Ripping into John Barber over crime stat dishonesty.
Normally, I wouldn’t waste me time demolishing a stupid column in the Globe and Mail. There are so many.
Now, if we could just get media to criticize each other over dishonesty in news reporting, we might actually get somewhere.
Lorrie’s a ‘tell it like it is’ kind of guy. He’s one of the reasons I read the Toronto Sun (even though one of my son’s teachers in years past described the writing as ‘grade 2 level’}
A teacher denigrating the Sun. Imagine that.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the media to police each other’s work. They won’t. For a group that demands unfettered honesty and openesss from everyone else they NEVER demand it from each other.
Example: Newspaper #1 brags that it has “Ace Reporter – A” on staff. Three months later you notice you haven’t seen his by-line in weeks. Someone repeats a nebulous rumor that he was fired. Will we ever know? FAT CHANCE! However, we are expected to blindly trust Reporter A when he pops up working at a different paper.
Example 2:Rabidly left wing journalist “B” (like there’s any other kind), states that coalition forces have made impressive gains against Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Reporter “B” has never been to Afghanistan and is simply rewriting CP copy. He then throws in some “balancing” quotes that are unfavourable to the coalition forces. He quote a group with a graniose sounding name like: “THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY” or some similar B.S.
What reporter “B’ doesn’t tell the reader is that the grandiose sounding group he quoted is made up of 4 of this friends, all of whom have never been to Afghanistan either, and he just quoted them because he could trust them to say exactly wht he wanted to write.
Journalists are scumbags.
Oops, what I should add is that reporter-B’s colleagues at the newspaper will never expose his careless handling of the truth which actually makes them bigger scumbags than he is.
‘Journalists’ such as Barber are pathetic in their nihilistic teenage-angst diatribes against reality. They can’t see beyond their pet peeves because they attended ‘journalism’ schools like Ryerson – where they’re taught how to spin a story in order to make themselves out to be the hero.
Crime statistics can drive a fair statistician crazy. No doubt about that. There’s too much which is confusing.
I’d say Goldstein has more the right of the thing, but misses the mark in some areas.
I’m an ameteur expert on female offender sex assaults. It’s an area of crime which is almost unknown and unknowable in Canada due to some very sexist thinking. Anyway, if you take a 1,000 males who were sexually assaulted by a female and ask them if they were raped, you get zero yes answers (the test has been done twice to my knowledge). You have to ask them if anyone has ever forced them to have sex to get the yes answers.
Statistics Canada and Canadian police use a set of questions designed for female victims and so do not get the yes answers. Thus, the sex assault rate is always an unknown as it fails to catch the male victim / female offender sex assaults which generally run at about a third of the male offender / female victim rates, (assuming Cindy Struckman-Johnson PhD is right in her studies on the topic and assuming Sex in America (1992) had the right question format).
Items like this go all through the crime reporting data system.
My point is, the crime data is always a suspect set of numbers as the data collection has been set up in ways which are known to have inbuilt errors. Interestingly, the recent “Family Violence in Canada” makes this comment in regard to L1 battered husbands and their offending wife’s, who are also not caught by the current system.
We have no journalism in Canada. The advertising frauds under the Liberals were made public by a beuracrat NOT A REPORTER. Have you even heard of one reporter investigating the gun registry etc… ? Heck, even when Canada was cheated out of a gold medal in the olympics which Canada hosted, it was the US press that uncovered it.
For the layperson, trying to hold print journalists to account seems to be just as frustrating a pursuit as trying to monitor the outlandish propaganda of TV reporting. But other journalists are a different matter altogether. Thanks, Lorrie!
Unfortunately, it seems that members of the Ontario Press Council (OPC), which is supposed to monitor the accuracy of the print media, are, by and large, cut from the same cloth as PC journalists are.
A long time ago, I used to take cases to the OPC until I realized that it was in the business of covering journalists’ butts, not promoting accuracy or integrity.
A case in point: I took the Globe and Mail to task for unfair reporting about a particular issue because it always referred to a lefty, feminist organization by its preferred label, while using a pejorative label for the other side.
The hearing went beautifully: I presented the case convincingly and two members of the panel, both seasoned editors of big-city newspapers, slammed the Globe guy–quite nice, in person–with really hard hitting questions. The Globe had not a leg to stand on and was not at all convincing: We’re the Globe and if we say it, it’s OK, sort of thing. (One of the editors made a point of shaking my hand at the end and said he was pleased to meet me.) Then I waited the week or two for the result of the adjudication to arrive. I had to sit down.
I lost. In the write-up–soon after, published in the paper–which supported the Globe, all my arguments against the Globe had completely disappeared. I was in shock!
I phoned the Press Council director, a very nice man, who’d even told me he enjoyed my presentations, and asked him how on earth this unwarranted judgment had come about. At least he was honest.
He admitted that as soon as I and my opponent had left the room, the first order of business was–wait for it!–to decide the outcome. THEN, once that was done, the arguments presented to support the outcome were culled and written up. Under such a procedure, of course, my arguments were deep sixed. I kid you not. I suggested to this pleasant fellow that the process was precisely backwards. He said he could see my point . . .
And, with the OPC, there’s no appeal. (I did write a lengthy rebuttal, which the “pleasant fellow” went outside the rules to present at the next hearing, even though there was no possibility of changing the outcome. I did get a follow up letter, however, admitting that some of my points were well taken . . . I’m not making this up. Here. In Ontario.)
One might also imagine my embarrassment when reading the published adjudication in the Globe, with all my well organized, logical arguments nowhere to be seen. People might well have thought, “What kind of a moron didn’t make this, this, and this point?” But I had!
(I did win one case against the Star: In a letter to the editor, I’d quoted the very intemperate words of an opponent, using quotation marks. The Star chose to leave out the quotation marks so it looked like the intemperate words were mine. John Honderich even accompanied his editor to the hearing. The OPC ruled in my favour and, in a convoluted judgment, said that the Star should not remove quotation marks if they denote the exact words spoken by a third party. As if this directive wasn’t already in its style book. Duh!)
Anyway, like the CBC and its fraudulent “ombudstoady”, it seems that the OPC is an utter waste of time, unless one wants to be totally frustrated.
All newspapers should be required by law to post at the top and bottom of their editorial pages the following dis-claimer…
…The following is an editorial opinion piece and may not be based on facts or reality…
Or,… newspapers should be forced by law to label the different sections inside as,
…Fiction…or…Non-fiction…
just like book stores and libraries do..!
Note the other fiction constantly spread by the MSM -in support of the gun registry.
We are told by the MSM that the registry is accessed at least ‘5,000 times a day’. This use is indeed astonishing.
When I first read this, I was puzzled. That means that police are investigating 5,000 long gun, not handgun, incidents per day. That’s 35,000 a week and almost two million a year! incredible.
But, stats Canada says that there are only 15,000 gun related crimes per year in Canada. Per year. And most of these are handguns.
So?
It turns out that all computer data bases are linked. When a police officer checks out the car that is double-parked, the car that is speeding, the drunk driver, the loud party – all computer data bases are hit. Including the long gun registry. But, there’s not a single question, validly put to the gun registry per day. It’s just that the computers are networked.
Yet – over and over and over again, the MSM informs us, without any thought, that the Long Gun Registry MUST be maintained, because police access it 5,000 times a day. Not one MSM reporter has ever stopped to think about the wierdness of such a high number. That’s our MSM.
Ignorant and arrogant.
Lorrie Goldstein is consistent and honest…and when he messes up he admits it. He has been a ‘one man’ accountability act for the media.There are others but he stands out.He is almost out of his league, and it is true that ‘most’ journalists are not trustworthy. It is very similar to the “all politicians are crooks” mentality the invaded the past election. If you are paying attention you can see the difference. Waiting for the Red Star’s reaction…
“Now, if we could just get media to criticize each other over dishonesty in news reporting, we might actually get somewhere.”
You mean like the fraudulent invention of an Iranian ban on non-Muslims as “reported” in the National Post, together with a huge photo of two concentration camp prisoners during the Holocaust?
That kind of dishonesty?
ANY dishonesty in the MSM is a bad thing, but if you’re honest, Ted, and take off the particular brand of sunglasses you wear, you’ve got to admit that because the vast majority of journalists, reporters, editors in the MSM are left-leaning the problem of dishonesty in reporting is much more likely to be a leftie-thing.
Please don’t argue that most journalists aren’t left-leaning. It is well-documented that upwards of 80% (and I think this percentage is low) of journalists are Dems or Libs/Dippers.
As far as feeling unsafe in Toronto, if I had been polled I would have said that I feel unsafe–at least a whole lot less safe than I did just a few years ago. I grew up in Toronto, when it was known as “Toronto the Good,” which also meant that it was Toronto the Boring. It was, however, a pleasant city and, unlike today, there wasn’t a panhandler every five steps ON BLOOR STREET, I’m not talking the corner of Jarvis and Gerrard, there wasn’t garbage strewn all over, or weeds growing through cracks in sidewalks, or bad smells coming out of the sewers like there are now. And this is an incomplete list.
Toronto has an increasingly seedy feel to it, like it’s not being taken care of, and like no one is in charge: David Miller, take note. Phone calls only from your holiday destination when a major gun battle, with one innocent bystander dead, took place in a main intersection in one of Toronto’s main shopping districts just after Christmas?? NOT GOOD ENOUGH, SIR.
You finally flew home a few days later and then started yacking about improving the lot of “disadvantaged” and “unemployed” youth: ‘you think any program is going to take drug pushers off the street when they can make up to $3000 a deal in just a few hours on one day? Add that amount by seven days a week, and the kid’s making at the least $21,000/week. What “employment program” is going to entice these guys to go straight?
Toronto and its leadership need a complete overhaul. But as long as multiculturalism and the commensurate sparing the “sensibilities” of the multitude of minorities that now make up the racial mosaic that Toronto has become, on the part of politicians, bureaucrats, police, and the MSM, it aint’ going to happen anytime soon.
Toronto needs some people with guts to declare that enough is enough: good on Lorrie Goldstein for being one clarion voice. A lot more are needed, however.
As we’ve bred a generation or two of multi-culti, revisionist-educated wimps, I’m not encouraged. ‘Wish I could be more optimistic. Too much shrugging and “whatevers” in the populace. It’s actually time to man the ramparts, be sentinels on the watch towers, and kick ass big-time, but I don’t see a whole lot of people coming forward to do any of these things.
Sinking in the swamp…Glug…Glug…Glug..
“I can understand Mayor David Miller and his merry band of NDP hug-a-thuggers…” Pretty much explains Toronto’s problems.
A friend of mine tore apart Barber over an op/ed he wrote about the long gun registry. It was, as Barber is known for, a pathetic article – full of hatred towards Conservatives in general and the government in particular, oh and farmers.
Barber sent back an email from his G&M address saying, “If you said that to my face, bud, you’d get a new face.”
My friend sent Barbers email to the publisher. Wonder if that has anything to do with his demotion to city hall columnist. That and the fact that he’s a total hack.
I can’t recall who said it but it went something along the lines that Watergate would never have been uncovered had it occurred here in Canada. The only way the malfeasance of the Liberals was exposed was when it became so obvious and unavoidable for the media to avoid it.
Another good example is to read Russ Conway’s “Game Misconduct” about the reluctance of Canadian establishment (ie. media, politicians) to go after scumbag Alan Eagleson. Thank God the blogosphere exists to undermine the comfort of the elites here.
I was born in Toronto, grew up in the ‘burbs, and spend my working hours in the downtown core. What New Kid says is true.
My lowlight experiences include:
– seeing a drunk standing on the sidewalk at Yonge & Dundas during the lunch hour rush and peeing onto the road.
– seeing young people sprawled midday on the sidewalk on oh-so-trendy Queen Street West, zonked on crack cocaine.
– homeless people picking from the garbage bins at Nathan Philip’s Square in front of City Hall.
Recently I went to meet some friends at the Black Bull on Queen. I was trying to get around this group of women when I heard several of them saying “what’s that smell? It smells like sh%t!”
I got around them only to find a homeless guy with the seat of his pants missing and a whole pile of crap running down his leg.
Mark V; “The only way the malfeasance of the Liberals was exposed was when it became so obvious and unavoidable for the media to avoid it.”
It was only SOME of the media that exposed it. At that time, I was a regular viewer of news on the CBC reader of the Probe and Fail and McLean’s, etc. THEY weren’t exposing the Librano$ dirty tricks; it seems to me, and I could be corrected, that it was when Conrad Black created the National Post, that’s when a lot of this stuff began being written about in the MSM: Frum, Steyn, Laframboise, Blatchford, and co. Except for Blatch, you have to look to media other than Canadian to find the other writers…
Yeah. The true North strong and free…becoming weaker and more enslaved by the minute…
Right on, new kid. The Lichtman Rothman survey in the US–Canada’s media appear to be political clones–confirms that the MSM are overwhelmingly left wing: into the 90% region.
And I ‘ve just checked the present Ontario Press Council make up. (It still has the “pleasant man” I mentioned–fat lot of good it did me!–in an official capacity.)
The Chair? Doris Anderson, ancient, embittered, radical feminist harridan. (In the early ’70s, she was actually very attractive.) The last time I saw her in person, well over a decade ago, she was in a brown jumpsuit with that ever present frown on her face: She looked like a creature who’d just escaped from a feminist coven. (I shudder to think what she must look like now!)
The lion’s share of OPC membership coincides exactly with new kid’s spot on observation: Current public members include NDP apparatchick, Tam Goossen, Irene Harris of the Ontario Federation of Labour, John Meisel, an ex CRTC chairman–the CRTC is as left wing and useless as all the media regulatory bodies–and assorted other, mainly Liebrano/Dipper camp followers.
Professional members from the Globe, Star, London Free Press, Ottawa Citizen, and Toronto Sun, among other publications, are represented. There’s been no member from the National Post, except Christie Blatchford, for a short term–ending in 1992. LOTS of Globe and Star representation, though. Hmm . . .
Acknowledged NewKid. The Canadian press gang even conferred some type of award to G&M’s Daniel Leblanc for his “investigation” of Adscam! The Post was thought to be pursuing some baseless vendetta against Chretien by writing about Gran-mere etc.-something that’s still shrugged off (or perversely admired) by the likes of Lawrence Martin.
At any rate Goldsteins voice is solitary. Bet he is seated alone at press gatherings…
oops….should have said ‘waiting for G&M reaction’…habit.
A little OT but just spent a couple of days volunteering at a fire on the west coast where there had been an evacuation. Mounties asked us to keep the media to the back end of a residents meeting to inform them of the situation. We asked four camera crews to stay at the back of the room until the residents meeting was over and then there would be a time period assigned to the media themselves. They all complied and set up at the back of the room. Halfway through the meeting though two crews unclip their cameras from the tripods and proceed down the side ailses of the meeting, when asked to go back they pushed past us to get their “side shots”. Kudos to CTV and CH crews for respecting the wishes of the mounties and the residents and staying put. The other two turkeys don’t need to be mentioned as they are a ‘law unto themselves’. Sorry about the rant.
Oh my goodness you folks are so out of touch with reality.
New kid on the block/others: Toronto makes you feel less safe now than before? And yet crime in all but one statistic has gone down every single year over the last decade. The only one to go up, and it has only gone up in the last 2 years, is homicide. Scary? Again, no. If you took out the gang deaths (but included the innocent bystander deaths) of the gang-related turf war of the last year and a half, homicides have also dropped significantly. So the reason for your fear? The media. The reason? They go for the drama the conflict the sensationalism. In this case, that sensationalism supports and helps a conservative agenda of “strong on crime”. Darn, conservative-biased media.
I would like one person to present one single study that shows the media are significantly Democrats or Liberals. I have seen a few CONSERVATIVE group studies that deliberately and deceptively lump in liberal/Liberal or liberal/Democrat to try to prove bias against. So there are three issues: one the bias of the report; the fact that ideological leanings of the press – if there are any – hardly correlate to party support is completely ignored (just ask Paul Martin and the conservative-friendly campaign coverage!!); and the fact that liberal/left bias translates into anti-government bias and does not equate with anti-conservative-bias is also fully ignored.
Just one study please.
And Watergate would never have happened in Canada? That’s really really rich considering most conservatives, especially in the US, still think Watergate reporting was a scam and evidence of bias and the fact that the press in Canada has been the ones exposing the “corruption” of the Shawinigan golf course and Adscam and even the so-called “trust scandal” in December.
It is indeed very difficult being a Liberal or even a liberal with such an anti-Liberal press corps. out there.
Ted
“It is indeed very difficult being a Liberal or even a liberal with such an anti-Liberal press corps. out there.
Ted”
Right back at ya Ted. Show me one study that espouses your rant, just one study please.
If you truly believe that MSM is pro con,you don’t watch the news much.
No, multirec. I read the CPC-endorsing National Post pretty regularly, Global News, the CPC-endorsing Globe and Mail. At every bus stop and intersection I walk past in Toronto, there is always a CPC-endorsing Toronto Sun newspaper sensationalizing a headline. So of the four Toronto dailies, and the one Ontario focused broadcaster, it is pretty clearly slanted against the Liberals. No question about that.
Even the lone paper that is clearly anti-Conservative, the Toronto Star, it is most certainly not pro-Liberal. They give the NDP with its few urban seats at least as much attention as the Leader of the Opposition, for example. And in my quote, I only claimed an anti-Liberal bias. I’d say the press was more Conservative-friendly than Conservative-biased, though. For the most part: there certainly is tons of clear evidence of bias. Evidence of the “friendliness” is obvious in the regurgitation of Conservative press releases, even when they contain no news, like the recent “announcement” by the Conservatives that they still, after over a decade of criticizing Kyoto, still don’t have an environmental plan. The media just ignores that there STILL IS NO PLAN after over a decade on this issue and focuses on this vague promise that “it’s coming”.
Ted
Lorrie Goldstein ;
I have found this personage to be very astute & he has a big heart. I will miss him when he is gone, like Hartly Stewart who went into retirement last week. Sad to see such a stalwart writer lost to us.
Honest men or Women alike are rare golden eggs these days in the MSM. Hard to replace integrity with bling or Dogma.
I might add he answers his mail, with grace & not a little elegance. Promply & without prejudice.
Ted, check out the Lichtman Rothman study in the US. Also, Lydia Miljan and Barry Cooper’s Canadian book, “Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the News.” (UBC Press, 2003)
Apparently, the book convincingly demonstrates CBC bias.
When this book was shortlisted for the Donner prize, part of the press release stated (quotation marks only at beginning and end):
“University of Windsor political science professor Lydia Miljan, with co-author Barry Cooper, has been selected as one of four finalists for the $35,000 Donner Prize, awarded annually to the best book on Canadian public policy. Miljan’s book, Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the News, was shortlisted from a list of 60 nominees.
Lydia Miljan is a Senior Fellow and the former Director for the Alberta Initiative of The Fraser Institute and the National Media Archive. She is currently an Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Windsor. She holds a Ph.D. in political science specializing in politics and the media. One of her first studies at the Institute was a controversial content analysis on CBC television and the Globe and Mail’s coverage of the free trade agreement. Since that initial study, she has conducted over 80 content analyses on television, radio and newspaper coverage of public policy issues. Her analysis of issues ranging from free trade to privatization, from health care to women’s issues and from elections to referendum campaigns has made her a most sought after media critic. This body of work has been printed in almost every newspaper in the country and she has been a guest on many open-line talk shows and television programs in Canada and the United States. Dr. Miljan’s tenure at the Archive has received international recognition as well. She is a member of an international organization who assess media coverage in their own countries. She was awarded the H.B. Earhart Fellowship in 1996.”
Though, if one has even a reasonably functioning brain, with the ability to analyse, simply reading/watching the MSM confirms a left-wing bias.
So, Ted–“Just one study please”–here it is. Now that you know about “Hidden Agendas” and Miljan’s extensive media analyses, I suggest that you at least educate yourself and maybe even update your biases.
P.S. Ted, you said, “Oh my goodness you folks are so out of touch with reality”. While tapping out my post, you posted again and said that the Mop and Pail is pro CPC. Who would that be? (Rex Murphy on occasion? Christie Blatchford?) I’m just about to cancel my subscription.
You asked for one study. Done! So, please keep your comments to yourself until you’re better informed.
“please keep your comments to yourself until you’re better informed”
You’re asking for too much Lookout!
Lookout: First, the Globe endorsed the Conservatives in the last election, their columnists are at a bare minimum evenly divided about the Conservatives and none it would see are pro-Liberal, and at a bare minimum their editorials have on balance been in favour of Conservative policies and, as I indicated above, they have been caught simply regurgitating Conservative press releases without questions or even seeking the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition.
You’ve pointed to two studies, neither of which focus on party affiliation and that was my primary point.
Even if you want to claim a liberal-media bias (51%? 60%?), there is (a) still a ton of conservative media to counter-balance that, especially when (b) a small “l” liberal mindset most certainly doesn’t translate into a big “L” Liberal support, bias or even friendliness.
Consider the last election:
– a detailed report by McGill university on the election coverage (http://www.ompp.mcgill.ca/pages/2006election.htm) shows that only 1% (40/3035) articles referencing the Liberals were positive and there was approximately a 1:11 ratio of positive to negative reporting. Contrast this with the Conservatives ratio of approximately 7:6 positive to negative, over 10 times as many positive articles and about 3.5 times fewer negative articles. Some Liberal bias!!
– another study, by ERIN Research (a respected independent research firm), concluded that CBC and CTV and other broadcasters were very similar in their coverage of the election and displayed a balanced coverage. (Which, if you watched it, was clearly not the case: most segments about the Liberals focused on the Conservative criticism ignoring their policy announcement, and most coverage of the Conservatives focused on their platform policy announcement.)
These studies focused on party affiliation and they clearly show an unfriendly media as far as the Liberals are concerned and out-and-out friendliness with the Conservatives.
“And yet crime in all but one statistic has gone down every single year over the last decade. ”
Sorry Ted . . that should be “reported crime”
The UN recent study, done by randon sample interviews proved that UNREPORTED crime is up 50% + . .because people have lost faith in the criminal justice system – you know the Liberal + NDP hug a thug system where all the little thieves & muggers are never sent to jail, so victime just don’t bother reporting it. property crime is at all time record levels – but people don’ report it because they don’t want their insurance rates to go up.
So the reality is there is WAY MORE CRIME, in fact with the exception of gun crime, Canada ia far worse than the USA – muggers & B&E criminals there think twice because they know their “victim” might have a gun anf turn the tables.
Thank you Liberals and NDP – the cvrime wave is your fault.
Ted . . . the coverage was bad because the Liberals were bad . . probably the worst campaign in Canadian history . . run by the kiddie camp surrounding Martin. A pathetically inept campaign run by a painfully inept group, representing a worn out, no-policy, corrupt political party
They just reported what the Liberals gave them to work with
So when the Liberal coverage is bad, even ignores the policy platform they introduce, it is because the “media” are doing their job correctly.
But when the Conservative coverage isn’t entirely positive, it is because of not just liberal-bias but pro-Liberal and anti-Conservative bias.
Right.
The “media” isn’t the only thing blindly biased here obviously.
Ted :
Nice try but the numbers & trends say otherwise.
Look at the numbers of people lost from news or paper subscriptions.
The skydiving ,numbingly chill graphs on TV Networks.
Particularly there news rooms.
The almost nil covering of major news stories, because of built cuts with a lack of personnel. Who they do retain are ancient icons of Socialism, spouting the same lies & evasions every night.
The Socialistic mania of journalism schools. Its a Marxist education camp.
Time for a refresher Ted. The people of this Nation have become wise to the tricks of the trade . Justly like the Russians became inured of the government propaganda their reporters spewed as shills for tyranny.
People want the truth Ted. Not canned goods stamped with the liberal sign of good reporting. Meaning trying to destroy or belittle the Conservatives.
You guys should wait till he really screws up Which will be inevitable being he & his government human.
If you remember even ad scam was only brought to light by an American blog refusing an order from a Canadian Judge. As it turned out the judge was wrong & he was right.
Where was this objective press when they whitewashed Cretin. Where this conservative press during the deconstruction of our military?
How about the 3 million dead in the Congo?
Where is the news Ted? Oh yeah, covering there fellow socialist parading in Montreal against Jews & Zionism.
The evidence Ted ,as they say, Is in preponderance against your thesis. As is any logic. Its even more evident in the States. Just my opinion.
Ted, I appreciate your polite response even though I’m not convinced. What are the credentials of your studies? (I don’t have time to check them at the moment.)
If you weren’t aware of the Miljan book or studies, how do you know that “neither . . . focus on party affiliation”?
Yes, the G and M might have endorsed the CPC at the last election, but, as Fred pointed out, the Liberal competition was corrupt and incompetent. PMSH and the CPC get LOTS of flack at the G and M. And they don’t get a free ride at the NP or Sun papers either. (Generally, the Star is an out and out cheerleader for the Liberals. CBC, CTV and TVO are not fans of the CPC either.)
And there certainly is a large co-relation between a liberal mindset and voting for the Liberals or NDP. And some liberal types are libertarians who vote CPC when it suits them. Whatever you might wish to believe, upper and lower case C(c)onservatives in this country have been very shabbily treated by the “tolerant, diversity loving” MSM for DECADES.
So now the decline in subscriptions is evidence of anti-conservative media bias. ooo-kay.
Couldn’t happen to be that there is an ever increasing proliferation of news sources competing with newspapers and many of them are free! eg. online.
Couldn’t happen to be that we “the Nation” as you call us, happen to be turning more and more to “infotainment” and stupid star-gazing shows and “reality” shows.
Couldn’t happen to be that many just plain get tired of the sensationalism that drives the news cycle.
Nope. It’s evidence of anti-conservative bias!
Thanks for clearing that up Revnant.
So now the decline in subscriptions is evidence of anti-conservative media bias. ooo-kay.
Couldn’t happen to be that there is an ever increasing proliferation of news sources competing with newspapers and many of them are free! eg. online.
Couldn’t happen to be that we “the Nation” as you call us, happen to be turning more and more to “infotainment” and stupid star-gazing shows and “reality” shows.
Couldn’t happen to be that many just plain get tired of the sensationalism that drives the news cycle.
Nope. It’s evidence of anti-conservative bias!
Thanks for clearing that up Revnant.
So now the decline in subscriptions is evidence of anti-conservative media bias. ooo-kay.
Couldn’t happen to be that there is an ever increasing proliferation of news sources competing with newspapers and many of them are free! eg. online.
Couldn’t happen to be that we “the Nation” as you call us, happen to be turning more and more to infotainment and stupid star-gazing shows and reality shows.
Couldn’t happen to be that many just plain get tired of the sensationalism that drives the news cycle.
Nope. It’s evidence of anti-conservative bias!
Thanks for clearing that up Revnant.
P. S. The US studies, updated, I believe, show a direct co-relation between political views and party affiliation. Hands down the vast majority of the MSM votes Democrat. A tiny minority–it’s a wonder they’d even admit it and possible blacklisting–vote Republican.
I don’t see any reason why there should be any difference up here. As the vast majority of the MSM spout and spin left, it’s highly unlikely they vote CPC.
Ted, how far do you have to scratch the surface to not notice the vast majority of the MSM is in lock-step with the same pc, multi-culti, socialist agenda? Did any of them deviate and publish the Mohammed cartoons in spite of the lunacy of describing in print what can never be viewed? Wasn’t it in deference to Muslim “sensitivities” that they all uniformly parroted their self-censorship? That self-censorship never accorded to Christian or Jewish sensitivites. That episode alone spoke volumes about the sheeple that are the MSM.
Another classic example of the MSM in action – sanitizing the Canadian terrorists:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmRjMThlNDA0YmNmZWU1NzM4MGQ0NmVkOTUwMzExZTA=
Proving again that there is no diversity in the MSM.
“If you took out the gang deaths…homicides have also dropped significantly.
Gee, gosh, Ted, the only problem is, in Toronto you really can’t ignore the “gang deaths” or “gang-related turf wars.” You’re the one who’s reality is warped. These drug-related wars and deaths are a continuing reality in TO, as is the la-la-land that most politicians, police, and policy makers live in: You can’t identify the groups by race or nationality who are not only killing others but themselves.
So what are you talking about, “if you took out (aka ignore…”
That’s actually the left/lib mantra: If you take out, if you ignore, if you pretend, if you don’t like reality bend it, etc.
The only fear I have of the media is of their lies and deceptions and the wimp factor of most Canadians who take their multi-culti bait hook, line, and sinker.
If you read what I posted a while back, you would have seen that it wasn’t “the press in Canada [that] has been…exposing the ‘corruption’ of the Shawinigan golf course and Adscam,” as you allege; it was the National Post that began the ball rolling. You need to prove that that is not the case, because it wasn’t until the NP came along that I read ANYTHING about these scandals–and I was reading a lot of MSM at the time and watching CBC pretty much every night.
I would suggest, Ted, that it is you who is “so out of touch with reality.” For instance, Lawrence Martin, Jane Taber, Julie Van Dusen, Keith Boag, Mike Duffy, etc., etc., and the whole TO Star crew are part of the “anti-Liberal press corps”? What alternate reality are you living in?
Ted
Wish I could visit your universe. Talk about better living through chemistry! Your posts prove the “Alternate Universe” is viable.
I don’t have the exact figures,but a few years ago the news direcrotrs at CBC were asked if they had any political party affiliation. I think there was 72 directors,about half refused to answer or said they had none. The rest were all either NDP or Lberal. Not one would admit to be an alliance supporter. Not one.I think they were worried about missing a shot at the GG’s job.
You mean directors,not direcrotrs,fool.
The Globe and Mail went to the ball with the Liberals; when the Liberals soiled themselves, the Globe and Mail switched partners.
It’s impossible to engage in discussion those who turn away from what’s in front of them. Anyone who states that they don’t see evidence that the CBC is not left/Lib biased is really talking about himself, not the CBC. If someone says that CBC isn’t anti-American ala LPC, or that in the years before the last election they didn’t engage in an ongoing partisan campaign to discredit Harper and Conservatives, and to cover up on behalf of the LPC, there’s no point trying to prove it to them.
Here’s a few words from a prominent Liberal insider (ahem), written last year: “…the CBC’s Ottawa English news bureau has become so egregiously, effusively pro-Martin that it should have been declared as a leadership campaign expense. Every political assistant, MP and Minister knew about the regular phone calls between a certain lobby firm and the likes of Peter Mansbridge and Keith Boag — to complain about stories, to manipulate coverage, to chastise certain reports (ask X or X)…”
(I removed X and X’s name out of respect for them).
Hopefully there’ll be a study on to see if it’s possible to prove bias to Ted’s satisfaction.
One more thing, Ted: What reason would there be, aside from perks and political favours, which the Liberals have bestowed with largesse to members of the MSM, for any members of the MSM to be pro-Liberal?
Are there any Liberal policies (an oxymoron, actually) worth defending seeing as a) they have very few actual policies (which came as a surprise to John McCallum) and b) any they have had over the years have been either corrupt (Adscam, HRDC), ineffective or both?
What amazes me is that any members of the MSM can still be pro-Liberal, aside from those very nice and lucrative perks. The party has proven to be a joke–and a bad one at that. I’m breathless while waiting to see who’s going to win the Librano Leadership Lottery: not an honourable candidate among them…pretty sad really.
So, what are you defending here, Ted?
wallyj :
I think there was 72 directors,about half refused to answer or said they had none
I think its a pretty good bet. These are not the 72 Virgins jihadists talk about. For gays or Women human bombs.
While crime stats all seem to go down except homicide, I think it has something to do with reporting. Just say I get mugged by some bum in downtown Toronto. Bad enough, but now I’m supposed to find a cop to spend about an hour or so with while s/he takes a description of the “guy who looks like a bum, you know, frazzled hair, 3 teeth, big knife”? Why bother reporting it when you know nothing will happen. Oh, maybe they catch the guy, so now I have to spend how many hours in court (and away from work) hoping to get this guy convicted so he can(maybe) go to jail for a week. I think the smaller crimes just aren’t getting reported. On the other hand, a homicide needs to be reported. Crime stats really don’t give us a objective view of crime, but only give ammunition to politicians to “show” how much safer the basketball courts are making the streets.
Ted,
I encourage you, MSM, Liberal/NDP/rabid left (is there a difference?) to keep complaining about the AC.
I think I’m not alone in appreciating the fresh air.
Ted, a couple of other things which disprove your crazy idea that the MSM are not monumentally left wing:
1) Check out the make up of the Ontario Press Council, which I provided yesterday. If you didn’t notice, it’s headed by a radical, political feminist, Doris Anderson, and is full of lefty appointees. Guess what nearly always happens to complaints of more “right” thinking complainants? That’s right: stonewalled and dismissed.
2) See above re the CBC ombusma . . .toady: This man gets LOADS of complaints from “right” thinking Canadians every day–so many complaints, that CBC’s obviously had to hire staff to handle them all. (But now, they apparently don’t even bother to respond.)
Where do the complaints come from, Ted? Not the left. What does the CBC do with the complaints? Spouts utter rubbish about fulfilling their mandate–“It’s fulfilled because we say so”–and, in my experience, has NEVER resolved a dispute on behalf of the complainant.
What I’m telling you is fact, not conjecture. And my experience with the MSM, as a “right” thinking Canadian, has been replicated over and over and over, over many decades in this country–and elsewhere in the West. You have a right to your opinion, but if it’s at serious odds with verifiable reality, it might be a good idea to give it a rethink.
Where’s Ted?
He blithely makes drive-by allegations and refutations of others’ opinions but when it comes to answering legitimate questions about his opinions he’s gone, gone, gone…
Hmmm…on holiday, are we?
I note that “Ted” is a raving lunatic left wing moonbat and is the only defending the press. There is some good circumstantial evidence of liberal bias. The lefties will always come running in defence of their allies.