Michael Coren says he’s been receiving death threats:

I receive death threats and abuse on a regular basis. My address and phone number have been placed on the Internet by gay militants and people told to harass and assault me. Jokes were made when my father died, insults made about my family.
I have been told by editors and publishers that I will never work as a writer in various places because I defend marriage. But I will not react in kind and I will not surrender. I do, however, want people to know that there is hatred at work.

As a staunch advocate of gay marriage, I am upset at the notion that Coren would be threatened for his views. He’s entitled to express them, just as we on the other side of the fence are allowed express our views.

So much for ‘tolerance’.

This morning the Fraser Institute quantifies the obvious;

[A]nti-American bias at the CBC is the consequence of a “garrison mentality” that has systematically informed the broadcaster’s coverage of the US. Garrison mentality was a term coined by Canadian literary critic, Northrop Frye. He used it to describe a uniquely Canadian tendency reflected in our early literature, a tendency, as he put it, to “huddle together, stiffening our meager cultural defenses and projecting all our hostilities outward.”
[…]
To gauge the extent of anti-American sentiment on CBC, one year’s coverage of the Corporation’s flagship news program, The National, for 2002 was examined. The authors chose 2002 because it followed the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, but was prior to the US invasion of Iraq.
In total there were 2,383 statements inside the 225 stories that referred to America or the United States on CBC in 2002. As with most news coverage, the largest number of statements was neutral; they constituted 49.1 percent of the attention. Thirty-four percent of the attention to America or the United States was negative, over double the 15.4 percent positive descriptors. Only 1.6 percent of the statements were considered ambiguous.
The main issue, constituting 27 percent of the coverage, was relations between Canada and the United States. Within this category 41 percent of statements were neutral. Of the remainder, statements were over twice as likely to be negative as positive regarding Canada/US relations (39 percent versus 18.9 percent).
Terrorism was the second most-often cited issue area where CBC mentioned America, at 10.8 percent. Here the negative comments overwhelmed positive evaluations by a 9-to-1 margin (37.6 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively).
Neutral statements, however, constituted 58.1 percent of the total coverage, which somewhat restored balance inso ar as even a factual report on terrorist activity is usually seen to be a negative reflection on terrorism.
The third most mentioned American issue on CBC in 2002 was build-up to the war in Iraq. At 10.5 percent, this topic was covered almost as extensively as terrorism, which received 10.8 percent of the CBC’s attention. The negative evaluations of the American policy in Iraq were only slightly lower than on terrorism, comprising an 8-in-10 negative-to-positive ratio, compared to 9 in
10 for terrorism.
In total, despite the relative short period of time after the 9/11 attacks, the CBC’s opinion statements of America during 2002 were overwhelmingly critical of American policy, American actions, and American purposes.

London bureau chief for Fox News Channel Scott Norvell writes on bias at the BBC. It’s hardly worth mentioning the obvious – that the piece could have just as easily be written altering the letters to CBC and hold true in all but the local details;

The BBC’s world is one in which America is always wrong, George W. Bush is a knuckle-dragging simpleton, people of faith are frightening ignoramuses, and capitalism is a rot on the fabric of social justice. Through this prism, the United Nations is the world’s supreme moral authority, multiculturalism is always a force for good, war is never warranted, and U.S. Republicans sprinkle Third World children over their Cheerios for breakfast.
[…]
Few with a grip on reality believe that there is a cabal at BBC House wringing their hands and plotting the renationalization of the coal industry or state-mandated racial sensitivity training for all 6-year-olds. But there is little doubt that, as Mr. Aitken puts it, a center-left groupthink dominates at the BBC and colors its entire output. It’s not deliberate. It’s worse. The producers just can’t imagine that someone could possibly oppose European integration or any of the other left-wing causes because to them, and their friends, these are self-evident truths. It simply doesn’t even occur to them that reasonable people could disagree with them.

And now for the local media.
Again, as much as I like and generally agree with local radio talk host (and former MP in the Mulroney government) John Gormley, he scored a big, fat, miss this morning on the Grewal tapes, by loudly dismissing them as “shenanigans” and “how politics is done in today’s Canada”.
I cant help but be reminded of a few of the topics covered on John Gormley LIve in the past week or so; the trashing of Saskatchewan provincial parks by teenage partiers during the May long weekend, the lack of “responsible parenting” in the town of Rosetown and just yesterday, the growing problem of graffiti in Saskatoon.
Well, perhaps it’s time that John revisits those same topics from the perspective of the messages young people hear in the media about behavior and ethics in government – the very government that writes and enforces the laws they flaunt.
Until you, John, are willing to hold lawmakers in the highest offices in the land to the ethical standards that Canadians deserve, and our constitution and laws demand, you might reconsider your outrage and denunciation of parents when a bunch of drunken teenagers drag an RCMP officer into the water at a lake party.
The two are not unrelated.

Bob Tarantino delivers a well deserved reality slap to Paul Wells.

If I can be so bold as to identify a new iron-clad rule for Canadian political coverage: there is nothing the Liberals can do which is so substantively grievous that its importance cannot be outweighed by minor tactical dithering by the Conservatives.

Mr. Wells – as much as most of us like you, Tarantino has properly nailed you on this one.
Blogger or not, those in professional media have a responsibility to keep their eye on the ball when events of this magnitude occur. Deflecting readers from the core issue – the threat to our democracy, and possible criminality suggested by the content of the tapes – with petty criticisms of the opposition is not responsible journalism.
A signficant number of those in media visit this site. I really want to know – what is your explanation for what is happening? Editorial firewalls? Laziness? Denial? You can use the comments anonymously, or send me an email privately.
What irony there is in the disclosure of the identity of Deep Throat against this backdrop. Contrast the general level of professionalism and quality of commentary in the Canadian mainstream over the mounting scandals of this government, with the dogged pursuit of Richard Nixon by two rookie reporters at the Washington Post – and tell me why Canadians shouldn’t be utterly disgusted with you.
There has to be a logical explanation as to why so many of you are flushing your journalistic integrity down the toilet to provide cover for this government.

Charles Adler is as fed up as I am with the smear campaign against Christians in the Canadian media.

Do you think the Globe and Mail would use headlines such as “Indo-Canadian activists capturing Liberal races,” or “Muslim Activists forcing Liberals to shift position on Israel?”
The truth is the Globe gets a free throw in this country, as do other media, when it comes to castigating Christians.
If The United Church of Canada gets involved in advancing gay rights, the Globe and Mail is not likely to be concerned. The Globe would never suggest United Church members stay away from Liberal or NDP nomination meetings.
But, when evangelical Christians and socially conservative Catholics get involved in politics in order to advance their issues, look out.

If these uppity evangelicals would just respect the system we have in place, they’d convert to Sikhism��or Islam where their views have been declared legitimate by the Official Media Handbook On Canadian Religious Diversity, and then take their opinions on public policy to the political marketplace.
update – Violet Nightshade serves up a lesson in tolerance, from the persective of the “gay community”.

Every so often, someone in media exposes their cultural bigotry towards the rural west. I just sent a letter to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin – as a lifetime resident of the rural prairies, I cannot adequately explain how abhorrant these cultural slurs (“prairie knuckledraggers”) towards our lifestyle and values are becoming.
“Knuckledragger. Redneck.”
For reasons unexplained, these are the favoured terms of elitist politicians and media alike, when referring to those who have committed the “crime” of adhering to the conservative values that have been the mainstay of rural culture since the founding of our nation.
Yet, to you, we are someone that “mainstream Canadians” should fear – indeed, something less than fully human. We are “knuckledraggers”.
(Let me ask you – when writing about an immigrant politician in Toronto, would you refer to those in their community as “spearchuckers”?)
You are devaluing our culture, you are demeaning an entire class of Canadians and in so doing, suggesting we do not deserve a voice in the political process.
I suggest that you owe a great number of Canadians a sincere apology. You may not agree with conservative rural values, but you have no right to dehumanize those who hold them.
Kate McMillan

update – May 30 Don Martin replies;

I can’t believe I’ve been so misunderstood by so many readers. Apologies
indeed for not communicating better. I was attempting to belittle the stereotype, which seems so ingrained around here in Ontario, of Prairie residents somewhere low on the evolutionary chain. They’re anything but . And I know that as someone who in Alberta (rural for part of the time) for 22 years. I only moved here reluctantly five years ago and will return eagerly at the first opportunity.
Again, apologies.

Well, I’ll take him at his word. But if the stereotype was being “belittled”, it was with a good measure of subtlety, considering that suggestion that certain politicians try to distance themselves from it.
I’d rather they attack it for what it is.

From Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun. Advice for everyone, actually.
Via Nealenews

Majeres says “Duff blew it”.

The Andrew Coyne column that’s creating all the buzz today is up. If you have only time to read one thing today – make it this.

I don’t suppose that when she wrote;

“… when the U.S. corporate media were cheering the attack on Iraq these [conservative/right wing bloggers] weren’t attacking them for their complicity then.” … and … “Why are the U.S. corporate media downplaying Iraq…”

… that she realized her words were an admission that she doesn’t actually read conservative blogs or the “US corporate media” .
But onward newbie blogger! Hard on the heels of the dismissive “corporate media” posts, she recovers from the bout of Zerbisiamnesia to explain why her brand new Toronto Star hosted “blog” doesn’t allow comments;

It’s not like this is some independent blog not worth suing. It’s a billion dollar media corporation that pays huge premiums for libel insurance. And, Canada has very onerous libel laws, much tougher than in the U.S.
Then there are our hate laws. They’re there for a reason.

Talking down to her readers. Nice touch.

But never lose hope. The Star is not closed to the idea of opening up the comments sections … one day.
Personally, I would love an electronic free-for-all. It would save me a lot of cutting and pasting. (Please, a favour? No fancy typefaces!) But, as it says at the bottom of this page, the Star has the copyright. I am but a wage slave and therefore must put up with those trucks above my head. That doesn’t mean the Star isn’t fair game. Look here and here.
In fact, you can bet that the suits are watching this blog very nervously because they know that, to maintain even a shred of cybercred, it has to be free-ranging. That they went with the intemperate me as their beta blogger — others will follow — suggests that they are either out of their minds or taking this enterprise very seriously.

“Either, or.” In the two dimensional Land Of Zerbisias, possibilities only come in twos!
Here’s another, Antonia – instead of hiding in the skirts of your corporate nanny, consider blogging like a grownup.
Get your own.

Head over to Instapundit this morning for a taste of how the storm is gathering over the Newsweek Koran fiasco. (The link is to the main page – just keep scrolling.)

Glenn Reynolds on the now retracted Newsweek story about desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay;

Two points: (1) If they had wrongly reported the race of a criminal and produced a lynching, they’d feel much worse — which is why they generally don’t report such things, a degree of sensitivity they don’t extend to reporting on, you know, minor topics like wars; and (2) If a blogger had made a similar mistake, with similar consequences, we’d be hearing about Big Media’s superior fact-checking and layers of editors.
People died, and U.S. military and diplomatic efforts were damaged, because — let’s be clear here — Newsweek was too anxious to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad.

Indeed.

Right now, I have a CBC cameraman in my studio, doing an piece on blogging.
So, this is a demonstration.

I probably should have changed out of my work clothes. Actually, we were dressed rather alike, come to think of it.
Question (inspired by the comments): If you take a CBC cameraman hostage, does that make you a “militant”?
Just asking.

Daniel Henninger on the rise of conservative media in the US in the wake of Ronald Reagan’s dismantling of the “Fairness Doctrine” in media.

Ronald Reagan tore down this wall in 1987 (maybe as spring training for Berlin) and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination.
It wasn’t obvious that conservatives soon would dominate talk radio. Radio programming has always been a soulless decision based on ratings. If programmers thought they could win the drive-time slots with Don Imus reading “Das Kapital,” that would be on the air and advertisers would support it. But it’s not.
What worked after speech became free in the spectrum ozone was hyper-articulate conservative hosts opening their microphones to millions of hyper-angry conservative voters–not least in such liberal bastions as New York, Boston, and Los Angeles.
In 1994, Newt Gingrich, his Contract With America and the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1952–the years in which the Fairness Doctrine largely kept politics off the air. This didn’t happen because the Gingrich candidates were getting their message out in the Los Angeles Times or Boston Globe.

M.K. Braaten;

Last week, after my research (here and here) on the Liberals ‘Audits’ created a firestorm in the media and the House of Commons, I received an email from a CBC investigative journalist wanting to do a piece on the story. He was planning on investigating the conflict of interest regarding the Liberals and the accounting firms that had conducted the ‘audits’.
After several phone conversations with him, and after him telling me he had interviews scheduled with some prominent forensic accountants, he informed me that his bosses did not want to pursue the story. The reason was because ‘information that [I] dug up has already been reported.” It should be noted, however, that this journalist has exposed some past scandals within various levels of government and frankly, I am not questioning his integrity (which I respect) but what I am questioning is the integrity of his superiors reasoning for not reporting this story.
To his credit, this producer seemed genuinely interested in this story, and from what he told me, he had already done some extensive research on the topic. But, I think the explanation for failing to finish this story that I was given doesn�t make sense. For example, only two news organizations reported this topic (CanWest and Globe and Mail), but they only reported what was said in parliament. Not one news entity has used ‘investigative’ journalism to actually dig around for some information that would be news worthy � and there are a lot of newsworthy items in this topic.

“The speech-astonishing not so much for what it said as for who said it-may go down in history as the day that the stodgy newspaper business officially woke up to the new realities of the internet age.”– The Economist”

What I worry about much more is our ability to make the necessary cultural changes to meet the new demands of the digital native. I said earlier, what is required is a complete transformation of the way we think about our product and the Internet itself. Unfortunately, however, I believe too many of us editors and reporters are out of touch with our readers. Too often, the question we ask is “Do we have the story?” rather than “Does anyone want the story?”
And the data support this unpleasant truth. Studies show we’re in an odd position: We’re more trusted by the people who aren’t reading us. And when you ask journalists what they think about their readers, the picture grows darker. According to one recent study, the percentage of national journalists who have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the American public to make good decisions has declined by more than 20 points since 1999. Perhaps this reflects their personal politics and personal prejudices more than anything else, but it is disturbing.
This is a polite way of saying that reporters and editors think their readers are stupid. …
Newspapers whose employees look down on their readers can have no hope of ever succeeding as a business.

Amen
The speech, and Jeff Jarvis’ posts here and here should be required reading by every newspaper editor and journalist in the business.
Via Instapundit

Blog chatter on the CBC’s selective poll reporting makes it to the Toronto Sun;

Did you know that an Environics Research poll released last week found that a startling 73% of Canadians surveyed believe Prime Minister Paul Martin is either “very responsible” or “somewhat responsible” for AdScam?

Yes, actually. Most people who surf blogs did.

But you wouldn’t know any of this from the highly selective reporting of this poll last week by the CBC, which commissioned it, and by other media, who, incredibly, portrayed it as a positive finding for Martin. (For alerting me to this controversy, I’m indebted to blogger “Michael” of Winnipeg, who first wrote about it Sunday on his website, bluemapleleaf.blogspot. com.)

Kudos to Nealenews, who is headlining the article at the moment. The CBC has been skewing their reporting (or lack of it) so heavily for the Liberals, you’d almost wonder if they have something to hide.

I’ve been up since 5 am for no reason at all, other than my sleep patterns are completely disrupted from three days and nights of waiting on an expected litter of puppies. The wee darlings arrived by c-section yesterday, giving my VISA card a case of the bends.
So, there are sometimes sensible explanations for small dead animal postings made at 2 am – namely, small live animals.
Listening to the local news this morning, I caught an item about a businessman in Regina named “Craig McMillan” who’s pulling some crafty scheme to the evade the smoking ban. My ears perked up. You see, that was the second time I’d heard the name “Craig McMillan” this morning.
The first time was at just past seven o’f*ckingclock, when the phone rang with a call from someone who said they were looking for the guy.
As I said, I was already up. Somewhere out there is a reporter who just missed an excellent two word interview.