Why check the premises of the protesters? They are irrelevant to the MSM. The premises of the CBC, Toronto Star etc, are that capitalism is bad; that Harper is evil and blah blah...

On its evening news segment, by contrast, the CBC admitted that the protest was very small, but still gave airtime to the handful of protestors' garbled views. None of the mine's numerous local supporters were dug up.

Of course not. I dub this the Cindy Sheehan Ploy. Coverage has been 24/7 on this lame broad as if she were some popular player on the national stage when bloggers in attendance of her gigs count 30, 40 syncophants in attendance. But, that's been pretty much the whole MSM ploy for years, a handful of moonbats are carefully choreographed at a scene and it's reported as a popular demonstration with all of those vital details omitted.

And yet the anti-capitalist media commentariat would squeal like stuck pigs of you took the gold out of their Internetted computers, all the while claiming that state monopolies would do a better job, if only you're willing to wait in line for ten years and you don't get arrested before then for complaining about the shoddy products and service. Pace Rand, those commentariat are the embodiment of the conjecture that "contradictions do exist". Their behaviour is contrary to sanity, because they deny the very reality in front of their eyes in the name of mythical perfections and unattainable utopia (or at least the honestly insane ones do, the rest are promulgating ponzi-scheme protection rackets with malice aforethought).

ET - the comment was not directed to the CBC, but to Peter Foster, the Post columnist. To provide a further clue, note which word I emphasized.

Hey TED!

Yoohoo, TE-ED!!!

Where's Ted?

www.tsx.ca; Torstar Corp's ticker is "TS.B"
Just gotta love the 5-year chart.
Looks like their earnings are down about 34% since December 2005. In case anyone was wondering.

Come come my child! You speak of REPUTABLE news sources as if they really existed!!

Ha Ha, but you are young and innocent in the ways of the world. Like the easter bunny and the great pumpkin, such an entity does not exist.
That is precisely why the blogosphere has such a folloing. Th enews hobbits seek ou the reality that the previous news "professionals" molded to suit themselves!

Come along with us and you shall obtain the keys to the realm.. aka unfiltered reports as they unfold.There is no greater reward.. the path to enlightenment.

Yeah that's a bit rich!
I'm sorry.

I blame my overheated ego!Whew it WAS hot today!

typical CBCpravda story. they have had it up on their crap website for two days.

they needed filler till the conrad black story came through.

can you believe that it costs the taxpayers billions for this cheesy subsidized garbage. and $17000/ regular viewer. put that cost on the average cable bill and peter pansbridge and the rest of the CBC fantasy world would be toast.

CTV(tass) takes over where CBCpravda has cut back. note the story starts with the "critics say" part, like using an old CBCpravda model.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070719/Quebec_college_070719/20070719?hub=TopStories

only a matter of time before the most important story next to the socialist agenda will be lactating mothers. did you ever notice that the most vocal women complainers have hairy armpits and hairy legs? ( HD TV is hel l). maybe a couple of Bics and the whole movement would go away.

There's a more interesting article Headlined "Albertan dined for taking on 'landmen'...

Talk about your stacked deck!

Agent is Unlicensed??

So according to Peter Foster, the 'real story' is on Barrick's website, corroborated by a documentary called Mine Your Own Business, a film that 'demonstrated' that feckless environmentalists were behind most opposition to mining.

Five minutes of googling reveals Mine Your Own Business to have been initiated and funded by--wait for it--the very mining company that was trying to push ahead with the Romanian project featured in the film. The head of that mining company, called Gabriel Resources, is reported to be one Alan Hill who is--you guessed it--'a long-time executive at Barrick Gold.'

How odd that Foster wasn't able to 'dig up' these facts as he was working on his column.

http://transylvanianews.blogspot.com/2006/11/globe-and-mail-fighting-fire-with-fire.html

@ Stephen,

Its obvious you haven't seen the documentary. They state clearly who paid for it and who made it at the very beginning. The journalists who created it state they had creative control.

You should watch the documentary. Its enlightening. Shows how damaging people like you are to poor people who are trying to live.

Read your link, Stephen. Is that the best you've got?!

My synopsis of your article:
environmentalists and NGOs take on mining company with media campaign.
mining company fights back with its own media campaign.
Have I got that correct?

Mighty deep stuff there, Stephen.

Oh, I looked up Gabriel on the TSX (I love to follow stocks); looks like they set a new all time price high of $5.70 in February; 52-week low = $2.98.

Guess they've SOMEHOW gotten over that Don Ferris/Jeanne Keith-Ferris thing, what?

Kate linked an Ayn Rand quotation.

My favourite Ayn Rand novel is "Atlas Shrugged";
my favourite part of the novel is Francisco d'Aconia's speech about money. Found the speech;

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/AynRandOnMoney.htm

Pretty much as I remember it in the book. I think it is germane to this discussion.

When conservative hold a protest the news media distart the truth or say a bunch of extremists but when liberals hold aprotest the news media say THOUSANDS ATTENDED or THE ARE RIGHTOUS we all know how unscruploius the liberal left-wing news media is no wonder the people are losing their trust in their lying talking heads and infernal scribblers

I think I'm going to start reading the Financial Post more carefully. I think the black hole of journalism, the one thing good journalists never cover, is "reporting" itself. The usual attitude of most people, journalists and non-journalists alike towards the sort of journalism Foster refers to is that it's just a benign mole someone else's ass; there's not enough recognition that fraudulent, partisan-operative journalism is a ten pound tumor in the body politic.

Wrt the PM's S.America trip, I'm kicking myself for not recording last night's National. There's been no point recently, because CBC has been taking a sort of summer hiatus from anti-Conservative agitating by putting in the eminently reasonable Mark Kelley as anchor, for example, but last night (maybe the night before?) in the midst of a story about the PM's trip, a reporter delivered one of the most inept, inane, non-sequiteurial segues imaginable, a pretty much context-less sudden attack on Mr. Harper. It was almost funny, like a journalist giving up the charade and deciding to just throw fruit instead.

I call them "jump thoughts": "Mr. Harper toured the Concepcion Gardens with President Ernest Zdegenzia -- but he can't shake the controversy of..."

It's like watching a voice-over biodoc of an ornithologist, say, when someone come from offscreen to knee the old fella in the groin, at which point the voice-over intones, with somber knowledge, "recently though, he's been struggling with health issues..."

The phrase "fairness in journalism" is pretty much a memento mori. What the un-left need is our own slander-the-opposition network -- just to provide some balance, you know? Because the people behind the scenes at the CBC aren't gonna be taking off the "Che" t-shirts anytime soon -- for one thing, they'd have to take off their suits first.

"As Mr. Harper flew over the beautiful Andes, drinking bottled water, oblivious to the poverty below...."

I don't think Foster was calling these organizations "reputable," Kate. I think he was making the opposite case, but in a vernacular -- a polite, understated Canadian one -- that doesn't translate clearly to the page. So you thought you saw a contradiction, but one one of your premises was wrong: /:>)>

Add one more emphasis to your chosen one -- "You would think that reputable news sources..." and, although it's the same exact same words, in the same order, it's suddenly not a compliment, but a vicious insult: "You'd think a high priced lawyer..." "You'd think a respected priest..." or hopefully never "You'd think a trained bush pilot..."

Foster's way of couching his terms on the issue is very polite, and Canadian, and a variant on damning with faint praise, but it is damning in the veritable, delightful sense. The fact that he acknowledges, or even alludes to, reporting as an agenda-driven political force, however discretely he does it, is really positive. And in light of Canadian journalists' seeming moratorium on the critical issue of the behavior of their fellow news and polling organizations, and fellow journalists and producers, I'll take what I can get.

I mean, I would LOVE to see an NP editorial ending with "(So-and-so)is nothing more than an obsequious, scheming, well-connected partisan provocateur whose pivotal role -- nudging polls -- gives him influence, and attention, far beyond that which his skills as a reporter would merit.

"Why, exhile him from high-ranking Liberals for three years, and at the end of it he'll be cleaning your chimney -- and eyeing your silverware....."

But in the meantime, I'll settle for articles that begin "You'd think "Canada's News Source"..." and besides, that's why we have Kathy Shaidles -- actually, realistically, that can't be pluralized -- and Kate McMillan and Joel Johannesen.

s.

'Reputable' and 'CBC' in the same story...
I'm confused!!!

There must be sarcasm involved.

They have a hard time counting protesters if they number less than a dozen...inbred MSM dylexia.