It's not because of teflon...

[Scotty]

Actually, by some accounts, more people like Layton.

All through the years Harper has consistently surpassed all other leaders when Canadians are asked who would make the better prime minister. That has not changed.

[Scotty]

On many metrics, such as like ability and trust in various polls, Layton is ahead.

Cite?

[Smallc]

All through the years Harper has consistently surpassed all other leaders when Canadians are asked who would make the better prime minister. That has not changed.

That's true...so far.

[Smallc]

Cite?

The same leadership index that was cited before. There have been many other polls, but I don't know of any recent ones. You don't seriously believe that Harper is more likeable, do you?

Edited April 24, 2011 by Smallc

[Scotty]

It isn't a "left wing" media, and so this fact problematizes your point a little bit.

Depends on how you define "left". A lot of people I think of as Left refuse to be described thusly, even though on virtually every topic and subject their views veer off to the Left. I think that most journalists are reflexively very 'liberal' in their attitudes, especially regarding social beliefs and the duty of government to improve the lives of everyone who isn't doing well for whatever reason. Journalists tend to see it as government's job to right all the wrongs of society, be they social, economic or whatever. This clearly clashes with the conservative belief of individual responsibility and small government. And so it's not hard to see why so many journalists see the Conservatives as crass, backward, uncaring, and socially regressive.

[Scotty]

Yes...how dare the media question the dear leader.

When the question is along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife" I can see where people would take offense.

[betsy]

Yes...how dare the media question the dear leader.

Yes! With nonsense questions orchestrated to derail our dear leader's campaign!

People are on to the cheap tricks! That's why nothing sticks!

How's that for a slogan?

Edited April 24, 2011 by betsy

[Smallc]

When the question is along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife" I can see where people would take offense.

Except the question wasn't anything like that.

[Scotty]

Except the question wasn't anything like that.

It wasn't far from it. Why dwell on a nothing story like this? A candidate went to a meeting at a school and one of the people there was a guy with terrorist sympathies. She didn't know he was there, and he has zero part in her campaign. So how is this a story? And even after being told that repeatedly why does he keep asking about it unless its in pursuit of an ideologically inspired agenda to try and embarrass the Conservatives?

Where are all the reporters asking Ignatieff repeated questions about his knowingly having an interview with a terrorist supporter?

[bloodyminded]

Depends on how you define "left". A lot of people I think of as Left refuse to be described thusly, even though on virtually every topic and subject their views veer off to the Left.

Depending, as you yourself say, on how you define "left."

I think that most journalists are reflexively very 'liberal' in their attitudes, especially regarding social beliefs and the duty of government to improve the lives of everyone who isn't doing well for whatever reason. Journalists tend to see it as government's job to right all the wrongs of society, be they social, economic or whatever. This clearly clashes with the conservative belief of individual responsibility and small government. And so it's not hard to see why so many journalists see the Conservatives as crass, backward, uncaring, and socially regressive.

I don't know that many journalists do think this way. I agree that journalists might tend to be somewhat liberal in their dispositions, but it's scarcely "leftism" as the term is normally understood; it's Establishment centrism.

At any rate, the journalists are a tiny part of the puzzle; we're talking about major, usually corporate, interrelated institutions here. And so the only way to navigate any sort of "bias" is through an institutional analysis. That's it, end of story.

That is, what is/are the function(s) of the news entity, and how is it related to the others? What are the attributes that makes it profit, and how influential are these outside agents? What are their primary sources of information? (the answer, by the way, is government and Business spokespeople. by far their most important sources, nothing else even close). How does ideology play into it--not just of individual journalists, but also of their patrons, their sources, their advertisers, their parent corporations and major shareholders? What of a larger ideology...one with patriotic impulses, for example? And so on.

And to my knowledge, it is conservatives alone who have so far refused to entertain this approach. Centrists have tried a little, if tepidly; the Left has been most willing to attempt it, arguably beginning with Chomsky/Herman's watershed Manufacturing Consent (which discovers very little genuine Left or Right wing bias, incidentally, but rather a bias towards Establishment interests of power and wealth). I'm not sure why conservatives have avoided this method, but that appears to be the case. So what conservatives are left with, entirely through their own choice, is popping up occasional and disconnected examples of "anti-Conservative" (or "anti-conservative," small-c) bias. That's useless. At times the examples are even undoubtedly accurate, as stand-alone bits. But we could find examples of bias in any direction we wish, if this is our method.

Edited April 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Smallc]

It wasn't far from it. Why dwell on a nothing story like this? A candidate went to a meeting at a school and one of the people there was a guy with terrorist sympathies. She didn't know he was there, and he has zero part in her campaign. So how is this a story? And even after being told that repeatedly why does he keep asking about it unless its in pursuit of an ideologically inspired agenda to try and embarrass the Conservatives?

Leaders are not off limits to questions. It's that simple. Peter Kent had something to say about it, so why doesn't Harper?

[Mr.Canada]

Leaders are not off limits to questions. It's that simple. Peter Kent had something to say about it, so why doesn't Harper?

PM incumbent Harper is a very busy man and cannot possible answer every single question posed to him, no leader could, else they'd be standing their until midnight or longer. Political leaders are on very strict and controlled schedules any deviation from that plan could mean that people at the next stop wouldn't get a chance to hear a great man they've been waiting weeks and months to hear. Seems somewhat selfish of the reporters to me.

[Evening Star]

Ha, it seems that nothing will convince Conservative supporters and right-wingers that the media is not biased against them, no matter how many editorial boards supported Harper in the last election, no matter that Andrew Coyne - whose usual criticism of Harper is that he's too far left - is the chief editor of the biggest news magazine in the country, no matter that Tasha Kheiriddin and Tom Flanagan are regular panelists on Power and Politics, no matter the freakin' National Post...

Depending, as you yourself say, on how you define "left."

I don't know that many journalists do think this way. I agree that journalists might tend to be somewhat liberal in their dispositions, but it's scarcely "leftism" as the term is normally understood; it's Establishment centrism.

At any rate, the journalists are a tiny part of the puzzle; we're talking about major, usually corporate, interrelated institutions here. And so the only way to navigate any sort of "bias" is through an institutional analysis. That's it, end of story.

That is, what is/are the function(s) of the news entity, and how is it related to the others? What are the attributes that makes it profit, and how influential are these outside agents? What are their primary sources of information? (the answer, by the way, is government and Business spokespeople. by far their most important sources, nothing else even close). How does ideology play into it--not just of individual journalists, but also of their patrons, their sources, their advertisers, their parent corporations and major shareholders? What of a larger ideology...one with patriotic impulses, for example? And so on.

And to my knowledge, it is conservatives alone who have so far refused to entertain this approach. Centrists have tried a little, if tepidly; the Left has most willing to attempt it. I'm not sure why, but that appears to be the case. So what conservatives are left with, entirely through their own choice, is popping up occasional and disconnected examples of "anti-Conservative" (or "anti-conservative," small-c) bias. That's useless. At times the examples are even undoubtedly accurate, as stand-alone bits. But we could find examples of bias in any direction we wish, if this is our method.

[bloodyminded]

PM incumbent Harper is a very busy man and cannot possible answer every single question posed to him, no leader could, else they'd be standing their until midnight or longer. Political leaders are on very strict and controlled schedules any deviation from that plan could mean that people at the next stop wouldn't get a chance to hear a great man they've been waiting weeks and months to hear. Seems somewhat selfish of the reporters to me.

Yes, they should cease their irritating reporting, and stick to straight stenography.

[bloodyminded]

Ha, it seems that nothing will convince Conservative supporters and right-wingers that the media is not biased against them, no matter how many editorial boards supported Harper in the last election, no matter that Andrew Coyne - whose usual criticism of Harper is that he's too far left - is the chief editor of the biggest news magazine in the country, no matter that Tasha Kheiriddin and Tom Flanagan are regular panelists on Power and Politics, no matter the freakin' National Post...

....or that Kevin O'Leary has twice as much CBC airtime as almost any other CBC regular....

I see your point, and agree with it.

[Molly]

Gadz! Does anyone suppose that senatorships are handed out to reward journalistic neutrality and even-handedness?

[betsy]

Gadz! Does anyone suppose that senatorships are handed out to reward journalistic neutrality and even-handedness?

Mike Duffy fooled me!

All that time he was host I found him at times neutral....and sometimes more Liberal-friendly!

I remember mouthing off here against him on several occasions. Boy, was it ever a surprise for me when he became Senator.

I guess as a host he tried to keep his own partisanship in check, as responsible/ethical journalists ought to do!

Edited April 25, 2011 by betsy

[Molly]

Mike Duffy fooled me!

All that time he was host I found him at times neutral....and sometimes more Liberal-friendly!

I remember mouthing off here against him on several occasions. Boy, was it ever a surprise for me when he became Senator.

That should be a hint to you about your own place on the political spectrum. His political predisposition was beyond obvious.

I was surprised that he would accept that well-earned partisan reward, though. Even as lucrative as it is, to a journalist, it should be deeply embarrassing to even recieve the offer.

[Rick]

Yes...how dare the media question the dear leader.

But PM Bubble Boy wants you to question him...

Canadians should never put absolute trust in any politician and must constantly quiz their leaders, Stephen Harper says

:lol:

Gee how does one do that when Herr leader only permits scripted questions to be asked of him and limited to no more than 4 on most days

Link to PM Bubble Boy's defining irony

Edited April 25, 2011 by Rick

[betsy]

I was surprised that he would accept that well-earned partisan reward, though. Even as lucrative as it is, to a journalist, it should be deeply embarrassing to even recieve the offer.

Why should it be embarrassing for him to accept it?

[Rick]

Why should it be embarrassing for him to accept it?

Embarrassing to show the world he had lost whatever integrity he had left.

Kind of like what's happened to Peter Kent with his flip flop and now supporting a known terrorist supporter running as a fellow candidate for the CTC*

*conservative terrorist party of canada

[Scotty]

Embarrassing to show the world he had lost whatever integrity he had left.

Kind of like what's happened to Peter Kent with his flip flop and now supporting a known terrorist supporter running as a fellow candidate for the CTC*

*conservative terrorist party of canada

Rick is handy to have around for those who need a refresher course on what the NDP is really all about.

This is a party which contains a wild assortment of nutbars and freaks, including a deputy leader who is both a 911 truther and an anti-Semite, and a lot of people, including Layton, who are admirers of Fidel Castro and other communist dictators.

The NDP

[Evening Star]

Thanks, I think that's a pretty good example of hateful demonizing of the left, of the sort we discussed on this thread:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18683&st=90

Opposing actions of the Israeli government does not make someone an anti-Semite. Afaik, Davies is not, and has never been, part of the Socialist Caucus, which is absolutely a fringe element within the party, probably smaller than the Christian fundamentalist element within the CPC. When has Layton expressed admiration for Castro or any other dictator?

Edited April 25, 2011 by Evening Star

[August1991]

Ha, it seems that nothing will convince Conservative supporters and right-wingers that the media is not biased against them, no matter how many editorial boards supported Harper in the last election, no matter that Andrew Coyne - whose usual criticism of Harper is that he's too far left - is the chief editor of the biggest news magazine in the country, no matter that Tasha Kheiriddin and Tom Flanagan are regular panelists on Power and Politics, no matter the freakin' National Post...

It is not a few columnists or even an editor that is in play, it is the run-of-the-mill jourrnalist that is in play. For the most part, they are sympathetic to left wing causes and they really dislike people like Harper.

Generally speaking, I think day-to-day journalism is a young person's game and young people tend to be left. They certainly want to be "cool" and conservative is just not "cool".

At any rate, the journalists are a tiny part of the puzzle; we're talking about major, usually corporate, interrelated institutions here. And so the only way to navigate any sort of "bias" is through an institutional analysis. That's it, end of story.

...

And to my knowledge, it is conservatives alone who have so far refused to entertain this approach. Centrists have tried a little, if tepidly; the Left has been most willing to attempt it, arguably beginning with Chomsky/Herman's watershed Manufacturing Consent (which discovers very little genuine Left or Right wing bias, incidentally, but rather a bias towards Establishment interests of power and wealth).

Noam Chomsky? Watershed?

BM, that is ad hoc nonsense that you have written. It is the kind of drivel one finds in sociology textbooks. You invent theories to accomodate observed facts. In a few decades, when someone observes other facts, then they'll invent different theories.

The Soviet authorities had complete control over the mass media but were never able to "manufacture consent". That's it, end of story.

[Evening Star]

Generally speaking, I think day-to-day journalism is a young person's game and young people tend to be left. They certainly want to be "cool" and conservative is just not "cool".

This is my favourite argument for media bias I've ever heard: The media has an overriding institutional slant because of young entry-level journalists who are trying to be hip! Who needs drivel from sociology textbooks?