up they had no intention of coming back( I dont want to use the word -home ) until things really got out of hand.

Canada - hotel to the world - where the conceierge (Peter McKay) takes every complaint and CBCpravda acts as the restaurant critic.

No, Kelly, I like PM Harper. I respect him quite a lot. I think he's one of the best PMs we've had in a long time. The "PMPM we can actually be proud of" bit was a reference to Paul Martin, not Stephen Harper. There is no reason not to be proud of Mr. Harper. I wish him a long and successful career as prime minister. This doesn't change the fact that Mr. MacKay is one of my political heroes and I look forward to his leadership, which I don't expect to begin for a few years.

Please accept my belated apologies, Ted, for misunderstanding your sarcasm. While my first paragraph is still a valid observtion IMO (essentially that we view the potential for bias through our own perspective or our own bias), I do not agree that the MSM has not "taken sides". There are far too many examples of "progressive spin" in the media for me to remotely believe that they are, generally, unbiased.

Again, I would prefer to avoid generalizations of left or right bias with specific and recurring examples. I'm convinced that more examples of left-leaning bias can be found in the MSM than right-leaning bias...and I'm not talking about stories that write approvingly of a Conservative perspective...I'm talking about the use of spin and half-truths to push a dubious perspective or leave an impression that is negative / positive of the "other" side.

Simply saying that the "Harper government has shown leadership" is not bias...but, as an example, when an artical has the majority of quotes from Canadians about the issue of rescuing "Lebanese-who-once-upon-a-time-stayed-in-Canada-just-to-get-a-passport-but-no-longer-want-anything-to-do-with-Canada-until-they-need-rescuing" as being negative of the government when polls are showing that 90% of Canadians are positive, then THAT is bias. And this is what we see.

Just a footnote to this apparently dead thread, the results of a "non-scientific" poll by a Toronto radio station:

"Yesterdays Poll:
Do you think evacuees from Lebanon have a right to complain, Or should they be thankful they were rescued?
right to complain 11%
thankful for rescue 89%"

Funny...you'd never get that impression by reading or listening to the MSM. THAT'S what I'm talking about, Ted.

Speaking of footnotes to an apparently dead thread, apparently only about 8,000 people are likely to be using the Canadian-citizen evacuation option, according to current measurements. Surprise! Not.

Hassle,

"dead thread" for sure.

Nice to see 89% of Canadians giving the big FU to MSM.