Kory Teneycke conflict of interest - maybe?

[nicky10013]

Wait, leftwingers are campaigning to disallow an application for a station... and it's "conservative types" who don't want to have to listen to anyone they don't agree with??

-k

I don't want any biased media. I want the stations to do their jobs and ask tough questions to everyone. The specific creation of a biased media news outlet only serves to reinforce self-held stereotypes to make themselves feel better. Essentially, it's the spinning of the truth in attempt to make lies OK. Because of it's on TV it's got to be true, right?

Sure, all media is biased to a degree. In the end, you can't help that as it's human nature. However, to do it purposefully is shameful.

[Jack Weber]

I don't want any biased media. I want the stations to do their jobs and ask tough questions to everyone. The specific creation of a biased media news outlet only serves to reinforce self-held stereotypes to make themselves feel better. Essentially, it's the spinning of the truth in attempt to make lies OK. Because of it's on TV it's got to be true, right?

Sure, all media is biased to a degree. In the end, you can't help that as it's human nature. However, to do it purposefully is shameful.

I agree...

It sets up this "Us vs Them" crapola we see in the U.S.

It no longer is about news,but about ideological carnival barkers whipping up the respective ideologues.

I don't see it as helpful(or necessary),but apparently,there are some that feel this is a must!

[kimmy]

So if there were a network that promoted programming from people like Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein and Roger Moore and Al Gore and so on with no apparent counterbalancing viewpoints, would you say that was shameful, or would your suspicion be that their programming was done by accident?

-k

[Jack Weber]

So if there were a network that promoted programming from people like Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein and Roger Moore and Al Gore and so on with no apparent counterbalancing viewpoints, would you say that was shameful, or would your suspicion be that their programming was done by accident?

-k

Roger Moore was James Bond in The Man with the Golden Gun(amongst others)

It is shameful(shameful is a little harsh...) unfair is a better term...

And the counterbalance is CTV,because I rarely(if ever) see the hard lefties on any of their channel's...

There is counterbalance.I suspect the advocates for this channel are'nt interested in balance.I suspect that what they want is the same reaffirmation session the CBC sees to give for the left.I suppose there's nothing wrong with that,but I don't see how it will help political discourse in this country longterm,do you?

I see it as polarizing...And something we would see from our neighbours to the south.

[William Ashley]

It would only be corrupt if they (the conservative government) sold the CBC to them.

Or how bout this just cut the CBC budget to create a programming void in Canada -

CRTC market saturation rules are stupid imo. People should have freedom of broadcast as long as it isn't technologically disruptive, or of content that is illegal.

Edited June 14, 2010 by William Ashley

[msdogfood]

IF Kory is judged to a a senior management worker , than yeah, a very good possibility. BTW, Mulroney is on the board of Quebecor, and I wonder if he wants revenge against those media outlets that bad mouthed him during the trial, Of Course, Quebecor has bought up almost all the papers in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Accountability_Act

So is Kory covered under the Accountability Act As former PMO staff OR NOT

Thanks.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't want any biased media. I want the stations to do their jobs and ask tough questions to everyone. The specific creation of a biased media news outlet only serves to reinforce self-held stereotypes to make themselves feel better. Essentially, it's the spinning of the truth in attempt to make lies OK. Because of it's on TV it's got to be true, right?

Sure, all media is biased to a degree. In the end, you can't help that as it's human nature. However, to do it purposefully is shameful.

Read The Star Nicky.....and you'll see what bias is all about. It's one thing to support all things Liberal....but the sheer disdain for all things Conservative that is editorialized throughout the paper is palpable. Unlike other respected papers, they do not save their opinions for the Editorial and comments sections - they imbed them throughout their "news" articles. It truly is laughable.....and this from Canada's largest circulation paper......and to use your term, it's shameful.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[scribblet]

Read The Star Nicky.....and you'll see what bias is all about. It's one thing to support all things Liberal....but the sheer disdain for all things Conservative that is editorialized throughout the paper is palpable. Unlike other respected papers, they do not save their opinions for the Editorial and comments sections - they imbed them throughout their "news" articles. It truly is laughable.....and this from Canada's largest circulation paper......and to use your term, it's shameful.

Well said !

[Shakeyhands]

I wouldn't say all reporting is LW biased.....but the two largest papers in Canada are the Globe and the Star. The Star is unabashedly maniacally opposed to anything Conservative. It is laughable. I think the G & M is a bit more balanced but leans Left - at least as much as the National Post leans Right. The proof of the Globe's bias can be seen in the online comments that readers leave.....if not usually pro-Liberal (it's hard to be that nowadays), the ratio of negative comments is hugely anti-Conservative. So we have one major paper hugely pro-Left and just as importantly, anti Conservative. And the other major paper leans Left. The National Post is a smaller national paper but I would say it leans heavily right. Cumulatively, that's a heavy pro-Left bias. So it would be nice to see more pro-center/Right commentary.....and in Canada, we wouldn't go overboard - at least no more so that the CBC or The Star.

Funny how you righties support a free market, until the companies don't support your viewpoint, then they are baised.

I'm thrilled that the G&M and Star are the largest papers, it means that sane people still out number the rest.

[Shakeyhands]

Read The Star Nicky.....and you'll see what bias is all about. It's one thing to support all things Liberal....but the sheer disdain for all things Conservative that is editorialized throughout the paper is palpable. Unlike other respected papers, they do not save their opinions for the Editorial and comments sections - they imbed them throughout their "news" articles. It truly is laughable.....and this from Canada's largest circulation paper......and to use your term, it's shameful.

Please to provide an example. Thanks.

[Keepitsimple]

Please to provide an example. Thanks.

Read any edition. If you can't accept the fact that THe Star is known as the "Liberal Rag", then no examples with satisfy you.

[lukin]

The Toronto Star is an embarrassment. It is the most biased newspaper in Canada.

[Topaz]

Just take a look at what Quebecor owns as far as the media.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebecor

[nicky10013]

Read The Star Nicky.....and you'll see what bias is all about. It's one thing to support all things Liberal....but the sheer disdain for all things Conservative that is editorialized throughout the paper is palpable. Unlike other respected papers, they do not save their opinions for the Editorial and comments sections - they imbed them throughout their "news" articles. It truly is laughable.....and this from Canada's largest circulation paper......and to use your term, it's shameful.

The editorials are left leaning, no doubt, what do you expect when the star is in arguably the most small l liberal city in Canada? However, please cite an example of embeded bias. I've seen Star writers bash every party. Trust me, the ganged up on the Liberals during sponsorship. Though they're left leaning, they like a good scandal like everyone else.

[nicky10013]

So if there were a network that promoted programming from people like Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein and Roger Moore and Al Gore and so on with no apparent counterbalancing viewpoints, would you say that was shameful, or would your suspicion be that their programming was done by accident?

-k

Selective memory. I've seen lots of right wingers on CBC newsworld. Lest we forget, Teneycke was a regular paid commentator until he abruptly resigned to start this abomination.

[nicky10013]

Funny, for such a liberally biased network, the new fox news of the north sure like stealing the CBC's people.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/krista-erickson-leaves-cbc-apparently-to-join-fox-news-north/article1603372/

[Jack Weber]

Read The Star Nicky.....and you'll see what bias is all about. It's one thing to support all things Liberal....but the sheer disdain for all things Conservative that is editorialized throughout the paper is palpable. Unlike other respected papers, they do not save their opinions for the Editorial and comments sections - they imbed them throughout their "news" articles. It truly is laughable.....and this from Canada's largest circulation paper......and to use your term, it's shameful.

Boo Hoo...

Read the Sun or the National Post....Same poop ,different side of the coin...

[msdogfood]

So is Kory covered under the Accountability Act As former PMO staff OR NOT

Thanks.

Can someone answer this for me??

So is Kory covered under the Accountability Act As former PMO staff OR NOT

Thanks.

its all i wanted to know?

Thanks!

[Keepitsimple]

Boo Hoo...

Read the Sun or the National Post....Same poop ,different side of the coin...

Not quite. The Star is always over the top in it's anti-Conservative rants. Once in a while, the National Post will take a whack at the Conservatives and put it on the front page. For example, today's NP paper edition had this article above the fold on the front page.....and further, unlike the Star - there are no "critics say......." comments or Conservative rebuttals.

Liberal ads attack 'Waste Summit'

Joseph Brean, National Post · Monday, Jun. 14, 2010

In a radio ad that starts nationally on Monday, the Liberal party criticizes the "billion-dollar boondoggle, Canada's most expensive photo op," and makes its greatest push yet to capitalize politically on what is expected to be a huge inconvenience to anyone who lives or works in downtown Toronto.

Canada's hosting of the G20 summit from June 26 to 27 is already an "international embarrassment" because of a high security tab and lavish promotional displays, the Liberal party says.

With security costs that make the three-day G20 summit the costliest ever, and a promotional fake stock exchange and lake within a short walk of the real thing, Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland said the event will come to be known as the "Waste Summit."

"When it's on the front page of German newspapers, when it's on CNN, when the entire international community is laughing at us, it's a little late to be negative. It's already negative," said Mr. Holland, MP for Ajax-Pickering.

He accused the government of trying to "shoehorn" the summit into Industry Minister Tony Clement's riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka before realizing it was impossible, then "dumping it in the middle of Toronto."

"As a result, we have double the costs on everything," he said. "Why not [host it] on a military base?"

He introduced the ad, coupled with a YouTube video, in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper is mocked for his expensive "ego trip."

"For lots of Canadians, heading to the lake is a big part of summer. It is for Stephen Harper too," the ad begins, setting up the pun. "So when you head to the lake this summer, remember you're paying for Harper's trip too, an ego trip Canada can't afford."

During Question Period last week, Mr. Harper defended the lake as a promotional feature that would impress journalists and drum up tourism.

"In fact, it's a $2-million marketing project," Mr. Harper said. "We must not miss this opportunity."

He also accused the opposition parties of "throwing a bunch of falsehoods" about the cost of the lake.

In the YouTube video, the camera starts on a Muskoka chair on a sunny beach, and pans back to reveal it as just a poster hanging in front of a kiddie pool.

An unflattering picture of Stephen Harper is standing proud beside the kiddie pool. The ad ends with a loon call as a punchline.

Figures provided by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's office paint a similar picture of lavish promotional expenses.

The expenses include "$1.1-million in backdrops for two meeting halls, $23-million for a summit media centre in Huntsville that will never be used, $300,000 for a gazebo and bathrooms 20 kms away from the Huntsville summit site, [and] $186,000 in G8 money for a fake wooden lighthouse carved from a tree stump in Rosseau, 40 km away from the G8 site."

"The Conservatives have desperately tried to spin that their 'fool's pool' cost only $57,000 -- but that figure accounts for only the water and the plastic liner.

Included in the entire $1.9-million 'Experience Canada' alley is $407,000 in design and $398,000 in labour costs -- much of which went towards the fake lake.

The 'northern oasis' Muskoka section around the fake lake -- including a deck,

Muskoka chairs and canoes -- will cost $208,187.

A jumbotron TV screen and sound system featuring loon calls around the fake lake will cost $147,000," according to spokesman Sheamus Murphy.

Mr. Holland said the proposal of a global bank tax, against which the government has claimed a tentative early victory, was a "fabricated issue" that was "small and quite minor" anyway and could have been solved in another forum.

Pushed by countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom, which gave treasury support to their banks, the proposal is resisted by Canada on the grounds that Canadian banks survived the global recession due to already strict domestic regulations.

"They picked one issue because they knew they couldn't have success on issues Canadians demanded action on," Mr. Holland said.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/Liberal+attack+Waste+Summit/3150494/story.html

Edited June 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[nicky10013]

Not quite. The Star is always over the top in it's anti-Conservative rants. Once in a while, the National Post will take a whack at the Conservatives and put it on the front page. For example, today's NP paper edition had this article above the fold on the front page.....and further, unlike the Star - there are no "critics say......." comments or Conservative rebuttals.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/Liberal+attack+Waste+Summit/3150494/story.html

Of course there are articles with "critics say." Something tells me that you fall prey to conservative common wisdom and don't read the star at all. I'd still like to see an anti-conservative rant in the news section. This should be good.

Furthermore, have you ever given thought to the idea that the only reason why the Post allows critics to comment on the article you posted is because the Liberals attacked the Conservatives?

Edited June 14, 2010 by nicky10013

[scribblet]

Of course there are articles with "critics say." Something tells me that you fall prey to conservative common wisdom and don't read the star at all. I'd still like to see an anti-conservative rant in the news section. This should be good.

Furthermore, have you ever given thought to the idea that the only reason why the Post allows critics to comment on the article you posted is because the Liberals attacked the Conservatives?

Something tells me you fall prey to the Liberal common wisdom and read nothing but the Star LOL

[nicky10013]

Something tells me you fall prey to the Liberal common wisdom and read nothing but the Star LOL

I read the Globe and Mail. Speaking of which, there was a fantastic editorial about this very topic.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/radwanski/news-you-can-agree-with/article1603576/

[kimmy]

Selective memory. I've seen lots of right wingers on CBC newsworld. Lest we forget, Teneycke was a regular paid commentator until he abruptly resigned to start this abomination.

haha, sure. "That Kory guy was on the panel show last year! Andrew Coyne is on the panel show! See?"

Hey, so some panel show tried to have both left and right wing talking heads. Good for that show. But the network as a whole?

Can you think of a time when the CBC gave some right-wing journalist a half-hour each day to fool around with, as they did for Avi Lewis a few years ago? They've heavily promoted and broadcast a number of left-wing documentaries over the years... can you name some "right-wing causes" that they've given similar treatment to?

-k

[nicky10013]

haha, sure. "That Kory guy was on the panel show last year! Andrew Coyne is on the panel show! See?"

Hey, so some panel show tried to have both left and right wing talking heads. Good for that show. But the network as a whole?

Can you think of a time when the CBC gave some right-wing journalist a half-hour each day to fool around with, as they did for Avi Lewis a few years ago? They've heavily promoted and broadcast a number of left-wing documentaries over the years... can you name some "right-wing causes" that they've given similar treatment to?

-k

Rex Murphy.

IS there such thing as a right wing documentary? I've never really heard of any. If you can name some I'd be impressed. Furthermore, what makes a documentary left wing? A global-warming documentary? Who Killed the Electric Car? I don't think the percieved political slant of the topic is as important as whether the info portrayed in the documentary is accurate. I've never had that problem with any documentary I've seen on the CBC.

Edited June 15, 2010 by nicky10013

[William Ashley]

So is Kory covered under the Accountability Act As former PMO staff OR NOT

Thanks.

Kory would fall under

Rules for Former Reporting Public Office Holders

Prohibition on contracting

35. (1) No former reporting public office holder shall enter into a contract of service with, accept an appointment to a board of directors of, or accept an offer of employment with, an entity with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.

Prohibition on representations

(2) No former reporting public office holder shall make representations whether for remuneration or not, for or on behalf of any other person or entity to any department, organization, board, commission or tribunal with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.

Prohibition on former ministers

(3) No former reporting public office holder who was a minister of the Crown or minister of state shall make representations to a current minister of the Crown or minister of state who was a minister of the Crown or a minister of state at the same time as the former reporting public office holder.

Time limits: former reporting public office holder

36. (1) With respect to all former reporting public office holders except former ministers of the Crown and former ministers of state, the prohibitions set out in subsections 35(1) and (2) apply for the period of one year following the former reporting public office holder's last day in office.

Time limits: former ministers

(2) With respect to former ministers of the Crown and former ministers of state, the prohibitions set out in subsections 35(1) to (3) apply for a period of two years following their last day in office.

Report to Commissioner

37. (1) A former reporting public office holder who, during the applicable period under section 36, has any communication referred to in paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Lobbyists Registration Act or arranges a meeting referred to in paragraph 5(1)( of that Act shall report that communication or meeting to the Commissioner.

Requirement to file return

(2) The former reporting public office holder shall file a return that

(a) sets out, with respect to every communication or meeting referred to in subsection (1),

(i) the name of the public office holder who was the object of the communication or meeting,

(ii) the date of the communication or meeting,

(iii) particulars to identify the subject-matter of the communication or meeting, and

(iv) any other information that the Commissioner requires; and

( if any information contained in the return is no longer correct or additional information that the former reporting public office holder would have been required to provide in the return has come to his or her knowledge after the return was filed, provides the corrected or additional information.

Exemption

38. (1) A minister of the Crown or a minister of state may exempt from the application of section 35 or 37 a former reporting public office holder who, while in office, was a member of ministerial staff who worked on average 15 hours or more a week and reported to that minister.

Criteria

(2) An exemption may only be granted under subsection (1) in respect of a person based on the following criteria:

(a) the person was not a senior member of the minister's staff;

( the person's functions did not include the handling of files of a political or sensitive nature, such as confidential cabinet documents;

© the person had little influence, visibility or decision-making power in the minister's office; and

(d) the person's salary level was not commensurate with the person having an important role in that office.

Decision final

(3) Every decision to grant an exemption under subsection (1) is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court, except in accordance with the Federal Courts Act on the grounds referred to in paragraph 18.1(4)(a), ( or (e) of that Act.