Now our PM is restricting information from his gov't.

BubberMiley · March 26, 2006

Betsy's use of the happy face make her weak arguments much more compelling.

betsy · March 26, 2006

Like the terribly slanted Liberal-leaning CBC for example? Globe and Mail?

As I said betsy, maybe they just allow the MP's to speak to SunMedia and National Post, would that be OK with you?

Four posts in a row and you're nowhere nearer to answering or seemingly even understanding the issue. You believe the media is the enemy...that the CBC is "terribly slanted" for example. I got the latest on the Gomery inquiry day after day on CBC radio. Guess they didn't get the memo, oh well. It's not really the point anyway, and it's immature and short-sighted to focus on it. The media is the vehicle for accountability. You conveniently claim that it's "liberal" as a way of throwing support behind Harpers decisions. It doesn't stand up betsy, and I've demonstrated that by suggesting he just allow SunMedia and National Post. Throw in CanWest. We can have a pissing contest over the media if you want, but in the end there's no excuse for what Harper has done.

There's no excuse for what he's done...that's according to you.

You are deliberately reading far more into this memo from Harper, and of course we know why.

As I've compared it to a workplace, this is about team-play.

Putting myself into harper's shoes, I'd do the same thing! We are a small minority government. We had seen how the NDP and the Liberals tried to perpetuate this Emmerson thing...with the NDP going as far as to organize a rally, weeks after the incident. Radio talk guys from different parts of Canada had said that the Emmerson scandal was hardly mentioned anymore after one week!

The other parties are nit-picking and fault-finding....not to mention most media who supports them!

Any comment are either taken out of context or magnified or blown out of proportions!

Just like that Conservative guy who criticised Emmerson (forgot how he worded his criticism of it). He was on tv and they were putting words in his mouth...and he had to fight his way to butt in to correct them "I didn't mean it that way..." Of course at the end of the segment, who had the last words??? Who managed to form a wrong or misleading impression???

Let's face it. Although media is a tool for accountability....the values had changed dramatically now that the motivating factor that drives is SELF-MOTIVATION. Only a handful can truly say that they are neutral and that partisanship has nothing to do with it!

The media ought to face accountability too! Some of them had allowed themselves to become propaganda machines. Some blatanly twist facts. Just look at that famous anchorman in the US who ended up tarnishing his reputation for that false segment on Bush! It's a good thing someone did a check up on that fact and blew the whistle...otherwise, the public...in its unquestioning trust of the media...would've gobbled up that lie!

sharkman · March 26, 2006

That's the best you could do Bubber? Weak argument and smiley faces? Pay them no mind Bestie. They obviously prefer the loose cannons of the old Liberal government, shooting their mouths off at the Americans.

And Gerry, the media SHOULD be the vehicle for accountability, but when they saw little wrong with the Liberals all those years, something smells. When Belinda crossed over, they didn't breathlessly report every little strategy that the recall Belinda people were doing in her riding. In Vancouver, they have been doing that for an entire month now. And the first thing they did when a ferry sunk off the B.C. coast was blame the Liberal gov(actually a conservative gov that the media and unions here detest) . That and other ferries of its vintage have been sailing under all kinds of governments for 40 years, but they blame Gordon Campbell, never a word about over half a billion the NDP under Clark misspent on so called 'fast cat' ferries that had to be retired after 2 years or so.

Anyway, with a media like this, it's no wonder Harper wants to be cautious. The media would love to report embarrassing things about the Tories. Love it.

gerryhatrick · March 26, 2006

You are deliberately reading far more into this memo from Harper, and of course we know why.

How have I done that? Of course, I have not.

All PM's have attempted to control the message, I understand that. This goes further than any have before. Telling your MP's that letters to the editor must be vetted is astounding.

Your unwillingness to admit even the least amount of displeasure belies your fear that any critisism of Harper will harm him thus you stand behind him 100% in this and all matters.

Let's face it. Although media is a tool for accountability....the values had changed dramatically now that the motivating factor that drives is SELF-MOTIVATION. Only a handful can truly say that they are neutral and that partisanship has nothing to do with it!

You are correct, large portions of the media are owned and/or published by Conservative partisans.

I only complain about it out when a partisan Conservative claims that the media is all "liberal", which is often. It's a common ploy, one we see constantly down South. Currently rightwing pundits are blaming the media for the state of Iraq.

Stop blaming the media for Harpers missteps. Paul Martin was roasted during his tenure, and no doubt you were still crying about liberal media then.

BubberMiley · March 26, 2006

Just look at that famous anchorman in the US who ended up tarnishing his reputation for that false segment on Bush! It's a good thing someone did a check up on that fact and blew the whistle...otherwise, the public...in its unquestioning trust of the media...would've gobbled up that lie!

Are you talking about how Dan Rather was fed fake documents by the Repubicans in an attempt to take away any legitimacy of true reports of Bush's desertion in the National Guard?

betsy · March 26, 2006

Just look at that famous anchorman in the US who ended up tarnishing his reputation for that false segment on Bush! It's a good thing someone did a check up on that fact and blew the whistle...otherwise, the public...in its unquestioning trust of the media...would've gobbled up that lie!

Are you talking about how Dan Rather was fed fake documents by the Repubicans in an attempt to take away any legitimacy of true reports of Bush's desertion in the National Guard?

Yes, it is about Dan Rather. I don't know anything about any republicans having fed him the documents....

care to support your statement on that?

ANYWAY, whether whoever or whatever fed him anything is not the point!

Rather had the responsiblity to check out the authenticity of his evidence....especially when what you'll deliver will wreck a person's character and reputation.

Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect

CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service

By Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01

CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep15.html

betsy · March 26, 2006

You are correct, large portions of the media are owned and/or published by Conservative partisans.
I only complain about it out when a partisan Conservative claims that the media is all "liberal", which is often. It's a common ploy, one we see constantly down South. Currently rightwing pundits are blaming the media for the state of Iraq.

Stop blaming the media for Harpers missteps. Paul Martin was roasted during his tenure, and no doubt you were still crying about liberal media then.

Just like a common ploy for ardent Liberal supporters to ignore about the Liberals' strings of wrongdoings...and to twist facts around to suit their arguments?

Paul Martin was ROASTED during his tenure??? Can you cite some examples? Aside from the Adscam scandal! Of course, whether you like it or not, that scandal was just too hard to sweep under the floor...even for the partisan media!

BubberMiley · March 27, 2006

Rather had the responsiblity to check out the authenticity of his evidence....especially when what you'll deliver will wreck a person's character and reputation.

The fake documents diverted attention away from the fact that Bush was AWOL from the national guard for nearly a year. So it actually helped Bush's reputation because it turned out he didn't have to answer for his sketchy military record.

betsy · March 27, 2006

Rather had the responsiblity to check out the authenticity of his evidence....especially when what you'll deliver will wreck a person's character and reputation.

The fake documents diverted attention away from the fact that Bush was AWOL from the national guard for nearly a year. So it actually helped Bush's reputation because it turned out he didn't have to answer for his sketchy military record.

Stick to the issue!

We're not discussing whether Bush was AWOL or a Drag Queen or etc..,

We're talking about media, which according to Gerry, is the vehicle of accountability.

Whether what you say about Bush is true or not, is moot.

Dan Rather still had the same responsibility to check the authenticity of this partricular evidence.

BubberMiley · March 27, 2006

Stick to the issue!

You're the one who brought up Dan Rather, not me.

gerryhatrick · March 27, 2006

Stick to the issue!

This is a pretty funny comment coming from you. Look at your last couple of posts. Are we talking about Dan Rather now, or about Liberals wrongdoings being ignored?

What happened to your accusation of me deliberately reading more into this Harper fiasco than should be? I called you on it, and you decided Dan Rather was a better discussion.

You lie about Dan Rather anyway. It wasn't a "false segment". Regardless of who fed him documents, he obviously represented them in good faith. And the story stands without the documents, that's the stupid thing about it all.

But hey betsy, let's talk about Dan Rather some more! You've been kicked bad on everything else, maybe you can salvage something by bashing Dan Rather.

betsy · March 27, 2006

Stick to the issue!

You're the one who brought up Dan Rather, not me.

As an example of an irresponsible media (to say the least), being high-profile at that, supposed to be the vehicle for accountability.

betsy · March 27, 2006

Stick to the issue!

This is a pretty funny comment coming from you. Look at your last couple of posts. Are we talking about Dan Rather now, or about Liberals wrongdoings being ignored?

Well, I don't know. You tell me.

I thought you wanted to talk aout this:

"What I want to know is this:

What happens to detainees our soldiers capture?

Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?"

betsy · March 27, 2006

What happened to your accusation of me deliberately reading more into this Harper fiasco than should be? I called you on it, and you decided Dan Rather was a better discussion.

Dan Rather was officially named by Bubber. And pointedly asked me about whether I referred to him.

Besides, he's part of my answer to your statement :

"The media is the vehicle for accountability. "

As to your first question above....yes, I know you called me on it. But there's no need to answer you, since that part had already been explained to you in the previous post. Read!

betsy · March 27, 2006

You lie about Dan Rather anyway. It wasn't a "false segment". Regardless of who fed him documents, he obviously represented them in good faith. And the story stands without the documents, that's the stupid thing about it all.

Well that's your opinion. Now prove that it's a lie!

If we just keep taking people's word for everything they say...especially a nice rebuttal such as "You lie!" with no other supporting arguments as to how....we wouldn't be having a forum, would we now?

We'll just have a name-calling site! Or a kiddie YES! NO! debacle.

gerryhatrick · March 27, 2006

You lie about Dan Rather anyway. It wasn't a "false segment". Regardless of who fed him documents, he obviously represented them in good faith. And the story stands without the documents, that's the stupid thing about it all.

Well that's your opinion. Now prove that it's a lie!

It's not neccessary for me to prove it's a lie. It's a self-evident lie because you're making a statement of fact with no proof. There were false documents, but the segment itself has never been shown to be false.

I can call you a child-molester. You can say "you lie". I then ask you to prove it's a lie. We're at the same place.

You're confused about the topic betsy. It's not about detainees, that was just an example (like your Dan Rather thing).

The topic is about the muzzling of MP's by Stephen Harper.... not allowing them to speak about anything but the five "priorities" or write letters to the editor without his approval.

NOW they're talking about keeping the schedule of Cabinet meetings secret so his Ministers don't have to answer questions!

Strong backbone, huh betsy?

BubberMiley · March 27, 2006

Dan Rather was officially named by Bubber.

I would have to give his parents credit for that (though that's the first time I've seen anyone try to win a debate by citing their lack of research--though, granted, Dan Rather is a pretty obscure fellow).

March 28, 2006

Security on Parliament Hill barred reporters from attending a pair of Stephen Harper photo opportunities Monday as the Prime Ministers Office flexed its media messaging muscles.
The made-for-TV confrontation between security and reporters outside Harper's office door graphically illustrated the deteriorating relations between a PMO seeking total message control and news media defending their hard-won access.

It's a battle that may be beginning to resonate beyond the cozy precincts of the Peace Tower as the Conservatives threaten to hold secret cabinet meetings and withhold information about visiting heads of state.

"Harper ran on a campaign of open and accountable government," New Democrat MP Charlie Angus said Monday....

Other planned access changes include:

-Withholding basic announcements of visits by heads of state and premiers.

-Issuing in-house photos of closed meetings between public officials, such as visiting premiers and heads of state, rather than allowing news photographers access.

-Refusing to use the national press theatre, where simultaneous translation is provided, in favour of a more prime ministerial podium in the House of Commons foyer.

-Making lists of media wishing to ask questions during availabilities, then picking and choosing which reporters get to ask those questions.

-Allowing only technical staff, but not the customary two "pool" reporters who relay events to the wider press gallery membership, into photo-ops....

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...83e&k=63634&p=2

betsy · March 29, 2006

The topic is about the muzzling of MP's by Stephen Harper.... not allowing them to speak about anything but the five "priorities" or write letters to the editor without his approval.
NOW they're talking about keeping the schedule of Cabinet meetings secret so his Ministers don't have to answer questions!

Strong backbone, huh betsy?

Yes, and that's why we've reached this discussion about media. That Dan Rather story was just an example about the questionable tactics of some media....hence, I don't blame Harper for acting the way he did about instructing his MPs.

betsy · March 29, 2006

Dan Rather was officially named by Bubber.

I would have to give his parents credit for that (though that's the first time I've seen anyone try to win a debate by citing their lack of research--though, granted, Dan Rather is a pretty obscure fellow).

Bubber, you knew what I meant.

I have not named Dan Rather for it was just an example I gave at the top of my head regarding media....the issue is not him!

Your quips not only detracts from the discussion I'm trying to have with Gerry....but I find them ridiculing and insulting.

BubberMiley · March 29, 2006

Sorry, but I just had to defend poor old Dan. He had a good career and it was sad to see it end because of some Karl Rove dirty trick.

Montgomery Burns · March 29, 2006

It's astonishing; it's bizarre; it's 1984-ish.

Oh brother.

betsy · March 29, 2006

Btw, this is sort of off-topic...

On MDuffy, while talking about Harper's media "phobia"...somebody said that during the election campaign scrums, Martin would dictate that only two questions in French would be entertained.

Anybody heard about that??

gerryhatrick · March 29, 2006

It's astonishing; it's bizarre; it's 1984-ish.
Oh brother.

Indeed it is. What is he scared of?

Now that Maverick MP is standing up for himself again. Oh brother

Well, I guess Steve brought it on himself this time. What better way to get people to talk than telling them to shutup?

March 29, 2006

It's astonishing; it's bizarre; it's 1984-ish.

Oh brother.

Indeed it is. What is he scared of?

Now that Maverick MP is standing up for himself again. Oh brother

Well, I guess Steve brought it on himself this time. What better way to get people to talk than telling them to shutup?

No sympathy at all for Harper. The press are obnoxious and unreasonable - but they are with everybody. Trying to muzzle the media won't work. Even this morning I saw Rona Ambrose trying to explain tory environmental policy. ("Kyoto if necessary but not necessarily Kyoto") The more the press are put upon the more they will make life difficult for the government.