A commentor at Roger Simon’s gets to the crux of what is so utterly unprofessional about this type of internal communication;

As a Producer, if Green wants to deliver an unbiased product, he has an obligation not to influence his staff to one view or another, regardless of what he thinks in his heart-of-hearts

Green is an executive producer of Good Morning America. Matt Drudge reports he has other emails of this type that “reveal the inner workings of the nation’s news outlets”.
No doubt he does.
Via Instapundit

There is much hullaballoo in the media about PMSH’s “control” over what is and is not said by various ministers in his cabinet and where they say it. There is great concern over what this means to democracy (because without the media, we have no way of getting information, do we? and no way of verifying the accuracy thereof, either).
The very thought that perhaps PMSH is trying to avoid the kind of mixed messages coming from the Opposition parties on Afghanistan appears to be just a little too difficult to believe for those who fear a hidden agenda.
Gimme a friggin’ break already. This strikes me as an exercise in filling the airwaves with drivel rather than actually going out & looking for news, like, say, our paralympic team’s many successes, or the real quagmire that is Palestinian politics.
Crossposted at Waking Up On Planet X

Harper takes the Other Culture Of Entitlement down a flight – Politics Watch;

The Parliamentary Press Gallery is accusing the Prime Minister’s Office of impeding the freedom of the press to access decision makers after a decision to move the location for scrums with cabinet ministers.

What I said.

One of the best talk show hosts in Canada is doing his final broadcast this weekend. Thanks, Peter – you’ve provided a lot of weekend entertainment around here, (as well as more than a few items that have made their way to SDA). You’ll be missed.

Jon Stewart* – watch your back – CBC “reporter” Neil MacDonald is after your job;

MacDonald deceptively edited another Bush statement – mid-sentence:

“I would like to tell the state level that we are fully prepared�. End of CBC edit.

From the USA Today transcript we learn that the full quote goes:

“I would like to tell the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm to help you deal with the loss of property.”

Read the rest. Write the Ombudsman.
We’re paying for this crap.

Drudge has a great exerpt from the Bill Sammon book Strategery (currently #5 on Amazon).

Although Memogate was initially expected to harm the president, it ended up backfiring spectacularly on the press.
�The guy that it hurt most was Dan Rather and the executives at CBS,� White House strategist Karl Rove said in an interview for STRATEGERY. �It further disgraced a network which is third in ratings and, if you look at the demographics of their consumers, it�s like 70 percent Democrat.�
Rove said Rather�s eagerness to broadcast obviously forged documents proves he is �no serious reporter.� As for Rather�s insistence, to this day, that the documents are real, Rove said: �That�s really bias.�
Memogate has helped accelerate the decline of the mainstream media, generally defined as CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times and other establishment news outlets.
�I think what�s healthy is that there�s no monopoly on the news,� Bush said. �There�s competition. There�s competition for the attention of, you know, 290 million people, or whatever it is.
�And the amazing thing about this world we live in is that there�s a kind of free-flowing, kind of bulletin board of ideas and thoughts out there in the ether space, sometimes landing on somebody�s desk and sometimes not, but always available. It�s a very interesting period.�
Having long been pilloried by the mainstream media, Bush now finds the rise of the alternative media nothing less than revolutionary.
�It�s the beginning of the twenty-first century; it also happens to be the beginning of�or near the beginning�of a revolution in newsgathering and dissemination,� he said. �Not in newsmaking�that tends to be pretty consistent.�
Rove considers Memogate a watershed in the rise of the alternative media.
�The whole incident in the fall of 2004 showed really the power of the ‘blogosphere’,� he said in his West Wing office.
�Because in essence you had now, an army of self-appointed experts looking over the shoulder of the mainstream media and bringing to bear enormously sophisticated skills,� he added.
[…]
Rove expressed astonishment that CBS ignored the warnings of document experts hired by the network to authenticate the National Guard memos.
�It goes back to the failure of the mainstream media, in this instance, to honor their own experts,� he said.
Rove is not the only senior Bush adviser who considers the mainstream media biased against the conservative president. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was outraged that the TV networks refused to declare Bush the winner on Election Night, even after all the votes were counted in the pivotal state Ohio and it became obvious Kerry could not win.
�Some of the talking heads,� Card said, �were rooting for a crisis in Ohio. It wasn�t just that they were afraid to admit we had won.�
Card became particularly incensed when Bush�s Ohio lead reached 120,000 votes, which was mathematically insurmountable.
�Nobody wanted to call it so that we had won,� he said. �It was like, c�mon, are they just afraid to say it?�

Sounds like a fascinating read.
more -Now it’s slanted polling from CBS – The Fake but Accurate! Network.

In its classic “fair and balanced” tradition, CBS slanted in favor of Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating and a 59 percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.
On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18) it says how many Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.
“Total Republicans” contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.
“Total Democrats” contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.

The national average of Dems to Republicans is 33% – 30%.

It’s not often I see Rex Murphy get something wrong, but he does here;

As for the rest of Mr. Harper’s cabinet, last sighted wandering through the governor-general’s mansion for the swearing-in, they have been as tight-lipped and invisible as a band of antisocial hermits. A cabinet is not a monastery, and a communications strategy that so far consists in refusing to communicate and refusing to communicate while you are not communicating, is not really so much a strategy as a mindset that cannot attach to the most public office this country has.
It is not necessary to like the press. Majority opinion may even concur with the prime minister there. But it is necessary to talk to them. Until that fairly elementary point is conceded by Mr. Harper, the office of prime minister’s communications director is an emblem of iconic idleness, just a Maytag repairman with a Blackberry.

Of course, by “press”, Murphy means “Ottawa press gallery” – as though there is no other way for a Prime MInister to communicate than be waylaid in a scrum or pick up the phone and gift next morning’s Globe editorial with frothy spin from the PMO.
When Brian Mulroney won his landslide majority in 1984, a talking head (whose identity I’ve forgotten) announced to the nation that in the face of such a one sided parliament, the media would assume the role of opposition .
That was a signal that something was about to go desperately wrong, and it did. The Canadian people had already spoken as to what voices they wanted in parliament. The Ottawa press gallery weren’t on the ballot, yet they declared themselves elected, and they’ve by and large behaved like pompous, entitled Liberal senators with a broadcast license ever since.
It’s time they were forced to relinquished those seats.
When those in media assume a de facto role in government, the instution becomes inherently dangerous. When a declared “opponant” owns the kill switch and the ability to reshape the message to reflect a political agenda, not just truth, but democracy itself comes under threat. Having assumed a political stance of being in “opposition to the Mulroney government” those 20 odd years ago, it’s no wonder that so many have lost trust in what we are hearing and reading – indeed, the mining of the Mulroney era negative messaging to “taint” the Harper government is already in full swing. It matters not what Harper appointees like Michael Wilson have accomplished before or since in private life – if they had any association with the Mulroney government, that is how the media frames them.
If Harper is making a concerted effort to reposition the role of media in this country, we can only applaud – no matter our political views. The opportunity has arrived to push back, because the tides of technology are changing – with subscriptions and television ratings losing ground to the internet and other alternative sources like talk radio, the legacy media no longer have exclusive control of the filter.
The talking heads have had their hands on the levers of political power for so long, not even they realize how inappropriate it is. Now, they’re getting them slapped – and we shouldn’t be surprised that these particular members of the “culture of entitlement” will be bitching and whining loudly about their reversal of fortune.

..a new government squeaked into office. They immediately proved to be a bunch of hypocrites and so the people rose up against them. The defeated party has only to pick a new leader and they will be easily re-elected and order will be restored to the kingdom.
This isn’t a plot for This is Wonderland, the recently cancelled CBC comedy. And it’s not the next reality TV show.
It is, however, the latest drama being written by hundreds of authors across the country. Day after day we read in the newspapers and watch on TV how the Conservative leader Stephen Harper is under fire after the defection of Vancouver Liberal David Emerson. The shamed Liberals, we are told, are chomping at the bit to pick a new leader and regain the reins of power from the faltering Conservatives.
There’s only one prob lem with this scenario— it’s a fantasy.
Says who?
Says the Canadian public.
What’s being reported is literally a scenario, a plotline created and followed meticulously by the country’s mainstream media journalists.
National Post columnist Adam Radwanski says they can’t help themselves. In a piece earlier this month (Biased—in favour of a good story. Feb 3), he wrote how journalists have a bias, alright; a bias for “an easy narrative.” It’s a pack mentality, he says, that agrees on a storyline and then slants every news element to fit.
During the election campaign it was Liberal Stumblebums. After the election, it’s obviously Conservatives Hypocrites.

Sounds about right.

Via commentor “Mississauga Matt” who writes; “seems that the CBC’s Jennifer Ditchburn was trolling for information about the Woodbridge couple murdered this week in Mexico”.
Posted by Susie Q Roo;

Ms. Ditchburn has apparently decided against using me as a source as I haven’t received a response to my last e-mail. Here’s the progression:

Quote:
ME: I live less than 10 miles from Barcelo Maya… I’ll answer any questions you may have.
Quote:
Jennifer Ditchburn wrote: Could we call you for a phone interview?
Quote:
ME: I’d prefer to answer your questions via e-mail, if possible. I checked my map after I wrote you… Barcelo is actually only 3 kilometers from here.
Quote:
JD: Hmmm…it’s hard for me to use any information from an anonymous source. People are always skeptical. I promise it would be painless…!
Quote:
ME: Jennifer, I’m not sure how I’m any more anonymous via e-mail than I am via telephone. My name is Susie, I am an American expatriate, living in a small community south of Playa del Carmen and north of the Barcelo. My phone connection is wobbly at best, and costly at worst! I’m happy to answer whatever questions you have via e-mail, but it’s certainly up to you. I will be happy to give you my Mexican cell phone # (984 115 xxxx) if it proves to you that I live here… but, seeing as how it’s Mexico, I don’t have service in my home, only when I drive out to the main highway, and I’m not willing to do that.

And no response… guess I was right, eh?

Just an interesting thread, no more or less. The rest is here.

Buried deep in this Globe And Mail article, this startling admission;

Roughly 70 per cent of [221] journalists who responded to the survey also said they had seen the images.

Arguably, the biggest international story of the new year – one in which there was considerable Canadian coverage and controversy – and nearly one in three professional journalists surveyed admit they had not yet seen the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
How can this be?

A particularly good one from Steyn;

So anyway David Gregory’s going bananas and yelling “I will yell!” and “Don’t be a jerk!” at the White House press secretary, and there’s more smoke coming out of his ears than from Ronald McDonald in Lahore, and I’m thinking, you know, maybe Karl’s latest range of Rovebots that he planted in American media corporations are just a wee bit too parodically self-absorbed to be plausible. And then this lady pipes up and asks, “Would this be much more serious if the man had died?”
Well, maybe. And maybe it would be even ever so much more serious still if, after peppering him with birdshot, Cheney had dragged him into a safe house in the Sunni Triangle and decapitated him with a rusty scimitar while shouting “Allahu Ahkbar!” and then sold the video to al-Jazeera.

On a slightly more serious and related note, Flemming Rose,(culture editor of Jyllands-Posten) on why he published the cartoons;

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.
The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

Not to be dissuaded from the now familiar pattern of tying their professional credibility to a non-story and riding it into the quicksand, the media heads into week two of “Cheney’s-got-a-gun”. As the new round of magazine covers and feature articles roll out, one wonders Just what a “sinister fascist who really runs the Whitehouse” has to do these days to collect on some of that appeasement normally due a hard working totalitarian – convert to Islam?

Who can inform this journalist that “freedom of the press” is one thing – unnecessary provocation is another.
Got what she deserved, no question.

HT: Who am I talking to?
HH: Hugh Hewitt.
HT: Am I talking to a journalist?
HH: Yes. Yes, for a long time. I’m just curious about what’s gone wrong…
HT: Tell me about your career. What have you really done?
HH: Well, it’s not nearly as impressive as you.
HT: Where did…yes, it’s…it’s very important to me. Where did you work?
HH: PBS for ten years.
HT: PBS?
HH: Yes.
HT: Well, that’s a good credential.
HH: There you have it. See? I’m…
HT: But then you decided to switch over?
HH: To switch over to what?
HT: God knows what you are.
HH: No, I’m just asking questions.
HT: No you’re not.
HH: This is so interesting to me, Helen. Journalists never answer questions like who they voted for and why they’re mad at the president…
HT: And I don’t think they should.
HH: Why?
HT: Because…
HH: Why should you guys have a special position in the White House press corps that you don’t have to answer questions?
HT: Because in journalism, you’re supposed to play the story straight, whatever the facts are, and we’re doing that.
HH: Well, that doesn’t go to why you should…you know, who made you folks queens and kings that you don’t have to answer who you voted for, what you…do you own a gun, Helen?
HT: Are you kidding?
HH: No.

After 50 plus years in the trade, you’d think the old bird would have a thicker skin.

In view of the traffic milestone on this lowly little amateur blog, I also offer a “thankyou!” to those in mainstream media, who all this week have specifically directed their readers and viewers to “the internet” to view the controversial Mohammed cartoons.
It is reassuring to know that those who have so casually submitted their democratic press freedoms to the rule of Sharia law, are at least willing to cede their subscribers to those who won’t.

Michelle Malkin on yesterday’s breathless reporting of new “images that some may find extremely disturbing” of a two year old story.

No pixelation of the nude prisoners in the photos. No disclaimers about paying respect to members of the US military who will be endangered by publication of the pics. The Washington Post used the opportunity to republish Abu Ghraib photos and video it obtained in April 2004.
Why the Abu Ghraib photos, but not the Mohammed Cartoons?

At Memri, Saudi terrorist Abu Mu’awiya Al-Shimali prepares for suicide bombing in Iraq in new video called “Fatima’s Fianc�”.

My brothers, the mujahidoon for the sake of Allah, what shall we, your sisters in Abu Ghureib prison tell you? We have been attacked by the sons of apes and pigs. They tore up our Korans, disfigured our bodies, and humiliated us. What have you heard about what we see here every day? By Allah, one of us was raped several times in one day by those apes and pigs.

Thomas Sowell writes about the ridiculous media frenzy over Dick Cheney’s hunting accident, but his words apply equally to the Mohammed cartoons,

The media love to wrap themselves in the mantle of “the public’s right to know” but there is no such dedication to that right when it goes against the journalists’ own prejudices.

.
Or shields their own cowardice.

As mentioned earlier, I spent a few hours at Saskparty convention events this weekend – my media accreditation a gesture from the party that I hope they go further with. Unfortunately, I had other commitments this weekend, so was only able to take in Brad Wall’s luncheon address today. If there’s enough interest, I’d suggest they go a step further next year and set up a “bloggers row”, as was done at last years RNC. There was a lot of interest and curiosity about the rising influence of the blogosphere, though not a lot of understanding of the phenomenon. Certainly, everyone I talked to had heard of or read SDA, I’m certain I’d have had a long line of volunteers for real time interviews had there been connectivity provided.
In general, the crowd were in good spirits while I was there, and there was certainly a lot of enthusiasm. Wall’s speech was well received – he’s a very good, very funny speaker – and it sounds like they’re moving smoothly into pre-election mode, retiring around $800,000 in party debt in the last 2 years.
(I should have more on the speech itself in a later post).
When I arrived at the Bess last evening, the prevailing buzz involved the success of the SaskParty launch of the new youth wing;

At least one of them sported a name more familiar in NDP circles than among the Saskatchewan Party. Travis Lingenfelter, the son of former NDP Deputy Premier turned Calgary oil executive Dwain Lingenfelter, said he was attracted to the Saskatchewan Party by its leader, Brad Wall, and its free enterprise economic message.

Which is why what I witnessed today in the (small) media scrum after the luncheon left me scratching my head.
As this was my first time at one of these things, I chose to just sit back on a chair to watch. I was frankly more interested in the people holding the microphones. For the most part the questions seemed topical and fair.
In his speech, Wall had mentioned NDP premier Lorne Calvert’s meeting next week with US Vice-President Dick Cheney to promote Saskatchewan’s energy resources – including uranium. There’s a very public divide in the NDP on the issue, and a strong contingent of old school greenies who steadfastly oppose uranium development and nuclear power. Apparently, the youth wing of the party had also taken the ‘anti’ side. His criticism suggested that it’s hard to be taken seriously as a reliable trade partner with the US when the party in government continues to send such mixed messages.
CBC’s Stefani Langenegger chose that point as pretext to launch a line of questioning that quickly established she really had no interest in the nuclear power issue or criticism of Calvert’s trade mission. Instead, she was moved to challenge Wall on the implications his criticisms had for the future of the new youth wing of the SaskParty.
I actually wrote “Huh?” in my notes.
Paraphrased, her questioning proceeded in this vein;

“Are you sending a message to your new youth wing that they should fear that when they bring resolutions forward, you’ll ignore them? Should they be worried about your heavy-handed approach to youth? Your party has been criticized as “top down”. It sounds as though you don’t like different points of view. Is this democracy? What’s wrong with having debate about it?

Wall repeatedly countered that the comments in his speech were directed to the mixed message from the NDP government on nuclear power and that he didn’t think it was helpful for the province. He felt a clear message should come from a party’s caucus. Langenegger couldn’t be dissuaded from this logic-impaired line of questioning – becoming more and more strident.
I began to wonder when she was just going to cut to the chase and ask “Have you stopped beating your children, you fascist?”
After considerable back and forth, Wall finally said he didn’t agree with her position and moved to another reporter who changed to a more relevant line of questioning premised on the temperament of cats. (That’s not a joke).
If I spot her report online, I’ll post a link. I’m really curious to see where she goes with it.

Reader W. P. Leblanc copied me with a letter he sent to CBC, over the cartoon depiction of Muslim prophet Mohammed as a militant;

I understand CBC has a policy of not using the term “terrorist” or referring to people as “terrorists” because it is such a “loaded” term. In fact here is a quote from an Evan Solomon interview with Michael Ignatieff on your website:

Solomon: “Here at the CBC, there�s a great debate a to how we use the word terrorist. In fact we never use it � we cannot call anybody a terrorist because the word has become so politicized. So we use various euphemisms � military groups, insurgent groups � in fact, there are some cases where we can, but we almost never use it � what�s your reaction when that term is no longer acceptable?” (link)

So please tell me why Norma Lee McLeod on your “News at Six” program referred to controversial Danish Cartoons as “depict(ing) the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist”. (see below)

McLeod: “Muslim students took to the streets of Halifax protesting the actions of a local professor. As Dan O’Connell reports, they want Peter March to apologize for posting those cartoons that depict the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist.” (runs 1:42)

I viewed all of the Danish cartoons and I could not see how they depict Mohammed as a terrorist. Could you point out which cartoon depicts him as a terrorist and why. Could you also let me know if this indicates a change in CBC’s policy on not using the word “terrorist”. This may help me understand when to use the term terrorist and when not.

The CBC used the word “terrorist” in this instance because it buttresses their editorial stance that the caricature is too offensive and inflamatory to publish. In other words, they’re not above using the word if it serves a political agenda, just so long as it’s their own.
At CBC Watch – “examples offer the reality of CBC tolerance, moral leadership, compassion, diversity outreach, objectivity, social justice and inclusiveness with respect to Catholics and other Christians”
Archive of Mohammed images

Surely, there’s a Montreal Canadiens jersey hanging in some Edmonton shop window just waiting for a firebomb?
Because, as we know – that’s the sort of protest Western media is sensitive to.

Further to this, a response from Bruce Cheadle at Either Orr,.

CTV, featured at Regret The Error;

“This isn’t a correction, but it’s one heck of an error on the website of CTV, Canada’s number one broadcaster. It’s in a story about the reaction to newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed:

(The CTV page has now been updated with the word “islamic” replacing “soviet”.)
Via Kathy Shaidle.