Here's what we should all be focusing on the most - Truth in the media.
If we can't trust MSM to deliver the facts, then we have no way to assess the other critical issues.
Lorrie Goldstein's column in today's Toronto Sun gives an excellent example of how the largely Liberal-controlled media and party pundits have been sugar-coating the real story to lull us all into believing that Stephane Dion was the champion of Kyoto:
Dion's website (stephane dion.ca) boasts that "at the follow-up to the Kyoto Conference on Climate Change in Montreal in December 2005, he won international agreement to extend the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012."
Right. Well, here's a more realistic assessment of what actually went on in Montreal, written by Kyoto expert Robert Henson in his new book, The Rough Guide to Climate Change, The Symptoms, The Science, The Solutions.
Henson, no global warming sceptic -- his book has been praised as "superb ... even-handed and accessible" by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change -- assesses that meeting in this way:
"In the end, the diplomats managed to eke out an agreement for a two-year round of non-binding talks under the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) that 'will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments' (as the official wording says) but could set the stage for future talks. In this light, it's not at all certain that Kyoto-like targets will prevail after 2012."
Gee. Guess Dion and Co. didn't save the world, eh?
Goldstein goes on to point out how the U.S. which never ratified Kyoto, has actually done better than Canada regarding the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions:
The "evil" U.S., which never ratified Kyoto, finished five places better than we did.
And while the U.S. is the world's biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (20.6% in 2000, compared to our 2.1% , which put us in ninth place) when you break the numbers down on a comparative basis, we, uh, stink.
Based on emissions per capita in 2000, we were the seventh-worst offender, at 6.3 tonnes of carbon equivalent per person, barely one place better than the U.S., at 6.8.
On the basis of carbon intensity, we were the 10th worst offender at 172 tonnes of carbon emitted per million dollars in GDP, one position worse than the U.S., at 162.
Indeed, you have to wonder what former Liberal PM Paul Martin was smoking when he raced to that Montreal conference last year during the federal election and scolded the U.S. for lacking a "global conscience" on climate change.
Of course this type of blatant manipulation of the truth (aka propaganda) runs the gamut of hot-button issues. Stephen Taylor exposed CBC bias recently with the Christina Lawand fiasco.
Then there was the Reuters-Beirut-photoshop scandal that proves this type of deceit is not limited to the Canadian media.
So wake up from your complacent belief that what you see in MSM is the truth. This is the 'big issue' folks! The rest follows from it.
* * * *
Update: Looks like I wasn't the only one impressed with Lorrie Goldstein's Sunday column - Check out Dark Blue Tory "Some People Would Vote Liberal No Matter What".
Tuesday Update: The Toronto Sun names 3 top priorities: Wait times, Afghanistan and the environment (beyond Kyoto) - Promises to Keep.
New York Times caught telling a whopper - H/T to Suzanne at Big Blue Wave.
Tuesday Update: The Toronto Sun names 3 top priorities: Wait times, Afghanistan and the environment (beyond Kyoto) - Promises to Keep.
* * * *
New York Times caught telling a whopper - H/T to Suzanne at Big Blue Wave.
39 comments:
Touche, Joanne - this should be our mission for 2007 - exposing the MSM for what they are - Liberal Lackies!
Of course, we can expect the usual name-calling, denials and smears from our left blogging "friends" as they discount the truth.
I couldn't agree more. I am continually pissed with the media and constantly pointing out misleading and outright lies in many articles on TV and newsprint to family and friends. This will continue to be my main mission in 2007.
I agree with you Joanne. Truth in the Media is the big issue for me, and has been since I've woken up to the fact that I've been lied to so much by the MSM. It wasn't that I was stupid when I believed what was written, it was that I was too busy with working and living to actually check sources, read a variety of papers, etc. I suspect this is the case with most folks. However, my mother was right when she said that the truth would come out in the wash, and it seems to me that the Liberals' dirty laundry has been hung on the line for a while now.
It's scary to think how much power the MSM has at their disposal, and how recklessly they use it in feeding people BS and thus manipulating how this country is run.
Freedom of the press does not mean freedom from responsibility on their part.
I googled "oath of journalism" and the following quote came up. It's from a US source, but I see no reason why it shouldn't apply in Canada.
"It is no exaggeration to say that the first amendment contains the most important elements of individual freedom; the liberties of speech and press are the basis on which other freedoms stand.
"The framers of the Bill of Rights believed, in the first place, that a free flow of information and ideas was the best of all protections against the worst form of tyranny, that of the mind...
"To say that great freedom is conferred upon the press and broadcast media is to imply that great responsibility is likewise conferred. In order to understand that responsibility, one must return to the two main purposes of the first amendment--the creation of free thought and the stimulation of public discussion.
"The heritage of a free society, then, requires of the publisher and broadcaster that they disseminate such information as will enable recipients to arrive at the truth and as will assist them in making decisions on issues confronting the country. The information must be accurate; it must be presented objectively and interpreted fairly; and it must, if an expression of editorial opinion, be answerable."
Sorry if this is so long, but I thought that people might want to see it. If not, I apolotize.
I would very much love to see the MSM become an active, visible, opponent of the Conservatives in the next election. Right now they are an ally of the Liberals so they are an opponent and they are active but they have NOT been fully exposed so they are not visible.
Right now they attack from the sidelines with carefully chosen stories and carefully chosen headlines. It's time to fight back.
right on didn't you love Robert Fife in his and Lloyd Robertson's conversation with the Prime Minister "What will you do Prime Minister if your party gets a majority?"
implied scary Stephen Harper
this is so old
I was surprised to hear Stephon Dion spouting the same old same old neo conservatives scary
liberals only party that can govern with social justice
Happy New Year Joanne
I am the Florence that communicated with you through Garth Turner
"The information must be accurate; it must be presented objectively and interpreted fairly; and it must, if an expression of editorial opinion, be answerable."
Thanks for printing that "oath" (I am going to copy and save it for just the right occasion to pull it out - I would encourage others to do the same).
I guess Canadian Journalists must either not take the oath or have their fingers crossed behind their back when they do because accuracy and objectivity and journalistic fairness are not practiced by very many journalists in Canada.
My guess - their fingers are crossed - wink, wink.
"What will you do Prime Minister if your party gets a majority?"
Even tho it seemed Fife was very aggitated, (insinuating PMSH would destroy social programs)
I think that is a good question.
You can't get a majority without answering that question.
PMSH answered it with 'more long term policy/goals', a minority government is always dealing with issues of the day instead of planning for the near and distant future.
The days of the 'quick fix for votes' are over.
PMSH has to sell that message to Canadians.
Does PMSH NEED a majority?
I would like to see PMSH govern until the 'fixed election date Oct 2009'.
Perhaps there should be a fine, say one dollar per reader or viewer, for every innacurate or biased story. I can think of a few media outlets that would soon be bankrupt.
Alberta Girl - Not all MSM is Liberal-controlled of course, but any evidence should be documented and exposed.
----------------
DHedges - Please continue with your mission. This is a grassroots movement that will have a huge impact the more people get on board.
--------------------
Fred - Very eloquent. I couldn't have said it better myself. Liberals delight at throwing our money at problems, and then taking credit for pretending to be doing something. It's all about optics not results.
---------------------
Anon - "...it was that I was too busy with working and living to actually check sources, read a variety of papers, etc. I suspect this is the case with most folks..."
I agree with you. Most people have been fed the Nanny State propaganda so long that we've lost the ability and the will to think for ourselves. Well, some of us are waking up now, and realizing how much it has cost us to give up this power to the media and the Liberal party.
--------------------
Anon at 10:19:48 - The information must be accurate; it must be presented objectively and interpreted fairly; and it must, if an expression of editorial opinion, be answerable."
I agree with Alberta Girl that this is a very useful quote. Thanks so much for this. Yes, we should ask the Canadian media whether or not they subscribe to this type of journalistic integity.
In any case, Anon, please don't ever apologize for offering some information here. This is a place to discuss and educate.Your participation is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
-----------------------
Anon at 10:54 "Right now they attack from the sidelines with carefully chosen stories and carefully chosen headlines.
Very well said. It is a covert operation for the most part - except when they mess up big time such as the Lawand debacle.
--------------------------
Hi Florence! Happy New Year to you too! Yeah, I saw that interview as well. Fife was his usual pompous self. I thought Lloyd Robertson was pretty classy though. I seriously doubt Harper will get a majority in any case, but the 'scary Conservatives' song is getting a bit old.
Wilson, on this note you commented that you would like to see the current government stay in til the end of the mandate. I would too but with a minority parliament that is unlikely. I really doubt that Harper would call a snap election. If he did, he would lose a huge amount of credibility, and I would be the first one to criticize him on it. The opposition may take him down though, when it is politically expedient for them to do so.
---------------------------
Swift, I think the "fee" should be not buying their newspapers or their sponsors' products - and let them know it! Do not underestimate the power of the angry masses.
Libs have been successful in using 10 second sound bites to delude Canadians into believing they were 'doing something'. We owe Goldstein a big thanks for exposing this story.
Absolutely. Lorrie is a rare voice of credibility in MSM. There are a few notable others - CTV's David Akin and Rosemary Thompson; CBC's Rex Murphy; Globe's Christie Blatchford.
On the other end of the scale, we have Jane Taber, Craig Oliver... Ugh.
Joanne -- Super discussion as always. You're right the MSM is evil incarnate. In partnership with those fiendish debauched lefties, I thank God there are moral bulwarks like yourself to stem their relentless tide of rotten decadence. Thank you for pointing out the Truth and the Facts with such remarkable consistency. It's a rare person in this world that such unparalleled access to both in absolutely every instance!
joanne: I really doubt that Harper would call a snap election. If he did, he would lose a huge amount of credibility, and I would be the first one to criticize him on it.
Would you differentiate between calling an election and engineering his own defeat to bring one about?
Would you differentiate between calling an election and engineering his own defeat to bring one about?
Aye, there's the rub!
Lorrie did restrict himself to one ", uh, " in today's writings. And not one use of "oh so" either. Good for him!
Over here we have "Of course, we can expect the usual name-calling, denials and smears", "discount the truth", "an awful truth", "scary to think how much power the MSM has at their disposal", "recklessly they use it in feeding people BS" and "manipulating how this country is run".
But I'm disappointed. No "oh so"'s here. No comments with "knickers in a knot", "shrill" or "far left" in them. Nothing about moonbats, tinfoil hats or smirking use of stereotypical Politically Correct language like "the left are 'intellectually challenged' on this".
Has CPC Central's Talking Point Generator System been taken offline for new year's maintenance?
Shucks LS...you left out Farmer Jones!And Farmer Jones remembers!
Happy New Year y'all
Farmer Jones
Lorrie is a rare voice of credibility in MSM. There are a few notable others - CTV's David Akin and Rosemary Thompson; CBC's Rex Murphy; Globe's Christie Blatchford.
Rare? You mean ranting psychotics and dyspeptic miseries are rare among the righty tighties?
Come...on. Squealing and hissing is all the Right does these days. Lesson for you, dear...biliousness is bad the skin.
It appears you've touched a nerve or two, Jo. Why, RT even resorted to sarcasm!!
Funny how the lines are so clearly divided. The right are frustrated with ongoing bias and unfair media tactics. The left defend the MSM and complain that allegations of bias is old and boring.
Happy New Year to you and your family, Jo, as well as to your faithful readers.
Joanne "Not all MSM is Liberal-controlled of course, but any evidence should be documented and exposed."
The media bias has been documented. It is pretty overwhelming. What should we do now to expose it?
2006 federal election endorsements:
Toronto Star - Liberals
Brandon Sun - Conservatives
Calgary Herald - Conservatives
Calgary Sun - Conservatives
Edmonton Journal - Conservatives
Edmonton Sun - Conservatives
The Globe and Mail - Conservatives
The Intelligencer (Belleville, Ontario) - Conservatives
London Free Press - Conservatives
Medicine Hat News - Conservatives
Moncton Times and Transcript - Conservatives
Montreal Gazette - Conservatives
National Post - Conservatives
The Oakville Beaver - Conservatives
Ottawa Citizen - Conservatives
Ottawa Sun - Conservatives
La Presse (Montreal) - Conservatives
The Province (Vancouver) - Conservatives
Le Soleil (Quebec City) - Conservatives
Toronto Sun - Conservatives
Vancouver Sun - Conservatives
Windsor Star - Conservatives
Winnipeg Free Press - Conservatives
Winnipeg Sun - Conservatives
Alright, I am all ears. Lets hear some Conservative ideas to end this bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election%2C_2006
Or you can go to the CPC own site to see the same list of newspaper endorsements along with them thanking them for the positive media coverage.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/40211
Newspaper endorsements in previous elections were very similar.
Mac - It appears you've touched a nerve or two, Jo. Why, RT even resorted to sarcasm!!
You noticed that too, eh? When all else fails...
Wayward Son - Several of those "endorsements" were more along the line of the Grits needing a little time-out, more than anything else.
In any case, an editorial stance on a particular election does not dictate the bias of the reporters and pundits for that newspaper or network as a whole.
BTW, Mac, Happy New Year to you and yours as well!
did anyone happen to watch the year in review on Question Period on Sunday? My husband (who has no interest whatsoever in politics) made a comment about how "impartial" they were.
And why did it take *2* interviewers to question PM Harper for the CTV special? Can we just smack Bob "The CAA was dead on arrival" Fife?
And why did it take *2* interviewers to question PM Harper for the CTV special?
Answer: Because Harper is so scary! Boo!!
QP was 'impartial'? I could hardly watch the thing without gagging! (Although I must say that Joel Denis-Bellvance has an awesome French accent. *Sigh*)
Happy New Year, Joanne!
Re MSM bias: I have a few examples (of many) that I would like to share: I recall during the 2004 election campaign, on our local talk-radio station, Bill Good was having a discussion with everyone's fave, Jane Taber.
The conversation swung around to the topic of Stephen Harper, and Jane, commenting on the campaign so far, ended her comments with "but of course, I'M not going to vote for him." Not even a pretense of impartiality! When she fills in for Duffy, I just shut the TV off. I don't trust a word that comes out of that women's mouth.
Also during the same campaign, I recall the female producer of the Bill Good show introducing the topics for the next day's programming. Among the segment headlines was something to the effect of "and we'll discuss Stephen Harper's plans if he becomes PM, and whose rights he now plans to do away with (women, abortion, etc.) I could have thrown my radio out the window after that one.
The December issue of Chatelaine magazine. I was perusing the rag as I sat in the waiting room at the dentist's office waiting for my son. Heather Malick has a column in there and one of her comments compared Stephen Harper to a neanderthal. When I got home, I promptly fired off an email to the editor thanking them for reminding me why I cancelled my subscription years ago and will never subscribe again. And shame on them for assuming every woman in Canada votes Liberal/NDP.
So, yes, bias is very pervasive in every medium and people who only catch soundbites here and there do get suckered and vote Liberal. It is maddening!
(Sorry for the verbal diarrhea; I was out quite late last night doing karaoke and I've got all these stupid songs running through my head! Hope I made sense!)
lol! Soccermom, Happy New Year to you too. If the only thing wrong with your head today is the Karaoke songs, you're doing pretty well.
Your examples are absolutely frightening. So this is the stuff that they don't hide! That is incredibly unprofessional of Jane Taber to have mentioned anything about who she was or wasn't voting for. I have nothing but disdain for her as a reporter/pundit.
That's awesome that you wrote to the editor of Chatelaine! More people should do that. Did you happen to get a reply of any substance?
One time several years ago, I heard a comment by a local talk-show host that I felt was really out of line in a partisan way, so I made note of all the show's sponsors and wrote them a note saying that I would be boycotting their products and why.
Several got back to me with concern and apologies. The talk-show host suddenly disappeared one day, and was replaced with a new guy. ;)
Joanne: No reply whatsoever from Chatelaine, but I'm sure they were absolutely shocked over there to learn that there are some women who are Conservative and not afraid to admit it. They are probably still stunned by that one. By the way, after I read the offending article, I made sure I hid the rag under a HUGE pile of magazines, where hopefully it would not see the light of day until it was time for recycling. Which is where it belongs, because that magazine is trash.
Yes, we all need to write those letters. Contacting sponsors is a great idea.
On the Next Big Issue question, it'll likely be the environment. The Liberals have been going out of their way to try and "own" this issue ever since they knew they were going to lose the 2006 election, conveniently ignoring their previous apathy on the Kyoto file to paint and tar the Tories as being the ones responsible for Canada's current predicament.
The signs are growing in number: Stephane Dion is the new leader; the backroom folks are using the pages of Policy Options to portray the environment as the great challenge of our time; the frequent Rona Ambrose-bashing; and so forth.
It's a good issue to try to own, but the Liberals will have numerous credibility issues for years to come because of their previous lack of stewardship when they had the chance to actually implement policy and move Canadians along towards their Kyoto targets.
On the Tory side of the equation, I think they should co-opt one of Paul Martin's better ideas and improve upon it: the "50/50 program" for post-secondary education. They likely won't, but it would be a far greater initiative than child-care and would assist the emerging generation of politicos in getting their training without the fear of a massive debt at the end of the road.
Yeah, hate the bleating of the media. They have it in for our poor leader -- not like the kid gloves they took to PM Martin last election! I bet all of you Torie luvers are itching to see Fox Canada come here and give Don cherry a newscast!
Soccermom, i heard the same interview and do not recall the producer saying those words about Harpor. In fact, the 2004 election was quite balanced coverage and even Good tried extra hard to be a centrist voice, tho he strains at it sometimes (two six-figure salaries will do that to a comfortable fellow like him). You listen to 'NW so you know that when it comes to media coverage they are far from liberal. Adler, back in the day with Mair, most of their guests tend to drift right -- Smyth will bring in someone from the Fraser Institute more times than not when in need of a generic voice -- so its astounding that you could even suggest they have anything but a conservative slant on the stories. They do have a very good news team, not half as good as it use to be... When ever they did an election poll on Good's show during the past election, the numbers always came out a variable of 23 Cons, 4 Libs, 7 NDp. But even taking all of BC into account (never mind the more liberal urban centres) the votes were more like 44%-25%-31% -- goes to show that NW's natural slant on things has just turned off progressive voters, is all.
Perhaps you should reconsider what you sing at karoake!
Burleivespipe: (nice handle, by the way) I agree with you that Bill Good did do his best to be impartial, as he always has. My issue was not with him or the station's coverage, it was with the producer who did question whose rights Stephen Harper would be attempting to take away. I stand by that. It was one of those 2-second sound bites that catch your attention, and it did mine.
BTW, Charles Adler is one of my faves, but you probably figured that one out already. Christie Clark, who has been filling in for him, is Mark Marissen's wife (Mark Marissen is Stephen Dion's BC campaign manager). And she has been quite fair, to her credit as well (the few times I have listened to her) Although I have a hard time believing she can keep this up if she happens to fill in again during an election campaign.
As for Paul Martin and his treatment by the media in '06: Martin was behaving like a dithering fool. That's kind of hard to gloss over. It would be very difficult to put a positive spin on that.
And yes, I would love a Fox News Canada. That's exactly what we need. And Don Cherry would be a great host.
As for karaoke: I've got that stupid song "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy" running through my head right now, and it ain't purty.
LOL and Have a Happy New Year!
Sorry, that should read "Stephane" Dion. Silly me!
Little Janey Taber....not worth my time today. Good for a giggle and a laugh when you're feeling down, better than a comedy.
What is a big issue that needs to be looked at? Well, frankly, I still think that immigration needs a big overhaul. I hope that the Lebanese/Canadians-rescue-return to Lebanon issue isn't forgotten. It's that old dual citizenship thing that needs to be looked at, so that we don't get "used" again by people who play a race/refugee card when they need it, and then their Canadian card when they need that.
Speaking of which....there's a woman in my building who complains repeatedly about being lonely. She's the only member of her family here from Jamaica, and she states that's why she's lonely. She's healthy, and has been here for years. I asked her if she worked, because that's where people often meet other people. She said, part time. When I asked why not full time....she said that she was fine financially.
Then, in the next breath, she tells me that she has to go to an immigration hearing for a nephew she is sponsoring from India (she's from Jamaica :-)....she has to go to this hearing because she doesn't have the financial means to sponsor him. However, she states that "they" are supposed to let in family members if you are here alone. Her final comment was that she wasn't hopeful because this government was stingy. I responded this government is doing just fine. Wanted to keep the peace somewhat.
We didn't discuss it further.
So, how does someone who can work part-time and be financially okay, think it's alright to plead special circumstances so that her nephew who she wants to sponsor here, will get financial benefits, which she can't meet???
That's one of the immigration things that need to be cleaned up. We all want lower taxes, yet people like her don't seem to realize that the neighbors surrounding her in the building who actually work full-time would be the ones sponsoring her nephew financially, not her.
That's another issue that needs to be cleaned up.
Happy new Year all.
Damn... I wrote a reply and Blogger kicked me out when I posted it. Hopefully, this one will work.
Wayward Son, just because a MSM outlet predicts one party or the other will win an election, that is not an endorsement. I nearly choked on my coffee laughing when I read your list.
I subscribe to the Vancouver Province and they're firmly leftist but they predicted the Harper Tories would win.
So why do I subscribe to a leftist paper? Two reasons: First, their local coverage, while sensationalized, is quite complete. Second, they have the best cartoon section. If you have kids and you want them to be engaged (locally, globally and politically) having a newspaper with cartoons is a good start.
Soccermom - You should have burned that rag! ;)
RGM - I think Elizabeth May is going to "own" the environment issue. It will be the challenge of the other parties to wrench it from her.
Anon at 3:04:27 - Very interesting about your neighbour. It is a tricky issue. Of course it's not right what she's doing. It's very presumptuous and arrogant.
But it is the legacy of 13 years of Liberal government that has enabled this kind of attitude. It's the Nanny State syndrome, and it's all about buying votes; especially in areas of high immigrant population.
Mac - Thanks for pointing that out about predictions vs. endorsements. I was trying to say that earlier but you were much more eloquent.
Mac -- Give me a break. The Province is "leftist"... yeah, right. It's a steamy tabloid rag and always has been. It's the bastard child of the Vancouver Sun (both owned by the same company I might note) that specializes in lurid headlines, celebrity muckraking, astrology, cartoons and other such nonsense.
Hmmm. And you're a subscriber. Well go figure that one.
Red Tory said... "It's a steamy tabloid rag and always has been."
Exactly... a typical leftist newspaper. So what is your point?
You know, RT, you're acting very angry lately. Your posts have little decent content and much bile & spite. Maybe you need to take a vacation?
You know, RT, you're acting very angry lately. Your posts have little decent content and much bile & spite.
I can't disagree with you there, Mac, except for the word "lately".
The Province is good for its sports section and little else.
Mac - "Wayward Son, just because a MSM outlet predicts one party or the other will win an election, that is not an endorsement. I nearly choked on my coffee laughing when I read your list."
Too bad you don't know the difference between a "prediction" and an "endorsement." There is a big difference between a newspaper editorial saying that we think that a party "will" win (predition) and the same editorial saying that we support the platform of a party (endorsement). All of the newspapers that I listed "endorsed" the party that I state they did and that is coming straight from the CPC site.
I'd love a link if you have one, Son...
Just for arguments sake, here's a hypothetical scenario for you: Let's say in the run of a year, a certain newpaper write 1000+ articles of various types (editorials, Op-Eds, reports, whatever) which are negative toward the Conservatives and a half dozen which were positive toward the Conservatives... then two days before an election, publishes an editorial comment saying the Conservatives should win the election for one reason: the Liberals need a short 'time out' because they've been exceedingly naughty... would you say that newspaper "endorsed" the Conservatives?
Post a Comment