Dear Mr. Greenspon

93 Replies to “Dear Mr. Greenspon”

1. Oh I agree, Warwick, as you know I castigated the Globe and Mail here yesterday. Nevertheless, I remain curious: Why is the general tenor of the reporting and commentary at the Globe and Mail so often diametrically opposed to the positions taken in the lead editorials?

2. Actually Ted judging by your response, you don’t get it.

3. Vitruvius,
   No idea. Maybe their version of balance? Hire 20 raging lefties as columnists and stack the hard news with biased hacks and on the days they have the worst of them writing all at once, fire off a good editorial in order to counter claims of bias.
   Who knows these things?

4. Vitrivius. That is a great question.

5. Donna worry… Librano$ are ass-embling; Volpe is unass-embling.
   CP, aka Ass. Press knows all. …-
   Liberals assembling candidates
   OTTAWA (CP) – Federal Liberals are starting to assemble candidates for the next election without waiting for a new leader to be chosen. Full Story
   Volpe loses campaign manager
   OTTAWA (CP) – Joe Volpe’s trouble-plagued bid to become the next Liberal leader has suffered another, possibly fatal blow, with the resignation of his national campaign manager.

6. Marcus Gee, John Ibbitson (can he fawn over Harper any more than he does?), Eric Reguly, Christie Blatchford, Margaret Wente, Lorna Dueck, heck even good ol’ Rex Murphy these days.
   Stacked with conservatives of varying degrees of temperament and Christian passion.
   Like I said, with “Liberal-friendly” media like this, who needs the National Post, the Sun Media chain, the Western Standard, the CanWest Global network and all of the other outright conservative media that somehow don’t count as mainstream media by conservatives wanting to whine about bias.
   Stop the conservative-biased media!

7. Balance is one of the most common theories I have heard proposed by those to whom I have asked that question, Warwick, but I remain unconvinced. Lorne Gunter (great guy) is who the Edmonton Journal (for example) publishes for balance. But the lead editorial? I’m no conspiracy theorist either, but there seems to me to be an unexplained impedance mismatch here. Electrical engineers are naturally suspicious about unexplained impedance mismatches, it’s their job.
   Even the lead editorial in the Edmonton Journal, which as I have mentioned tracks quite far to the collectivist, regulationist perspective, was relatively supportive of Prime Minister Harper today, quite in opposition to yesterday’s front page, above the fold picture of a protester at the legislature holding up a banner that read “Canada is for Peace – Harper is for War”.
   So my question remains. If we don’t understand the cause of the editorial differential phenomenon I have observed, then our understanding is incomplete, which raises the risk of incorrect decision making.

8. So when columist make sense -its conservative and biased.
   and when they spout non-sense- as per Mansbridge and the lot we have???

9. Ted,
   Ibbitson fawn over Harper? You’re off your meds.
   Wente even says she’s a liberal in her own columns (she describes herself as on the economic right of the liberals but still.) She also says all of her friends are liberals almost without exception.
   Rex Murphy is about the least biased voice in Canadian journalism. He’ll go after anything he doesn’t like and praise anything he does regardless of source.
   The Aspers (owners of CanWest) have fundraised for the Liberal party for the last several decades. They only turned on Martin because he deserved it.
   9 of 10 Blatchford columns are about local criminal law issues and Harper was the defendant in none of those.
   As for the Sun chain, if you go to their columnist page, look at the non-Toronto, non-Alberta papers. Val Sears, Sheila Copps, Michael Harris, Eric Margolis… even the Sun has lefties. Most likely more than the G&M or the Star employ per paper…
   I suppose it’s all where your starting point is and what your definition is. I you happen to be left of the NDP and tripped on Marx on your way by, just about everyone would be conservative in your eyes.

10. The equation is simple: if you’re a Liberal/socialist/lefty and you disagree with what the media says, then the media is “Conservative-biased”. If you’re a Conservative/capitalist/right and you disagree with what the media says, then the media is “Liberal-biased”. Both sides of the spectrum are claiming bias of the media against their positions.
    So…what happens when you are independent/moderate/centrist and you disagree with what the media says?
    I subscribe to the (probably mangled) Shakespearean quote “Above all else, to thine own self be true”…so I analyze myself constantly. I feel that I can honestly say that I don’t BLINDLY support ANY political party. If what they say makes sense, then I agree…and if it doesn’t, I disagree. When I read the MSM, I see little else but spin and half-truths…with the majority tending to support that side of the argument that I disagree with. And I disagree with the Liberals/socialists/leftists.
    Ted, just because a journalist writes an article that is apparently supportive of the Conservatives, does not make them “Conservative-biased”. If they spin the article with half-truths, then you could make that claim. Rather than recite the journalists names that have written articles that are supportive of the Conservatives, how about dissecting their articles and show us the spin and half-truths…then and only then, could you make an argument.

11. I read the Globe religiously for almost 40 years (I started as a paperboy for them when I was 7). I remember when Richard Needham wrote columns that were funny, and when Geoff Stevens made the Law of the Sea interesting.
    But I stopped reading it a few years ago because everytime I read a columnist, I got so angry I wanted to spit. I blame Roy Megarry and William Thorsell for the decline. Thorsell, I believe, read “The Fountainhead” as a youth, and decided he wanted to be a gay Ellsworth Toohey; all his actions seem predicated on that pattern.
    But it’s not just the columnists who irked me; it was the way the beat reporters managed to work in snarky references to the Tories in news stories, and sneering references to anyone who rejects the multicultural/gay/socialist/secular agenda.
    As to the disconnect between the editorials and the rest of the paper; I’m assuming the editorial board is composed of the clearest minds at the paper, and most of the stuff Harper has done has been relatively sensible, while not perfect. So they acknowledge that, while the rest of the Toohey-influenced staff continue with their sniping.
    And the Globe didn’t break Adscam; Frank magazine did.

12. Dang, I forgot to let Blatch’ off the hook when I castigated the Globe and Mail yesterday. She’s great. Hell of a dame (and it’s my understanding that she would take that as a compliment). The G&M doesn’t let her write about politics much, but when she does it’s always very good.
    Rex Murphy, on the other hand, is a genius. He’s one of the few people who, when I find myself disagreeing with him, I question myself before I question him.
    Still, I agree with Hassle. Above all else, to thine own self be true. Overgeneralizing about anything, including the main stream media, will, I suggest, lead one to be less than true to thine own self. That’s part of the reason why I remain puzzled by the editorial differential phenomenon.
    Maybe, as Kevin suggests, the editorial board is just ahead of the curve, while a significant number of reporters and columnists are stuck in the pandering to their fans rut. If so, that might suggest that we are indeed seeing the realization of the sea change being skippered by the new captain of Canada leak out into the main stream press.

13. “Ted, just because a journalist writes an article that is apparently supportive of the Conservatives, does not make them “Conservative-biased”. If they spin the article with half-truths, then you could make that claim. Rather than recite the journalists names that have written articles that are supportive of the Conservatives, how about dissecting their articles and show us the spin and half-truths…then and only then, could you make an argument.”
    I trust you meant to address that to the rest of the commenters here and in the conservative blogosphere and not to me.
    Or else you haven’t read my regular rants on this issue which basically reject the claim that there is a built-in conservative or a liberal bias in the media.
    My comments claiming conservative bias are meant somewhat ironically because, as you yourself pointed out, you can selectively take any article, column, passage within an article and, ignoring the rest, claim “MSM bias” like the many newspapers, magazines, TV shows, TV news broadcasts, corporate websites, etc. etc. are all one monolithic beast out to get conservatives. It’s a ridiculous claims. Just as ridiculous as claiming there is a vast right-wing media bias/conspiracy.
    There are columnists and even individual papers that do have a, I would call it tendencies rather than bias. But The Mainstream Media? No. If there is any widespread mainstream media tendency at all that is common (or more common) it is that they need to make money and therefore tend to the sensationalist side and the over-dramatization side. Thus, conflict is sought out because it sells. The problem is us not so much them – easier to blame them though for our desire to see conflict, death, etc. Thus as well, a silly story like last year’s “internal division within the Conservatives” started by spurned Jamieson gets lots of coverage. As does the Emerson floor crossing. As does the evacuation in Lebanon.
    If there is another (lesser) common tendency among some media, it is seeing themselves as a check on government, which they most certainly are. How does this play out in the liberal or conservative mind? And here, I think, speaking generally, conservatives demand more loyalty and “patriotism” from the media than liberals so when conservatives become Conservative MPs they view the media anti-government tendency as more of an attack on them personally than do Liberals.
    Is that enough dissecting for you Warwick?
    Ted
    Cerberus

14. Oops. Meant “Hassle” there not “Warwick”.

15. Vitruvius: I think it can be explained more simply than that. As I said above, conflict, drama, death sells papers and gets viewers. We love to buy and watch that stuff. Like it or not. So the reporting plays that up. The columnists are set off against each other. But when it comes to the editorial – really the heart and not just the brain of the paper – you are addressing the people who have already bought the paper and are looking for serious reflection.
    Ted

16. I find it interesting that, according to Ted, it’s OK for the media to make up any shit they want and report it as fact, without doing any checking of facts or balance.

17. Where did I say that?

18. “If there is another (lesser) common tendency among some media, it is seeing themselves as a check on government, which they most certainly are.”
    No they’re not, that’s why we have “opposition parties”.
    The media is there to report news and events, that’s not too hard for them, is it?

19. If that’s true, Ted, then all indications are that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is doing a good job, much to the chagrin, perhaps, of those who over-invested in denigrating him.

20. Ted:
    I heard that from an “un-named source”. Didn’t feel like checking with you to see if you really said it or not.

21. By reporting news and forming conclusions based upon uncovered facts, the press acts as check on government. As it should.
    The press has been a fundamental part of the formation of our democracy. The very first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights – the First Amendment – states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It doesn’t even say writing or novels or books. It is very precise: the “press”. Likewise the French Declaration of the Right of Man and Citizen although it doesn’t specify as clearly the “press”.
    Vast amounts of corruption and anti-democratic behaviour has been uncovered by the press over time. Including Shawinigate and Adscam, by the way. The press didn’t make that up, but they sure formed an opinion about it.
    Ted

22. Hang on, Multirec, it certainly is the case that in a modern liberal democracy the press has a role in opposing the government, or at least in holding them up to the light of day. That’s why freedom of the press is explicitly mentioned in Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, and Clause 2(b) if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let’s not get carried away here.

23. The pen might be mightier than the sword but not when it is used as a sword.

24. Your arguments are all well and good Ted but this is Canada./s
    And besides the American first ammendment does not appoint the press as a check on government.
    The system of government checks and balances is very deliberately set forward in the United States Constitution and accomplished by having three branches of government, a judiciary branch, a legislative branch AND an executive branch.
    In the USA no power to check the government is given to the press and the right to free speech protects citizens from each other as well as from the government.
    It seems that the Charter in Canada would intend the same but no one is quite sure.
    The many very real differences between a Canadian Parliamentary System of government with the vast powers bestowed on the governing party and The American Republic with its deliberate system of checks and balances are big and have little to do with the press.

25. It’s interesting that the people who are complaining that the press should not be a check on government are often the same ones who complained that the press didn’t hit the Liberal government hard enough.
    As far as I’m concerned, the press has every right and responsibility to speak truth to power, regardless of who’s in power.

26. I agree with you on the relative merits of the state mechanisms regarding the balance of power in Canada and the United States of America, Concrete, but I remain unconvinced that a free press, and I’m including Small Dead Animals in that category, is not a de facto pillar of a modern liberal democracy. If I may borrow a few words from Wikipedia:
    “The term Fourth Estate refers to the press, both in its explicit capacity of advocacy and in its implicit ability to frame political issues. The term goes back at least to Thomas Carlyle in the first half of the 19th century. In “On Heroes and Hero Worship” (1841) Carlyle writes:
    “… does not… the parliamentary debate go on… in a far more comprehensive way, out of Parliament altogether? Edmund Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important than they all.”
    “This was not Carlyle’s first use of the term. If, indeed, Burke did make the statement Carlyle attributes to him, Burke’s remark may have been in the back of Carlyle’s mind when he wrote in his French Revolution (1837), “A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up.” In this context, the other three estates are those of the French States-General; the church, the nobility and the commoners, although in practice the latter were usually represented by the middle class bourgeoisie.”
    The problem is not freedom of the press per se, we are not forced to pay for that, and we can always fire up our own presses, as we are doing here. The problems are state restrictions on the media, like the CRTC, and state sponsored media, like the CBC. There is no way Canada should have to put up with any whiff of that aroma here in the third millennium.

27. The problem with the Globe is not the columnists (as Ted has well pointed out) but the tone of the actual news coverage (as Vitruvius has pointed out). Steady Eddie Greenspon is responsible for both–playing both ends against the middle without intellectual honesty in trying to maximize readership.
    Some messages sent to Steady Eddie:
    May 8, 2006
    ‘A letter just sent to the editor:
    “In the first paragraph of his story, “Liberals ponder role in Afghanistan” (May 8), Bill Curry writes that the Canadian Forces’ mission in Afghanistan “…is shaping up to be the most sensitive issue in the Liberal leadership campaign…”.
    He then writes in the third paragraph–about a major meeting of Ontario Liberals attended by all eleven federal leadership candidates–that “Canada’s Afghanistan mission, despite being one of the main political issues at the federal level, was barely mentioned.”
    These two paragraphs directly contradict each other. One cannot but suspect that the Globe is deliberately trying to sow doubt about the Afghanistan mission. That would be fine on the editorial page; it is not fine when it leads to clearly distorted news reporting.”‘
    May 19, 2005
    ‘Your editorial “Newsweek’s stumble” (May 18) warns gravely of the dangers of using anonymous sources in news stories. Yet in Jane Taber’s lengthy story the same day reporting supposed details of Ms. Stronach’s defection to the Liberals only one source is named, as far as I can see–former Ontario Liberal premier David Peterson. Otherwise Ms. Taber cites: “A Tory insider”, “a friend”, “a senior Liberal source”, “a senior Liberal”, “an insider”, and “a senior insider”. That makes one identified source and six who are anonymous. Perhaps it would be wise if your editorial views and your reporting practices were better co-ordinated to avoid the clear inference of journalistic hypocrisy. And does serious journalism really warrant a full paragraph giving the complete menu and wine list for Ms. Stronach’s gastronomic evening on Monday with the Prime Minister?’
    June 27, 2005
    ‘The egregious giggling Ms Taber has outed herself politically. She was just interviewed (around 0815) on CFRA, Ottawa, by Daniel Proussalidis about the Liberals’ prospects for passing C-38 (same-sex marriage). She replied “What we’re hoping”, then went the equivalent of “Oops”, and went on to explain it was simply that she personally supported the legislation.
    Ms Taber is supposed to be a reporter. In that capacity she should not publicly take positions on the substance/substance of contentious political issues.
    The Globe should immediately confine her to a columnist’s role as a purveyor of opinion–what in fact she already mainly is.’
    No responses, naturally.
    Mark
    Ottawa

28. what I would like to know as well as I am sure millions of Canadians, is…ARE THE PEOPLE THAT GOT A FREE RIDE TO “CANADA” real Canadian Citizens as in IS THEIR ADDRESS IN CANADA, or are most of these CANADIAN citizens, citizens of Canada, for CONVENIENCE….I would like the lowdown on this…how many had a true Canadian address and how many did NOT but actually reside outside of Canada and just needed a FREE RIDE AWAY FROM THEIR COUNTRY?????? and we have to pay for all this???

29. I’ve never worked in the various media industries but do have some respect for what they attempt, in the same way that I can appreciate the motives of those who practiced that fine old Victorian habit of humbug (before it became solely analogous with hypocricy). Originally “humbug” referred to those who made sure that they were rigorous in publically displaying, attending and genuflecting to religious services/tropes on a weekly basis or trumpeting their contributions to charity, doing of good works etc. whilst their private lives or business practices could be contradicing the public image/works. In other words “humbug” was the name for the dues that vice paid to virtue, it was the cost exacted by society on the individual to ensure that public standards were at least seen to be met by the powerful and influencial, and it allows for a non-litigious club to be used against those who transgress too egregiously.
    “Humbug”; it is deplorable that it seems necessary to civil life, but, it’s absence only leaves legal recourses for bad acts. It is one of the components of the grease that eases the wheels of public life. With it public opinion and the regard for neighbourly good will comes into play, even in the absence of private discipline. I submit that the media, as an industry, may be more prone to its practice than many (but also that none of us as social actors are entirely free of the stain). And what can we do about it? Recognize how deeply embedded it is in media culture and consciouly, selectively, factually expose its presence. Use it as a primary chink in the armour. Embarrass them with humbug exposed, i.e. the “speaking of truth to power”, “due diligence for facts”, ” fair and balanced judgement”, “man on the street quotations” etc. Get your ducks in a row before mounting an attack for otherwise you will just be sloughed off by the media as just another special interest and, where possible, kick them in the fork, hard and early (a perfect example being Rathergate where the fonts used in the letter were quickly exposed as complete anachronisms).
    Vitruvius, I submit that one possible answer to your query vis. the tension between editorial and journalist opinions can be found in this article
    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/tetlock1
    (thanks to http://www.aldaily.com) and that this can be further refined by considering the differences between anonomous and by-lined scribblings. I believe that editorials are written in a collegial way, penned by one person maybe but only after some sort of board/(hopefully)broad discussion and concensus whereas journalists deal with (almost) pure acts of the imagination, unfettered by any except their immediate editor (who may or may not bring substance to the table). Or consider ” The Economist”, one of the finest international newspapers which is written almost entirely anonomously and by being so grants it writers the freedom to change their mind, retreat from untenable postions, change beats, protect themselves from sneers at trendy PC cocktail parties etc. They work where good writing is rewarded more than the individual voice. By the by, did you ever notice that the best reporting often seems to be done by those with no ambition of becoming “journalists”? , pace the wonderous Blatch and sadly so few others of her ilk.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Albin
    Calgary
    But then, I am no expert.

30. Yes, I think you’re on the correct track, Robert; provisos aside, that’s at least roughly the case I think I’d argue.

31. From the Toronto Star today, front: (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1153475348259&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home)
    “Lama Ghandour, a 38-year-old mother of three from Ottawa, has not been back in Canada in 10 years and did not want to leave but was doing so for the sake of her children.”
    Now I don’t mean to sound callous, but why the hell are we evacuating people like this? If they are Canadian citizens I think we have the obligation to take them home, but people who haven’t been back in Canada for 10 years should probably wait at the back of the line in front of the people who were in Canada 1 week ago and left on vacation. The vacation people are the ones who are going to be running around frantic not knowing what the hell is going on. I would suspect if you’ve been there for 10 years you know your way around and are in a much better position to handle the crisis. We’ll never get our people out in time if we keep evacuating these “has not been back in Canada in 10 years” and “did not want to leave”. She’ll be back living in Lebanon in no time, still a “Canadian”, sort of.

32. The people who came back from Lebanon pay the taxes that pay for Harper’s plane. Like we do. It was their (our)plane that saved them. Steve was just along for the ride and photos.
    MacKay is a whiner. He can’t have it both ways with the press.

33. I think the MSM uses the Cretian version of the truth.
    truth is da truth, what is true is the truth is de truth, is the truth.
    bafflegab in one partial language.

34. I resent the labelling of the man likely to become our next prime minister as a “social wanker.” He’s not going to force his social views on anyone, but he will employ some much-needed fiscally conservative tough love on this country. With all due respect to Harper, I can’t wait to have a PMPM we can actually be proud of.

35. mark from ottawa re ms stronach, she has gotten her come uppence by failing miserably
    let her fade away..useless twit

36. If anyone writes Eddie Greenspon and actually gets a reply it will be easy to tell if it truly came from him personally. It’ll be the one with the spit and slobber all over it…

37. kerry that’s sad, do you know what “all due respect” means? apparently not because all due respect means just that…all due respect. and I’d venture to guess you don’t have that towards our prime minister.

38. “the people that came back from Lebanon pay the taxes…..”
    I dont think so. of the 37000 registers so far only 5000 were vacationers-most likely to pay taxes. 32000 are permanent residents of Lebanon- Canadians do not pay taxes on overseas income.many have expired Canadian passports meaning they have been there for more than 5 years without bothering to renew- so even as things heated up they had no intention of coming back( I dont want to use the word -home ) until things really got out of hand.
    Canada – hotel to the world – where the conceierge (Peter McKay) takes every complaint and CBCpravda acts as the restaurant critic.

39. No, Kelly, I like PM Harper. I respect him quite a lot. I think he’s one of the best PMs we’ve had in a long time. The “PMPM we can actually be proud of” bit was a reference to Paul Martin, not Stephen Harper. There is no reason not to be proud of Mr. Harper. I wish him a long and successful career as prime minister. This doesn’t change the fact that Mr. MacKay is one of my political heroes and I look forward to his leadership, which I don’t expect to begin for a few years.

40. Please accept my belated apologies, Ted, for misunderstanding your sarcasm. While my first paragraph is still a valid observtion IMO (essentially that we view the potential for bias through our own perspective or our own bias), I do not agree that the MSM has not “taken sides”. There are far too many examples of “progressive spin” in the media for me to remotely believe that they are, generally, unbiased.
    Again, I would prefer to avoid generalizations of left or right bias with specific and recurring examples. I’m convinced that more examples of left-leaning bias can be found in the MSM than right-leaning bias…and I’m not talking about stories that write approvingly of a Conservative perspective…I’m talking about the use of spin and half-truths to push a dubious perspective or leave an impression that is negative / positive of the “other” side.
    Simply saying that the “Harper government has shown leadership” is not bias…but, as an example, when an artical has the majority of quotes from Canadians about the issue of rescuing “Lebanese-who-once-upon-a-time-stayed-in-Canada-just-to-get-a-passport-but-no-longer-want-anything-to-do-with-Canada-until-they-need-rescuing” as being negative of the government when polls are showing that 90% of Canadians are positive, then THAT is bias. And this is what we see.

41. Just a footnote to this apparently dead thread, the results of a “non-scientific” poll by a Toronto radio station:
    “Yesterdays Poll:
    Do you think evacuees from Lebanon have a right to complain, Or should they be thankful they were rescued?
    right to complain 11%
    thankful for rescue 89%”
    Funny…you’d never get that impression by reading or listening to the MSM. THAT’S what I’m talking about, Ted.

42. Speaking of footnotes to an apparently dead thread, apparently only about 8,000 people are likely to be using the Canadian-citizen evacuation option, according to current measurements. Surprise! Not.

43. Hassle,
    “dead thread” for sure.
    Nice to see 89% of Canadians giving the big FU to MSM.