Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« A fine Canadian Press mess | Main | Steyn nails it »

Thursday, November 16, 2006

What liberal media bias?

Last year, Liberal Environment Minister Stephane Dion was given the "fossil of the day" award for not doing enough for the environment. Number of news stories in Canada on this embarrassment? Zero.

This year, Conservative Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was given the "fossil of the day" award by for not doing enough for the environment. Number of news stories in Canada on this embarrassment? 193.

What liberal media bias?

h/t Stephen Taylor

Posted by Ezra Levant on November 16, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834fbcf6e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What liberal media bias?:

Comments

"Point is: I have not seen anyone on Fox News or in the Republican Party ADMIT they made a mistake. What I saw was a lot of arm waving (in the Republican party) and finger pointing towards the Democrats (Fox News)."

"Why is it the right that seems to have to go back 20 odd years every time they fuck up to actually JUSTIFY their own indiscretion?"

"I can't see one, but then my news these days come from so many different sources that it would be hard to claim a bias in any way."

"People the former soviet controlled states realize they are being bullshitted again by the media, the people in the west still believe they have a "free" media, without any bias, or if there is bias it is supposed to be a left wing nut job bias. "

No point. Just settin' 'em to get knocked back down. Here kitty kitty kitty.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-16 4:38:38 PM


H2,

get a life.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-11-16 4:45:42 PM


7 minutes. Look who's talking.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-16 4:46:59 PM


Verrrry interesting!

Another salvo in the MSM's juvenile battle with PM SH, obviously.

Only disagree with one thing ... no need to blame the Liberal goverment or whatever government of the day it is ... nobody actually believes it's humanity's fault that these climatic cycles go on.

Sure, it's getting warmer and warmer – first noticed in when I was living in Calgary about 30 years ago, but it's just part of a natural cycle.

And, whether the earth's been here for 6,000 years or billions of years ... let's just say the longer the earth has been here, the more cycles it has gone through.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-16 5:09:51 PM


H2 sounds like one of those brain-washed (or is it brain-dead?) eunuchs who's taken one too many social sciences courses at our Canadian schools.

Too bad

Posted by: bk | 2006-11-16 5:21:21 PM


bk,
"H2 sounds like one of those brain-washed (or is it brain-dead?) eunuchs who's taken one too many social sciences courses at our Canadian schools."

Please elaborate. Why do you think it was social science? Why do you think it was in Canada?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-16 5:28:22 PM


Would the Liberal party even exist today without help from the media?

Posted by: anonymous | 2006-11-16 5:47:59 PM


So if there were zero stories of the 2005 fossil award, that means that all of the Sun media papers, the National Post, all Can-West papers, and even the Western Standard did not report on it. Does that mean they are all permeated with liberal bias, or just incompetent?

I am particularly interested to know which category Ezra puts the Western Standard in: Liberal or incompetent? Do tell, Ezra....

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-11-16 5:56:56 PM


Mark,
"I am particularly interested to know which category Ezra puts the Western Standard in: Liberal or incompetent? Do tell, Ezra...."

You make an interesting point vis a vis the other papers who are now reporting it. However, please make sure to differentiate those that report it from those who report on those who report it.

This blog post qualifies as the latter.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-16 6:00:04 PM


While you're waiting for his response Logan, hold your breath.

Posted by: Passing thru Loganville | 2006-11-16 6:19:08 PM


During the Liberals' time in office they repeatedly lauded themselves for their committment to Kyoto, yet they did absolutely nothing besides invoking that magic pander-word. On a visit to the US Paul Martin had the nerve to castigate them for their emissions record, when in fact US emissions had gone *down* while Canada's had gone up 30 percent during the Liberals' time in office, and their "committment" to Kyoto.

The Liberals' committment to the empty, self-laudatory pander-word is about what you'd expect. The thing that makes me almost bust a blood vessel, in light of the recent savaging of Rona Ambrose, is the no-limits free pass given to the Liberals during their reign, on all manner of issues, not just environmental ones, by CTV and CBC in particular. As Warren Kinsella aptly notes in a column in today's Nation post, the media's greatest influence is not in their editorials or opinion pieces, it's in their daily news coverage.
So very many people take the "news" at face value, and figure it's just "reporting" on the facts. For this reason, no conservative, or non-Liberal, should ever dismiss the efficacy of LPC-promoting embeds. I mean, where else, exactly, does the average person who's doesn't visit blogs find out what's happening in Ottawa?

CTV for one has absolutely no credibility as a news organization anymore because of their obvious tribal allegience to the Liberals. Similarly, CP puts out "news" stories that are nothing but releases to fellow Liberals which pretty clearly present the Conservatives, and conservative voters, as a threat, as "the other". Check out the start to this CP story from CTV's website. Again, remember this is the opening paragraph to a "Top News Story":

"Conservatives are not only supporting Peter MacKay -- a handful of them on the internet are going even further in comparing Belinda Stronach to a dog."

Parse that carefully. "Conservatives" are the subject; support for Peter MacKay is universal among Conservatives; support for Peter MacKay is as a self-evident negative, made clear by the phrasing that "not only" are *they* (Conservatives) supporting MacKay, but a handful of "them" are doing something *even worse*.

Note that a handful of comments on conservative blogs are effortlessly enlarged under the rubric of "them" -- Conservatives.

Switch things around for a second: there have certainly been more than a few arguably anti-Semitic comments on Lib-friendly blogs; would CP/CTV *ever* begin a Top News Story with: "Liberals are not only supporting Ignatieff's 'war crime' comment -- a handful of them are going even further in comparing Israel to Nazi Germany."

Obviously not. The nasty or un-pc comments of a few Liberals would never be described at the start of a story as "Liberals" in the general case; that would be an blatant, gratuitous potshot at millions of people. Yet... "Conservatives are not only supporting Peter MacKay -- a handful of *them* on the internet are going even further in comparing Belinda Stronach to a dog."

How blatant can a "news" report get before the organization is completely discredited? CP and CTV should be paid by the Liberals for this sort of thing. It's a clear, Lib-partisan attack, which objectifies and generalizes about the "other" tribe. It's passive-aggressive and unaccountable in it's language, and the kicker is that whole thing pretends it's hidden behind a veil of objectivity and news reporting.

Get this, though: Here's how this "news story", written by Alexander Panetta, ends:

"The websites listed at (Blogging Tories) have no official ties to the Conservative government.

But in recent weeks, the sites have run the same media talking points as those issued by senior officials in government.

And they have mounted fierce public-relations campaigns against government programs that later wound up being axed or downsized, including the Court Challenges Porgram -- a fund that paid for legal challenges that won new rights for women, minorities, the disabled, and gays and lesbians since the 1970's."

In other words, the very thing that makes the blogosphere more credible than CTV/CP -- it's openness and accountability about its partisan affiliations -- is deemed by Lib-pr journalists, who hide their own affiliations as a *professional requirement* as being a *threat* to Canada, as defined by Liberals like Panetta, Taber and Ivan Fecan.

This fake neutrality and objectivity allows these Liberals to do unfettered PR work that reaches millions of people, on behalf of the embedded ruling tribe, and to masquerade the whole time as objective, trusted "reporters". So much of it is blatantly fake news from lying LPC salesmen, but I guess Canadians are pretty much used to it.

Say, Ezra, what's the chance of you gathering up a group of other successful Canadians and starting up a network that would shift the usual Canadian coverage so far towards the right that it would end up almost neutral? Maybe go public with it? /:>)>

Posted by: EBD | 2006-11-16 6:46:51 PM


"In the past few years, a hurricane has engulfed the debate about global warming. This scientific issue has become a rhetorical firestorm with science pitted against spin and inflammatory words on BOTH SIDES.
Some scientists believe that global warming will not be devastating to the planet. How could scientific fact, which many believe could determine the very future of the planet, become a political battleground, pitting LEFT vs RIGHT, environmentalist versus climate change sceptic?"

Sounds all balanced and fair, right?

This is the intro to the CBCs web page for last night's savaging of Bush, big Oil, big Tobacco, and climate change skeptics in general and some in particular.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

There was no debate on the merits of climate change IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

There was only a one sided attack on the deniers. Don't believe me?

Their program was called "The Denial Machine". The default position was that Bush and Exxon and APOC and others were behind the denial.

The problem for me was that I had my doubts going back to 1993 long before GWB was even governor of Texas.

Bah! Bias is a given for the majority of the media by default.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-16 6:57:14 PM


Media bias !!! In Canada,no way. Last week the communications director for the liberal running in the by-election in London resigned.This man,Dave Burghardt, wrote on his blog regarding Blinda,"All this demonstrates one more reason why women shouldn't be allowed to run for office much less vote." He also wrote that gay marriage "is making a lifelong commitment to anal sex." Pretty vile words but when uttered by a liberal they are not news. Could you imagine the # of stories and the outrage if a conservative said this crap.We would be hearing about it hourly for days, daily for weeks, and then weekly for months.

Posted by: wallyj | 2006-11-16 7:38:20 PM


Uh - Maybe the reason it wasn't reported was because neither Dion or Canada ever won a " fossil of the day " award last year. The best we could do was come in second. So congrats to the Cons for the improvement this year.

Liberal media bias or is it that no one cares who came in second ?

Posted by: Nbob | 2006-11-16 7:52:23 PM


Funny how The Shawinigan Strangler constantly bragged about Canada winning the "UN Best Country to Live In" Award until Canada dropped from FIRST PLACE to number THREE in One Year and then we never heard about that Shiite again.

If Yer not Numero Uno Yer Toastie Oasties!

I will where the 'Fossil Award' with PRIDE and cite it every chance I get as a BADGE of HONOR.
(considering the source)

Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-16 8:09:02 PM


On the day the PM stares down China over human rights and wins, here is the rundown for CBC's "The National":

-Bad water in Vancouver
-BC Ferry logbook goes missing
-lazy MPs finally schedule a trip to Afghanistan
-spy arrested two days ago
-port security upgrade
-HARPER TO MEET WITH CHINA (with direct implication that Harper lied about the meeting being cancelled)
-Clara Hughes goes to Africa

Liberal bias? NAAAAAAAH!

Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-11-16 8:19:40 PM


Mr. Logan,it is quite possible that it was never reported because it really is not newsworthy.A little piece of trash that latte-sippers only care about. Unless,of course,this award can be used to denigrate the conservatives,then it becomes news.That is bias.

Posted by: wallyj | 2006-11-16 8:21:46 PM


"Canada was ranked first on [Nov 29, 2005] and got the fossil award."
http://www.weeklyholiday.net/2005/161205/env.html

I agree with wallyj. The right wing media did not report it because it was not important. The left wing media did not report it until it was given to a Conservative government.

Stories about liberal fossils: 0
Stories about Conservative fossils: 193
Exposing media bias: priceless

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-11-17 7:10:43 AM


Wally, the words are as vile as the relationships infer. Calling as it is I'd say. Only sad thing is it didn't get the coverage it deserved.

Posted by: Frico | 2006-11-17 7:33:12 AM


anonymous,

The answer is: no

And when you look at who is writing, and their view on things, it is very clear, they are not writing, "in the best interests of Canada", but rather, "in the best interests of another small, pathetic, backward state, that finances and condones terroris, and who wants to steal our hard earned tax dollars".

They need to read my lips: GO TO HELL!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-11-17 11:06:34 AM


Good analysis EBD.
Just BTW, this morning I watched a video on CBC TV following President Bush's arrival in Viet Nam. The gal reading the news was using the pronoun "He" to outline planned events for "He" ( I assumed "He" must be President Bush - noting the nasty tone of voice). It was not until the very end of the video that the gal said "the Prime Minister" --she was talking about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's schedule and showing a video of President Bush!! And we all know how the media love Canadians to hate President Bush! Not very professional.

I admire President Bush but I saw the reason for the 'misplaced' video; our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was not shown once during the entire commentary. Why do we put up with such childish, irresponsible, biased reporters?

Posted by: jema54j | 2006-11-17 3:06:19 PM


jema54j:

Exactly. Why do we put up with the twits?

They would like nothing better than to follow him to a foreign land and bombard him with questions on domestic issues like same-sex marriage or some other controversial, irrelevant issue having nothing to do with the visit at hand.

One thing we can count on is Harper will not suffer the fools and they know it.
They're reduced to skimming and scraping for stories,if facts don't suit they can be spun.


Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-17 5:44:09 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.