Layton found nude in massage parlour!

[Scotty]

This is proving to be a non-issue. Quite frankly, most Canadians do not care about what happened there, and whether or not Layton is saying the truth about it. The issue will drop off the radar before long anyways.

The coverage I've seen in most of the media has been extremely light on details, and the tone is more a denunciation of whoever leaked it than what might have happened. I saw one on CBC this AM. They didn't mention that the place was called The Velvet Touch, or that it shut down after the police raid, or that the girl with Layton was from China, quite young, barely spoke English, and seemed an unlikely masseuse. They also didn't mention what time this massage took place. Instead they talked about who leaked it and what possible results would be.

[msj]

... yet he has been judged and hung.

Good post AW.

But he has only been judged and hung by people who wouldn't vote for him anyway.

For people like me, if it wasn't for the fact that I despise everything about the NDP candidate in my riding, this would be enough to get me to vote for the NDP.

As it is, I am wondering if the source of the leak is Liberal rather than CPC, and I am considering changing my ballot to the Green party.

A kind of pox on all their houses.

[Shady]

yet he has been judged and hung.

Not at all. We just deserve answers from him. And he's been completely silent. I can understand why.

[bloodyminded]

What sort of 'expansive, intelligent evidence' do you suppose individuals can produce in support of a theory on leftist bias in media?

Without expansive evidence and a serious analysis, you have no theory. You have, at best, a hypothesis. Maybe not even; maybe an unproveable opinion.

I've linked before to a serious analysis of media bias (which concluded biases indeed, though not plainly along a left/right axis). So it's possible to do so...after which a serious debate can be had, about methodology, examples, and results.

If you have no expansive evidence...why then do you conclude a leftist bias?

Impression? Or because some people say so?

Edited May 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

The coverage I've seen in most of the media has been extremely light on details, and the tone is more a denunciation of whoever leaked it than what might have happened. I saw one on CBC this AM. They didn't mention that the place was called The Velvet Touch, or that it shut down after the police raid, or that the girl with Layton was from China, quite young, barely spoke English, and seemed an unlikely masseuse. They also didn't mention what time this massage took place. Instead they talked about who leaked it and what possible results would be.

Yeah. Damn CBC and their shoddy reporting for not doing a piece on things that "seem to be".

[Moonbox]

You can't really apply past results to this. These numbers are rather unprecedented for the NDP, especially in Quebec.

Well I'm not saying they're not going to do a whole lot better this year. I'm saying that they won't do nearly as well as some of the loonies here are saying (not including you in that) and that there's a huge danger of splitting the soft Liberal vote and improving CPC fortunes.

[cybercoma]

Good post AW.

But he has only been judged and hung by people who wouldn't vote for him anyway.

For people like me, if it wasn't for the fact that I despise everything about the NDP candidate in my riding, this would be enough to get me to vote for the NDP.

As it is, I am wondering if the source of the leak is Liberal rather than CPC, and I am considering changing my ballot to the Green party.

A kind of pox on all their houses.

To be honest, the candidate in your riding will be forced by the party whip to vote along the party lines. If you support Jack Layton and the NDP platform, then you should give the candidate your vote, even if they are an idiot. Individual candidates don't really wield any kind of power on their own.

[Shady]

and that there's a huge danger of splitting the soft Liberal vote and improving CPC fortunes.

That's what I've been trying to explain to people. With an even bigger splitting of votes, Conservatives can win in riding they normally wouldn't be able to. Unfortunately, not many people in this forum understand that, let alone basic math.

[CANADIEN]

Not at all. We just deserve answers from him. And he's been completely silent. I can understand why.

Interesting how I got the impression he has made it clear nothing wrong happened. You can argue that it should have been done before the press instead of through a letter from his lawyer. But well... he still did it.

[Shady]

Interesting how I got the impression he has made it clear nothing wrong happened.

When has he addressed the media?

[CANADIEN]

Yeah. Damn CBC and their shoddy reporting for not doing a piece on things that "seem to be".

Bad bad bad CBC

[msj]

When has he addressed the media?

Friday night:

Mr. Layton spoke on the matter to reporters briefly Friday evening.

“It's unfortunate to see the smear campaigns starting in these last few days of the campaign,” he said. “Absolutely nothing wrong was done, there's no wrongdoing here, but yet the smears start.”

“This is why a lot of people get turned off politics and don't want to get involved,” he added. “We'll keep pressing ahead with calling for real change in Ottawa, because frankly this is the kind of thing that a lot of people think is wrong with Ottawa politics today. So we're just going to keep up the campaign right through to the end and call for that change.”

[Shady]

Friday night:

So he didn't answer any questions, he just told reporters nothing wrong happened. That's addressing the issue?

And you people complain about Harper's openness?

[Scotty]

If you have no expansive evidence...why then do you conclude a leftist bias?

Impression? Or because some people say so?

Impression and logic.

Consider. One of the problems with the legal profession is that most of those who enter it have no particular calling to law. They just want to make money.

The journalism profession suffers from a related but different problem. Who become a journalist? It's not a big money making profession, by and large, and jobs are far from easy to find. So why go into it? People who want to 'make a difference'. People who see a job as a reporter as something which gives them a voice and a measure of power to 'hold the politicians feet to the fire' as one editorial recently said. They want to be able to publicize bad things, make everyone indignant, and get the government to right wrongs. Ie, there is a 'crusader' mentality among young journalists. None of that goes well with a conservative philosophy that says the government is not your mother, and it's not the government's job to right all wrongs or make life fair for everyone. It also goes against the conservative philosophy of individual responsibility, because these journalists generally want the government, want society, to do something about whatever ills or wrongs they see. So few of these people would like conservatism as an ideology and would come to see conservatives as the 'enemy' opposing or ignoring their desire to right wrongs.

[CANADIEN]

So he didn't answer any questions, he just told reporters nothing wrong happened. That's addressing the issue?

Since nothing wrong happened, that's, indeed, addressing the issue.

On the other hand, perhaps he should have stood for six hours in front of the media, saying 500 times in 300 variations that nothing wrong happened. what a better way to make sure that journalists do not ask him questions about the REAL stuff, like the weakness of his Quebec roster or his economic policies.

I am beginning to think that perhaps its the NDP who orchestrated the whole thing, with the help of the left-wing media (after all, Canadian media is left-wing and the Sun is part of the media). Have everyone ponder a non-issue instead of asking the real question.

Edited May 1, 2011 by CANADIEN

[cybercoma]

That's addressing the issue?

Considering there is no issue. Yeah. That's addressing the issue. For all your soapbox ranting about him "having sex with underage Asian prostitutes", it's not true and you're a dirtbag for suggesting otherwise without substantial evidence backing it up.

[bloodyminded]

Impression and logic.

I disagree with the second. Logic dictates that we see the media as a large, usually profit-centred and interrelated organ...so it demands an institutional analysis.

The journalism profession suffers from a related but different problem. Who become a journalist? It's not a big money making profession, by and large, and jobs are far from easy to find. So why go into it? People who want to 'make a difference'. People who see a job as a reporter as something which gives them a voice and a measure of power to 'hold the politicians feet to the fire' as one editorial recently said.

Some partisanship aside, I believe the writer of the editorial has a misconception about his own profession. Journalists' primary act is as stenographers of power, not critics of it. Even those journalists who are seriously critical of, say, Harper will tend to be slightly more forgiving of, say, Ignatieff, and vice versa. In other words, their criticism masks what is essentially a broad support for Establishment power; an innate respect and even defensiveness about the nexus of political and economic/financial influence and power.

There aren't many crusaders in that profession. They depend on the good graces of their sources...and their sources are primarily the PR spokespeople for politics and business.

They're not too critical; they're insufficiently critical.

They want to be able to publicize bad things, make everyone indignant, and get the government to right wrongs. Ie, there is a 'crusader' mentality among young journalists. None of that goes well with a conservative philosophy that says the government is not your mother, and it's not the government's job to right all wrongs or make life fair for everyone. It also goes against the conservative philosophy of individual responsibility, because these journalists generally want the government, want society, to do something about whatever ills or wrongs they see. So few of these people would like conservatism as an ideology and would come to see conservatives as the 'enemy' opposing or ignoring their desire to right wrongs.

No, they tend largely to support and defend the status quo, which is extremely pro-conservative. (And pro-liberal, in the establishment-liberal sense.)

And we can't limit our discussion to journalists; we need to talk about advertisers, corporate ownership, and sourcing as well.

Edited May 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Considering there is no issue.

So there's no issue because he says there's no issue? And if there really isn't any issue, how about taking some questions from the media? Oh right, he doesn't have to. Only Harper is held to that standard.

[msj]

So he didn't answer any questions, he just told reporters nothing wrong happened. That's addressing the issue?

And you people complain about Harper's openness?

No, you asked when he addressed the media.

He did address this media.

Now you want him to address the "issue."

He has addressed the issue.

[punked]

So there's no issue because he says there's no issue? And if there really isn't any issue, how about taking some questions from the media? Oh right, he doesn't have to. Only Harper is held to that standard.

Nope there is no issue because the police say there is no issue. Unless you think our police in Canada who protect and serve the public are a bunch of liars. Is that what you are saying Shady? Wow conservatives hate law and order.

[CANADIEN]

So there's no issue because he says there's no issue?

So, there's an issue because... your hatred of anything he stands for means you'll use anything and everything against him, no matter or trivial or unimportant it is in the eyes of most people, including quite a few people who wouldn't vote for him as a dog catcher?

[Guest peterb]

Velvet Touch – A Community Clinic – Who Knew???

Olivia Chow was quick to release a written statement, that husband Jack Layton indeed did attend a “registered massage clinic” and she was well aware of it and he “needed a massage” late in the evening.

Jack Layton, later at a rally in Burnaby, was quick to point out and clarify Olivia’s comment, that in fact it was a “community clinic” (Velvet Touch) where he obtained his services. In trying to protect his political career, and in tune with the NDP philosophy, he felt it very important to stress it was a “community clinic” not to be confused with a private clinic. It was essential in the middle of this election, to inform Canadians, in order to solicit their support, he wouldn’t be caught dead at a private clinic, where illegal, underage, Asian sex workers, would be employed by rip off artists, in the Canadian health care field – it would have to be a community clinic he patronizes – there should be no confusion. A good leader leads by example.

I wonder if Canadians becoming more aware of the fine details of the NDP health care platform and of Layton’s expansion of health care services to include these “community clinics”, help explain the surge in support for the NDP in this current election. Does anybody in the main street media have a better explanation for the NDP surge and why are they reluctant to discuss this NDP expansion of Canada’s health services?

Why and how could the Toronto city police confuse a community clinic with a bawdy house?

[cybercoma]

So there's no issue because he says there's no issue? And if there really isn't any issue, how about taking some questions from the media? Oh right, he doesn't have to. Only Harper is held to that standard.

If you're going to troll, could you at least try to make it a little less obvious?

[Shady]

So, there's an issue because... your hatred of anything he stands for means you'll use anything and everything against him, no matter or trivial or unimportant it is in the eyes of most people, including quite a few people who wouldn't vote for him as a dog catcher?

Nope. I just don't think he should avoid questions from the media.

[Shady]

If you're going to troll, could you at least try to make it a little less obvious?

So expecting politicians to take questions from the media is now considered trolling? Wow, so much for democracy.