Michael Hardner

Ok. Well, that's what this forum is for. Continue to point this out please. Find news articles from cbc.ca globeandmail.ca etc. that support you point and we'll check it out...

Well, some of these countries are just poor and unstble with corrupt governments. Even a 0% tax rate and liberal trade, which would rocket their 'economic freedom' rating wouldn't have a significant impact on incomes for a generation. A lot of European countries - especially Scandanavian countries - are extremely socialist in nature. This means that the upper-middle and upper classes pay a large amount of income tax so that the lower classes can have a 'cadilllac' health-care system, no homelessness etc. We would find such a system oppressive here, but it's part of the culture over there. Link us to the original article - it seems interesting.

They still do, obviously, but the American people are less likely to sanction dirty tricks done in their name. And this is a good thing for all.

Objectivity is independent of political leanings. You can be far-left, far-right and still give everyone a fair shake. If you think only centrists can be objective, then who do you find objective ? I support globalized trade, and free enterprise in general. I don't support unworkable social programs that don't recognize reality. But I'm centre-left as I said. Real leftists have accused me of having a "Tory heart" on other boards. Ethically, no. Ethics have little if anything to do with political leanings. I know religious people of every political stripe. There are immoral greedy business people who are right-wing and immoral lazy burdens on society that are left-wing. Ok. Then what's in the centre ? I disagree. This is a akin to feminist arguments that men should have nothing to say in the abortion debate. I'm against media bias, but there's a difference between intentional bias and the bias that seeps in unintentionally. The former kind is pernicious as it involves willfull misleading, but it's also easier to detect. The second kind is more benign, but much harder to ferret out. If you (or I) had to cover some kind of Communist event as journalists we wouldn't be able to give them a fair shake (in their eyes) if we wanted to because we're biased against Communism. I concur that both types of bias exist. Oh. Ok. Ha ha ha ha.

No. The word was used correctly. I suspect you haven't seen it used that way before. You need a more liberal interpretation of 'liberal'. Ha ha. etc. Ok. How about support of PC candidates for Prime Minister ? You're right but for the wrong reasons. I already posted in another thread an article from Bob McDonald that claims that the G&M supported Chretien because they needed to cosy up to the CRTC. This illustrates the dangerous results of media convergence in a heavily regulated market. You can't say it's "very likely" that Fecan is a left-winger because he works for the CBC any more than I can say it's "very likely" that a banker or an Albertan is a right-winger. It may be generally true, but you don't know that and it's faulty to base your argument that way. So how are you better than him for saying the NYT is "left" ? In the same way, you wouldn't say the NYT was "right" until it started acting like the Washington Times. You're mirror images of each other. It's centrist. Rent "All the Presidents Men", for one. Woodward was a Republican investigating a Republican president because it was his job to do so. I hate the fact that conservatives and liberals on these and other forums refuse to find any fault with their parties. Such a stance is for party hacks, MPs, etc. because it is necessary for them keep a common front. But we are individuals here ! :angry: Objectivity is an important part of being a journalist, and a fair person I think. No one can be 100% objective, it's true, but it's certainly possible for someone to give both sides a fair shake. Well, I wouldn't call Slate.com anything near objective. It's left. Same goes for Salon.com and many websites out there. But if we don't have ANY journals attempting to be objective then we'll have the Balkanization of our news which is a dangerous thing. Our political process is based upon dialogue and compromise. Demagoguery and absolutes belong in religion. I personally try to be as open-minded as possible and to focus on my own principles rather than a "party line".

The CPC only lost 3% with the merger. This isn't too bad at all. The election is still wide open. I'd still predict a Liberal majority as more likely, followed by a Liberal minority, then a Conservative minority. But anything could happen...

More clarification... You're right on the Globe/BCE link to the leftward shift of that paper... From a column of Bob McDonald of the Toronto Sun August 21, 2001 This is a dangerous byproduct of convergence in a heavily regulated market.

The definition I used is from the Oxford dictionary as I pointed out. And I don't think it means that Globe journalists are more open-minded. They used 'liberal' to mean that they're open to the idea of convergence. For the record, I don't think that convergence of large media is a good thing. Gotcha. I think the use was correct. In recent years, the Reform party appeared which was to the right of the PC party and without a stake in the establishment media. So, the pillars of the centre are a more to the left in the broad spectrum than they were. I think it was a counter balance to the Star, Canada's largest paper and a huge Liberal supporting organ. Well... I do believe that the G&M has gone more to the left (they grudgingly gave Chretien a passing grade as PM in their eulogy to him) but they supported Ernie Eves and Mike Harris as far as I remember. I don't remember who they supported in 2000.

I stated that the Dems are right of the European centrist partiest and you countered by saying that the Dems tried to introduce health care and failed. That doesn't really refute my point. Are they still proposing universal heath care ? How about European style tax rates ? Cradle to grave social benefits ? Even the right of centre European parties support a lot of these programmes. My point is that leftists claim that the NYT and CNN are right wing. Right wingers claim that such institutions are left wing. Average it out. Isn't a Communist more of a leftist than me ? I'd say I'm centre-left. I support free enterprise for one thing. Real leftists (and even centre-leftists in the recent past) support nationalization of many industries and regulation. What is it with the identity crisis of some right-wing posters ? Aren't you right-wing ? Are you ashamed of it ? If you are right wing, then who is in the centre ? If you aren't then who is right wing ? First of all, show me a source on that. It seems high to me. I think it does affect their objectivity, but I respect any journalist who tries to be as objective as possible. Bob Woodward, for example, was a Republican who helped bring down the Nixon administration. I don't know. But they have been shown to turn a blind eye to friends of the US government such as Indonesia in the past. The left chalked that one up to a conspiracy. Well, I don't believe in conspiracies of the right or the left. If everyone does their job properly, then the truth will eventually come out. When people start assuming that there are conspiracies afoot they lose faith in their institutions and that eventually leads to chaos.

Thank the Oxford dictionary, not me. Many people confuse "liberal" with "Liberal". These aren't mutually exclusive attributes. I think it's good to be open to new ideas, then to evaluate them against one's principles...

Ok. I found the actual survey. McGill Survey Look up table 14 and table 15. These are the questions that the article refers to when it says that the Globe is more 'liberal'. They surveyed the journalists and found that the Globe journalists were more open to the idea of convergence. Nowhere in the article is a specific political leaning mentioned. Search for 'liberal' 'conservative' 'left' 'right' and you won't find it mentioned. I hope this clears this up...

I don't see why Canada shouldn't participate if the price is right. This is a truly DEFENSIVE initiative - a shield can never be used for offensive purposes. I'm fer it !

Here's the quote: Liberal is used here to mean open-minded. from my Pocket Oxford dictionary: liberal: adjective ... open-minded, not prejudiced, not strict or rigorous ie. Globe readers are more open-minded about the effect of ownership on the views expressed in the paper. There is no other mention of specific political leanings in the article, and all of the questions asked pertain to the effect of owners' positions on editorial views. There is no mention of any questions regarding specific political stances. The word 'liberal' is used in the last paragraph to contrast Globe readers' openness to media convergence versus Le Devoir readers.

You misunderstood the use of the word 'liberal'. The Globe and Mail was a big Free Trade booster and has generally supported the PCs. Former editor Bill Thorsell was a big fan of Mulroney's. And Chomsky (a true leftist) has written extensively on how the NYT supports "American agression" abroad. The Democrats are left of the Republicans but they are not a leftist party in the grand scheme of things. Are the Democrats pushing for universal health care now ? I haven't heard that. But the Canadian Alliance does support universal health care. If you compare the US to Europe on social welfare spending, tax rates, health care, employment legislation, subsidies and so forth you'll find that Europe is much to the left of the US. Even centrist European parties are left of the Democrats.

Morgan, read it again. You're wrong. The article refers to the readership's liberal attitudes towards ownership's point of view not liberal vs conservative attitudes. If you think the G&M is liberal you're off the map. They've supported Tories for a long long time...

I hope you're not referring to the article you quoted. I don't believe they're referring to "liberal" as in politics in that article. The Globe and Mail has been known as Tory blue for a long time. But, if you think that the Torys were left then we're at a standstill, since that means there was no right-wing party before 1987 or whenever Reform was born...

Oh yeah. That was pretty embarassing. But yes, I will stick to my guns that CNN, NYT and the television news networks are pretty much in the centre. The NYT supported the Vietnam war, endorsed Eisenhower so they can't be all bad right ? And even if a paper leans one way or the other editorially, they can strive for objectivity in the news pages. The Globe and Mail does a good job of this, but maybe you'll say they're a leftist paper.

But the big question would still be WHO are the shareholders, HOW MUCH do they own exactly and WHAT are their political leanings ? As far as I know Thomson and Rogers are conservative. So were the Bassetts...

I think the US has been acting far more conscientuously of late and this is one thing that ticks me off about leftists - they will not admit this. It seems to me there was LESS outcry from the left when the US was more invoved in dirty tricks in Latin America etc. etc. You can say that it's because the cold war is over, but the fact is that the US is cleaning up their act. It seems to me that people are more angry about the past than what is happening now. I was against the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on principle, but let's face it: they were awful regimes that deserved to fall and these places now have a future. We should be paying more attention to what's going on in the emerging countries, like the former Soviet states as these are hotspots of the future.

Sure. Something like that. Ted Rogers is another big player. Try to find a simple list of individuals with large media holdings itemized by what they own and you'll have some trouble.

Read what I wrote. I wrote that America has SHIFTED to the left socially, not that America is LEFT socially. Do you understand the difference ? What is the support for gay rights, living together, etc. etc. now versus 1980 ? The rest of your post here hinges on your misunderstanding of my statement that there has been a shift to the left socially since 1980.

Yes it is. It puts more money in his pocket. Nobody is automatic pizza delivery at 8$ an hour. Minimum wage jobs are low-skilled jobs. If you can't do one, you probably can't do any job.

What about Ken Thomson ? Who are the owners ?

Aren't they always pushing to raise the minimum wage ? Isn't a minimum wage earner, by definition, a "little man" ? Unless you're talking about the roots of these people, which is always the NE. Like they say, Dean's gramma was bridesmaid to Bush's gramma. The family compact...

Such acrimony... come on, now we're all on the same team right ? I'm sure Harper is capable of leading a minority government, but with 107 seats (under the old seat distribution) out of touch for him it's hard to see it happening. Y'all should hope for an NDP surge to 25% to help the CPC's chances. Should be a good what ? Massacre ? I guess so. It doesn't look like anybody will have the juice to beat him and take the CPC leadership. Will the Canadian people fall in love with Stephen Harper and vote him PM in 2004 ? Hmmmm.... Here are some keys to that happening: 1) Martin's public speaking hasn't seemed too confident of late. He stammers, he looks perplexed. This doesn't instill confidence in the voter. 2) The BIG scandal that broke on the west coast could come up with some major dirt in the PM's office. 3) The economy isn't doing that well. 4) If the big three parties are ALL new faces, why not choose Harper ? They voted for the devil they knew in Chretien - maybe they'll give Martin the pass this time just out of boredom with the Libs. It still seems unlikely, but early on the CPC seems to still have things going their way...