Inconvenient questions not allowed.

There, we have that one out of the way!

And yeah, why is he speaking at a computing convention? That whole creator of the internet thing?

If his speech were covered by the media, he could scarcely charge what he does to the next convention. Gotta keep the slides under wraps.

I don't watch or read the MSM anymore, I have no idea what Algore is on about these days.

I tuned out back in the gun control days when I found out the extent of Algore's prevarications on the subject.

Funny how you never hear him talk about that stuff anymore, eh? In the 1990's guns were bringing the end of the world.

Guess they stopped or something.

Gore and his con are on the down-slope now and only stage managed media scrums are allowed....the rest of the time he wants no objective media around as he goes into desperate credibility salvaging mode with the faithful.

Should we be surprised? After all, the MSM in Canada never even covered the conference held recently in New York.

The MSM in Canada is nothing more than a propganda tool for the Liberal Party of Canada.

If you watch USA news like CNN or FOX you get to see debates from both sides on all kinds of issues.

In Canada, CTV and CBC only preach the news and NEVER have debates from the left and the right.

All these station do is give out their own "message" while ignoring the other side.

CTV should be called a propoganda machine rather then a news network. Only Mike Duffy has debates with both sides and thats only for 1 hour a day.

That's why I am fixated on American news where at least you get to hear both sides of the coin.

Remind me again what electorate Gore represents and is therefore publicly accountable to?

Canadian Political Party Lineup

1. Conservative Party - Centre to right

2. Liberal Party - Leftist

3. New Democrat Party- Leftist to communist

4. Green Party - (Watermelon) - Green outside- red inside

5. Court Party ( Interventionist Lawmaker Supremes - former Liberal leftists)

6. Media Party ( Canadian MSM) (tilted leftist - corruption enablers)

That's funny Ted.

I don't see this as calling Al Gore to account as much as it points out media bias...why are they not objecting loudly?(not asking you Ted...just stating the obvious...)

Guess you wouldn't clue in to that angle Ted even tho that was in Kate's comment...

You're joking, ted. Are you saying that someone is only publicly accountable if they have been elected? Heck. What about judges, doctors, lawyer, builders etc, etc..

Since Gore is talking about issues that require the people to take economic and political action, then, his comments are 'in the public view'. So, journalists have every right to publicize them. Try again, ted.

Missing the point, bluetech. Since he is not elected and therefore not accountable to public, why would they "object loudly". Comparing their silence in this single instance to Harper's lack of transparency and accountability is silly, especially since Harper ran an election camapaign on transparency and accountability.

Gore is in the public eye, but he is not a public official.

Which is not the same thing as saying that Gore should answer his critics and respond to serious and bona fide questions about the errors in his movie and facts that conflict. He should. I think he is actually a weak proponent for a serious scientific problem, as most celebrities are. They don't understand the science well-enough so they rely on superficial and hyperbolic summaries of the science.

But to compare and contrast media coverage of Gore not allowing media in to a private speech paid for by private individuals and organizations, to the head of the country trying to hide government dealings with taxpayer money, is the funny part bluetech.

ET, when you see something written by me, how about trying to read it and then trying to understand it before banging away at your keyboard showing all the world you either didn't read what I wrote or didn't understand it. If it is beyond your ability not to understand it, if reading comprehension is that difficult, just don't comment.

Ted, you're way out on a limb on this one. And sawing...

No, you are the one who doesn't get it, ted, and your usual reaction to criticism of your comments that 'You misunderstood me' (Hillary Clinton?) won't work.

Again, because someone is not elected doesn't mean that they aren't accountable to the public. Gore's preachings require public action. Not private action. Public action. So the fact that he's speaking to a private event is utterly irrelevant, because his demands for action are public actions.

He's therefore accountable to the public who must pay for his demands if they are met. Therefore, information and critique of what exactly he wants the public government to do - are valid. Try again, ted.

Looks like the algorerithms can't stand up to scrutiny.

Al Gore is a public persona.
Let's see;
former VP of USA to Bill Clinton (1993-2000)
former presidential candidate (2000)
former Dem representative to Congress
public speaker
Academy Award nominee
Nobel Prize winner

Al Gore is very busy inventing a one world global socialist government using climate horror as a tactic to get the sheep in line.

That is worth monitoring since it will affect us all.

Are there any spies attending? We can only hope. Even the Bilderberger meetings have spies.

I often wondered what the driving force is behind Gore's Kyoto Crusade, then I read this American Thinker article and it all became clear. Basically he needed a cause to regain his sense of importance after his US election defeat. Kinda like a midlife crisis. Too bad he didn't just buy a motorcycle or trade in his wife for a newer model, like all other sufferers.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/al_gores_global_warming_therap.html

"In essence, then, we're dealing with a psyche that blamed at least Republicans and perhaps the world for having suffered the humiliation of a perceived power theft. While friends and family fretted over his response to that blow, he retreated to his basement to prove his mettle by resuscitating a lightly sleeping obsession. And when he reemerged, he did so reinvented -- as a self-appointed savior of the planet armed with little more than an unsubstantiated PowerPoint presentation and an accordingly unreasonable mission."

The recent evangalist Gore training and proselytising sessions were attended by at least two LIberal MP's.
Glen Pearson and Mauril Belanger.
I contacted my MP Rod Bruinooge to investigate whether they were doing this on their own dime and Rod has followed up.
Results TBA .... but if these Liberals are using taxpayer money to support and promote Gore's crusade then we are going to get an explanation.

I can hardly wait.

Taxpayers are shelling out for Gore:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=8ea0dfb3-1fc0-4913-b090-1fe307040e0a&k=28188

"Climate Project-Canada has invited former U.S. vice-president Al Gore to Montreal next month to train 200 Canadians to deliver his "Inconvenient Truth" presentation .....

...said the event was partly sponsored by the Quebec and B.C. governments, .."

... and sawing !!

As is Suzuki. Now claims, he wasn't for Biofuels after all.

Al Gore has got to be the biggest joke, evah. A multi $Trillion sad joke.

Do we ever see any Cult Leaders holding press conferences ? Jimmy Jones, taking questions ?

Does the Media's 'not willing to bitch' about Gore's 'closed door meetings' mean that the Media also agrees with a 'control-the-message' approach ? Gee, ya think ?

ET,

I must admit I am endlessly fascinated by how your brain works.

I really am genuinely curious about how you read me saying Gore should answer his critics and then conclude that I don't think he should be accountable. How does your brain do that? How do you read the words "Which is not the same thing as saying that Gore should not answer his critics and respond to serious and bona fide questions about the errors in his movie and facts that conflict. He should." and then write such nonsense as me "saying that someone is only publicly accountable if they have been elected".

How do the words that I actually write go in your head and come out the opposite?

May I quote you on your quotes, ted? You said:

"Remind me again what electorate Gore represents and is therefore publicly accountable to?"

Note the terms in this one sentence post: 'electorate' and 'publicly accountable to'.

I'm reading what you wrote, ted.

Your second post slithered out of responsibility for that first post, by trying to compare the accountability of an elected official (Harper) with the accountability of an unelected official (Gore). You tried to reduce Gore's accountability merely to the scientific content of his speeches. Wrong, ted.

What you've missed in your false analogy, ted, is that Gore's advocacy is not about the validity or non-validity of a scientific theory. He's long, long past that; there's no debate as far as he's concerned. His advocacy deals with the public economic and governmental actions that must be taken because of his 'True Theory'. That's why he's accountable to the public - because his theory isn't just about 'the science' but about the public economy.

Try again, ted. Sawdust...

Ted, since when does any public figure get a free pass from the press when they BAN THE PRESS from their events?

Britney Spears can't even ban the sons of b1tches from her driveway, but they happily read Algore's handout in lieu of attending and don't complain?

My suspension of disbelief is being stretched, Ted. Can you say "media bias"? Sure you can! Say it with me now Ted: meeeediaaaa biiiiaaaasssss.

For some time now bloggers have been saying that AGW amounts to a religion. Now we know what type. Gore is keeping the press out because AGW is a mystery religion. In mystery religions, you have to have "secret-knowledge" and be initiated into it. Then, you become an "insider".

Mystery religions are also, for some odd and not fully understood reason, associated with hockey sticks.

Ted, I am interested in your opinion on how Gore should be held accountable. This is a sincere question.

What could Al Gore possibly hide from the Press members that they do not already know and agree with?

Liberals such as Al Gore and the main stream media have the same agenda,
so how could it be "hidden" in anyway?

WALLINGFORD, Pa. — Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he talks regularly with former vice president Al Gore and would consider putting him in a Cabinet-level position or higher

or higher? maybe the electorate will get a shot at him yet.

ET: Tell me then, why do you think Gore - who is an advocate for a public policy change and public interest group - should have the same kind of accountability as the political leader of a democratic nation? Is that what you are saying? Because that's all I've said: that it is silly of Kate to compare Harper's lack of accountability with Gore's lack of accountability. Harper holds a public office and in charge of our money. Gore has been invited to a private conference paid for by private funds and has no power to implement anything.

Gore should be hounded by the press, but that does not mean he should be held to the same accountability standards as Harper. Nor is it as much of an outrage - as whined about here in typical fashion - that the organizers of a private function have closed the doors to the public as it is for the political leader of a democracy to close the doors to the public.

I think Ted has it exactly backwards.
Stephen Harper has no accountability to the press at all.
If there are hard questions to be asked of Stephen Harper, there is an elected opposition in Parliament to do it.
That the opposition in Parliament has neither the brains nor stones to ask those questions leaves a question of what their purpose and value really is for those who voted for them.

Who but the press is there to question Al Gore?
Let the unelected question the unelected.

You're slithering ted. As usual. Don't get into a quantitative measurement of 'how much' accountability Harper vs Gore should have. You didn't get into the measuring cups.

Your first statement was only about elected versus non-elected.
Then, when challenged, you moved into your opinion that Gore should only be critiqued about the scientific validity of 'his' AGW theory.

Now, you've moved on to yet another false analogy; the measuring cup. You are ignoring that Gore's advocacy power is great; he 'won' a Nobel Peace prize after all - disgusting as such an award may be and an Oscar - equally disgusting. Therefore, in the realm of public opinion - and public opinion does 'make things happen', Gore has enormous power. Therefore, he must be held accountable for what he is advocating.

He refuses to be held accountable for his (un)scientific views. He must be held accountable for what he is asking people and their governments to do.

Therefore, the press - who as pointed out above can publicize and critique his demands - have every right to ask him questions on our behalf.

Sawdust, ted, just more and more sawdust.

What I see is that the media coverage is not concerned about who is elected and who is not. The media has two categories but they are fair game and hands off. In the fair game category is any person place or thing that is not PC. Then there is the hands off policy for all PC topics including Gore/Kyoto. If an unelected public figure proposing such a massive social and economic change was connected in any way with Bush/Harper, they would have had to endure a complete and total character assassination by the media.

Ted,

Harper and other elected representatives owe their accountability to the voters - not the Ottawa press corp.

I know the arrogant hacks in the press corps can't tell the difference. These are people who figure - and have stated - that they are the opposition (but only when conservatives are in power) but you need not join them in their hubris.

Val Sears even admitted to spinning the truth to bring down a conservative government and rallying the Ottawa press corps to do it. If even the insiders are admitting bias, it's hard not to see it unless you are deliberately obtuse.

This post isn't about Gore, it's about the media.

Warwick:

Exactly.

But compare apples to apples then if it's about the media. This is just like the post the other day about the coverage of the economy and the whining about media bias.

If you are selective in what you are comparing, then you can always make it seem like "The Media" is biased against you. Only a true partisan could claim there is anything to compare between the press response to not being allowed to cover a privately funded private event and the press response to not being given public information about the public activities of our public officials (who campaigned on being more open and more accountable, not less).

Mind you, I don't blame the Right. It is a good tactic. The Left has been manufacturing bias complaints since Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent with only thin threads of anecdotal, selectively chosen evidence, so why not the Right. Pat Quinn whined about the refs in the hopes of more favourable treatment in the next game so why not, eh?

ET:

Nice slithering away from a direct question so let me ask again: when I say that Gore should be accountable to the public, how is that you read that and then whine that I am saying only elected officials should be held accountable?

Simple question, ET. Well, for most people, anyways.

good heaven's ted - are you yet again, slithering? Now, you are cutting your meaning of 'accountable' in half. Your original post referred to his accountability only for the 'scientific' (ahem) content of his speeches, documentaries, blah blah.

Now, you've cut out your original 'scientific content' and are just saying he should be 'accountable'!!! But to whom? And why? Remember, you insisted that it was only for the 'scientific content'. Not for his advocacy of public programs.

Heh - what most of us have been saying, ted, in contrast to you and your focus on his 'scientific content' is that he should be accountable to the public for the public cost of what he is advocating/insisting/demanding that the governments do to fulfil His Truths.

Sheesh, you slither and slither...

And you say it's the Right who manufacture biased complaints? Not the Left? Whose drunk on Slithering Wine now?

You really do have a reading comprehension problem, ET. It is truly fascinating.

I say Gore should be accountable. You understand that to mean I think only public officials should ever be held accountable. Called on that, you squirm away from any kind of accountability for your own answers.

I say Gore should be accountable for his scientific inaccuracies and incorrect statements. You understand that to mean I think he should be accountable only for scientific questions. Where do I say only?

I say you Righties are just like the lefties, both manufacturing complaints about "The Media" bias as a political tactic. You understand that to mean I think only the right does it.

It truly baffles. How does your brain do that? How do you misread black and white words like that as being the opposite of what is actually written?

The only thing I can come up with is a sociopathic obsessive hatred with me that results in an auto-reflex motor reaction that causes your fingers to bang away on your keyboard some objection - any objection - to whatever it is I've said, no matter how nonsensical the objection is. I can't otherwise explain how an ivory tower former prof can be so poor at basic reading functions.

Anyway, as Warwick pointed out ET, you are missing the point. This is not about Gore - and it's not about you as much as you would like it to be - but about creating a myth about "The Media" bias, er, sorry, I mean, documenting how the press treat a private citizen/public advocate differently than an elected leader of a democratic nation.

So Ted in your world Al Gore can trump doom and gloom to the world, not based on fact but based on his power and money and false assumptions, but it is ok for him to exclude media from one of his events.
Gotcha, that's cool.

But you are still missing Kate's point.
We'll let you come back ...but I realise you are never gonna get it.

Maybe the CPC headquarters in Ottawa should put up a similar sign.

No, I get it fully, bluetech. "The Media" - which somehow in far right and far left circles morphs into this singular monolithic behemoth - doesn't simply regurgitate Harper or Bush's talking points anymore the way it did early in their respective terms and so they are biased. They must obviously be biased. There cannot possibly be any other explanation. That message is attempted on a daily basis. It is impossible to miss that mythmaking, er, "point" around here.

As someone who has been paying close attention to what the press does and does Not do re: various presidents, ted, I can assure you that media bias in one particular direction is NO myth.

And if a dhimmicrat takes the White House next fall, come spring of 2009 you will see it quite clearly: reports about homeless people in the US will drop off sharply. The Social Security crisis - whether one believes there is or not- will NOT be a crisis with a demoncrat in the WH. Gloom and doom about the economy will suddenly become cautious hope, then later in the year, everything will be JUST DANDY.

Keep watching.

creepy creepy creepy. Why won't someone in old media say to themselves, "hmmm, this doesn't seem right"?

Speaking of people getting a free pass from the press, how about Jimmy the Peanut Farmer? Ex-Prez Jimmy is down there in Israel kicking around America's ally and its all good with the MSM.

Ted, now you're just being annoying.

Phantom: "The sky is blue."

Ted: "Is not!"

"Of the ten major newspapers that they examine, they find that nine are more likely to report a negative headline if the president is Republican."

Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?

(at the bottom you can click to download the study - pdf alert)

http://tinyurl.com/5tvha4

Ted says, "No, I get it fully, bluetech. 'The Media' - which somehow in far right and far left circles morphs into this singular monolithic behemoth - doesn't simply regurgitate Harper or Bush's talking points anymore the way it [sic] did early in their respective terms and so they are biased."

There was ever a time the media in Kanadistan "simply regurgitate[d] Harper's . . . talking points"? Ted, please document when exactly this was and how, exactly, the media did this.

Oh heck, Tim

Were you thinking that anyone here would back down from Kate's preposterous assertion that an elected head of state's spurning of public accountability is somehow equatable with a private citizen speaking at a private event and and deigning to invite the press?

Good heavens, Ted! Don't you know that the purpose of this site is to serve as a showplace for any nugget of info Kate can find (she must spend hours searching for'em!) which she can massage into an illusory grievance for her motley collection of crybabies to whine and fulminate about?

Ted, reason and logic have nothing to do with it. Don't even try'em with this crew. They are bound to their sense of wounded victimization and that's all there is to it.

Hey, it keeps them off the streets, gives'em something to do. Where's the harm?

[quote]Speaking of people getting a free pass from the press, how about Jimmy the Peanut Farmer? Ex-Prez Jimmy is down there in Israel kicking around America's ally and its all good with the MSM.[/quote]

Phantom,
We all know that Jimmy the peanut farmer was at one time the Democrats best Bag Man (Fund Raiser) Do you think he is "not" mending fences?

Once a bag man, always a bag man!

This is essentially the same as the HRC cases. "We'll tell you what is true and what to believe, anyone else shall be silenced."

If Al Gore wasn't asking for billions of dollars in taxpayers money to be spent on this issue, then it wouldn't be as big a deal that he takes no questions.

If he was a stock trader, he'd very likely be in jail for insider trading while trying to influence the stock prices.

Demanding that governments spend money on carbon credits while selling those same carbon credits and not disclosing the conflict of interest is a big problem.

I am delighted that people are starting to conserve energy (to reduce our North American dependence on foreign oil and cause a drop in fuel prices) and that less plastic bags will end up strangling small animals or floating in the ocean.

I wholeheartedly reject the idea that paying an outrageous profit to some middleman who bought imaginary carbon credits, which were randomly assigned to an undeveloped country, will stop the manufactured scare of AGW.

What kind of dirty dark secrets has AL GORE to hide any way i mean it looks like PRINCE AL has plenty to hide

Im sure if the Gore event had invited the press you most here would be screaming they were promoting his agenda.
He would not win either way.

most are too blinded by their right wing idoelogy, to even give any serious thought to why they oppse him.