A question of Democracy

[ToadBrother]

But the biggest turn-off, I work in commercial aviation. An industry reported on more often than most any other, and I would believe that the media has never reported anything significant accurately, ever.

They do that when any reporting on specialized fields. Science journalism, for instance, is a den of inaccuracy, hyperbole and sheer stupidity.

[cybercoma]

Entirely true, but he does have a point. Where is the report? It has been a long time.

I guess I'm just tired of his garbage. He could have the best point in the world, but like the boy who cried wolf, when you've been spreading verbal diarrhea for so long, it's tough to make out anything worth a damn.

[BC_chick]

Betsy, have you not watched or read the news this week? It's bombarded with negative media attention about the newly-elected NDP MP's. I haven't read one positive article about their win, yet Harper's majority is getting nothing but praise. Surely out of 100 MP's there is a few good stories to tell, no? Where are they?

Whether or not you think this portrayal of the CPC vs. NDP is accurate ( as I'm sure many of this board believe it is) you can't possibly deny that the Harper majority has been very welcome by the MSM while the NDP has faced nothing but heavy criticism.

If your paranoid version of reality were true wouldn't all the rookie NDP stories be downplayed, if not outright buried? Wouldn't Harper's victory be presented with ominous overtones?

I'm seriously wondering if you ever actually read the news and see these biases that you are constantly complaining about or if you just get your opinions from Levant.

[cybercoma]

I think the media is being truly unfair. They don't go after all the Conservative backbenchers looking for interviews, trying to trip-up inexperienced caucus members, so why do it to the NDP? We all know that many of these people, who at the beginning of the election didn't think they had a shot in hell, have never been interviewed by the press before and probably don't know what to expect or how to answer questions when they don't have answers readily available. It would be the same situation with any middle-aged backbencher from the middle of nowhere in any party. Let the NDP train their new MPs and teach them the ropes before they're fed to the wolves. I think this early criticism is pretty ridiculous.

[TimG]

They don't go after all the Conservative backbenchers looking for interviews, trying to trip-up inexperienced caucus members, so why do it to the NDP?

ROTFL. It used to be a bloodsport with the media trying to get CPC backbench MPs to say something stupid. It only stopped because Harper prohibits his MPs from talking to the press. Of course the media whines about that and completely ignores the fact that they brought it on themselves. It is good to see they have found a new target. Edited May 6, 2011 by TimG

[kimmy]

I think the media is being truly unfair. They don't go after all the Conservative backbenchers looking for interviews, trying to trip-up inexperienced caucus members, so why do it to the NDP?

That happened all the time to Reform and Canadian Alliance MPs when they were the new kids on the block. Why would the NDP be any different?

"Our new MPs aren't speaking to the media until they've had media training and French lessons" might have a friendlier spin than "the muzzle", but it's still a muzzle, right? The difference is that in this case, there's an implied promise that they get to talk to the media, eventually.

We all know that many of these people, who at the beginning of the election didn't think they had a shot in hell, have never been interviewed by the press before and probably don't know what to expect or how to answer questions when they don't have answers readily available. It would be the same situation with any middle-aged backbencher from the middle of nowhere in any party. Let the NDP train their new MPs and teach them the ropes before they're fed to the wolves. I think this early criticism is pretty ridiculous.

If you think the interest in the NDP newbs is different from how the media treated the Reform and Alliance MPs when they first got to Ottawa, I think you have a short memory.

-k

[cybercoma]

If you weren't ok with the the media doing it to the CPC, why are you ok with them doing it to the NDP?

[cybercoma]

I remember them doing it to the Reform members. Preston Manning had his hands full with some winners in his caucus, but he also promised that his MPs would have the freedom to vote however they chose. In that case, the individual MPs' decisions become very important. That came to a halt pretty quickly when he realized that those decisions would destroy the party.

[kimmy]

I watched on CBC, and didn't really have any complaints this year. I mean, I got the hunch that Peter Mansbridge sure wasn't exactly a happy guy, but I don't think there was anything in the coverage that really struck me as bias.

Watching this year's election coverage made me think back to when I was still in highschool, watching election coverage on TV in Ottawa. They had a group of big-heads from Toronto, and another group of big-heads from Montreal, all sitting around talking about the Quebec results. Roger Gibbins was also on the panel, as Token Western Guy, but I think he was probably asleep or bored out of his mind or something. Mansbridge led the Toronto and Montreal big-heads in a discussion about the Quebec results. Then after a commercial break he says "The polls have closed in Western Canada, and to viewers who are just joining us, we have a Liberal majority government." And then they resumed talking about the Quebec Question, completely oblivious as Roger Gibbins napped and large swaths of the map behind them turned green. It was completely infuriating to watch.

What a change from then to now.

Terry Milewski

The one moment I thought was kind of weird on Monday was when Terry Milewski interviewed the Conservative strategist. The strategist hedged when Terry asked him about a majority, and Terry would not let it go.

"Why aren't you willing to say you have a majority?"

"It's still up in the air."

"Well right now our board has 160 Conservatives. Why won't you call it a majority?"

"Because all the votes aren't counted."

"Ok, how about now?"

"Not yet."

"Are you sure?"

"Nope."

"Come on, say majority."

"Nope."

This went on for, like, an uncomfortably long time. What I don't get is, moments earlier Peter Mansbridge and Evan Solomon had gone into detail explaining on Solomon's magic etch-a-sketch why they weren't prepared to declare a majority government. The 160 Conservatives on the board included a number of ridings where the leads were less than 100 votes. So, like, why was Terry Mileski badgering the strategist to declare a majority? Maybe Milewski should have badgered Mansbridge and Solomon to declare a majority, or got them to explain to him what they'd just explained to the viewer. It was just a really weird segment.

-k

[kimmy]

If you weren't ok with the the media doing it to the CPC, why are you ok with them doing it to the NDP?

It's not a matter of what I'm ok with. As Todd Bertuzzi would say, "It is what it is." To me, it shows that it's not about bias, it's about reporters trying to figure out an angle that's going to get them a scoop of some kind.

Reporters trying to land a "gotcha" moment at the expense of some hapless rookie MP probably isn't the kind of journalism that protects and preserves our democracy, but it's apparently how some of them are paying their rent.

I remember them doing it to the Reform members. Preston Manning had his hands full with some winners in his caucus, but he also promised that his MPs would have the freedom to vote however they chose. In that case, the individual MPs' decisions become very important. That came to a halt pretty quickly when he realized that those decisions would destroy the party.

And that logic might matter if you're looking for a reason why covering Reform newbs is more important than covering NDP newbs, but I really don't think the reporters are looking at it in that light. They just want a story. Putting that story in some great social context probably isn't really the first thing on their minds.

-k

[cybercoma]

Sorry, kimmy. That first passage you quoted wasn't aimed your way. Your post landed between as I was replying to TimG. I agree with your belief that the news is just looking for a story. Young, inexperienced politicians that managed to ride a wave of support for Layton right into a $158000/year position make good fodder.

[Bonam]

Sorry, kimmy. That first passage you quoted wasn't aimed your way. Your post landed between as I was replying to TimG. I agree with your belief that the news is just looking for a story. Young, inexperienced politicians that managed to ride a wave of support for Layton right into a $158000/year position make good fodder.

I kinda wish I ran as an NDP candidate in Quebec haha. Effortless cushy job for 4 years? I'll take it.

[cybercoma]

I wouldn't say effortless and cushy. But yeah, it was certainly quite a bit of luck on their parts.

Look at the scrutiny these people are under, though. For what? Being young? Treating some of these MPs like garbage for no other reason than being McGill students is unfair. If they're too young to be MPs then maybe they should change the age requirement. It's unfair, presumptuous and dirty. I would hate to be in their shoes because my inexperience would really show when I gave the networks some choice words that would play into their stereotype of young MPs.

Edited May 7, 2011 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

I wouldn't say effortless and cushy. But yeah, it was certainly quite a bit of luck on their parts.

Look at the scrutiny these people are under, though. For what? Being young? Treating some of these MPs like garbage for no other reason than being McGill students is unfair. If they're too young to be MPs then maybe they should change the age requirement. It's unfair, presumptuous and dirty. I would hate to be in their shoes because my inexperience would really show when I gave the networks some choice words that would play into their stereotype of young MPs.

So it takes a bit of a thick skin. Don't do anything too scandalous and you won't get kicked out. Not til the next election anyway. Personally, I think it's great that we can end up with such young MPs in Canada. In the US, being elected to congress really takes someone with a lot of prior personal influence, clout, and usually money. This last election certainly shows a strong contrast to that on our part.

I guess I can take this opportunity to stick it to the youth-haters out there. So many old geysers in threads just before the election saying the young shouldn't even have a chance to vote.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

It could turn out very badly for the NDP, this I'm willing to admit. However, I'm hopeful and a little bit excited to see what these young MPs will bring to the table as official opposition. I really can't wait for parliament to sit again.

Edited May 7, 2011 by cybercoma

[betsy]

Apparently some of these young MPs are surprisingly bright.

[betsy]

I do not agree. For years I read the Guardian. At that time it was the Manchester Guardian. I'm strong right. They are very strong left. And they brag about it. However, I really respect them, or at least them then. I haven't read them for some years now. Their editorial position, their op-eds etc were very left. But their news stories were very factual and insightful. And they kept it very obvious which was which.

Therefore, like Sun News, The Guardian is upfront about it. There's nothing wrong about that.

At least we are forwarned where they're coming from.

We, as the consumer, have the choice whether to still patronize the newspaper/show knowing they're right or left leaning.

It's different when a tax-funded network that's supposed to be unbiased and ethical source of information is nothing more than a Liberal propaganda machine - masquerading as the people's network!

Why should I - a rightwing - pay for a leftwing propaganda tool?

Edited May 7, 2011 by betsy

[Smallc]

is nothing more than a Liberal propaganda machine!

Citation needed.

[RNG]

It's different when a tax-funded network that's supposed to be unbiased and ethical source of information is nothing more than a Liberal propaganda machine - masquerading as the people's network!

Why should I - a rightwing - pay for a leftwing propaganda tool?

I agree entirely.

[betsy]

betsy, Ezra Levant is a sensationalising ring-wing entertainer. He has no credibility as a legitimate journalist. He's the news-world version of forum trolls.

Since that's the verdict of the left, therefore people should not be given the choice?

The left knows best what's best for us, isn't it? They just have to do the choosing for you.

That's democracy?

[betsy]

Translation: They won't let Ezra mouth off on the public airwaves any more, so Ezra continues his almost fetishistic hatred of the CBC.

Ezra is a moron. He's a very smart guy, but a moron nonetheless. He's burned every bridge every built for him, to the point that even most conservatives ignore him. He's an empty mouthpiece.

Betsy, here's some free advice. Instead of wasting time cementing your prejudices by being part of the choir that guys like Levant sing to, why not expand your horizons a little bit by, oh I don't know, reading someone who isn't just a mean-spirited attention-whoring malcontent.

My advice to you?

Close your eyes when you listen to Levant....and hear his points without prejudice. You and Cyber are both saying Levant-this-Levant-that. You automatically dismiss what he says because of who he is. Don't judge the book by its cover.

[betsy]

Betsy, have you not watched or read the news this week? It's bombarded with negative media attention about the newly-elected NDP MP's. I haven't read one positive article about their win, yet Harper's majority is getting nothing but praise. Surely out of 100 MP's there is a few good stories to tell, no? Where are they?

Whether or not you think this portrayal of the CPC vs. NDP is accurate ( as I'm sure many of this board believe it is) you can't possibly deny that the Harper majority has been very welcome by the MSM while the NDP has faced nothing but heavy criticism.

If your paranoid version of reality were true wouldn't all the rookie NDP stories be downplayed, if not outright buried? Wouldn't Harper's victory be presented with ominous overtones?

I'm seriously wondering if you ever actually read the news and see these biases that you are constantly complaining about or if you just get your opinions from Levant.

Prior to the election, practically most media were all bombing Harper. Journalist Ibbitson actually wrote an article confirming what some of us here are saying - he said the Press gallery hates Harper. I've posted that link somewhere. Craig Oliver tried to tackle him on his show, yet Ibbitson politely and very diplomatically stated he stand by what he said.

When it shows that the NDP was surging and might win a minority government (at this point there was no longer any hope for the Liberals), practically most of the newspapers - according to a call-in show on CPAC - suddenly endorsed Harper.

I guess with the prospect of NDP looming - the party which is corporation enemy #1 - corporation-run media just have to pray it's gonna be Harper who wins!

But I do agree with you that after the election, the attention had been riveted towards the NDP.

CTV Don Martin, surprisingly came out strongly ridiculing the Liberals. Yesterday on his show, he mentioned the Liberals whom he described as "the natural governing party." I wasn't sure whether there was sarcasm on that statement. However right after that he talked to Marcia McMillan and both talked about a coffee cup with Liberal logo on it.

Don Martin raised the cup to show it and said...."It's plastic! That's why it's Liberal." Sounds innocent enough, except McMillan admonished him by saying...."be nice Don. Be nice."

[cybercoma]

Apparently some of these young MPs are surprisingly bright.

Intelligence doesn't come with age. I would say that it's quite the opposite in fact. Being younger, they're probably more receptive to new ideas and more willing to compromise, rather than being set in their ways thinking their way is the only right way.

[cybercoma]

Since that's the verdict of the left, therefore people should not be given the choice?

The left knows best what's best for us, isn't it? They just have to do the choosing for you.

That's democracy?

This has nothing to do with left vs right. He's the right-wing version of Naomi Klein. He's an entertainer of sorts, rather than a credible source for information. If you want to make a point about something, you probably don't want to point to him as a reference because he's so slanted it makes it impossible to take what he says at face-value. The same could be said for Naomi. I don't care if you read him and enjoy him, but he's not someone I would refer to in order to support my points in an argument.

Edited May 7, 2011 by cybercoma

[betsy]

I think the media is being truly unfair. They don't go after all the Conservative backbenchers looking for interviews, trying to trip-up inexperienced caucus members, so why do it to the NDP? We all know that many of these people, who at the beginning of the election didn't think they had a shot in hell, have never been interviewed by the press before and probably don't know what to expect or how to answer questions when they don't have answers readily available. It would be the same situation with any middle-aged backbencher from the middle of nowhere in any party. Let the NDP train their new MPs and teach them the ropes before they're fed to the wolves. I think this early criticism is pretty ridiculous.

The media wouldn't be as unfair on these MPs as they were with Harper. Just as one post reveal, that Mansbridge - with this innuendo - was telling harper if he's going to be nice now.