Incredible media bias exposed in Winnipeg!

[gerryhatrick]

T-minus 2 weeks. Winnipeg media and the 2006 election.

A look at Winnipeg’s two daily papers during the last two weeks of the election.

Everyday since the last English language debate until the day of the election I purchased a Free Press and a Winnipeg Sun. That’s fourteen days, twenty-eight papers.

I analyzed four items in the papers – opinion/editorial pieces, editorial page cartoons, letters to the editor, and front pages.

I defined two polarized categories to apply against these items:

“Pro-Liberal/anti-Conservative” (PL/AC) and “Pro-Conservative/anti-Liberal” (PC/AL).

I took great care to not allow any personal political leaning interfere with catagory assignement. As mentioned, with an event so polarizing it was easy to categorize items without fear of mistake due to subjective elements.

The results were extraordinary.

The Opinion/Editorial ratio was about 11-1 in favor of pro-Conservative/anti-Liberal. The actual numbers were 42 PC/AL vs. only 3 PL/AC op/ed pieces. It’s worth noting that The Sun represented 32 of those 42 PC/AL pieces.

Editorial page comics were 15 to 0 in favor of PC/AL.

Letters to the editor were 29 to 11 in favor of PC/AL. Snarky editor replies were not factored in for catagory determination of Sun letters.

http://www.allpoliticsnow.com/

A guy would have to look at the papers themselves. I know the Sun is rightwing, but the Free Press also?

These numbers are damning to say the least.

[cybercoma]

damning? seriously?

[shoop]

Gerrry has only been around for three posts but they are three great ones.

1. Telling people to *cut the B.S.*.

2. Accusing people who think the CBC has a bias as being tinfoilhatish?

3. A post to a random Web site with no *about* page or any other information on those running the page as evidence of daming and incredible media bias.

damning? seriously?

[cybercoma]

Gerrry has only been around for three posts but they are three great ones.

1. Telling people to *cut the B.S.*.

2. Accusing people who think the CBC has a bias as being tinfoilhatish?

3. A post to a random Web site with no *about* page or any other information on those running the page as evidence of daming and incredible media bias.

damning? seriously?

thanks for the heads up.

*tightens the tinfoil hat*

[gerryhatrick]

Gerrry has only been around for three posts but they are three great ones.

1. Telling people to *cut the B.S.*.

Lie.

2. Accusing people who think the CBC has a bias as being tinfoilhatish?

True.

3. A post to a random Web site with no *about* page or any other information on those running the page as evidence of daming and incredible media bias.

So?

shoop, you've been following me around since I showed up. I appreciate you have different opinions than me, but do yourself the honor of not engaging in ad hom. I've had to correct you twice already in terms of false accusations you've made against me. Please try to contain your emotion in the face of my opinions and debate in good faith and with good nature. thx.

[shoop]

I've had to correct you twice already in terms of false accusations you've made against me.

Hmmm, you said "After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while?"

And my talking about you saying "Telling people to *cut the BS*" was a false accusation?

Tinfoilhat wearer heal thy self.

[gerryhatrick]

Hmmm, you said "After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while?"

And my talking about you saying "Telling people to *cut the BS*" was a false accusation?

Tinfoilhat wearer heal thy self.

Ha ha, quite so! In fact, I did label your "supposed reasons" that Frank Mckenna didn't pursue the Liberal leadership as BS akin to the political BS we've had to put up with all election.

To be exact though, you claimed I was "telling people to cut the BS". In truth, all I said is I'm tired of the BS, and it would be in reference to your particular "supposed reasons" anyway, and you're just one person, not people.

thx.

[shoop]

Please explain how the nuanced difference between "looking for balance in his life" (my words) and "seeking to avoid imbalancing his life" (your words) illustrates how I am proffering political BS? I am guessing you don't claim to be proferring BS yourself.

Ha ha, quite so! In fact, I did label your "supposed reasons" that Frank Mckenna didn't pursue the Liberal leadership as BS akin to the political BS we've had to put up with all election.

[gerryhatrick]

T-minus 2 weeks. Winnipeg media and the 2006 election.

A look at Winnipeg’s two daily papers during the last two weeks of the election.

Everyday since the last English language debate until the day of the election I purchased a Free Press and a Winnipeg Sun. That’s fourteen days, twenty-eight papers.

I analyzed four items in the papers – opinion/editorial pieces, editorial page cartoons, letters to the editor, and front pages.

I defined two polarized categories to apply against these items:

“Pro-Liberal/anti-Conservative” (PL/AC) and “Pro-Conservative/anti-Liberal” (PC/AL).

I took great care to not allow any personal political leaning interfere with catagory assignement. As mentioned, with an event so polarizing it was easy to categorize items without fear of mistake due to subjective elements.

The results were extraordinary.

The Opinion/Editorial ratio was about 11-1 in favor of pro-Conservative/anti-Liberal. The actual numbers were 42 PC/AL vs. only 3 PL/AC op/ed pieces. It’s worth noting that The Sun represented 32 of those 42 PC/AL pieces.

Editorial page comics were 15 to 0 in favor of PC/AL.

Letters to the editor were 29 to 11 in favor of PC/AL. Snarky editor replies were not factored in for catagory determination of Sun letters.

http://www.allpoliticsnow.com/

A guy would have to look at the papers themselves. I know the Sun is rightwing, but the Free Press also?

These numbers are damning to say the least.

This is this topic. I've answered you, Mr. shoop, about the Frank McKenna question in the appropriate topic.

[shoop]

Please answer my question.

Please explain how the nuanced difference between "looking for balance in his life" (my words) and "seeking to avoid imbalancing his life" (your words) illustrates how I am proffering political BS? I am guessing you don't claim to be proferring BS yourself.

PS, any information on who runs this site you keep referring to?

This is this topic. I've answered you, Mr. shoop, about the Frank McKenna question in the appropriate topic.

[gerryhatrick]

Please answer my question.

It is clearly answered here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...opic=4986&st=45

Why continue to troll for the same answer in this topic?

edit: test to see if edit inserts edit note.

[shoop]

I was asking about who runs the site you started this thread with. Losing track of all the questions you are avoiding gerry?

It is clearly answered here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...opic=4986&st=45

Why continue to troll for the same answer in this topic?

[gerryhatrick]

I was asking about who runs the site you started this thread with. Losing track of all the questions you are avoiding gerry?

Did you not also ask about Frank McKenna? Don't pretend that you haven't steered off topic.

Please do not accuse me of "avoiding" questions anymore. I do not avoid anything. Such accusations - which you've repeatedly made - are only intended to be argumentative. I direct you to the forum rules.

The answer to your last question is I do not know.

[geoffrey]

Whats the big deal? Editorial staff obviously have bias, this is expected and happens in all papers...

I honestly don't see the deal.

[Hicksey]

I've had to correct you twice already in terms of false accusations you've made against me.

Hmmm, you said "After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while?"

And my talking about you saying "Telling people to *cut the BS*" was a false accusation?

Tinfoilhat wearer heal thy self.

Yes, shoop is a proud soldier in the fight against evil.

And the last I checked the person who most needs to be reminded to cut the BS is Paul Martin.

[tml12]

I've had to correct you twice already in terms of false accusations you've made against me.

Hmmm, you said "After this election I'm a little tired of BS. Can we not all just be honest for a little while?"

And my talking about you saying "Telling people to *cut the BS*" was a false accusation?

Tinfoilhat wearer heal thy self.

Yes, shoop is a proud soldier in the fight against evil.

And the last I checked the person who most needs to be reminded to cut the BS is Paul Martin.

Paul who?

[gerryhatrick]

Whats the big deal? Editorial staff obviously have bias, this is expected and happens in all papers...

I honestly don't see the deal.

I agree with your point about editorial staff, but check out his numbers. 30+ from one paper in 14 days???

Editorials are editorials, but shouldn't there be even some small attempt at balance from the opinion pieces? It was an election, after all. 42 to 3! That's beyond editorial bias, that's institutionalized bias.

[wellandboy]

In the City of Welland population 48,000, the local paper held a similar bias for the incumbant Liberal MP, both editorially and it's selection of Letters to the Editor. Happy, No. When I cancelled my subscription I felt much better.

[cybercoma]

Perhaps the Pro-Conservative/Anti-Liberal crowd were more articulate.

[sage]

What could someone possibly come up with for a pro-Liberal argument this campaign? I mean they ran the worst campaign this country has seen in decades.

And you're surprised that editors were more favourable of the Tories? Have you read MacLean's lately? Its an obviously more liberal friendly publication than say the National Post, and yet the vast majority of articles on the election concerned the poor performance of the Liberals.

I would suggest that the pro-Tory commentary transcends particular publications, at least in this election.

Before the #'s mean anything they have to be crossreferenced with something. What did these papers do last election? What did the Globe and Mail do this election?

[tml12]

What could someone possibly come up with for a pro-Liberal argument this campaign? I mean they ran the worst campaign this country has seen in decades.

And you're surprised that editors were more favourable of the Tories? Have you read MacLean's lately? Its an obviously more liberal friendly publication than say the National Post, and yet the vast majority of articles on the election concerned the poor performance of the Liberals.

I would suggest that the pro-Tory commentary transcends particular publications, at least in this election.

Before the #'s mean anything they have to be crossreferenced with something. What did these papers do last election? What did the Globe and Mail do this election?

I actually think the Liberals had more to gain from losing than winning this election and I think the liberal MSM recognized this.

As long as Martin was around, the old Chretien/Martin wounds would still be strong. A Liberal loss meant no more Martin and the chance for the Liberal Party to go back to its historical status as the most united party in Canada.

This result doesn't hurt Canada's left, it just sidelines their agenda for awhile. This is why, with the spotlight on Harper now, he needs to act "prime-ministerial" and do the best he can to shore up his support in urban areas.

[Wilber]

Media has bias. Wow, that's news. Who is ALL POLOTICS NOW and what kind of bius might they have?

[Bryan]

As someone who lives in Winnipeg, I read the Free Press almost everyday throughout the campaign. Without question, the paper has a decidedly left-wing slant. They really did try to favor the Liberals wherever they could, but there just wasn't much nice to say. The last 10 days of the campaign, the headlines were consistantly of the "Tory lead continues to shrink" variety.

[Hicksey]

I have no problem with media bias so long as they admit it.

I find Fox's fair and balanced as repugnant as the CBC's claims that they are objective.

Just come clean.

One thing all networks need to do is remove the editorializing from their news rooms. News should be reported as is. If you want to have an op-ed show about current events, that's fine. Just keep the editorials out of the newsroom.

[tml12]

I have no problem with media bias so long as they admit it.

I find Fox's fair and balanced as repugnant as the CBC's claims that they are objective.

Just come clean.

One thing all networks need to do is remove the editorializing from their news rooms. News should be reported as is. If you want to have an op-ed show about current events, that's fine. Just keep the editorials out of the newsroom.

I get a kick out of the "rise in China" segments on CBC. As a leftist network that I am sure esposes Chinese communist values over free-market American ones, the CBC can't wait for China to rise in order to (they hope) stem the dominance of American culture on our values.

What CBC doesn't understand is that your average Canadian would rather watch "The Simpsons" than most Canadian shows. In fact, last year in the top 20 most watched shows, "Corner Gas" was the only Canadian scripted one there. (Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/show...50411/20050411)

Somebody get the Liberal protectionist Opposition on this one right away...