sda2.jpg

April 2, 2007

Stephen Taylor Meets His Minder

lizheader.jpg


Stephen Taylor;

While hovering on the periphery of a budget-day scrum with Jack Layton, I was spotted by Elizabeth Thompson of the Montreal Gazette. She scolded me and expressed to this lowly blogger that he wasn't allowed to scrum with Layton. Largely ignoring her, I continued to mind my own business and started to needlessly check my camera settings. Thompson alerted Parliamentary President Richard Brennan to my presence and minutes later, security asked me to leave the foyer area.

I left the hallway outside of the foyer and walked over to the railway room to interview some 'stakeholders' of the budget. This went off without incident and during that time, I cheerfully chatted with some reporters that were in the same room.

Having completed my interviews with the stakeholders, I left and headed on over to the Rotunda where I had a friendly chat with Jack Layton. Elizabeth May and her assistant were also hanging around chatting when I saw Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc walk by. Having heard that his party was the lone opposition party supporting the budget, I asked him for an interview. He agreed. After the interview something ugly happened.


He asks a good question. By what authority does a member of the press ask to have a member of the public removed from the Hill when he has been granted the right by the Speaker to be there?


Elizabeth Thompson responds to Stephen's post in the comments.

"What happened budget day had nothing to do with whether or not you are a blogger - it had everything to do with the fact that you were violating the rules that go with the pass you were wearing around your neck. [...] I can assure you that if I saw anyone without the right credentials doing something that violated the rules that go along with their pass I would also flag it - regardless of their political affiliation."

Thanks for stopping by with your side of the story, Elizabeth - something tells me you were one popular girl in grade school.

Here's an amusing Flashback;

"The journalists whom I saw there as members or guests of Civitas like Lorne Gunther, Andrew Coyne, William Johnson and L. Ian MacDonald quite obviously respected Civitas's bylaws and to my knowledge have not written a word about it.
I am not a member of Civitas and am therefore not bound by the organization's internal membership rules not to report what I hear. I did not enter the room and remained in the public foyer of the hotel, a foyer that members of the public have to cross through to get to other hotel services. Civitas President Lorne Gunther, with whom I have appeared several times on Newsworld, passed me about five times as I stood outside the room and never asked me to leave. I turned down invitations from members of Civitas to come on in and grab a seat.

If you want to keep people from hearing a meeting where a prominent Republican pollster using a microphone and rather loud speaker system briefs a large group with strong connections to the prime minister of this country and the government, (something many people would judge of public interest), I would suggest next time you simply close the door.

Elizabeth Thompson | 05.08.06 - 8:20 pm "

Posted by Kate at April 2, 2007 6:56 PM
Comments

seems like them union media types don't like freelancers on their job site.

Or the pimps won't let anyone work their corner . . . unless they say so.


either way . . . a bad day for free speech.

Somebody has to watch the watchers

Posted by: Fred at April 2, 2007 7:16 PM

They have no authority. They're Liberal supporters and sucks and a Conservative blogger is a threat.

WHAT OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION COULD THERE BE?
THEY DO NOT OWN PARLIAMENT HILL AND ENVIRONS.
WE CAN'T LET THIS ONE GO, GOTTA FIGHT THEM TOOTH AND NAIL.

WHAT COLOSSAL NERVE!

Posted by: Liz J at April 2, 2007 7:21 PM

what a joke...taylor is 100% correct and the boneheaded security guard should have told Ms Thompson that unless there was a bomb, a gun or a threat that there was nothing he could do since Mr Taylor was properly credentialed.

Yes it is a union thing and this deserves the highlight. Perhaps one of the more "traditional" guild members could take this one up.

Paging Mr Well's.....

Posted by: Stephen at April 2, 2007 7:39 PM

This is not good at all!

Scott seems to have tagged her ways once before.

Thompson's comments on the events of that meeting in Taylor's blog, and what constitutes private or public.

Apparently sitting out in the hallway eavesdropping with intent, and recording a non-public meeting is fair game, but having a Speaker-approved-blogger in *our* public foyer is not.

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000587.html

" The journalists whom I saw there as members or guests of Civitas like Lorne Gunther, Andrew Coyne, William Johnson and L. Ian MacDonald quite obviously respected Civitas's bylaws and to my knowledge have not written a word about it.
I am not a member of Civitas and am therefore not bound by the organization's internal membership rules not to report what I hear. I did not enter the room and remained in the public foyer of the hotel, a foyer that members of the public have to cross through to get to other hotel services. Civitas President Lorne Gunther, with whom I have appeared several times on Newsworld, passed me about five times as I stood outside the room and never asked me to leave. I turned down invitations from members of Civitas to come on in and grab a seat.
If you want to keep people from hearing a meeting where a prominent Republican pollster using a microphone and rather loud speaker system briefs a large group with strong connections to the prime minister of this country and the government, (something many people would judge of public interest), I would suggest next time you simply close the door.
Elizabeth Thompson | 05.08.06 - 8:20 pm "

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at April 2, 2007 7:52 PM

They sure don't like anybody stealing from their rice bowl, do they? Guess liberalism and collectivism only carries so much weight after all.

Posted by: Jan at April 2, 2007 7:53 PM

"By what authority does a member of the press ask to have a member of the public removed from the Hill when he has been granted the right by the Speaker to be there?"

By NO authority whatsoever. Members of the press are not offials of Parliament, just ordinary citizens going about their business.

What bloody arrogance.

Posted by: dmorris at April 2, 2007 8:07 PM

Kate,
You forgot something very important. The banner should read:

"Get Offa My Hill....Moooooooo!'

Posted by: Doug at April 2, 2007 8:07 PM

Yep, that Charter right to freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of thought, belief opinion and expression UNLESS of course you actually need it.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 2, 2007 8:09 PM

The MSM hates any challenge to their spin fest. Don't give in Stephen-go for the throat buddy.

Posted by: Boomer at April 2, 2007 8:14 PM

Read this report by Elizabeth Thompson:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=1c2fc81e-fe0c-4cdf-9307-8b7192470e49&k=30935

Interesting that it was Youtube's, copyright claiming liberalvideo that posted the "spy video". I can only ask, are spies spying on spies, spying on spies? This is getting positively James Bondish. Bring back the mole!

Posted by: Jan at April 2, 2007 8:31 PM

BULLY!

Posted by: spike at April 2, 2007 8:33 PM

time to flood the MP's with this little senario. the hill is public property not that of the MSM. as one poster stated the security guard who did the removal should be subject to explain himself. god bless the libranos they just keep on giving.

Posted by: spike at April 2, 2007 8:34 PM

the BULLY comment by the other spike above was not posted by me.

Posted by: spike at April 2, 2007 8:37 PM

oops, so sorry spike

Posted by: Spike #2 at April 2, 2007 8:41 PM

I know it's tempting to take Stephen's side but here's a challenge:

Please think of a way to set up a system that prevents tens of thousands of people from swarming a minister on Parliament Hill, and all demanding to ask a question because they have their own blog. (If only 200 such people a day wanted to ask the Finance Minister a question, for instance, he'd need to tack something between three and five hours onto his schedule for a daily press conference. Or he could limit the event to a few questions a day, which would mean that people who specialize in economics reporting would get the chance to ask maybe a couple of questions a year)

If you can think of a way for bloggers to get Hill access AND not completely destroy the chance of any functioning system that forces our democratic players to answer questions from intermediaries to the public, please go ahead.

But until that conundrum is solved, giving bloggers the same access to ministers as the MSM is a mathematical impossibility, from both a time and logistics standpoint.

You'd literally have to hold Commons scrums on a football field, or by videoconference from a giant auditorium, and you'd need 100 hours in a day, if you wanted to accommodate every blogger. That's not fear-mongering. It's a conservative estimate.

The ball's in your court

Posted by: tony at April 2, 2007 8:48 PM

Stephen Taylor has just discovered the old, old truth about all bureacracies. There's the way the rules say things work, then there's the way things -actually- work.

The way things work on The Hill is that one of the "regulars" can get a newby punted off at will, shiny new Speaker's press pass not withstanding.

The way around this is to do exactly what he's doing. Throw sand in the gears and raise a ruckus until the other kids learn to play nice. Old Boy networks abhore a ruckus, eventually they'll wise up.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 2, 2007 8:56 PM

Looks like it's time to call up Peter Milliken and get to the bottom of this.

I'm glad that others are also feeling outraged, but outrage at the MSM on Kate's Blog isn't too out of place.

I'd be curious to find out what would happen if Stephen asked security to take her off the hill. Maybe then she'd have something to blog about (last post Jan 3rd).

Posted by: Jon Taylor at April 2, 2007 8:58 PM

Tony, the Speaker had already given permission to Stephen Taylor to be there.

So, I think the ball was in his court, and it will find itself back there again now, no doubt.

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at April 2, 2007 9:01 PM

Tony,

I think your question is moot. Steve has a pass and is therefore entitled to be on the hill. If he didn't have a pass he wouldn't be entitled to be on the hill.

If you can get hill access, you should have hill access, not partial access depending on which reporter wants you there. It's pretty clear by the quality of the dirt Stephen gets that he's well connected, as he wrote on his blog, he could become a reporter, but then what stops him from wrecking the system more.

The security was acting on orders from someone who isn't allowed giving them orders... that's why there's outrage.

Posted by: Jon Taylor at April 2, 2007 9:04 PM

The world is getting smaller.

Posted by: ZiLLa at April 2, 2007 9:04 PM

Those are good points, Tony, but until MPs start to make serious complaints about being overly swamped with bloggers who do some reporting, I see no harm (and potentially great benefit) in what Stephen Taylor does.

In actual fact, Stephen Taylor impresses me somewhat with how he manages to get good, even-handed interviews with everyone from Jack Layton to Rick Mercer to Gilles Duceppe in spite of how he's a pretty overt and strong supporter of Stephen Harper.

That takes some real skill - he's almost like a honest, throwback journalist. I like that.

Posted by: Ryan at April 2, 2007 9:05 PM

To add to what I was saying... I think that many of today's 'professional' journalists feel threatened by someone as fair, and transparent, as Stephen Taylor.

They perfer to be subtle about their partisanship so as to allow themselves to seem 'objective' when in reality they're trying to score little points here and there for their favourite party.

Posted by: Ryan at April 2, 2007 9:08 PM

I find it highly ammusing that the MSM is using the same tactics that we have heard them whine about for over a year.

They claim that by making them sign a list in order to ask a question at a press conference is a form of bullying. Who's the bully now?

As Julie Andrews would say " The hills are alive with the sound of whining"

Posted by: Rene at April 2, 2007 9:18 PM

Anytime this happens a complaint should be filed in writing immediately with the Speaker of the house against the security guard in question. Carbon copy the house leaders. After several complaints it will not be long and that practise will come grinding to a halt.

Posted by: Ian Bailey at April 2, 2007 9:31 PM

Okay, so who's gonna reign in the PPG and the security?

Posted by: mark peters at April 2, 2007 9:36 PM

There are how many mainstream reporters covering Ottawa, Tony? It's in the hundreds, is it not?

And how many bloggers? 1? 2?

It seems to me that if the day comes that the number of serious bloggers wanting to cover the Hill becomes problematic, the solution is obvious - cut the redundancy among mainstream outlets to free up space for them.

If there's room for "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", there's room for Stephen Taylor.

Posted by: Kate at April 2, 2007 9:52 PM

It would be far better to give socialist politicians the distance and the contempt they deserve than to get in a cat fight with the journalistic equivalent of streetwalkers over who gets to schmooze with them. When you're rolling around in the gutter, that's when the artful dodgers will steal your property.

"OK, you win - bloggers get free run of the Hill and you can write anything you want. Now bend over and give us what's in your wallet, okay? We promise we'll buy you lunch in the Parliamentary cafeteria afterwards."

And if I see one more conservative political hack assuring me that Jack Layton is "a really decent guy", I'll puke.

Posted by: Ugh at April 2, 2007 10:09 PM

Elizabeth Thompson seems to be the Hill's version of the View's resident fat ass flake, Rosie O'Donnell.

Posted by: Donald Trump at April 2, 2007 10:33 PM

"... they want to use it for some kind of an attack ad. That's what we're afraid of."

The Liberal Praetorian Guard, aka the PPG, doing their duty: protecting Liberal Citoyen Dion.

Fear haunts the PPG: fear of the bloggers; fear of PM Harper and the Conservatives; fear of an election. The PPG is a vendu/a sellout to the Liberals. ...-


Parliamentary Press Gallery president Richard Brennan maps out his rigid blogger strategy:

"They will be ejected and if they continue, they'll be prohibited from coming into the main block, particularly here, I should say, the Foyer of the House. You're not to use anything collected in the Foyer of the House, be it video or voice that could be used in some kind of a nefarious way. That's what these guys want to do. They want to collect tape, video, voice, people making mistakes or saying something that's not exactly correct, they want to use it for some kind of an attack ad. That's what we're afraid of. They're not supposed to be here anyway. They're not members of the Press Gallery. This area is for the members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery or visiting media only." ...-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/wblogolitics

Posted by: maz2 at April 2, 2007 10:35 PM

Who the hell was that?

Posted by: Dante at April 2, 2007 10:48 PM

By what right does one citizen evict another citizen from the area?

Calling all Ottawa area bloggers: Why not collectively go in for some parliamentary coverage and shove it right in the faces of these arrogant weasels? Kick up a stink if the ask you to leave, or go and ask security to make them leave? Wither way, you've made your point.

Posted by: Dante at April 2, 2007 10:51 PM

Heavens, we might find out our leaders are human and prone to mistakes and gaffes like everyone else!

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 2, 2007 10:52 PM

In answer to tony's question about what would happen if "tens of thousands of people...swarm[ed] a minister on Parliament Hill,...demanding to ask a question because they have their own blog":

Come now, tony, as Kate points out, there are only a few bloggers on Parliament Hill (most bloggers have far better things to do than hang around the HOC, with apologies to Stephen Taylor: Someone's got to do it!), so your concern is merely hypothetical--and a little over the top at that.

This is a clear case, as Stephen Taylor has been given the right by the Speaker of the House to have access to Parliament Hill, of a reporter taking an illegitimate proprietory interest in someone else's access to "the Hill."

I also detect what seems to be a proprietory concern of another MSM functionary in tony's statement, "If you can think of a way for bloggers to get Hill access AND not completely destroy the chance of any functioning system that forces our democratic players to answer questions from intermediaries to the public, please go ahead."

I'd suggest that bloggers do exactly what Stephen Taylor has done, and go through the proper channels to gain access to politicians on the Hill.

If the Speaker finds that things are getting out of hand (such as, "tens of thousands" of bloggers demanding to speak to and question government ministers and/or "completely destroy[ing]" the system as it now exists) then I suppose the HOC will have to decide on some other way of dealing with the situation.

Until then, I wouldn't worry too much, tony. And if you are a member of the PPG, I'd say a word to Elizabeth Thompson, something along the lines of cooling her jets or pulling in her fangs.

Posted by: 'been around the block at April 2, 2007 10:57 PM

There is no doubt that Elizabeth Thompson is a partisan reporter and the article about her and Civitas was the last bit of evidence I needed.

Posted by: Peter at April 2, 2007 11:05 PM

I agree with Stephen on his point on the hill. I completely disagree that anyone with a camera should be allowed everywhere.

I said in Stephen's blog ... different subject but the same:

Stephen Taylor: "As a thought experiment, would the level of privacy still be expected (and enforced) if the camera was from CBC/CTV?"

I don't know the answer to your question. I do know people make their own decisions regarding their privacy. There are people who wouldn't attend if there were cameras ... I've even seen people avoiding get in a picture at a wedding ... crossing the street if they see a news camera.

I don't think that democracy (or leaving your house) should be reserved for those people that are willing to have their images splashed on the Internet.

Posted by: ural at April 2, 2007 11:31 PM

Calling all Ottawa area bloggers: Why not collectively go in for some parliamentary coverage and shove it right in the faces of these arrogant weasels?

Because I'd have to burn my clothes afterwards and then bathe in tomato juice for a week to get the smell of political skank off my skin.

You folks have to unlearn everything about the sanctity of parliamentary democracy that the sweet, old, senile schoolmarm taught you in Grade 10 History. It's been a long time since anything that doesn't detract from the values and property of decent, honest people has been debated up there. Just one boondoggle after another, one reasonable and intelligent person after another gets sucked into a morass of collective thievery disguised with sanctimonious bleating and partisan chest-thumping.

You know how sometimes a farmer climbs into a silo, gets overcome with deadly fumes, and one farmer after another keeps following him in trying to save the others and find out what's the problem? Stephen Taylor is your canary.

Posted by: Ugh at April 2, 2007 11:35 PM

in the words of our fearless lieberal leader. borat dion

manny are coltd ,boot few ayre shosen. a press pipple mus be sanctified by the gooverment pipples from what party they are comefrom.

Posted by: cal2 at April 3, 2007 2:10 AM

Mary Walsh and Rick Mercer have no problem getting passes to the Houses of Parliament.
They're political satire could be running interference with the real comedy going on in the Chamber.

Dionglish is always good for a hoot in QP. Don't know who is translating, must be quite a challenge.

Posted by: Liz J at April 3, 2007 7:39 AM

I went to Elizabth Thompson's blog on the gazette website and for her dozen or so entries she yeilded a total of 0 ('zero') comments. Why does the gazette employ this person? It seems no one cares about what she has to say.

Posted by: David at April 3, 2007 8:14 AM

"By what authority does a member of the press ask to have a member of the public removed from the Hill when he has been granted the right by the Speaker to be there?"

Er, it's actually worse than that, Kate.  As Jean-François Revel (the former editor and director of L'Express) put it in his book The Flight From Truth, "members of the press" are actually nothing more than members of the general public who happen to work for a news-gathering organization.  Ascribing any other special status to them is simply an error in categorization, conferring upon these private citizens some kind of special "aura" which allows them to do more than any typical Joe or Jane off of the street.

It follows that Stephen Taylor has precisely the same rights, privileges and powers as anyone who identifies themselves as a "member of the press" for the purposes of access to Parliament and/or Parliamentarians.  They're private citizens; he's a private citizen.

Elizabeth Thompson needs to give her head a shake.  Mind you, I don't think the minions of the MSM are going to disabuse themselves of their false consciousness anytime soon.

Posted by: Garth Wood at April 3, 2007 8:26 AM

Shees!!,,,First free Dominion now the Gazette...bad week or what Steve?

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at April 3, 2007 8:43 AM

Wasn’t it the same parliamentary press gallery that was complaining about lack of access to PMSH and his cabinet ministers several months ago? Then what do the PPG do? They start limiting access to other media groups.

I guess they do not practice what they preach

Posted by: Tony at April 3, 2007 9:31 AM

And what does Speaker Millikin have to say about this.???Shouldnt security be reprimanded for not knowing that Stephen Taylor is allowed on the hill.Surely they must have a list of people who are allowed there.If not we could have a group of terrorists wandering the halls of Parliament.I,d think that Millikin should be doing something about the Security guards who made stephen leave and followed the orders of a newspaper reporter.No newspaper reporter has the authority to have someone removed.And the security guards should not have followed the presses requests before speaking to Millikin.**This has really got to be looked into and not dropped.

Posted by: bert at April 3, 2007 9:33 AM

I used the link to her 'blog' as well...and sent her an e-mail asking about her sense of authority and her delusions of grandeur. I don't expect a response.
PPG must be getting a sense of their redundancy, and boredom is setting in...they have to take it out on someone.

Posted by: vf at April 3, 2007 10:10 AM

Those seeking to better understand what happened and why Stephen Taylor was asked to leave by security may be interested in the note below that I posted to Stephen's blog. If he - or the author of this blog - had called me, they would have known this already.

Elizabeth Thompson

**********


Stephen,

What happened budget day had nothing to do with whether or not you are a blogger - it had everything to do with the fact that you were violating the rules that go with the pass you were wearing around your neck.
Different kinds of passes entitle the wearer to different types of access. The pass you got identifying you as part of an MPs office no doubt allows you to go some places that the media are not allowed to go. On the flip side, it does not allow you to tape or videotape people in the foyer of the House of Commons. If every one of the 308 MPs sent a single staffer to tape or videotape other MPs it would be chaos - and dangerous - for MPs and the media in the foyer.
I can assure you that if I saw anyone without the right credentials doing something that violated the rules that go along with their pass I would also flag it - regardless of their political affiliation. Lately, the Conservatives appear to be the only ones doing it. Odd, since tapes and videotapes are so easily available and the Conservative party has a long history of respecting both the rules and traditions of Parliament Hill.
As for Garth Turner, his access to the Hill is determined by his status as an MP - not as a blogger. Even then, he has already been told he can't take his camera into a lot of areas of the parliamentary precinct.

Elizabeth Thompson
Elizabeth Thompson | 04.02.07 - 10:35 pm | #

Posted by: EThompson at April 3, 2007 10:26 AM

Madam Thompson, keeper of the Hill, thanks for explaining but your a bit over the top.

You just go ahead and keep an eye on all those hundreds of Bloggers who will no doubt be descending on your Hill. For the safety of all, of course.

Posted by: Liz J at April 3, 2007 10:45 AM

I received the same response...
yes she is feeling redundant as PPG and is looking for a new job in Security. You go girl!!!

Posted by: vf at April 3, 2007 10:53 AM

Elizabeth, The truth of the matter is your actions created a controversy and now you're attempting to weasel your way out by claiming your actions were in the interest of preventing chaos and danger. How pathetic.

Also how revealing, "The conservatives are the only ones breaking the rules". Lizzie dear, your bias is showing.

Posted by: prospector at April 3, 2007 11:07 AM


"On the flip side, it does not allow you to tape or videotape people in the foyer of the House of Commons."
I call bullshit!

Why can't EVERYBODY take pictures in the freakin foyer?
Please show me where this is outlawed.

Posted by: richfisher at April 3, 2007 11:36 AM

Death to MSM's.

Their arrogance is bewildering,

I'm not buying a paper today in protest!

Posted by: DrWright at April 3, 2007 11:38 AM

E.Thompson said:

"I can assure you that if I saw anyone without the right credentials doing something that violated the rules that go along with their pass I would also flag it - regardless of their political affiliation. Lately, the Conservatives appear to be the only ones doing it."

How do you identify that they are Conservatives, exactly?

Having had some history with Stephen Taylor, as noted, one might think a cordial explanation about the categories of passes, would have sufficed.

I hope the Speaker sees the interest of the public in this issue.

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at April 3, 2007 12:13 PM

Unfortunately, I was unable to find the rules and regs on the commons foyer but a quick google search on "commons foyer media pass" shows that it isn't just Mr. Taylor that has been blocked. Garth Turner's MPTV has also run into problems and even 22 Minutes was denied a pass.

It looks like even MPs can't bring a camera in. As much as it grieves me, it looks like Thompson had the right to ask security to do their job.

The rules need to be changed.

Posted by: Sheldon Kotyk at April 3, 2007 12:23 PM

"I can assure you that if I saw anyone without the right credentials doing something that violated the rules that go along with their pass I would also flag it."

Another self-appointed rabid leftist, policing other peoples business. This pompous. so-called journalist needs a very public and belittling slapdown. Which I hope she's getting right here on this thread.

Posted by: irwin daisy at April 3, 2007 1:18 PM

Sounds like she was in the right after all. Although she could have pointed out his error before sicking a security guard on him.

Posted by: Norman at April 3, 2007 1:27 PM

Maybe we need a petition to have the Speaker revoke Ms. Thompson's press pass? I'd sign it.

Posted by: Sean at April 3, 2007 1:49 PM

It would seem that these blog owners see themselves as a credible media source, when in fact they are nothing more than sounding boards for their frequently ill-informed ideologies.

Posted by: albatros39a at April 3, 2007 2:11 PM

Hey Elizabeth what's it like being in the same position as all those buggy whip people where a while back?

Posted by: FREE at April 3, 2007 2:11 PM

There could be a bias here, who really cares anymore? The Libs are on the skids anyway, let the media enjoy themselves keeping Conservatives in line.

How does one identify a Conservative? Do they have a special look? Are they all dressed in blue?
Stephen was not working on behalf of the Conservatives anyway.

The Speaker is going to be busy if he starts paying attention to a few issues that need it.
It will be interesting how he deals with the Holland/Jennings caper. The media will be around to report on that, especially if it is favorable to the snoop-dog pair.

Posted by: Liz J at April 3, 2007 2:14 PM

"It would seem that these blog owners see themselves as a credible media source, when in fact they are nothing more than sounding boards for their frequently ill-informed ideologies."

...as opposed to professional journalists providing sounding boards for David Suzuki's ill-informed ideologies?

Credible media, my ass.

Posted by: Sean at April 3, 2007 2:15 PM

Donald,
The counterpart to Liz is not Rosacea but Helen Thomas

Posted by: Capt. Craig at April 3, 2007 2:23 PM

"when in fact they are nothing more than sounding boards for their frequently ill-informed ideologies."

I agree. You fit right in that category.

Posted by: multirec at April 3, 2007 3:02 PM

If sheldon is right why wasn't Stephen informed by security or Milliken?
It was just Thompson's 'ticket' to get bossy.

Posted by: vf at April 3, 2007 8:31 PM

Thanks for stopping by with your side of the story, Elizabeth - something tells me you were one popular girl in grade school.

What's this supposed to mean, ya fuckin' whore?

Posted by: Rebelious minion at April 4, 2007 7:02 PM
Site
Meter