Ontario Liberals And The Media

[dnsfurlan]

I have been observing the media during the Ontario election campaign so far. I know I may be biased. But if I am then I would appreciate rebuttals based on the evidence and not on perception.

I can't help but think that the media is pulling for McGuinty. I guess he needs all the help he can get.

First, there was the general line that McGuinty was in better shape this time around because of media training. This was spin perpetuated by the media within the first few days of the campaign. Why not let the people decide if his image is right?

Then, there was the line that Eves was on the attack and McGuinty was taking the high road. This, again, is nonsense, since Mcguinty has been spending most of his time telling us what a wasteland Ontario has become under the Tories.

Then, there was that story on Global, which I mentioned in another post, that all but assumed that Tory policies wreacked havock on social programs in the province, even though this was not a central part of the reporter's story.

Then there was Bourqe Newswatch posting a picture Eves with a cigar in his hand and dollar bills floating all over the place, in reference to the fact that Eves couldn't cite the exact cost estimate of his election platform. If I had to take a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if the picture came from a guy named Kinsella.

Then, there is the Toronto Star, whose front page headline was that the Tories were starting to run attack ads. They also threw in the sub-title editorializing on how Eves is being hypocritical in running the ads.

Then, there is a current CP newswire story that feels the most important development in the recent release of attack ads is the Liberal assertion that Eves was using the blackout for political purposes. Nevermind that most Ontarians believe leadership is the most important issue in the campaign, and the Tories have been attacking McGuinty on that front.

Then, there was the strory on Global News this morning that believed a bunch of anarchist students using violence at Guelph university overshadowed whatever it was that Eves had to say at the event.

And there are many more examples of this.

Is it really the case that the media in this province is trying to shed a more positive light on the McGuinty liberals? Do they really not have confidence in Ontario voters to make the decision on the facts themselves, instead of a certain version of the facts?

[Craig Read]

Right on Man. It mirrors the Left Lib media in the States with the Clinton News Network aka CNN, NY Times aka Pravda Plus, and the Washington Post aka the Menshevik Newsletter, all pulling for the Dumbocruds.

CNN even went so far as to try to hand Gore the election in 2000 by breaking Federal laws and announcing a Gore Bore victory in Fla 90 minutes before the Polls closed.

Canada is no different. All the media is swiftly behind the Liberal view of life and the world. The CBC is of course the head cheerleader in this movement of the mediocre.

The media would love Howdy Doody to win and increase taxes, public spend and shed more tears about the poor and old.

Even though the old own 65 % of Canada's assets and only 8 % of people are poor.

What the hell, they are easy emotive issues and make good copy to sell.

[dnsfurlan]

Well, I'm not the only one who buys into the theory that the media has been consistently attacking Eves' Conservatives. The Eves campaign team itself is warning its own candidates over the phenomenon: Memo to Tory candidates warns that media is 'aligned against' Conservatives

Is it the case that Liberal parties need the media on their side in order to win elections? It sure looks that way. Whatever happened to democracy?

[SirRiff]

sounds to me like a sampling bais dnsfurlan, just picking out a few stories here and there. there are literally hundreds of political news stories everyday in ontario, anything mentioning liberal probably gets your attention more, and if you dont like them, then they all probably seem more pro then neutral.

considering the current conservative government in ON, i dont see how the media machine is liberal. elections wouldnt be so closely balanced if there was this pro liberal slant on everything. its just perspective.

SirRiff

[dnsfurlan]

When I made the original post I asked that rebuttals be made on the evidence and not on perception. I have provided evidence. You may think its a biased sample, I'll put forth the claim that it is only a small sample of a larger trend, as I also already mentioned.

Your response is typical. You generalize on the nature of the media and shrug off any claims of bias.

Let me ask you something. Why is is that you never hear liberals complain about media bias? Is it because liberal ideology lacks bias. Come on. Give me a break.

Just do a search on Google News Canada on the Ontario election and take a look at the coverage, especially during the first phase of the campaign. It clearly had Eves on the defensive based primarily on the media's interpretation of the importance of certain evens in relation to others.

The media machine is liberal because of the personalities journalism attracts and because a) the largest media center, Toronto, is liberal b)most of the media in Ontario is a branch of Canada-wide networks.

For example, Jennifer Mossup, former TV News Anchor in Hamilton, is now running for an Ontario seat as a Liberal. Gee, that's a shocker. She sais she hates seeing what has happened to the province as a result of Tory Rule over the last 8 years. And she read us the news for those eight years. No bias there?

And, again, I cited specific examples of bias. You haven't provided any - just a lazy pontification on the nature of perspective: as if I am too dumb to acknowledge such an obvious factor in my own analysis.

Facts vs. Easy Explanations. I'll take the facts any day.

[Kiraly]

Not many people would deny that a liberal bias exists in the media.

Seems that some of us have forgotten the last federal election campaign.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

Although the link discusses Amercian politics, it applies to Canada as well, if not more so.

[Craig Read]

Sure thing. The snivelling Post Modern elite, who benefit from the system will always be against reform.

Reformers are modern day Thomas a Beckett's opposing the Henry II's in the media - who are intent on melding Church, Family and State into one elitist controlled monstrosity.

It is a long hard road against such prejudices.

[Littlefinger]

Let me ask you something. Why is is that you never hear liberals complain about media bias? Is it because liberal ideology lacks bias. Come on. Give me a break.

Don't tell me you didn't hear about liberals complaining about the conservative media bias in Canada during the time Conrad Black ran all our newspapers.

Here's a quote from today's National Post, hardly your standard pinko leftist rag:

Some of the e-mails I receive threatening to cancel their subscriptions because we sound like the ''Liberal Newsletter'' (the Toronto Star) would presumably prefer we didn't report on how the Tories are in danger of penning their own suicide note. But we are not paid to tell it like it isn't.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/sto...BC-79139932AD22

When the Post, formerly known as the Canadian Alliance newsletter, is reporting how badly Eves' campaign is doing, try to realize that it is no longer bias. It is the reality of how the campaign is going so far.

[Kiraly]

The National Post may have been a right leaning news source at one time.

That time ended when Asper took over and when people like Ken Whyte, David Frum, and Paul Wells left.

[Littlefinger]

Oh certainly, the Post is not as right-wing as it once was. I am just disputing dnsfurlan's claim that liberals never complained about conservative media bias and hence that is evidence of its lack thereof, because they clearly have in the past.

[dnsfurlan]

Littlefinger,

I find your example to be a curious one.

First, liberals complaining about the National Post in the past or Fox News today is an exception that proves the rule, and not the rule. Citing one example in a sea of other media examples is pretty lame.

Second, your quote actually confirms my hypothesis, because I do think that even the National Post coverage has been skewed.

It refers to Eves committing suicide. But why are they focusing merely on Eves? Aren't all the parties in danger of some kind of suicide if the have a poor showing?

The fact that they have been recieving complaints about their coverage, and that they admit a one-sided tone to it, should tell you something about the validity of what I am trying to say here.

And I don't make these claims lightly. I just don't like the idea that

1) an institution so critical of others in society doesn't seem to abide by its own standards. And that doesn't only apply to coverage of conservatives. It applies all the way around. Its just that conservatives end up under fire more often. And I fear its because of ideology.

2) in a democracy, don't you think the people should decide what they want to focus on, instead of having the media decide for them? So many on the Left scream about Fox's motto, "We Report, You Decide". Yet these same critics fail to realize that so many watch Fox because the other mainstream media aren't allowing their audience to decide.

Do you really think Eves' campaign has been that bad so far? And can you tell me what about it has been so bad? What I smell is a media just dying for some change in the province of Ontario.

Let me give you another example on the other side.

Jean Chretien and his departure. As far as I'm concerned, his winning a third straight election the last time around gives him the right to leave whenever he wants. Yet so much of the coverage and so many of the pundits seem to be demanding he leave? Why? Are the people of Canada demanding this? If they are, I'm not hearing them?

If only they would save some of this criticism of a Liberal for an election campaign. Then we might be talking "Fair and Balanced".

[dnsfurlan]

I'm gonna pull a Rush Limbaugh here and say, "See, I told you so!"

In today's Toronto Sun, Lorrie Goldstein provides us with this little nugget of analysis, which simply reiterates my exact sentiments in the above post. (Poll vaulters )

the Globe is almost outdistancing the Star in its apparent lust to end eight years of Tory rule

Hey, when you're right, you're right, I guess. What else is there to say?

[Craig Read]

The Tories in Ontario are liberals and left of centre.

They are not conservatives.

No reforms, no cuts, no intelligent policy, nothing on the key issues that confront us.

Just more post modern babble about love, high taxes and high spend, encased in the multi-cultural ie. anti-Western tradition, mess that we find ourselves in.

It matters not whether Eves or Howdy Doody get in, both have largely the same ideals -- spreading the power of government and increasing public spend.

[dnsfurlan]

Craig,

Give me a break here.

Was Mike Harris a liberal? Would a liberal ever pose more tax cuts, or school vouchers, or oppose same-sex marriage, or support Bush on the war in Iraq?

Wasn't the Harris government one of the most conservative in recent Canadian history?

And, even though Eves has his flip-flops, surely you would have to concede that he is more conservative than McGuinty, and that the Ontario PC party is more conservative than anyone else. Didn't Flaherty come second in the leadership race?

I really don't understand where your characterizations of the Ontario PCs come from. I'm conservative. And, for the most part, I'm not adverse to what they have to offer. And I certainly think its better than anything McGuinty has to offer - by a country mile!

And, unlike the federal PCs, the Ontario version has certainly maintained a conservative posture in their policies. Mike Harris was no Joe Clark. Ernie Eves is no Jean Chretien.

Many Ontario PCs were even member of the Canadian Alliance!

And, isn't this forum supposed to be about the media? I thought that was one topic all conservatives could unite around.

[dnsfurlan]

Since I'm the only one here who seems to be providing any evidence of my claims, I'm going to try to continue that trend.

I found this on the front page of www.canada.com advertising a story Kevin Newman is working on for this evening's news:

TONIGHT ON GLOBAL NATIONAL:

"Criminal organizations are coming into Canada", according to John Walters, U.S. head of drug policy. He claims it's all a result of our soft stance on marijuana. Is he right, or is it another flimsy Blame Canada excuse?

I have a question about this piece: is it another flimsy Bash America news story?

And Izzy is supposed to be this right-wing opinon monger. Whatever.

[Kiraly]

And Izzy is supposed to be this right-wing opinon monger. Whatever.

No he is not.

He is a strong supporter of Jean Chretien.

[Craig Read]

We are talking about Eves not Harris.

Hello.

Eves has rolled back many of Harris' ideas, stopped the tax cuts in October 2002 which broke his own party's law, and refuses to reform Health, Transport, Immigration or Energy.

Hello.

Where is the Conservatism in Uncle Ernie's policy ?

Show me ONE.

Wake up.

Ernie is just another liberal demagogue buying votes.

[dnsfurlan]

Christina Blizzard has written a terrific article on some of the serious flaws in the McGuinty election platform Dalton's road to power turns rocky . However, if you were to read and listen to the coverage on the guy, you would think he's the next coming of Sir Wilfred Laurier. The media is continuing to sell this guy as our next premier. The problem with so much of this coverage, however, is that there really hasn't been anything there. He stands in front of partisan audiences, they cheer him on, and the media makes him out to be the obvious choice for next premier. And Blizzard doesn't even addrees the issue of leadership temperament.

Which raises another serious flaw in the way some media types think about politics. Every time someones leadership ability is questioned by the opposing party this is described as a "personal" attack. How can this be? Indeed, temperament and judgement can be evem more important than specific policies. It would be personal if you attacked someone's personal life, which Howard Hampton came awfully close to doing on Eves right before the election call. But leadership credentials are fair game, aren't they?

Now, I think so much of the media agenda has been allowed to brew because Eves has allowed it to happen. His attacks on McGuinty have not been specific enough. The contrast between the two leadership styles has not been made this time around by the Tories. Eves needs to get it into gear before this thing really might start unravelling on him.

But I think and would hope that the media would start getting it into gear too. We have a guy in McGuinty who might well be elected the next premier in the largest province in this country and they haven't grilled him in the way necessary to determine if he has the right stuff.

The Toronto Star probably won't stop acting as the Dalton McGuinty party newspaper. Lets see if someone else decides to take Christina Blizzard's lead. That goes for Ernie too! :angry:

[dnsfurlan]

Toronto Sun editor Lorrie Goldstein has written a piece which echoes almost exactly what I have been talking about in this specific forum: the media bandwagon for Dalton McGuinty: Taking on the conventional wisdom

Among some of the astute observations are:

Then there's the media coverage of this campaign, which has been so overwhelmingly pro-Liberal, that, short of McGuinty actually eating a kitten on TV tonight, he cannot possibly lose the debate because most of the media won't let him.

Both Peterson in 1985 and McGuinty this time out,were literally adopted by much of the media and transformed from political geeks to gods in the space of a few short weeks.

Consider the double standards that have been applied by so much of the media in this campaign.

The specifics aren't important. The point was that so confronted, McGuinty quickly developed that "deer caught in the headlights look" which often grips him when he gets off script.

I wonder if Mr. Goldstein has been reading the posts on these boards. Or, perhaps accurate observations can be made by any "Right" thinking individual!

Anyhow, when you're right, you're right, right?

Which also raises the question: why do Liberals need the media to win elections? I thought this was democracy, where the people are supposed to decide for themselves?

[daniel]

Spare me the sorrow you bunch of bleeding-heart Tories. There's always been media bias and it depends upon who you read, watch or listen to.

When the NDP was in power there was criticism from all the newspapers - I can now hear you all thinking to yourselves that they were all justified.

Maybe if you would all start reading the National Post you'll get the "balanced" reporting you are craving for. God knows they need the readership.

But consider that if someone from the Toronto Sun is claiming media coverage is overwhelmingly Liberal-leaning then that must include the Sun too. There's got to be something wrong with the Tories when even the Sun turns away from them.

Maybe it's just too much for the Sun that Mr. Taxfighter-1, I'm-the-only-honest-politician-around-here, cut-corporate-welfare Harris is still porkbarrelling from the taxpayer tough with his so-called Ontario Promises foundation office in Queen's Park.

[dnsfurlan]

More confirmation of what I have been saying since the start of the campaign:

Welcome to one-party Ontario - watch your wallet by Bob MacDonald of the Toronto Sun.

Here is the relevant passage:

Of course, among of the most decisive allies for McGuinty were the media. Naturally, the traditionally Liberal-backing Star gave monolithic support - just about all stories, headlines, photos, columns, editorials and cartoons attacked Eves and boosted McGuinty.

That kind of performance by the Star and the taxpayer-financed CBC is standard for them, but this time the Bell Canada Enterprises-owned Globe and CTV/CFTO effectively turned against the Tories and backed the Grits. The same went for the Liberal Asper family's National Post and Global TV.

On top of that, special interest groups such as the teachers' unions and health care workers worked to help the Liberals kick out the Tories. McGuinty has promised hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding to hire more of them, boost their salaries and reduce class sizes.

And the Sun? Even this paper gave McGuinty and his Grits their most favourable play ever - except in editorials and some columns

Before you Lefties give your standard and very predictable "its all perspective" and "everyone is biased - Left and Right" answers, there are a couple of points you need to take into consideration.

As Macdonald points out, even the Sun has been critical of Eves. Alternatively, the Star did not in any way back away from its Dalton McGuinty propaganda.

Also, all of the media outlets cited above are either liberal or can lean that way - except for the Sun.

Lets face it. The media hated Mike Harris and his government and did everything they could to prop up Mcguinty.

This is not to say that Eves ran a good campaign. Its just to say that the media was one of the cards stacked against him this time around. And he certainly was not up to the challenge.

And here is some food for thought.

McGuinty ran a very well scripted campaign. He was also not very much challenged by the media (if he was, I would like ample evidence, not more predictable Lefty responses). So, lets see what happens when the inevitable happens: SOME ADVERSITY. Something tells me this guy is not quick on his feet, nor does he have a very thick skin. But his performance will be the evidence. We'll see what he has as premier.

[daniel]

Well, we certainly learned what Harris did when faced with adversity - he quit.

[dnsfurlan]

Well, we certainly learned what Harris did when faced with adversity - he quit.

If McGuinty rises to anywhere near Harris' ability to confront adversity he'll receive my praise indeed.

Harris came from nowhere to win a majority government. He did it with the media and the elites snickering at him all the way. When he was in office, he implemented programs which had every special interest group and media liberal types calling him things like Hitler.

Mcguinty will not get anywhere near that kind of scrutiny. But he can't hide from challenges forever. Life won't let him off that easy. We'll see what happens.

Harris may have become a tired politician. Adversity, however, is something he did not back away from for many years.

[Mr. Chater]

Well, we certainly learned what Harris did when faced with adversity - he quit.

If McGuinty rises to anywhere near Harris' ability to confront adversity he'll receive my praise indeed.

Harris came from nowhere to win a majority government. He did it with the media and the elites snickering at him all the way. When he was in office, he implemented programs which had every special interest group and media liberal types calling him things like Hitler.

Mcguinty will not get anywhere near that kind of scrutiny. But he can't hide from challenges forever. Life won't let him off that easy. We'll see what happens.

Harris may have become a tired politician. Adversity, however, is something he did not back away from for many years.

amen.

I think Harris did a better job then most Premiers have ever. If Mqunty could do as good...