Harper Responds to the Washington Times

[Black Dog]

Indeed. But can you blame me for wondering if somebody other than Harper might have gotten less suspicious-sounding headline?

Through the wonder of the "search" function we find:

CBC News: Martin says he never discussed sponsorship fund with key players.

CBC News: Martin says he's not weakening federalism

CBC News: Harper threat to minority rights, Martin says

CBC News: Tories aim for 'smaller' Canada, Martin says

CBC Ottawa - Quebecers' preoccupied by economy, says Martin

That's a few among the 5,030 results. Harper says get sus 3,300 hits.

That tells me the headline is only "suspicious" if you go in with the expectation of bias.

Let's pause to consider the difference between the headline the CBC uses, and the one I just created. First off, the CBC's headline is more assertive of the apology's authenticity, while the one I made up is more skeptical that he's actually. Secondly, the headline I made up uses the word "blunder", which even Scott Reid acknowledges it was. The CBC headline is far less judgmental of that.

Shit. What a pointless excercise. "Says" is not a word that is generally associated with authenticity. It just means someone said something. Now, if the word was "claims" or "alleges", then you might have a case.

...which has, well, first off the "says", secondly the semi-"scare quotes", and thirdly the mention of US conservatives-- which neither Harper nor the column by Basham brought into it-- is a reminder to the reader of what Harper wishes to avoid being associated with.

I think I've dealt with the "says".

The scare quotes, well, quotes can be used to punch up keyphrases that would otherwise sound weird in straight text.

And the mention of U.S. conservatives probably came from a) the fact that Basham works for the conservative Cato institute, the fact the initial column wa sin the right-wing washington times and c) from the following excerpt:

If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush's new best friend...

Arguably. As I said earlier, I think the content is fair but I'm skeptical of the tone. Have CPC supporters become so skeptical of the CBC's reportage of the Conservatives that they read too much into things? Entirely possible. It's quite likely that one could go through the CBC website and find articles about the Liberals and find them to have a negative tone for the same reasons I sense this one to be negative. It's very possible.

How one reads the tone of a piece is influenced by their own biases. You are aware of the prexisiting bias by the CBC against Harper, therefore you expect it to be there. If you didn't know better, you'd probably shrug and move on.

[kimmy]

Shit. What a pointless excercise. "Says" is not a word that is generally associated with authenticity. It just means someone said something. Now, if the word was "claims" or "alleges", then you might have a case.

You're right: "says" is not generally associated with authenticity. I think some of the headlines you've provided yourself are good examples of how "says" can suggest different things in different situations, and the headlines you presented could be written in completely equivalent ways to create different initial impressions. Using search functions to churn out instances of different words doesn't provide context or subtext, and it doesn't tell me how often each leader received more emphatic sounding headlines.

Did you really feel my fictional headline for the Scott Reid article was pointless? I think it demonstrated how two completely accurate headlines could set different tones for the article that follows. I haven't gone to the bother of doing a thorough study of whether the CBC consistently uses more positive-sounding headlines for one party or the other... I just assert that equivalent content can be presented in ways that provide the reader with a different tone and a different emotional reaction to the content. I don't claim the CBC does this consistently, or knowingly, I just claim that it's possible to do so.

How one reads the tone of a piece is influenced by their own biases. You are aware of the prexisiting bias by the CBC against Harper, therefore you expect it to be there. If you didn't know better, you'd probably shrug and move on.

Not necessarily.

The decision to reference "US conservatives" in the headline, for instance, is defensible, as you argue. But I suggested an equally accurate headline that omits reference to US conservatives. If you were Stephen Harper's PR director and you had an opportunity to choose which headline the story would run under, your choice would be obvious. If you were Paul Martin's PR director, your choice would also be obvious. There's an editorial decision implicit in the headline, and in this instance it's one that was more favorable to the Liberals than the Conservatives. Now, I don't claim that this is a regular pattern of behavior. But we were debating whether August's feeling about the tone of the article had any merit. I think August's feeling does have some merit.

-k

[Black Dog]

I just assert that equivalent content can be presented in ways that provide the reader with a different tone and a different emotional reaction to the content.

Gee thanks, but I took that course already.

But I suggested an equally accurate headline that omits reference to US conservatives.

Harper used the term "American conservative politicians".

But we were debating whether August's feeling about the tone of the article had any merit. I think August's feeling does have some merit.

And I think you're engaging in a hair-splitting excersise based on a pre-existing expectation of bias.

[cybercoma]

Did anyone actually read the letter? It saya just what the Americans want to hear. Harper supported the "removal" of Saddam but he will not send troops. Harper wants to address climate change through new technologies and energy conservation.

That means, that he would have joined the "coalition" to attack Iraq but he won't send troops now that Canadians will not elect him if he wants to do that.

That means that he is deeply in the pockets of the energy industries and will do nothing to ameliorate the looming climatic disaster. Who knows that new technologies will be devaloped - they certainly will not in the time span that they will be needed. Conservation is a joke considering the magnitude of the problem.

The Kyoto part of his letter must have been vetted by Cheney.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would this be the same "looming climactic disaster" as of 30 years ago?

And if these new technologies are the same ones that resulted in the United States having a better record on reducing CO2 emissions, what's wrong with that?

[err]

Excellent Harper Speech Condensed

Some lefty Canadians don't like the deal with the $5 Billion in software lumber taxes, but we'd like to smooth that over... So maybe we'll threaten to sell our lumber to China too if the problem continues for too many more years...

I loved the part where Harper says "too bad you didn't find any WMD's".... It's a nice way of saying "Too bad you got caught with your pants down", but we agree with what you did... However, due to the fact that the majority of the public agree with Liberal values, we have to pretend we do to get elected, and will have to say that we can't send troops.

I don't support Kyoto, but if Dick Cheyney has a better plan, we'll agree to that....

We plan to invoke the "notwithstanding clause" to take away rights from homos, who our party doesn't like either....

We have some minute differences with a very few American conservatives, but not many... because we're neo-cons too...... Don't worry... we'll bend over for you...

[justcrowing]

Condensed in your own words - what a crock!!

[BubberMiley]

What kind of ball-less leader says he supports a war but won't send troops? Under Harper, Canada wouldn't be out of the Coalition of the Willing on principle, just on cowardice.

[The Honest Politician]

Did I read correctly? HE wants to revive the same sex marriage debate?

Will some one please, please, pleeeeeeeeaaase, kill me if that issue is brought to the forefront again.

Let it go. For god sakes please let it go.

Is Harper a Liberal? He is beginning to sound more like them everyday.

Atleast he talks like a Liberal everytime someone questions or suggests just how far right he leans. Like in the article.

Harper is as far right as you can get. I don't believe or trust the man.

[justcrowing]

Did I read correctly? HE wants to revive the same sex marriage debate?

Will some one please, please, pleeeeeeeeaaase, kill me if that issue is brought to the forefront again.

Let it go. For god sakes please let it go.

Is Harper a Liberal? He is beginning to sound more like them everyday.

Atleast he talks like a Liberal everytime someone questions or suggests just how far right he leans. Like in the article.

Harper is as far right as you can get. I don't believe or trust the man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is Martin who is bringing the SSM topic into the election. Makes absolutely no sense, except in that Martin figures he can score a few brownie cookies - the laws are in place - game over and move on.

[The Honest Politician]

It is Martin who is bringing the SSM topic into the election.  Makes absolutely no sense, except in that Martin figures he can score a few brownie cookies -  the laws are in place - game over and move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go read the article. Harper says he will revisit the SSM debate. I don't want to hear it again.

[Montgomery Burns]

I saw Patrick Basham on TV today. Regarding the op-ed he wrote for the Washington Times, he said he had received good feedback from Canadian leftwingers and negative feedback from Canadian rightwingers.

[tml12]

What kind of ball-less leader says he supports a war but won't send troops? Under Harper, Canada wouldn't be out of the Coalition of the Willing on principle, just on cowardice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canada should be for the war NOW based on the needs NOW of the Iraqi people. Wake up we are soon to be in 2006, not in 2003.

Why didn't we join the waw then??? Ask Montgomery Burns...

[err]

It is Martin who is bringing the SSM topic into the election.  Makes absolutely no sense, except in that Martin figures he can score a few brownie cookies -  the laws are in place - game over and move on.

Martin's government already has it in law... It is the Harper rednecks that want to use the notwithstanding clause.... to repeal that right of Canadian homosexuals.... Harper brought it up on the first day of the election campaign..... He wrote about it in his letter to the Washington Times.... but he didn't spell out that he'd have to use the "notwithstanding" clause....

[kimmy]

And I think you're engaging in a hair-splitting excersise based on a pre-existing expectation of bias.

Well, I doubt that August would have asked the question had the article come from CTV or CanWest, so I suppose the expectation of bias is a factor.

But, why wouldn't people have the expectation of bias? I mean, based on observed behavior, why wouldn't people expect to find bias in CBC articles?

-k

[shoop]

Actually he said Canada wouldn't send troops because the Liberal-decimated military lacked the ability to undertake such a massive operation.

What kind of ball-less leader says he supports a war but won't send troops? Under Harper, Canada wouldn't be out of the Coalition of the Willing on principle, just on cowardice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[BubberMiley]

He also said that he would increase funding to the military. In any case, most of the coalition of the willing involves countries making a symbolic effort of a few troops (or knitting a few booties for the American soldiers). Canada could certainly afford a few troops, but obviously Harper feels that would be politically damaging. Such a brave leader.

[err]

Actually he said Canada wouldn't send troops because the Liberal-decimated military lacked the ability to undertake such a massive operation.

What kind of ball-less leader says he supports a war but won't send troops? Under Harper, Canada wouldn't be out of the Coalition of the Willing on principle, just on cowardice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"because the Liberal-decimated military lacked the ability to undertake such a massive operation..."

Did the newspaper just not print this part... or is it a fictional addition to Harper's words, like many of your other CPC arguments....

[normanchateau]

Martin's government already has it in law... It is the Harper rednecks that want to use the notwithstanding clause.... to repeal that right of Canadian homosexuals.... Harper brought it up on the first day of the election campaign..... He wrote about it in his letter to the Washington Times.... but he didn't spell out that he'd have to use the "notwithstanding" clause....

George Bush and Stephen Harper, proud men who chose heterosexuality, standing tall and moral, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Arctic to the Mexican border, to protect Americans and Canadians from the North American homo threat.

[shoop]

Actually it was on the National last night. Maybe you just chose to ignore it. I am not going to pay to buy you the transcript biotch...

Care to point out any of my *fictional* CPC arguments.

Accusing posters of lying without support is against the rules of the board.

"because the Liberal-decimated military lacked the ability to undertake such a massive operation..." 

Did the newspaper just not print this part... or is it a fictional addition to Harper's words, like many of your other CPC arguments....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Care to point out any of my *fictional* CPC arguments.

Accusing posters of lying without support is against the rules of the board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about on December 10th when you said that an ounce is still a ton of weed?

The law, as it currently stands, permits authorities to jail people for up to six months for possession of less than an ounce and Stephen Harper favours that law. :angry:

[apollo19]

What kind of ball-less leader says he supports a war but won't send troops? Under Harper, Canada wouldn't be out of the Coalition of the Willing on principle, just on cowardice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhh, you know Canada could not have gone. We had no way of getting our troops there, we has insufficient troops due to the main role in Afghanistan, and our troops were generally ill-equipped (when did they get desert camoflauge?). If Canada had gone, there was no doubt they would have recieved casualties as a result of having insufficient equipment to do the job for them -- it wasnt peacekeeping and patrolling like Afghanistan, it was an actual invasion. That required lots of troops to enter the country at once and make the takeover quick, which Canada could not have done.

[Black Dog]

Uhh, you know Canada could not have gone. We had no way of getting our troops there, we has insufficient troops due to the main role in Afghanistan, and our troops were generally ill-equipped (when did they get desert camoflauge?). If Canada had gone, there was no doubt they would have recieved casualties as a result of having insufficient equipment to do the job for them -- it wasnt peacekeeping and patrolling like Afghanistan, it was an actual invasion. That required lots of troops to enter the country at once and make the takeover quick, which Canada could not have done.

So, basically, having a dilapitated military has a huge upside

[normanchateau]

What kind of ball-less leader says he supports a war but won't send troops? Under Harper, Canada wouldn't be out of the Coalition of the Willing on principle, just on cowardice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhh, you know Canada could not have gone. We had no way of getting our troops there, we has insufficient troops

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Below is a partial list of some of the countries who not only joined the Coalition of the Willing, but actually sent troops there:

Dominican Republic

Honduras

Tonga

Moldova

Fiji also deployed 240 troops to Iraq but they are under a UN banner and therefore not officially part of the coalition.

Here's the link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...t_coalition.htm

Do you seriously believe that Canada is militarily weaker and less capable of getting our troops to Iraq than Tonga, Moldova, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Fiji?

[shoop]

Relative to population and GNP I actually wouldn't doubt if Honduras was more able than we are. (Oh, sorry to drop in actual knowledge of the situation Normie.)

Below is a partial list of some of the countries who not only joined the Coalition of the Willing, but actually sent troops there:

Dominican Republic

Honduras

Tonga

Moldova

Fiji also deployed 240 troops to Iraq but they are under a UN banner and therefore not officially part of the coalition.

Here's the link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...t_coalition.htm

Do you seriously believe that Canada is militarily weaker and less capable of getting our troops to Iraq than Tonga, Moldova, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Fiji? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Relative to population and GNP I actually wouldn't doubt if Honduras was more able than we are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shoopie, your argument makes the assumption that calculating the appropriate number of troops to deploy in Iraq is somehow done relative to population or GNP. Countries sent as few or as many troops, relative to population and GNP, as they wanted to. Some countries sent thousands, some sent hundreds, some sent a token handful. The US welcomed any number, even those under 100. Canada could have chosen to send a token number, but Canada preferred not to.