Kory Teneycke hot under the collar

[August1991]

If you can't counter their argument, attempt to slander them by calling them American. Quite the Canadian tradition. I wonder what you'll say about Ignatieff when he becomes PM?

Urban Canadian Leftists often accuse Canadian conservatives of being sexist, regressive, Bushists, homophobic, rural, backward, Albertan, redneck, ignorant, Tim Hortons drinkers - and American.

So, I thought that I would put the shoe on the other foot.

Margaret Atwood strikes me as a typical saltwater limousine liberal American leftist.

Edited September 5, 2010 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Urban Canadian Leftists often accuse Canadian conservatives of being sexist, regressive, Bushists, homophobic, rural, backward, Albertan, redneck, ignorant, Tim Hortons drinkers - and American....

Oh no...not that...anything but (gulp)...AMERICAN!!!!

So what's on HBO tonight?

[waldo]

is there a problem? It's just a basic question asking you to offer comment on why Tory Teneycke and the sitting Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, would hold a secret meeting with the Fox News founder, Rupert Murdoch and the head of Fox News, Roger Ailes.

Waldo, you look for complicated conspiracy theories - meanwhile, one billion dollars of taxpayer money is given to the CBC/RC every year!

Waldo, can you say honestly that the CBC reflects even partly the views of the 35% or so of Canadians who vote Conservative? Surely, according to you, the CBC should broadcast extreme fascist right wing homophobic racist sexist Christian talk shows for at least 8 hours every day. In a democracy, surely we Conservative voters have a right to use the State broadcaster too, no?

Teneycke's piece is worth reading for several points. It makes plain that Sun TV is a Canadian organization not asking for special tax treatment. Perhaps most important, it makes plain that Canada's media - English and French - even with the Internet - needs another voice.

complicated conspiracy theories? Nope - just asking for comment on why both Harper communications directors (former and present, Teneycke & Soudas, respectively) refuse to comment on what was discussed at the meeting between Harper/Teneycke and the Fox News founder/head (Murdoch & Ailes)... just asking for comment on the suitability of a sitting Prime Minister, Steven Harper, seeking out and meeting directly with the Fox News founder/head (Murdoch & Ailes)... just asking for comment on the timeline/optics of Teneycke, shortly after, giving up his job with Harper to start-up Fox News North, of Harper (twice) meeting directly with Quebecor Media Inc.'s President and CEO, Pierre Karl Peladeau (... and just what was discussed at their meetings?).

as expected, the CBC card is played (by you and others). Somehow, CTV News Channel is conveniently ignored by those who typically rant over the supposed leanings of CBC... somehow, the past 13 years of mandatory carriage for CTV News Channel is ignored, so CBC News Network can be targeted. Certainly, Quebecor didn't forget both CBC News Network & CTV News Channel in it's failed application to the CRTC for Category 1 service – in which it would have been granted mandatory carriage by Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings (BDU) in Canada. In fact, part of the expressed CRTC rationale for not granting the license was that Quebecor failed to differentiate just how it's programming would be any different from what was/is being offered by both CBC News Network & CTV News Channel.

as for your reference to the reading worth of the Teneycke piece... Fox News North most categorically did ask for special tax treatment... that's exactly what their application for a Category 1 license would have provided (if it had been approved)... i.e. mandatory carriage fees. And, again, your direct targeting of CBC News Network and your suggestion of, "needing another voice" in Canada's media, ignores the presence of CTV News Channel. In MLW comments, I'm not reading anyone specifically against the right of Fox News North to broadcast, in spite of the usual suspects beaking off about stifling free speech... I'm reading objections to not wanting to have to pay for it. Quebecor has deep pockets... is there a problem? Won't the rush of Conservative supporters (and associated advertisers) rally to the cause?

speaking of reading worth, let's not bypass a chance to highlight the drivel attack piece put out by media organizations owned by Quebecor... as written by Quebecor Media International employee, Brian Lilley. I expect you know the piece - it's the one where Lilley also gets it wrong (as you did) by falsely stating that Fox News North, "has never asked for mandatory fees". Of course, we also get this Lilley gem: "A far left-wing American lobby group funded by U.S. billionaire George Soros wants you to be scared, very scared."... hey now... that sounds exactly like Dancer!

[eyeball]

What is the left wing afraid of, why the hysteria over a conservative news channel they don't have to watch, do their TVs not have a remote or an off button. sheez

Bring it on a fast as you can please. It'll be a spectacle to behold watching the Tories trying to distance themselves from Sun TV once they open up the mikes to a bunch of racist fundamentalist hill-billies who are just dying to beak off about immigrants, guns, getting rid of the Queen and why we need to give the Conservatives a majority.

[bloodyminded]

It's really not surprising that so many lefties and Liberals have no problem with Americans such as Soros and co. determine for them what constitutes free speech. They also want Obama-style economics and foreign policy, they want to mimic the present UK government and they want Ignatieff, who spent 34 solid years living and working outside Canada, as their Prime Minister. Anything and everything that doesn't bear the Canadian stamp. It's like they're living an identity crisis.

Very real issues with lefties and Liberals aside--and the issues are massive, legion--I doubt there are more than a handful of actual lefties who genuinely want Ignatieff as their Prime Minister.

[bloodyminded]

Margaret Atwood's explanation reminds me of another nuanced American: John Kerry. For a supposed Canadian, Margaret Atwood strikes me as a typical Massachusetts Democrat.

Since she considers herself a "Red Tory," this might in fact have some accuracy to it. The Democrats are a centre-right party, at least by Western standards.

Waldo, you look for complicated conspiracy theories - meanwhile, one billion dollars of taxpayer money is given to the CBC/RC every year!

can you say honestly that the CBC reflects even partly the views of the 35% or so of Canadians who vote Conservative?

They support the war in Afghanistan.

They eagerly spent an entire day, in concert with all the other networks, broadcasting the outright propaganda excercise of the fall of Saddam's statue, totally eschewing the context that would have exposed the scene for what it was. This was presented as "hard news," free of obvious editorializing: the most effective form of propaganda that there is.

They have a financial "debate" program (and kind of interesting despite itself) in which a free market conservative "debates" with a further right free market conservative.

They are dependent on advertising, which affects coverage and editorial slant in favour of big money and big political Establishment interests, by definition.....

....oh, and occasionally they broadcast leftish (but not far-left) documentaries...oh, and this very morning they re-broadcast a program about the medical dangers of marijuana among young users.

They have interviewed "pro-Western" Muslims like Irshad Manji numerous times; but they have almost entirely ignored an Afghan MP, the youngest MP in the country, a feminist who has fought for years for women's, children's, and minority rights, and worked with struggles against poverty, and railed against the restrictions of Islam. But she also criticizes--harshly--Western policy in Afghanistan...so, the CBC prefers the more amenable, West-triumphalist Manji.

I don't think CBC is quite the Soviet-style leftist propaganda that its detractors believe...a cherished belief, to be sure, demanding selective (and often zero) evidence.

Edited September 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Nobody has said that Sun TV can't broadcast. All that's been decided is that they can't have the premium license they applied for. I doubt Al Jazeera has one either.

-k

And frankly, while I wish them well I have no desire to pay for anything the Sun generates.

[scribblet]

Oh no...not that...anything but (gulp)...AMERICAN!!!!

So what's on HBO tonight?

True Blood - can't miss that one LOL

[scribblet]

Nobody has said that Sun TV can't broadcast. All that's been decided is that they can't have the premium license they applied for. I doubt Al Jazeera has one either.

-k

But they have, the foreign based petition is asking that it not be allowed, using extremely inflammatory wording about hate filled Fox News North. All we know right now is that SunTV wants to offer a mix of opinion and news, but any comments I've read are quite clear on not wanting the station to be allowed at all.

They are now asking for a 'must offer' not a 'must carry', it should at least be incorporated into the news package that includes BBC world news and CNN etc.

ETA: why should we let professional Yankee agitators influence our choice of news options.

Edited September 5, 2010 by scriblett

[lukin]

I wonder if waldo remembers all the fear mongering by the left when the national Post started?

[bloodyminded]

I wonder if waldo remembers all the fear mongering by the left when the national Post started?

i wonder if you give us some links to "all the fear mongering." I'll settle for, say a third of it, if you can show it.

[kimmy]

I believe my response was this, making you a complete liar

I believe your response was this, making me completely truthful:

I can't comment on it because I haven't seen it. However, from reading the synopsis I don' think it should be. The goal it seems to me was to uncover radicalism yet, reading the response to the movie in the UK, it only created a backlash which would only serve to further the cause of the radicalism in the movie. It also paints with a pretty broad stroke. Jesus Camp was another one I didn't really agree with. Yeah there are some crazies (which are just as capable of terrorism) in the religious right but, like in Islam, 99% of the faithful are peaceful. Stereotyping only makes the situation worse.

You don't think people should hear about the crazies because it might reinforce negative stereotypes.

There might be a reasonable argument to be made there, but doing so makes a mockery of your supposed support for the exchange of information in the marketplace of ideas.

Hardly disagreeing with a fair exchange of information. You've misrepresented my positions to the point that you're doing what you're accusing me of doing.

Ha ha, sure. Your own comments make it clear that you're all in favor of the exchange of information and ideas... except for ones you don't approve of.

-k

[nicky10013]

I believe your response was this, making me completely truthful:

You don't think people should hear about the crazies because it might reinforce negative stereotypes.

There might be a reasonable argument to be made there, but doing so makes a mockery of your supposed support for the exchange of information in the marketplace of ideas.

Nope.

Ha ha, sure. Your own comments make it clear that you're all in favor of the exchange of information and ideas... except for ones you don't approve of.

-k

Nope. Keep trying, though.

[kimmy]

Nope.

Nope. Keep trying, though.

Awesome rebuttal.

-k

[nicky10013]

Awesome rebuttal.

-k

Nothing I said leads to what you're claiming. The one tenuous point you even agreed to. So, really, there isn't other ground for rebuttal when someone is clearly lying to paint someone in a poor light.

[Hazeleyes]

Waldo is not interested in any answer that doesn't correspond to his/her view that the meeting was held secretly for nefarious reasons such a to clone Fox News.

I have my own theory about what went on at that meeting. Since you seem the type who would be respectful of other posters, I'll share it with you. Earlier in March 2009, a Fox News host apologized for mocking the Canadian military.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/broadcast+mocks+Afghan+mission/1418836/story.html

Harper was already scheduled for an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in New York on March 29, 2009. While in New York, Harper then met with Murdoch on March 30. Was the meeting pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment? Who knows. But given the resulting political fallout in Washington and in Ottawa as a result of the Fox News program clip about Canadians troops, I don't think it's hard to imagine what was discussed.

Mind you, that is all speculation on my part as I have no proof of what was actually discussed at that March 30, 2009 meeting in New York.

Thank you Capricorn. You have presented a cogent argument for the idea that the meeting was arranged in part at least for Rupbert Murdock to offer PM Harper an apology for his stations dissing our troops. But why wouldn't the PM or even better Rupbert Murdock give a quick statement to that effect after the meeting.

[bloodyminded]

Thank you Capricorn. You have presented a cogent argument for the idea that the meeting was arranged in part at least for Rupbert Murdock to offer PM Harper an apology for his stations dissing our troops. But why wouldn't the PM or even better Rupbert Murdock give a quick statement to that effect after the meeting.

Why would an apology to the Prime Minister be necessary, and not made public? It doesn't even make sense.

[capricorn]

I doubt there are more than a handful of actual lefties who genuinely want Ignatieff as their Prime Minister.

And that is not good. Clearly, Ignatieff is not representative of the Liberal Party as we know it and IMO he never will. His handlers may succeed in turning him into a politician but they will fail in turning Ignatieff into who the Liberal Party needs today. With the right leader, I don't doubt that at this time, the Liberals would be leading in the polls by 4 to 5 percentage points. I'm not saying the Liberals would win the next election. I'm saying that when asked, if the Liberals had a strong leader, Canadians would register their discontent with the Conservatives by voicing a preference for the Liberals. By their nature, these polls are temporary until we have an election campaign. That's when a front runner will emerge.

Edited September 5, 2010 by capricorn

[capricorn]

You have presented a cogent argument for the idea that the meeting was arranged in part at least for Rupbert Murdock to offer PM Harper an apology for his stations dissing our troops.

Thank you. Hazeleyes, don't forget that Fox News had already put forward an apology. By extension, Fox News is Rupert Murdoch. From my link:

Canada's defence minister demanded — and got — an apology from the U.S. broadcaster,

In essence, Murdoch had already apologized. I think there were related matters discussed around the offensive Fox News Red Eye episode. As a gesture of good will, perhaps Murdoch invited Harper for lunch to explore if there was anything else Fox News could do to repair the damage. We just don't know the details and can only speculate.

But why wouldn't the PM or even better Rupbert Murdock give a quick statement to that effect after the meeting.

I think no statement and no public comment made in order to bring closure to the whole sordid affair and not to inflame the situation. There was a political aspect to the issue in terms of Canada-US relations, and the use of diplomacy was of the utmost importance.

For what it's worth, that's my take.

[Keepitsimple]

Thank you. Hazeleyes, don't forget that Fox News had already put forward an apology. By extension, Fox News is Rupert Murdoch. From my link:

I think no statement and no public comment made in order to bring closure to the whole sordid affair and not to inflame the situation. There was a political aspect to the issue in terms of Canada-US relations, and the use of diplomacy was of the utmost importance.

For what it's worth, that's my take.

And I think it's probably bang on. Thanks for jogging my memory - I forgot the timing about the issue.....but it makes perfect sense that once the apology was made - to just let it be....which is refreshing. Liberals of yesteryear would have been pleased to play the anti-American card for domestic gain.

[waldo]

Earlier in March 2009, a Fox News host apologized for mocking the Canadian military.

While in New York, Harper then met with Murdoch on March 30. Was the meeting pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment? Who knows. But given the resulting political fallout in Washington and in Ottawa as a result of the Fox News program clip about Canadians troops, I don't think it's hard to imagine what was discussed.

Mind you, that is all speculation on my part

But why wouldn't the PM or even better Rupbert Murdock give a quick statement to that effect after the meeting.

Why would an apology to the Prime Minister be necessary, and not made public? It doesn't even make sense.

of course it makes no sense... but don't let that stop the fervent Conservative partisans as they shift into high-spin cycle damage control! As I said, it's the most innocuous speculation suggestion - certainly, if that's really what was discussed, a simple, matter-of-fact comment from either Teneycke or Soudas could have been forthcoming when they were both asked by the media what was discussed between Harper/Teneycke & Fox News' Murdoch/Ailes. Instead we have both the mainstream media and blog-world awash in speculation - certainly it fuels the Harper hidden agenda & incessant controlling talking points. So ya, of course, it makes perfect sense for the Harper Conservatives to go silent and refuse comment - ya, think?

[scribblet]

I believe a comment was made that they didn't discuss SunTV, but the fervent fervent Liberal partisans would never believe it anyway LOL

[waldo]

ya, ya, scriblett... a secret meeting (unearthed by an intrepid Canadian Press reporter), secret topics & secret discussions. Apparently, Harper Conservatives would sooner allow speculation to run rampant... would sooner allow accusations of directly influencing Canadian broadcasting content/licensing... than to simply state what discussions have occurred in (all) those meetings between Harper/Teneycke & Fox's Murdoch/Alies & Quebecor's Pierre Karl Peladeau. No biggee, right scriblett... just a simple, straightforward comment from Soudas/PMO stating what actually was discussed at all those meetings - is there a problem?

[Keepitsimple]

Speaking about Avaaz and the fact that George Soros was one of its main founders, here's an article by Ezra Levant about Mr. Soros - who doesn't have the the nicest of backgrounds. Interesting that Michael Ignatieff served (serves?) on the Advisory Board for the Soros Foundation. Interesting Choice.

Moral hollowness at work

Billionaire George Soros has made a living wrecking the lives of others. Now he wants to mess with Canadians

...........................

To survive, George, then a teenager, collaborated with the Nazis.

First he worked for the Judenrat. That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis to do their dirty work for them. Instead of the Nazis rounding up Jews every day for the trains, they delegated that murderous task to Jews who were willing to do it to survive another day at the expense of their neighbours.

Theodore hatched a better plan for his son. He bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let George live with him. George helped the official confiscate property from Jews.

By collaborating with the Nazis, George survived the Holocaust. He turned on other Jews to spare himself.

George moved to London after the war and then to New York, where he became a stockbroker. He’s rich now. Forbes magazine says he’s the 35th richest man in the world. Maybe you’ve heard of him. He goes by the name his father invented: George Soros.

How does Soros feel about what he did as a teenager? Has it kept him up at night?

Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? “Not at all,” Soros answered.

“No feeling of guilt?” asked Kroft. “No,” said Soros. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.”

A Nazi would steal the Jews’ property anyways. So why not him?

That moral hollowness has shaped Soros’ life. He’s a rabid critic of capitalism, but in 1992 when he saw a chance, he speculated against the British pound, causing it to crash, devastating retirement savings for millions of Britons. Soros pocketed $1.1 billion for himself. If he didn’t do it, someone else would, right?

..........................................

Now Soros has turned his attention to Canada.

One of his front groups, called Avaaz, is lobbying to stop Sun Media’s license for a TV news channel. Soros doesn’t know anything about Canada — Avaaz called the Sun newspapers the “Suncor newspapers” — but we’re his latest toy.

Avaaz is sending a petition to Canada’s TV regulator, the CRTC, claiming that thousands of Canadians want to censor the Sun and keep it off the air.

............................................

The Article: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/09/03/15242476.html

Ignatieff's Resume (See boards & Commissions): http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/faculty/cv/MichaelIgnatieff.pdf

[waldo]

standard Simpleton fare - from free-speech champion Ezra Levant, no less! One would have thought the Jewish Levant would have some degree of understanding/empathy for the plight of a 14-year old boy in day-to-day survival mode... apparently not. The entirety of that 1998 CBS 60 Minutes interview that provides the fodder for all those Levant types claiming "Nazi-collaboration":

KROFT: (Voiceover) To understand the complexities and contradictions in his personality, you have to go back to the very beginning: to Budapest, where George Soros was born 68 years ago to parents who were wealthy, well-educated and Jewish.

When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)

KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros' friends and neighbors.

(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew...

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

KROFT: (Voiceover) ...who escaped the Holocaust...

(Vintage footage of women walking by train)

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

(Vintage footage of people getting on train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) ... by -- by posing as a Christian.

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.

(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)

KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.

KROFT: In what way?

Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and -- and anticipate events and when -- when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a -- a very personal experience of evil.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's -- that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not -- not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -- you don't see the connection. But it was -- it created no -- no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.