Guergis is crying on TV again

[Bob]

You accuse WWWTT of being a partisan, and then turn around and giving an opposing partisan position.

In other words, your post is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Just because I will vote for the CPC candidate from my riding doesn't make me partisan. I am an independent and have no problem criticizing Harper, where legitimate. Or, conversely, agreeing with leaders from other parties, where legitimate.

Just because I know who I'm voting for this time around doesn't make me a partisan. And just because I recognize the anti-conservative bias of the CBC doesn't make me a partisan.

[ToadBrother]

Just because I will vote for the CPC candidate from my riding doesn't make me partisan. I am an independent and have no problem criticizing Harper, where legitimate. Or, conversely, agreeing with leaders from other parties, where legitimate.

Just because I know who I'm voting for this time around doesn't make me a partisan. And just because I recognize the anti-conservative bias of the CBC doesn't make me a partisan.

The CBC and other Canadian press outlets reporting on Guergis' tearfest isn't partisan either. They have no obligation to Tory-friendly stories. Guergis' appearance is newsworthy, as is Harper's response.

[Bob]

The CBC and other Canadian press outlets reporting on Guergis' tearfest isn't partisan either. They have no obligation to Tory-friendly stories. Guergis' appearance is newsworthy, as is Harper's response.

So Guergis bringing up a story that's already a year old in a desperate to get attention for her campaign is more newsworthy than the political platforms of the major parties? Perhaps the CBC could actually spend some time examining the legitimacy of the statements made by the candidates in an effort to do some fact-checking? Maybe the records of the political candidates and parties can be examined? This is not newsworthy. This is soap-opera stupidity, and the CBC isn't reporting on the story accurately. As has already been explained several times recently in several threads, this story, if reported on properly, exposes hypocrisy from Ignatieff and Layton (and probably Duceppe, although I don't pay much attention to anything he says). Does the CBC expose the hypocrisy of the opposition when writing its summary of events for this affair? No. Should anyone be surprised by the manner in which the CBC is reporting on this stupidity? No.

And whether or not you recognize the CBC's bias doesn't change the fact that the CBC is biased. It's almost inevitable, given the fact that a government-apparatus will naturally be inclined to support leftism in the interests of its own self-preservation and continual growth.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Bob

[ToadBrother]

And whether or not you recognize the CBC's bias doesn't change the fact that the CBC is biased. It's almost inevitable, given the fact that a government-apparatus will naturally be inclined to support leftism in the interests of its own self-preservation and continual growth.

You keep nattering on about the CBC, even though Guergis's comments have made it to other outlets and will doubtless be in the papers tomorrow. You claim to be non-partisan, but all your bitching and whining pegs as you as a dedicated like Tory droid.

[WWWTT]

Ok now,there's a lot of good comments on this thread but I need to stress something here.

Ultimately Harper was the one that appointed Guergis to cabinet and therefore is responsible for her actions,I am not as forgiving as some here.Harper took a big chance increasing the size of cabinet and this partially led to the problem of allowing Guergis in the door.

Guergis is a magnet for the media and she is using it to destroy Harper,and ultimately she is the type of people the conservative party attracts.

One big freakin happy family at each others throat

Enjoy!

WWWTT

[Bob]

You keep nattering on about the CBC, even though Guergis's comments have made it to other outlets and will doubtless be in the papers tomorrow. You claim to be non-partisan, but all your bitching and whining pegs as you as a dedicated like Tory droid.

I think much of the Canadian media landscape is anti-conservative, so it isn't surprising that many Canadian news outlets would carry this story and misleadingly report on it in an anti-conservative manner.

Just because I support the CPC this time around doesn't make me a partisan. There are several things I dislike about the CPC and Harper, but we can get into that later. Your attempts to portray me as some partisan-hack are just stupid. I have not and will not support a party or candidate "just because".

Edited April 17, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

And whether or not you recognize the CBC's bias doesn't change the fact that the CBC is biased. It's almost inevitable, given the fact that a government-apparatus will naturally be inclined to support leftism in the interests of its own self-preservation and continual growth.

First of all, that the CBC has a "bias towards the Liberals" and a "leftist bias," are not unequivocally the same thing.

Which is exactly why both (often competing) claims are made interchangeably; because those making the claims have no rigorous analysis from which to draw.

And, tellingly, remain unable to devise such an analysis themselves.

Both claims, often conflated as one, are entirely impressionistic, and have become akin to a cherished myth among right-wingers.

But impressions can easily be profoundly mistaken. This one probably is. (Though, unlike the "leftist bias" asserters, I'm making no declarative claims either way; I rather prefer some evidence.)

And even finding a couple of examples--the usual method to "prove" their point when pushed up against the wall, doesn't prove anything. Anyone can find a coupe of media examples to "prove" any bias they wish.

Admittedly, I slightly prefer this deeply-flawed methodology to the usual one; normally, when asked for evidence of the "leftist bias," the answer is stony silence; or else, "Everybody knows it!" which is 100% commensurate with said stony silence. No different, and utterly free of meaningful information.

The way to determine news media bias--and I put it to you that all news media without exception contain plenty of bias, albeit in a more complicated form than the comforting "Lefties!" trope--is through a serious institutional analysis.

This is a fairly serious undertaking, and it demands rigour and honesty.

I'm forced to wonder if, since the claim is made so frequently, but without any attempt at actual analysis of a complex and interrelated institution, those who claim "leftist bias" are worried that the conclusions would not align with their hypothesis.

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Molly]

As someone who has been in a management position from time to time, sometimes you just don't know. More to the point, people do change for any number of reasons, and a star employee can sometimes turn into a trainwreck.

As it happens, she's my very own MP. From that perspective: there should be no mistaking her for a star employee. This was/is not someone who changed nor even someone in disguise. What Mr. Harper and Canada got is exactly the Helena we constituents all know so well.

Just sayin'.

[Tilter]

The biggest thorn ever?

Holy, some people have either short memories or a serious lack of perspective.

The grand sum of her sins consist of yelling at some airport security clowns, marrying an imbecile, and letting that imbecile use her phone and email to conduct personal business.  

I think you forgot to mention a couple of other things -- Her office (physically) her office (as an MP) and her name as a reference.

Methinks she protesteth too much.

& too often

and too tiresomely

And too weepily

& too much

[font=Franklin Gothic Medium][size=5]OFF WITH HER HEAD [/size][/font]

If she'd been in the Chretien-era cabinet, that track record would make her revered for her integrity.

Different Era. Now the pols TRY to appear honest

-k

[ToadBrother]

As it happens, she's my very own MP. From that perspective: there should be no mistaking her for a star employee. This was/is not someone who changed nor even someone in disguise. What Mr. Harper and Canada got is exactly the Helena we constituents all know so well.

Just sayin'.

Well, your riding voted for her, so...

[Sir Bandelot]

Well, your riding voted for her, so...

The blest of the blurst