Looks really bad!

If this report is accurate!
Time to ask your MP for clarification I think.

I wonder who in the PMO is getting the fat head!
Muzzling departments that should be accountable to the public is not good management it's bad policy.

Got my vote. Damian, man, you need to run for office or something.

Me thinks thou dost complain too much. Yes, they could probably be more efficient in the PR department but don't forget we are talking about simple servants here. Speed and efficiency have nothing to do with them collecting their paycheque.
Personally, the way that the MSM has been trying to dig up anything that might stick like crap to the CF, I wouldn't care if it took two weeks for your information to come through channels.

Haha, the whole time I was reading it, I was thinking "woah, good on ya Kate for taking a non partisan stance, perhaps I've been quick to judge", but then I reached the bottom and it said "Posted by Damian". lol. In any regard, a piece on SDA that is critical of the Conservative party is quite a rarity and groundbreaking. A breath of fresh air actually.

BTW, it was a good article! I too would like to hear it straight from the horses mouth rather than politicians who are primarily concerned with their re-election prospects when they debate the war.

Steve, I think you should read Kate's postings a bit more carefully...I don't read them as that of a partisan cheerleader, but of an intelligent and like-minded (to Conservatives) analyst. Perhaps her readers sound at times like partisan cheerleaders and that colours your view of Kate's opinions. She has and SDA-regulars (Conservative supporters) have disagreed with the various Conservative and "conservative" parties on a number of issues.

She calls a spade a spade...most of us try to do the same.

Any military officer should be able to explain their mission.

Eeyore: She has and SDA-regulars (Conservative supporters) have disagreed with the various Conservative and "conservative" parties on a number of issues.

Can you point to any recent examples?

"It's time for Harper and the Conservatives to put an end to this internecine bureaucratic political warfare, and let the CF do its job. It's time to take the shackles off them, and let them inform the Canadian public about who they are and what they do, as they have in the recent past."

That seems unlikely to happen any time soon. Putting all the blame on senior bureaucrats and political staffers ignores Harper's own complicity in approving this new informal policy directive. The buck should stop right at the very top and not just at the doorstep of the PCO or PMO, who get their orders, after all, from the PM himself. This administration seems to place great importance in controlling the message track. It's muzzled Conservative MPs plenty of times in the past, no surprise that it's also now muzzling the military. Smart from a political viewpoint, but as we've seen, it can backfire.

Has anyone read the author??? Last time I looked D-a-m-i-a-n didn't spell Kate.

Spot on post. Too bad it didn't come from Kate herself, but what the heck, it's the issue that matters, and not the messenger...

DND's communications strategy has been surprisingly spot in, especially in the wake of the Somalia affair. One of the few good things that came out of that was a move to open up the communications process to the soldier on the ground. No longer did a reporter and their subject - a soldier or an officer - have to dilly dally needlessly over layers of approval and time-wasting bureaucratic excercises in turf-protection. I've always been impressed by the higher-ups at DND who turfed out their old communications strategy and opened up their new one. Want proof of how effective it's been? I'd say Blatchford's book is evidence of how good it's been working.

Harper's PMO and the PCO have been dictating communications policy and information sharing for far too long on far too many policy files.

Again, kudos for SDA - or, more importantly, for Damian - for taking the Harper PMO to task on this one.

Yes, we well remember that 'military silence' also brought a 'decade of darkness' under the LIEberals.

While one can understand the need for day to day operational security, the debate over specific military capabilities and the specific needs that are being addressed in the Afghanistan mission are still open to debate.

If people are going to support the mission, then they need to understand the mission from a broad overview perspective. The MSM with a few notable exceptions, have not portrayed why having a well run military is necessary in a chaotic and sometimes dangerous world.

30 year old equipment turnovers, is hardly what one would describe as well run. The LIEberals can have their turn at the pillory for that policy choice.

Cheers

"the bureaucrats responsible for this shift in Public Affairs are putting the whole fragile construct at risk."

The bureaucrats?

I am an ex military officer, and in Canada, and in any civilized country the military is run by civilians and politicians. We sometimes might not like the way that turns out, and the civilians aren't necessarily good at what they do. Sometimes the issues seem petty and trivial but soldiers have guns and they must do as they are told by their political masters. This is a completely non negotiable state of affairs.

That being said the armed forces of Venezuela recently acted in an entirely appropriate and professional manner to a scenario I pray we are never faced with in Canada.

She said it would probably be at least a week, and here it is not quite a week later. Aren't you jumping the gun a little?

Steve,
I don't understand where you're coming from.

Kate is partisan, I'm partisan, 70 or 80% of the people who post here are partisan. We're all conservatives.

There is no attempt on anyone's part to be non-partisan. We don't especially believe that being non-partisan is a virtue.

What are you complaining about? Your post has not been deleted.. neither has Wendy's. If you have an opinion, state it. If you want liberal opinion, there are plenty of places on the Internet to get it.

You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to understand what I have just stated.

Kate is partisan, I'm partisan, 70 or 80% of the people who post here are partisan. We're all conservatives.

All I learn from SDA is that if a Liberal and a Conservative engage in similarly bad behavior, then the Liberal is in the wrong and the Conservative gets ignored as if it didn't happen. Partisanship is fine and all, but one should try and have some standard of right and wrong. All I get from this place is that the vast majority here, including Kate, excuse the bad behavior of their political ilk and disdain those same things when they come from the competing parties. What does that say about you all?

"All I learn from SDA is that if a Liberal and a Conservative engage in similarly bad behavior, then the Liberal is in the wrong and the Conservative gets ignored as if it didn't happen"

Then you have a selective reading capability. How many on here have called for "the chin's" head on a platter as well? Many.

Shades of Chretienite gag orders on bureaucrices!

Not a good path to wander down...I'm sure these officers know what will or will not compromise security and the action in Afgahnistan.

BTW to Lib partisan detractors: You can claim SDA is biased when I see Liberal nedia partisans and bloggers condemn the many many warts on Liberal administrations and policies.

POT-KETTLE-BLACK

How many on here have called for "the chin's" head on a platter as well? Many.

Great, one example. Do a search for Duke Cunningham or any of the other Repugs down south who've engaged in bad behaviour. Nary a word. But any misstep by a Democrat is news in SDA land. Again, speaks volumes about your "worldview."

Yeah but you see WL.. I'd tell those lib blogs that they're partisan hacks too. My appeal for a better discussion isn't exlclusive to SDA. Peter D. stated it well. People are obviously going to be partisan to a degree, but when you can't even publicly acknowledge policies and actions you disagree with in the party you vote for, then you're not just partisan, but a blind hack who follows a party with no more conviction than is required to cheer for your favourite sports team.
Politics shouldn't be about identifying with teams, it should be about holding politicians accountable for implementing your ideals no matter what party is in power. Surely you can be a conservative party voter, but openly disagree with some of what they are doing. For instance Kate thinks global warming is BS, well then why not criticize Jon Baird or Harper when they attempt to appease environmentalists. Or what about some of these soft budgets that boost spending for various social programs? How conservative is that. I'm simply wearing another hat right now in saying this, but I don't know why more people here can't do the same.

It's really quite sobering to just pull back and attempt to be an analyst. more than an overly partisan pundit. When you do so, you understand that BS goes on as a result of the system.

Anyway I've repeated this all before on here.

There is virtue in being able to acknowledge when your party isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's helpful to keep in mind the absolute progress indicators of your ideals and not just the relative ones (e.g. adopting the attitude that...'well, Harper is better than the Liberals, so I love him unconditionally',)

BTW to Lib partisan detractors: You can claim SDA is biased when I see Liberal nedia partisans and bloggers condemn the many many warts on Liberal administrations and policies.

POT-KETTLE-BLACK

Great, so we agree that there is a whole lot of partisanship and biased reporting on blogs and in the mainstream media. Good to see that we are on the same page and that we agree that SDA is part of the problem.

BTW - How does it feel to support a site that engages in the exact same behavior that you loathe in other sites?

Peter has really discovered something exciting here. Apparently, some sites tend to favour similar points of view, and the people that visit often share political perspectivs.
Tell us, Peter the Wise, when did you have this moment of enlightenment? Did you shout "Eureka!" and run through the streets?
Seriously, what a predictable, dull-witted observation.

Wow! Peter brings the critique of our current PM, WHICH Kate posted, all the way around to Kate being silent to American Republicans. The mind reels.

Apparently, some sites tend to favour similar points of view, and the people that visit often share political perspectivs.

So your point of view is that unethical behaviour is tolerable as long as your political party engages in it? Good to know.

Wow! Peter brings the critique of our current PM, WHICH Kate posted, all the way around to Kate being silent to American Republicans. The mind reels.

Not Kate, Damien. The mind really does reel :)

Apparently Peter missed the part where this is a personal blog site, and not a news outlet purporting to be a) objective or b) fair or c)interested in covering every hiccup in politics.

To help you with your curiosity, though, here is my stance. I blog on what I want to blog about, and link to what I find to be interesting. I even link to items I have no opinion on.

I invite people who I think have special talent or backgrounds to guest blog. I asked Damian to write that post because I knew he has excellent sources and a more informed opinion.

If I don't mention a topic in the news, it's because it's already being done to death, I don't care, I don't find it interesting, didn't see it, or ... I'm busy working!

In addition to providing information and links free of charge that you complain provide no value, I take time out to make a living.

So, if you don't like what you find here, then go somewhere else. I don't hang out at DailyKos, either. It's not like SDA is piped into your brain via cable connection, or picking your pockets like the CBC.

"Not Kate, Damien. The mind really does reel :)"
And Kate posted it. Are you that thick?

Really, Peter, I think you are trolling in the wrong part of the internet. Your so called revelation of some sort of bias is pretty old stuff. Living down here in the good old US of A, I can tell you that any "Repugs" as you call them so much as passes gas in the wrong direction and most of the media is all over it.

You have rose coloured glasses on dude. you see and hear only what you want to.

I am sorry but our national media has lied to me so many times that I have tuned them out. A shame really.

The military is not accountable to the public. Thank God!
Military brass is subject to direction by the minister of defence.
If you have a beef with your so called "right" to access information take it up with your MP, that's what they're there for.
Don't bitch because the service personel don't give a rat's ass about media access to anything.
They are used to being F'd in the A by the pinko press every time they turn around.

Peter D:

"Aurora replacement rolling?"

"C-130J: 13 months to issue Request for Proposal"

"The sacred cow that kills"

I think you'll find a lot of non-partisan discussion on things out there, even from "conservatives".

Mark
Ottawa

I'm not Canadian and therefore don't have a dog in this specific fight, but I'm afraid that it's just another example among many of the growing number of indications that we -- all Western Governments and the societies they direct -- are experiencing the main failure mode of the "civil service" model.

The purpose and function of any bureaucracy is the security, comfort, and power of the bureaucrats. What's painted on the door is simply an indication of what issues they will use to achieve that end, and as the bureaucracy becomes secure, comfortable, and powerful, its nominal purpose becomes more and more seen as a galling restriction on the scope of its efforts. Whether the directive comes from upstairs or not, this looks from outside like a simple power grab. It's their job to talk to the Press. If actual serving members of the military talk to the Press they're minimizing the function of the bureaucracy, and that will never do.

I'm beginning to be nostalgic for the spoils system. However venal and incompetent, at least they're gone after the next election. An immortal Civil Service will naturally tend to at least try to wag the dog -- and, over time, is very likely to accumulate the power to do so.

Regards,
Ric

Apparently Peter missed the part where this is a personal blog site, and not a news outlet purporting to be a) objective or b) fair or c)interested in covering every hiccup in politics.

Well, as long as you are admitting that you aren't fair and objective, I'm fine with that. I sometimes just wonder how you can be so critical of others, mainly the MSM (except Fox - you ignore their bias well enough),for their lack of fairness and objectivity and then engage in the same behavior. And yes, I realize that your answer is because this is a personal blog. Whatever justification/excuse works for you.

If I don't mention a topic in the news, it's because it's already being done to death, I don't care, I don't find it interesting, didn't see it, or ... I'm busy working!

And you don't like high-lighting anything that Conservatives do wrong, whether it is North or South of the border. It's OK, you already said that you weren't fair or objective.

I think you'll find a lot of non-partisan discussion on things out there, even from "conservatives".

Thanks Mark, I'll check it out. My hope was always that blogs would raise the level of political debate, but all it's done is spread the crass partisanship that are destroying our democracies even more.

Well, as long as you are admitting that you aren't fair and objective, I'm fine with that.

I don't care what you're "fine with". I don't blog to please you.

"I sometimes just wonder how you can be so critical of others, mainly the MSM (except Fox - you ignore their bias well enough),for their lack of fairness and objectivity and then engage in the same behavior."

These are news outlets. They represent themselves as deliverers of timely, accurate information on current events. They are expected to be thorough, retain proper context, and keep their personal political bias out of the story. None of these things are the norm these days.

I am not a journalist. They are. I am not a news service. They are. I am a news consumer and as such, I reserve the right to criticize their product.

Asking a private individual why they do not present all sides of an issue is as absurd as asking a baker why he does not offer a full selection of meat and fresh vegetables.

Furthermore, I do not get US cable news, so I seldom see Fox.

I know, another precious myth exploded.

Peter, informed citizenry is a requirement of democracy, not a detraction and certainly not the destruction.

Regardless of the slant of the information, it is still data upon which to make a choices. Disagreeing with the a, b, or c's slant doesn't invalidate the data.

Cheers,
lance

Asking a private individual why they do not present all sides of an issue is as absurd as asking a baker why he does not offer a full selection of meat and fresh vegetables.

Can you at least present more than one side then? All you do is present news from a conservative bias and in the process add to the general problem of partisanship. I get that it's your right to do whatever you want, I just don't understand quite why you do it. I don't understand why Liberals or Conservatives engage in such behaviour. It's counter-productive and just results in us all being further away from any sort of truth.

Regardless of the slant of the information, it is still data upon which to make a choices.

Why do we want people making choices based upon information that is biased and that lacks objectivity? Don't we want people making judgments based on non-biased and objective information?

"Don't we want people making judgments based on non-biased and objective information?"
I know that I would, not that I'll get that from the media though. So I'll revert to blogs such as Kate's who's opinion somewhat mirrors mine.

...doesn't it seem kind of strange that you are having this debate in the comments of a really good anti-Harper post? :p

Great post SDA, as always.

Peter D, how can you presume to instruct Kate on what she should or should not put on her personal blog?

Have you noticed that she has been voted Top Canadian Blog year after year?

And why on earth should she alter her perspective on political events to suit you? Who made you the ultimate arbiter of what Kate should put on her blog that she pays for?

If you're not a troll, then you must have some megalomania and believe other individuals should dance to your tune and their opinions should circle around your ego.

Why on earth are you not screaming at the Canadian MSM to be more fair and objective? Shouldn't they be the real targets of your aggravation?

That's what sparked it Paula. Some here were taken aback that SDA actually said a bad thing about Harper. If I had come to Canada and known nothing about politics here, I would have been convinced that Harper was some sort of demigod under constant threat by evil corrupt warlocks, given the discourse at SDA.

In any regard, Kate is right -- it's her blog and she can do whatever she wants. From my point of view its just somewhat of a shame that she's missing an opportunity to have a more serious discussion with nore people... of different ideas, without all the slander and defamation, the school yard like issue of topics that in manner that comes off asHey guys look what I found?, where everyone then runs over and lines up to praise Kate. It gets old quick, but then I'm always free to leave, right? I guess its sort of like... When we see our leaders out calling each childish things we need not emulate that. Rather we should rise above it. The same goes for when they're so blatantly towing the party line, that they don't deviate in the interests of Canadians. If we could only have less of that, not a complete removal because partisanship does have benefits, but its definitely on overkill these days.

A skilled debater can make a good arguments from wherever they sit in the political spectrum, and Kate definitely draws attention to issues that may otherwise go unnoticed. A case in point is the Newfoundland resolution.

It's a shame to see her getting bogged down in mudflinging so often. She's a really bright woman and would do well in advancing the philosophical tenets of her ideals to a more serious crowd, not to suggest everyone here is capital C conservative before a small c, but many are.

Anyway, that's my rant, obviously I could do well to study my shortcomings too as I'm sure/know there are many.

Answering a surprise phone call for information off the cuff is not easy for a security conscious DND.

Answers are far more likely when they have a clearly outlined topic in writing to respond to.

The Department of Transport suffered some real egg on the face recently when the CBC News played back a waffling telephone DOT excuse for not granting justified authorization.[ video on my blog]

In contrast, I got a nice detailed Email reply from Karen Lloyd
Director General, Safe Environments Programme
Health Canada, in response to a few questions about the new updated state of clean transport standards.

I like it in writing. Something concrete as proof. Phone calls are iffy... too much *he said...she said*..= TG

Sorry for the poor grammar above, I should slow down when I'm typing.

Kate,
Many thanks for tremendous personal sacrifices you make (time and resources) to bring the many of us SDA fans our daily fix. I don't often comment but I read most every day. I enjoy the variety of topics you bring, many that I would never read about otherwise. Like someone just mentioned, SDA mirrors my own leanings so it is easy reading. Contrary to what Peter or others may think, you allow dissenting opinions so many sides of an issue are aired. Don't change a thing. There are many of us who may not say much but enjoy SDA because you give voice to the things we wish would be said loud enough and clear enough that occasionally the Legislature and even Parliament Hill have to take notice. Thanks again
Daniel

Greg,

Not instructing Kate to do anything - asking why she isn't and wishing that she did. I second Steve's post - would be nice to have real debate, rather than cheerleading sites where dissenting opinions are considered trolling. See your post as exhibit #1.

Minuteman & TG, I've had same-day response times from the Media Liason Office at DND in the past. I also know a decent number of subject experts within the ranks of both the uniformed military and DND civil servants.

I often know the people who have the answers to the questions I'm asking. It's not that they don't want to provide the information, or that they don't have the time - they want to talk to me.

The truth is that they've been told not to without asking mommy at the PCO for prior approval - approval which rarely materializes at all, and when it does, comes far too late and far too limited.

This isn't a push-back from the CF or from DND, it's a push back from those who control the department from above. And it needs to stop.

Peter, Steve: I reinterate my previous post, you guys are looking through rose coloured glasses. I find there are a lot of great discussions here from all parts of the political spectrum. Commentators like Ted and Vitruvious can carry on a meaningful debate without being whinney.
Kate's blog is a personal blog so you play by her rules. If you don't think there is enough balance for your liking you can always start you own blog. It is kind of like going over to someone else's home and bitching about the coffee: just plain tacky.

On the sidebar topic of what Kate should or should not make of this blog, I would refer those offering editorial advice to Master Flea's treatise on the subject: Free Ice Cream.

From that most excellent screed:

Ghost of a flea is a blog written and published at my time and expense for reasons I am not certain I can properly articulate. Most of the time it is a labour of love but it remains labour nonetheless. If you spot something here and choose to write about it please have the common courtesy to offer a link in recognition of my work. If you are an argumentative soul regularly outraged at my ramblings I suggest you vent your feelings at your own expense elsewhere. And if you find all this free ice cream is not to your taste please feel free to read something else or, better yet, write something more interesting. I am certain the world will beat a path to your door and bask in your fascinating thoughts. When I shut down the Flea it will give people something else to read and if you are especially lucky you can pay for the bandwidth they will use to tell you how boring your work is.

I would heartily recommend the entire post. And I would equally heartily recommend those offering unsolicited advice to Kate on the creative direction of this blog to STFU.

Damian, I understand ( I think) what you are saying. My point is if the military people are being told not to say anything by their civilian leadership, that is exactly what they will and should do. If you are not happy with that situation you must take it up with the civvies, not the soldiers.

Not that I agree with the current policy, but, the Canadian media's track record in dealing with anything military has been, how should I say this, less than honorable.

They will take the mutterings of a disgruntled soldier(any person who has served in the army is disgruntled some of the time)and turn it into a national crisis.

I mean, really, what do you expect when certain members of the MSM actually hold the enemy in higher esteem than our own troops.

And to the moonbats who do not enjoy the rightist slant of this site. DO NOT COME HERE, YOU MORONS!

For the benefit of the commenters above who obviously don't own a dictionary, the definition of "partisan" is: "strong, esp., unreasoning, supporter of party, cause, etc.".

To accuse Kate and many other contributers here of being "unreasoning" is to defy the facts of the matter. Strong supporters, yes; apologists or unreasoning supporters, absolutely no!

If you can't recognize that from objectively reading the posts and comments, then I suspect you are not in complete control of your faculties.

And Wendy, two recent examples of Kate's objectivity: Emerson's floor crossing; and the qualified support of the Saskatchewan Party. Now, I return the challenge: show recent examples of KATE'S "strong, esp., unreasoning" support of ill-advised Conservative or "conservative" policies/actions.

Peter DL

"Great, so we agree that there is a whole lot of partisanship and biased reporting on blogs and in the mainstream media. Good to see that we are on the same page and that we agree that SDA is part of the problem.

BTW - How does it feel to support a site that engages in the exact same behavior that you loathe in other sites?"

It's obvious you haven't hung around SDA long or read the variety of opinion in the threads...and also the fact that Kate is VERY tolerant of opposing opinion...particularly of Harper policies...of which I have personally been a lead critic when they vary from the member-ratified policy book....so I think you condemnation is based in your own prejudices and ignorance...particularly if you consider ME to be a lock-step conservative...you obviously have not read anything I have posted.

Have a nice day trying to discover absolute unbiased blogs ( your's included) and enjoy rolling in your own prejudices as being the benchmark of balance....BTW the purpose of the blogoshere is to offer news and opinion not seen in the MSM...Partisan sites usually ape MSM...and they don't get traffic...SDA gets traffic because Kate allows all kinds of feedback on her posts short of slander or disinfo.

Good gawd, if politics in a democracy isn't made up of "partisan" viewpoints and ideologies it isn't a democracy, I think they'd call it a Commie state or
dictatorship.

Most of us are capable of critiquing all of our politicians no matter their Party politics while believing strongly in the principles of one particular party. We also are more apt to defend those we strongly believe in.

Minuteman, I'd hope it's clear that my criticism isn't directed towards those in uniform, or even those working for DND. I don't like the instructions DND and the CF are being given.

And I also want to be clear: I have no problems with civilian oversight and control of the military, none at all. The government is exercising its lawful right to manage this department.

But two points are key. First, the direction is idiotic, short-sighted, and petty. Second, instead of changing the official communications policy under which the CF has operated for years now, the mandarins are trying to muzzle them by stealth. I say if you're going to stifle the voices of our soldiers, at least have the balls to do it openly and justify it to the Canadian public.

Maybe a little clarification is in order here.

As a serving member of the CF, I have no problem with telling my fellow Canadians (Within the constraints of operational security) anything about what we do. We are proud of our contributions and our profession.

Unfortunately the problem is not my fellow Canadians, it is the media. I feel the "media chill", as do most of us, because a generation of experience has shown that in many cases the MSM is tacitly or actively against us, and will use or spin anything in the most negative manner possible. Therefore we generally don't see the MSM as our fellow Canadians, but as a danger to our profession and, by extension, our country.
I cannot speak for our civilian masters, but I suspect they feel the same chill, for the same reasons.
When you encounter a poisonous snake you either handle it very carefully or avoid it completely. Is that not a rational response?

When the MSM becomes unbiased, objective, and professional, instead of potentially dangerous, I am sure the "media chill" I feel will abate.
Not before.

That is not to say that DND does not have a responsibility to accept the risk, and learn to handle the poisonous snake rather than avoiding it. It is dangerous, and we may get bitten, but it needs to be dealt with.
As Damian knows all too well.

To quote a famous Canadian, in this case "the media IS the message!"

Kate: These are news outlets. They represent themselves as deliverers of timely, accurate information on current events. They are expected to be thorough, retain proper context, and keep their personal political bias out of the story. None of these things are the norm these days...I am a news consumer and as such, I reserve the right to criticize their product.

Someone who is truly against bias in the media would criticize news outlets that are both left-leaning (e.g., T.O. Star, G&M, CBC, CNN) and right-leaning (e.g, Nat. Post, FoxNews). Someone who is against only left-wing bias would criticize the former and give a pass to the latter. The lasting impression would be that one doesn't actually want a news media that's objective and impartial, but rather a news media that caters to one's own partisan views -- equally biased, only in the opposite direction.

You can do whatever you like, but let's be clear on what you're for and what you're against.

Franzen et al, there are lefties that haunt this place (such as Partisan "Non-Partisan" Ted) who claim there is NO LEFT BIAS at all in the media or that the bias is evenly split left and right.

That has been shown to be incorrect...there IS left bias in the media and overwhelmingly so. Refer to a previous thread here at SDA where this (American) report was presented and discussed.

SDA-ers have generally acknowledged that there are some "right-wing sympathetic" media outlets, but they are NOT overtly so...perhaps you could argue the case for FoxNews (I have no idea...what little I've seen seemed to be reasonably balanced). There is no equivalent large "conservative" paper to the large "liberal" paper that is the Toronto Star...despite having one or two sane voices amongst their legion of moonbats.

I think what you will find as a recurring theme here is...we want NO BIAS at all in the media. We want them to present FACTS and BACKGROUND, but not spin or opinion or indoctrination...neither to the left nor to the right.

I accuse you of reading SDA with off-coloured glasses (per TC's previous posting). Sure, there are some here who are partisan...but not anywhere near the majority. If anything, we're so glad to finally have a half-ways reasonable PM that we are a bit too willing to look the other way at the minor transgressions.

Well said Eeyore..... But I believe you are waisting your time.

@Eeyore: Why characterize it as "left-wing bias" but "right-wing sympathy"? Bias is bias, whether it's overt or not. In fact, it's arguable worse when it's not overt.

There is no equivalent large "conservative" paper to the large "liberal" paper that is the Toronto Star...

I presume you believe in the power of the free market, right? You know what they say: demand drives supply. Have you considered the possibility that the news consuming public, insofar as it still buy papers at all, is as a whole more liberal than conservative?

I think what you will find as a recurring theme here is...we want NO BIAS at all in the media. We want them to present FACTS and BACKGROUND, but not spin or opinion or indoctrination...neither to the left nor to the right.

Except that I've never seen a single SDA post that highlights and criticizes right-wing bias in, for example, the National Post.

Which leads me to think that the recurring theme here is (and forgive me for paraphrasing): "we want NO LIBERAL BIAS at all in the media. We want them to present FACTS and BACKGROUND, or spin or opinion or indoctrination as long as it's sympathetic to the right."

If you're correct that SDA readers don't want any bias or spin or indoctrination from the right either, then why don't we see more (or any, for that matter) spontaneous criticisms of right-wing bias in the "readers' tips" threads?

Interesting question Franzen. Ironically, we've seen no mention here of Paul Jackson, the Calgary Sun columnist who wrote favourable articles for the opponent of Craig Chandler - at behest of the Progressive Conservative government of Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach.

What amazes me is that people here have convinced themselves that there is an overt, dominating left wing bias. We've got to wade through shrill cries of "CBC Pravda!" on a regular occassion, but of course no commentary on the proof that a Sun columnist - he admitted it! - takes his marching orders from the premier's office! So don't give me that line that you're sympathetic to right bias...SDA pines for it!! You guys WANT it!

Part of the problem is that ANY criticism of Harper (or any of their pet political heroes) is automatically construes as left leaning bias. Unbelievable. I guess everyone tuned out during the bashing of the Liberals for the last however many years...oh yes, I forgot, that fits into another SDA narrative, that the Liberal media disliked Paul Martin, so they pushed him out in favour of Dion...wait a minute...huh?

Nothing new here. I was involved in Ipperwash from 94-98 and was ordered not to talk to anyone about what really went on there. Not to the media, or at the trial of Ken Dean and the Ipperwash Inquiry refused to let me testify. Nothing new, just now it's a Conservative Govt instead of liberals. Political correctness is killing the truth!!