33 Replies to “Peter Warren Interview Audio”

  1. Excellent! Under fire and easily deflected with almost casual assurance. A professional defandant could not have done better.
    The MsM weakness is not only weighted, but often false by way of omission. Important stories are simply ignored as they reflect badly upon the biggest advertiser. The Liberal Government of Canada. ‘3s TG

  2. Kate:
    Great job with Mr Warren!!! You are exactly right in your comments on people having growing skepticism about the press and needing a place to be heard!!!

  3. Thanks, Kate, for saying so many things I wish I could say to everyone, and for saying them better than I could.

  4. At the end of the show Peter Warren called Kate “Queen of the Canadian bloggers”. I thought royalty in Canada was reserved for employees of the CBC only. Better be careful Kate.

  5. Hi Kate, Listened to your interview with Warren while at work this pm. You came off great, was surprised how little Warren knew about bloggers.

  6. Excellent interview, for many, many reasons. Very well spoken. Good on you Kate.
    Several points I would have added as to why blogs are important in today’s world:
    1. Blogs are a way to get both sides of a story. This forces the viewer to make a decision which to believe based on facts, not agenda.
    2. Blogs let the viewer get involved in a story, immediately, by adding their own comments.
    3. Blogs are a vehicle that everyone can use to discuss anything, on a local, national or international level with others, in a way that is not threatening. You can exchange ideas and views, add details, and correct any details that might be wrong. Blogs are self-policing.
    4. Blogs are empowering for bloggers and their readers. A good post takes on a life of it’s own, but it is still responsible to it’s readership because they are really in control of it. Kate may put up a post but then it’s her readers who exchange the information. Kate learns as much as her readers by this exchange.
    5. Blogs are current. No yesterday news here.
    6. Finally, blogs save trees. For the life of me I have never been able to understand the logic of denuding your own countryside just to make pulp to print newspapers on. In this day and age everyone should be getting their news and information off the Internet. If you don’t own a computer then buy one.
    These are some of the reasons why I check Small Dead Animals and others like it every day. I predict that Blogs will become more and more important as time goes on. I also predict that online newspapers will change to become more like blogs because they will soon come to realize that comments are a much better way for their readers to ‘sound off’ and get involved than are letters to the editor.

  7. Queen of the Canadian bloggers, that might stick to you.
    Queen Kate, royalty now,pretty soon you will be wearing purple and riding around in a black limo.

  11. Joel, thank you for the audio on –
    ProudtobeCanadian.ca I have the free keys to CKNW’s audio vault, but yours is so handy, no searching around. 73s TG

  12. Good job Kate. I listened(and even got to call in) Warren was his usual cantankerous and confrontational self at the start but by the end he had been CONVINCED of the validity of the blogs.
    Keep up the good work. MAYBE there is life AFTER Liberulshit after all.
    Horny Toad

  13. Nice job Kate. Seemed like Peter got a little defensive at the end there when you provided a concrete example of media bias re: the CNN transcipt.
    It’s amazing how far Canada has yet to go to reach the kind of impact blogs have in the U.S. Hopefully sites like yours will help to speed that along.

  14. Nice job Kate – but what’s with these radio interviews that end so abruptly – you were barely finished the comments on media skepticism – which are right on the mark and why I read blogs – and he had brushed you off with the “Queen of the Canadian Bloggers” comment.
    Too bad he didn’t read a few days worth of your blogging before the interview – he might have appeared a bit more well informed.

  15. Good job Kate! He did seem to have cut it off short, you were just gettin’ warmed up!
    I agree with Jake. Peter should have done more homework.

  16. Missed the broadcast while out installing satellite internet systems today so thanks for the link. I am a little surprised at Peter’s apparent lack of knowledge in this area.

  17. yeah kate I’ve not been able to read your blog as faithfully as I would like what was the reference about the two contrasting interveiw transscripts. what day do I read?
    D.
    BTW awesome stuff, for a guy known to never pull punches you sure knocked him a couple good ones like “Marv” from Sin City.

  18. Kate, The diference between blogging and the MSM was apparant in this interview. Mr. Warren is very full of himself. The Condi Rice episode is typical and Warren’s response was typical. “I don’t doubt…..”. And a final contemptuous sign-off “Queen of the Bloggers”. Warren is just another member of the group that’s destroying Canada. The phrase “reponsible journalism” contains as much meaning as “social justice”! Thank you Kate for exposing Mr. Warren.

  19. Blogs?? For littleoldladies/men in pj’s/pyjamas??
    Wrong!>>>
    September 10, 2005
    TODAY WAS THE ANNIVERSARY OF Jonathan Klein’s “pajamas” remark. I’ll bet he wishes he hadn’t said that, now.
    posted at 11:29 PM by Glenn Reynolds>>>>
    September 10, 2004
    JUST CAUGHT Jonathan Klein debating Stephen Hayes about the CBS forgery scandal. Klein says that “Bloggers have no checks and balances . . . [it’s] a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas.”
    But ABC has this report:
    HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian’s supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were “handwritten” and after CBS read him excerpts he said, “well if he wrote them that’s what he felt.”
    Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70’s and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been “computer generated” and are a “fraud”.
    I guess this is the independent verification that Rather was talking about.
    But it gets worse. Much worse:
    The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to “sugar coat” President Bush’s military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.>>> more
    http://instapundit.com/archives/017736.php
    BTW, pyjamas/pajamas.

  20. Warren will probably read this and in fairness we can see the pull of sevral loyalties he is under.
    He could have blustered loudly about some of the flaws in blogging. Easy to do, but he didn’t.
    Even though the blogosphere dilutes the MSM, and that will grow, Peter remained open, fair and moderate. He was careful not to be unfair. Don’t mistake that for not being prepared or informed. 73s TG

  22. Good Morning Your Excellency; The Grand Exalted Queen of Blogdom. Any thoughts on a royal consort?Maybe you can get CSIS to check them out for you. Would a fondess for cherry ice cream be required?

  23. I was out shopping yesterday. WHen I got home I called up my best friend, and to my surprise she asked me, “Hey, have you ever heard of a website called ‘Small Dead Animals’?”
    “Sure have”, I told her, “in fact I read it every day.”
    So she told me all about your appearance on Peter Warren’s show. She was very impressed with you, Kate, she thought you were smart and sensible and articulate, and a down-to-earth decent person. And she’s a good judge of character and doesn’t jump to conclusions of that nature.
    I bet you made a few friends with that appearance. I hope so, anyway. Wish you all the best.

  24. You did another good interview, Kate. Warren bristled a bit at the suggestion that he is under somebody’s control. Gordon Sinclair was the last media type that was not under somebody’s thumb in Canada.
    Queen? Not our Kate. Queen Adrienne, Queen Svend, maybe. Blogs like yours are a source of information that is not controlled. Keep up the good work.

  26. Wow. Thanks, DoubtingThomas, for reminding me of Gordon Sinclair ( http://tinyurl.com/49y77 ). Did y’all know that there is a Gordon Sinclair Award given to journalists that have outspoken opinions and integrity in broadcasting? Nobody punctured bloviating gas-bags on Front Page Challenge better than he did. What a guy. I wonder what he would have to say about this web-o-thingy.
    Does anyone know how we can nominate Kate for a Gordon Sinclair award? After all, it’s clear that Small Dead Animals is broadcasting &c.

  27. Bad news Tony. The Gordon Sinclair award is for television broadcasting journalists only. Didn’t google far enough to find out who started the award or how to change the criteria. What about the Order of Canada? Seriously. What is the process? How do we make it happen?

  29. I don’t think Kate is doing this blog thing to win awards. If I thought she was, I wouldn’t be here. Mr. Sinclair was a character. He was crusty, but you always knew where he stood on an issue. Kate is definitely not crusty.
    Another possibility is the Bob Edwards Luncheon Award. See it here: http://www.atplive.com/special_events.html
    Bob Edwards was the editor of The Calgary Eyeopener, sort of a paper blog almost 100 years ago. The next luncheon is October 11, and Preston Manning is the honoree. There is always 2006. There should be enough influential movers and shakers here to make it happen. Let’s roll!

  31. I only heard the last 20 minutes, but was fascinated. I also had not understood blogging – I still don’t get it completely. But I am curious what other blogs Kate fans enjoy – and how do people hear about them?
    As for Warren, I don’t think he could comment on the CNN matter because he hadn’t seen the original to compare to what was left. In broadcast, news writers have to condense things, and may or may not have been trying to alter the message. Don’t assume they were doing something underhanded, its possible they were just trying to fit a story into a newscast and really thought they put the pertinent stuff in. It would be nice if everyone saw everything, but when that’s not possible, what’s wrong with getting a shorter version?

  32. It wasn’t just a “shorter version”. It was a spliced tape, that removed a lengthy portion of testimony, replayed to convey the impression that it was seamless. When the portions were removed, they changed the exchange in a fundamental way, to make it appear that Condi Rice was admitting fault to a “have you stopped beating your wife” question.
    The original post showing the two versions can be found here.
    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/000212.html

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation