Liberal-Media Love In

[scribblet]

I think the Liberals got the award in a previous year, but I don't have time to verify that.

[August1991]

Don't twist the issue. The liberals had some intention to deal with Kyoto but they were trying to kiss Albertan ass and appease the poluters which was a stupid move and a lost cause anyway. It was a bad strategy because it only got them in trouble but they've learned their lesson. Canada had a poor environmental record but there was willingness to deal with the problem and other countries were supportive and trying to help (because pushing too hard could have backfired - as Harper just learned from his chinese fiasco).

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

I have yet to hear Stephane Dion admit that he's learned any lesson at all. Has he ever said that he was part of a government that created adscam or did nothing about the environment? You'll have to wait along time before Stephane Dion will admit to any mistake and it's not because he's partisan, it's because he truly thinks he's right.

English-Canadians are going to get to know Dion soon and his pretentious ways. It's no surprise that he had the support of not one cabinet colleague and very few fellow caucus members. Harper at least has shown an ability to change his mind. There's something of the village curé in Dion. He's no snob but he can be inflexible, dogmatic, irritatingly pretentious and even small-minded. Ask Thomas Mulcair.

----

And Saturn you are welcome to be partisan and defend an opinion but would you please knock off the "You're a bigger idiot" type comments. You may disagree with Conservatives but they're not idiots.

[Saturn]

How do we know the Liberals 'learnt their lesson'? They are the party of big business, I doubt if all of their funders would be completely unaffected by a Kyoto implementation.

I really struggle with that. The Liberals have never, EVER, done anything for the environment. Mulroney was a leader on it... Chrieten or Martin weren't.

Signing a peice of paper is really nothing in reality. It's my biggest problem with the Liberal party. It's all ideology, signing Kyoto doesn't mean anything. It doesn't produce results. Their results are ugly. The Liberals are clearly the party of complete environmental failure.

You can keep repeating it all you want but the fact is that they did do something on the environment. It wasn't much but it was something. The few GHG reduction programs they set up were the first programs Haprer cancelled when he got into office.

The matter of fact is that they did so little just to please the West. Allowing the biggest polluters - oil and gas - to go nuts was one of the the liberal's ways of dealing with "western alienation". Oil and gas wanted the feds to get out of the oil business and so they did - Martin sold off our stake in PetroCanada. So what did they get for appointing westerners as the number 2 and number 3 people in government, for getting out of the way of oil and gas and for letting oil and gas pollute like crazy? Did they even get a single thank you? No, all they got was a kick in the rear. Well, they are smart enough to learn that appeasing oil and gas and having westerners run government doesn't pay - it only hurts them elsewhere in the country. Now they know that there is nothing they can do to deal with western alienation, instead of banging their heads in the western alienation wall, they can put more effort into other priorities that are possible to deal with - like Kyoto. It's a bit late but it's not too late yet.

[Greg]

Alright, we get it - there are a number of different opinions on media bias, that doesn't mean you all have to act like ignorant little know-it-alls.

Cut the self-righteous banter out and treat each other with a bit of respect (even if the media and or politicians don't do that same).

[Saturn]

Don't twist the issue. The liberals had some intention to deal with Kyoto but they were trying to kiss Albertan ass and appease the poluters which was a stupid move and a lost cause anyway. It was a bad strategy because it only got them in trouble but they've learned their lesson. Canada had a poor environmental record but there was willingness to deal with the problem and other countries were supportive and trying to help (because pushing too hard could have backfired - as Harper just learned from his chinese fiasco).

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

I have yet to hear Stephane Dion admit that he's learned any lesson at all. Has he ever said that he was part of a government that created adscam or did nothing about the environment? You'll have to wait along time before Stephane Dion will admit to any mistake and it's not because he's partisan, it's because he truly thinks he's right.

English-Canadians are going to get to know Dion soon and his pretentious ways. It's no surprise that he had the support of not one cabinet colleague and very few fellow caucus members. Harper at least has shown an ability to change his mind. There's something of the village curé in Dion. He's no snob but he can be inflexible, dogmatic, irritatingly pretentious and even small-minded. Ask Thomas Mulcair.

----

And Saturn you are welcome to be partisan and defend an opinion but would you please knock off the "You're a bigger idiot" type comments. You may disagree with Conservatives but they're not idiots.

"Has he ever said that he was part of a government that created adscam or did nothing about the environment?"

First of all, admitting a mistake never gets you anywhere in politics. If anything, the voters reward dishonesty and punish those who are trying to be honest. Chretien would have swept the sponsorship scandal under the carpet, just like he did with all his other scandals, and he would have gotten another majority as a reward (like he did after sweeping his other scandals under the carpet). Martin (the naive fool) took responsibility, tried to set things straight and do the right thing and consequently got slaughtered for Chretien's mess even though he took no part in it. Neither did Dion.

Secondly, Dion was part of a government that did little on the environment (but at least they did something) but so were landslide Annie, Ralph Goodale and Martin who was obsessed with appeasing Alberta as if that was going to get him anywhere. Ralph and Martin had the wallet and they did not give Dion the necessary resources to deal with GHGs. Dion's hands are no longer tied.

"He's no snob but he can be inflexible, dogmatic, irritatingly pretentious and even small-minded. Ask Thomas Mulcair." It's funny that you describe Dion this way because this description fits Harper perfectly. On top of that Harper is a snob and an arrogant one at that. Ask Preston Manning.

I'm not sure what you mean by "You're a bigger idiot" type comments. I never said you were an idiot.

[Figleaf]

The media loves the Liberals because they make their job sooo easy for them. The scandel a week was even sometimes two a week when the liberals werer in power. Even after this leadership convention the leader they picked who was over looked in the main adscam but was definitely in the know during that time, also has never been oked at how he blew 4 billion dollars and never showed any progress in the environment. Now that he is leader that will be looked at and if as I suspect we will just have another liberal scandel on the go. That is why the media like the liberals so much.

I love your posts. They're such a clear distillation of the CPC daily talking-points that I hardly need to watch Don Newman anymore.

[Figleaf]

That's the crux of it isn't it, they will never admit there was anything wrong, they just keep on insisting they are the 'natural governing party' - by some divine right of Kings (or maybe that should be the divine right of Liberals) to rule.

A point of background information for you ... the Liberal party doesn't call itself the "natural governing party". That's something that got attached to the party in the media, reflecting the fact of persistent Liberal electoral victories.

[watching&waiting]

I give Dion one maybe two weeks and he will need a dentist to remove his foot from his mouth. If Dion even trys to use his past performance as Environment Minister, he will be laughed outrightly by the press and the public. As for his ability to unite the party goes, I think you will see that it is still fractured into little camps. I give Iggy a couple months and he will be gone, maybe set his departure for the next election etc. Rae well he is not even going to try and run even if he said so. The rest of the party will pick up on this quickly and Dion will have the dogs at the doorstep demanding action.

I just do not think that Dion has it in him to lead a party, and I do not think most of the liberals will back him that much. You can see by even the posters here that the fight has gone out of most. Last saturday was a bad day for the Liberal party, but they will have to live with it and even though the Liberals seem to have given up any chance at power for the next decade, they will do what they do best and that is wheel and deal in back behind the scenes and plot their next moves.

The media will enjoy Dion as he will make the news alot and most of it will be against him. They would do as much with CPC if they could get them to make the same mistakes that others will do. That is probably why Harper is accused of muzzeling them. But from the media point of view the liberals make more news because they are involved in so many scandels so yes if they had their choice, yes the liberals would be their pick.

[Figleaf]

I give Dion one maybe two weeks and he will need a dentist to remove his foot from his mouth. If Dion even trys to use his past performance as Environment Minister, he will be laughed outrightly by the press and the public. As for his ability to unite the party goes, I think you will see that it is still fractured into little camps. I give Iggy a couple months and he will be gone, maybe set his departure for the next election etc. Rae well he is not even going to try and run even if he said so. The rest of the party will pick up on this quickly and Dion will have the dogs at the doorstep demanding action.

I just do not think that Dion has it in him to lead a party, and I do not think most of the liberals will back him that much. You can see by even the posters here that the fight has gone out of most. Last saturday was a bad day for the Liberal party, but they will have to live with it and even though the Liberals seem to have given up any chance at power for the next decade, they will do what they do best and that is wheel and deal in back behind the scenes and plot their next moves.

The media will enjoy Dion as he will make the news alot and most of it will be against him. They would do as much with CPC if they could get them to make the same mistakes that others will do. That is probably why Harper is accused of muzzeling them. But from the media point of view the liberals make more news because they are involved in so many scandels so yes if they had their choice, yes the liberals would be their pick.

DOOM! DOOM follows this man, Dion! Watch and Wait, see if THE GODS themselves do not STRIKE him down! WOE! WOE! and thrice WOE! Unto the party that electeth a man named Stephane, for the PROFECES speak clearly of the tragedy that lurks in his shadow ...

[watching&waiting]

Sounds about right to me

[Argus]

Man, that was too much to take this weekend - the Liberal Party Convention.

An embarassing display of two old friends: Canada's mainstream media (CBC, CTV nationally) and the Liberal party, cozying up to say

"OK, we've had our time out - we've done our penance for stealing billions from Canada, now let's get back to serious business, pick a leader and continue our undisputed rule over Canada"

I'd be interested to see the extent of coverage when compared to the CPC's leadership convention. I bet it's not even close....

Ah, shut up! CTV and friends endorsed Harper in the last election. Do you expect anyone to take your left-wing media rant seriously? The amount of coverage for the two conventions was exactly the same. Just get over it.

No doubt, since you have stated as fact that the coverage was the same, you are now prepared to show the evidence and citations which will substantiate this.

[jdobbin]

No doubt, since you have stated as fact that the coverage was the same, you are now prepared to show the evidence and citations which will substantiate this.

I'm sure this will all be settled when someone shows citations from a study to show the Liberals have received biased coverage.

[Argus]

I enjoy how much they reported Dion's fossil of the day when they said that Ambrose's award was evidence that the CPC was terrible with the environment (which they are, but the Liberals are far worse). They then go on saying the Liberals will gain support because of it... HA!

Don't twist the issue. The liberals had some intention to deal with Kyoto but they were trying to kiss Albertan ass and appease the poluters which was a stupid move and a lost cause anyway. It was a bad strategy because it only got them in trouble but they've learned their lesson.

Let me see if I've got this straight. It isn't that the Liberals didn't give a damn about emissions, it was that, for fourteen years, they were simply completely and utterly incompetent to the extent that not only did emissions not decrease, they exploded.

But they're the people to tackle greenhouse gases because - uh, because - uh, they've "learned their lesson".

The evidence of this being they promise to control greenouse gases.

Like they promised last year.

And the year before

And ten years earlier.

Ok

[Argus]

How do we know the Liberals 'learnt their lesson'? They are the party of big business, I doubt if all of their funders would be completely unaffected by a Kyoto implementation.

I really struggle with that. The Liberals have never, EVER, done anything for the environment. Mulroney was a leader on it... Chrieten or Martin weren't.

Signing a peice of paper is really nothing in reality. It's my biggest problem with the Liberal party. It's all ideology, signing Kyoto doesn't mean anything. It doesn't produce results. Their results are ugly. The Liberals are clearly the party of complete environmental failure.

You can keep repeating it all you want but the fact is that they did do something on the environment. It wasn't much but it was something. The few GHG reduction programs they set up were the first programs Haprer cancelled when he got into office.

And how much progress had those programs made? Is it your contention a program should continue indefinitely even if it's making no progress and there is no likelihood of it EVER making progress?

The matter of fact is that they did so little just to please the West.

Okay, I understand you hate the West, and you believe they are responsible for all the world's evils. Now can you provide us with some evidence which supports your (bizarre) belief the Liberals did little to please the West? I mean, paranoid delussions are all well and good, but a bit of logic and fact would help prevent you from simply looking like a hatemongering nut case.

Allowing the biggest polluters - oil and gas - to go nuts was one of the the liberal's ways of dealing with "western alienation".

So you're saying the Liberals did a lot to reduce greenhouse emissions everywhere else, except the West? That it cracked down on polluters in central and eastern Canada but not the West? No, we know that's not the case. So why don't you quit talking out of your ass and produce some kind of citations and evidence?

instead of banging their heads in the western alienation wall, they can put more effort into other priorities that are possible to deal with - like Kyoto. It's a bit late but it's not too late yet.

It's pretty clear you have NO clue whatsoever of what would be required to meet our Kyoto agreements.

Which isn't surprising. I've never yet met anyone who supported Kyoto who understood what it was.

[Argus]

No doubt, since you have stated as fact that the coverage was the same, you are now prepared to show the evidence and citations which will substantiate this.

I'm sure this will all be settled when someone shows citations from a study to show the Liberals have received biased coverage.

But that was clearly an opinion. Opinions are still quite welcome here, and will be welcome unless and until there are so many left wing types that free expression is banned, as on other well-known political sites.

The second reply was stated as fact. Surely people don't state things as fact without some evidence.

[jdobbin]

But that was clearly an opinion. Opinions are still quite welcome here, and will be welcome unless and until there are so many left wing types that free expression is banned, as on other well-known political sites.

The second reply was stated as fact. Surely people don't state things as fact without some evidence.

I honestly don't know what the bias is if there is one. Most reporting is of poor quality.

[normanchateau]

No doubt, since you have stated as fact that the coverage was the same, you are now prepared to show the evidence and citations which will substantiate this.

I'm sure this will all be settled when someone shows citations from a study to show the Liberals have received biased coverage.

January 2006 election coverage:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/about/burman/pdf/ERIN_report-2006.pdf

[normanchateau]

No doubt, since you have stated as fact that the coverage was the same, you are now prepared to show the evidence and citations which will substantiate this.

I'm sure this will all be settled when someone shows citations from a study to show the Liberals have received biased coverage.

"During the 2006 federal election campaign there were 2,113 articles written about the election in the 5 English newspapers studied (The Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, the Toronto Star and the Vancouver Sun).

Of those 2113, 1,711 (81%) mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 1,711, there were 34 (2%) with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 342 (20%) with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 10 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive.

Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 1592 (75%) total articles, including 82 (5%) positive mentions and 159 (10%) negative mentions, for a roughly 2:1 ratio of negative to positive.

The NDP garnered (4%) positive mentions and 7% negative mentions, while the Bloc had the most favourable(!) coverage of any party from the English language papers at 4% positive, 5% negative (although they were only mentioned in 15% of stories)."

[jdobbin]

"During the 2006 federal election campaign there were 2,113 articles written about the election in the 5 English newspapers studied (The Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, the Toronto Star and the Vancouver Sun).

Of those 2113, 1,711 (81%) mentioned the Liberal party. Out of those 1,711, there were 34 (2%) with positive mentions of the Liberal party and 342 (20%) with negative mentions of the Liberals, giving a 10 to 1 ratio of negative mentions to positive.

Meanwhile, for the Conservative Party, the figures were 1592 (75%) total articles, including 82 (5%) positive mentions and 159 (10%) negative mentions, for a roughly 2:1 ratio of negative to positive.

The NDP garnered (4%) positive mentions and 7% negative mentions, while the Bloc had the most favourable(!) coverage of any party from the English language papers at 4% positive, 5% negative (although they were only mentioned in 15% of stories)."

Interesting study. However, some people here will say that the left wing media cooked the books.

[scribblet]

But that was clearly an opinion. Opinions are still quite welcome here, and will be welcome unless and until there are so many left wing types that free expression is banned, as on other well-known political sites.

The second reply was stated as fact. Surely people don't state things as fact without some evidence.

Conservatives tend to get more negative reporting because of preconcieved biases

According to Macleans,

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/media/artic...3_117742_117742

Analysis of newspaper reports on the campaign's earliest days shows Stephen Harper fighting the same old image problems

JOAN BRYDEN

Just because the Conservatives are paranoid about reporters doesn't mean the media isn't out to get them.

An analysis of newspaper coverage in the opening days of this campaign concludes Stephen Harper received the most negative coverage of the four main party leaders, even more negative than the coverage he got in the disastrous final week of the 2004 election.

Initial coverage of Paul Martin was not only less negative, it was more positive than the waning days of the last campaign, when the Prime Minister rebounded to pull out his narrow victory. "The findings are rather striking," said Stuart Soroka, co-director of McGill University's Observatory on Media and Public Policy (OMPP), which conducted the analysis. "Martin has been doing progressively better in the media over time and Harper has been doing progressively worse."

Liberal bias? It's not just the CBC

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...29/1240075.html

By LORRIE GOLDSTEN

Here's something you may find interesting regarding the ongoing controversy over liberal media bias in Canada.

According to a recent study by two Ryerson University journalism professors:

* Almost half of all Canadian television news directors, the individuals who have the most influence in determining what political news is covered on your favourite nightly newscast and how it is reported, vote Liberal.

* A TV news director working at the tax-funded CBC is almost three times more likely to vote for the NDP in federal elections, compared to his or her counterpart in the private sector.

* When this research was compiled in 2002, just over one in 10 (11.4%) of all private sector news directors said they would vote for the Canadian Alliance. However, not one news director at the CBC described himself (or herself) as an Alliance voter.

These findings are contained in "The Canadian News Directors Study", an informative survey of the political leanings and demographics of TV news directors, conducted by Marsha Barber and Ann Rauhala. The results were published in the May 2005 issue of the Canadian Journal of Communication.

Two-thirds of all potential respondents (67 of the 99 people who held this job in Canada in 2002) replied to their study, including 44 from the private sector and 23 from the CBC.

I was alerted to it by Global TV's Peter Kent, now the federal Conservative candidate in the Toronto riding of St Paul's.

Last month, Kent alleged most Canadian journalists are small "L" liberals and that as a result, Conservatives face the constant hurdle of "getting past the filter of liberal media apologists", particularly in the all-important Toronto market.

Kent has since written to Canada's journalism schools, which he also considers hotbeds of liberal bias, challenging them to study this issue in the next election.

Barber wrote to him informing him that she is planning a study along these lines and sent him a copy of her research.

It found that 45.8% of all Canadian television news directors surveyed in 2002 said they were Liberal voters. By contrast, only 14.6% said they were Progressive Conservative voters, 10.4% Canadian Alliance, 10.4% NDP. This put the news directors at the high end of overall public support for the Liberals during that period (40-46% according to the polls) and at the low end for the PCs (15-18%), Alliance (14-18%) and NDP (13-16%).

-snip-

But even the CBC believes media bias is a huge issue (except, apparently, for its own), given its recent exposes of what it calls the alarming right-wing bias of Fox News in the U.S.

Perhaps we just should declare the CBC an irony-free zone.