Further Blatant Media Bias: The Boston Globe

Michael Graham reports

Vapid Journalists & Reporters

Parts of Saskatoon are quickly devolving in precisely the same manner as Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Why? Because they're following precisely the same misguided drug policies as Vancouver adopted long before.

Here (beginning at 7:00) is a brilliant discussion between Charles Adler and John Gormley.

When asked how the media could have been so fooled away from any semblance of common sense, Gormley responded (@ 12:50) : "You've got intellectually vapid journalists and reporters." Without realizing it, he was including two of CKNW's "finest": Bill Good and Christy Clark - both of whom have been longtime supporters of Vancouver's failed drug policy.

Tammy Robert, who works with Gormley at CKOM in Saskatoon, has numerous photos on her blog. Well worth checking out!

Out here in Vancouver, one of the few voices of sanity has been David Berner:

Shooting Down the Mistruths About Sarah Palin - Episode #87,431

I've been having a debate of sorts with a fellow from the UK. He left a rather nasty comment on a video of mine, taking some rather egregious shots at Sarah Palin. I knew the statements he was making to be absolutely false, so I decided to show him the error of his ways. It's not my intention to reshape his political views but hopefully he'll learn a small lesson about backing up one's statements with facts. Shown below is what I wrote him.

---

You're in the UK? I frequently listen to BBC London. Based on what I hear from the many callers - their words, not mine - your country is doomed unless it dramatically changes it's walk down the socialist garden path.

Ditto for California by the way. And in case you're going to tell me that Schwarzenegger is a Republican, in fact he's a RINO and is very much governing like a UK Labour Party minister.

Let's go through your points:

1. You stated that Palin thought Africa was a country. In fact, it was a McCain policy advisor named Martin Eisenstadt, who leaked out this Palin comment. There's one problem though: Mr. Eisenstadt doesn't exist. Please read this.
   
   
2. You stated that Palin pretended to know what the Bush Doctrine was. I saw the interview with Charlie Gibson. That's not precisely what happened, was it? In fact, what transpired was that Palin was seeking clarification from Gibson about what he meant by the term "Bush Doctrine". You think that makes her an idiot? The originator of that term was Charles Krauthammer. Here's what he had to say about the Gibson-Palin discussion.
   

Do you now admit that you were wrong in both cases?

I assure you that it's not my intention to ridicule you. But I'm an engineer and build software for a living. Plus I'm half-German. So forming my opinions based on facts is part of my DNA. And when I draw conclusions based on false facts, I admit I was wrong and apologize.

As for Jon Stewart, you're convinced that he attacks both sides with his humour? Sorry, can't agree with you there. Like most of the American media and Hollywood glitterati, he has never and I predict will never take any substantive shot at Barack Obama.

Like you, I am far from religious. BUT I am absolutely fed up with people thinking they can use Christians as their new preferred kick dog. As I've said to several ex-friends, who I've lost over this issue, "You would never say such things about Blacks or Asians or Jews or Muslims. But because they're Christians, you somehow think they're fair game. I have some dear old friends who are devout Christians and so when you make such jokes I view you as personally attacking them and their beliefs."

Anyway amigo, as I stated earlier, it was not my intention to ridicule you. But I do hope you take the time to FULLY research your statements before you make them in the future.

In the same way that I listen to the BBC through the Internet, I hope I can make two recommendations to you:

• http://DennisMillerRadio.com
• http://DennisPrager.townhall.com

I don't agree entirely with what either man says all the time, but I do find them both to be interesting most of the time. Listening to them may provide you with a little balance over the Left leaning media you seem inclined to solely follow.

---

Incidentally, I currently don't have much confidence that Sarah Palin will be able to get past the "stupid white trash moron" moniker that the MSM very deliberately gave her. I don't agree with this assessment, of course, but I don't deny that it is present in the minds of many.

To demonstrate how incredibly corrupt the MSM has become, Katie Couric is actually getting an award for her attempts to destroy Sarah Palin's character. Of course, that's not the way it's being portrayed but that is precisely what occurred. John Ziegler has further thoughts here. Apparently he attended the "ceremonies" today and was arrested! It's my understanding that he'll be appearing on Dennis Miller's show tomorrow.

The Globe & Mail's Propaganda - Example #87,543

The Globe & Mail newspaper published an "interesting" poll on their website today. Read over the question carefully. How would you vote?

If you're like SDA regular "ET", you wouldn't vote at all. Here's what she had to say about it:

How about this poll question, in the Globe and Mail today? It's an example of 'begging the question', a fallacy, where you FIRST have to accept an internal-to-the-question opinion, before you can answer the question.

Here's the question:

"Will President Obama convince Americans to make the hard choices necessary to change the Bush administration's often-failed foreign policies?"

Heh. There are actually multiple fallacies in this esteemed, impartial, unbiased, truth-seeking newspaper's question.

First, there's the basic begging, where you have to accept as truth 'the Bush administration's often-failed foreign policies'. Notice that the question didn't FIRST ask you if you thought these policies were failures. No way. Truth is, according to the G&M, theirs and theirs alone.

Then, how about 'alleged certainty', where it is accepted as beyond question that Obama's actions will be 'necessary'? Oh? This assumes that any of his foreign policy actions will not be subject to criticism because they are already correct and are thus deemed 'necessary'.

Notice also yet another unquestioned assumption; the descriptive evaluation of Obama, i.e. that Obama KNOWS what is necessary and correct.

All of these fallacies, all in one G&M question.

By the way, not a mention of Obama's naive hug-a-terrorist actions, in his letter to Iran, suggesting that all is needed is to 'get along'.

How about his administration's change of definition of a terrorist action to a 'man-caused disaster', which removes all intentionality of that uh, terrorist, to uh, terrorize and reduces the action to pure accident.

How about his insults to the UK PM, to Sarkozy of France, to the Italian PM?

His Afghanistan agenda? Straight out of Bush's agenda in Iraq, which saw, after the surge had gained control of the country, the new agenda of empowering the local population to themselves fight back against Al Qaeda. The G&M seems to have forgotten this Bush strategy of creating a democracy and then empowering the people.

Posted by: ET at March 28, 2009 12:14 PM

CBC Consistently Replacing Truth with Opinion

Dennis Prager has an interesting expression: "First tell the truth, then share your opinion."

I firmly believe that failure to adhere to this simple premise is the root cause of many of our problems today.

Case in point: This morning I listened for awhile to the CBC's Sunday Edition radio program, featuring Obama's Canadian shill, Michael Enright. A greater embarrassment to the once proud profession of journalism there has never been. He interviewed at length a professor from the University of Syracuse. This fellow had some interesting things to say but so much of it could have been pulled from the chorus sheets of the Radical Left Daily Kos hatesite.

Among other things, he stated that the average American's real income is much less than it was 30 years ago. Is that true? I don't intuitively believe it. But the CBC, being the CBC, there was no alternate viewpoint to challenge anything this fellow said.

So if you're a regular CBC listener/viewer and rarely/never partake in any alternative viewpoints then much of the foundation of your worldview is built upon very skewed opinions, not truth. In times past the betrayal of truth with opinion was called "effective propaganda". It often precluded the occurrence of very bad things.

Continued Attacks on Canadian Christians

I like CKNW's Sean Leslie. He seems like a really good guy and I enjoy his program every weekend. Today though he had this rant against our federal Minister of Science, Gary Goodyear (at 11:25).

---

Afterwards, he invited feedback on his thoughts. Here's what I wrote him, which to his credit, he read on-air:

Dear Sean,

Regarding your rant about Gary Goodyear, I couldn't agree with you less. For the record, I have not been a practicing Christian all of my adult life but I'm appalled by the chorus of Christian-bashing that is constantly heard by so many in the media these days.

Based on your own words in shows past, I'm guessing you would describe yourself as a secular small-L liberal. That's fine. In the same way that you are entitled to your own worldviews, so shouldn't others be entitled to theirs?

Ask yourself two questions:

1. Would you ever dare to utter such a public rant against a government Minister who was a Fundamentalist Muslim or a Fundamentalist Sikh? You & I both know you would not for if you did, you would immediately be called a racist bigot and likely be out of a job within 48 hours. But because it's the "IN" thing to bash Christians, you feel free to chime away.
   
   
2. Is it possible for a devout Christian to be a member of the Canadian media today and not deliberately silence themselves about their own personal views? I believe not. That should speak volumes to you about the atmosphere that your colleagues have created for journalists in Canada in 2009. Hint: Scary for some.
   

Robert Werner
Vancouver, BC

The CBC's Diversity of Opinion

In this brilliant editorial Lorne Gunter explains why there's as much diversity of opinion at Canada's CBC as there is at the Karl Marx Widget Factory #6. In other words, there's not. It's long overdue to end all public subsidies to the CBC and let it become a specialty channel, supported by those who want to listen to it.

Quick Snapshot of the American MSM

I found this piece on The Corner to be extremely enlightening:

Fox News vs. MSNBC [Peter Wehner]

Kathryn, I wanted to piggyback on your link to the Ari Fleischer vs. Chris Matthews exchange. I thought Ari destroyed Matthews, and did so in a calm, factual, reasoned way. Matthews is loud, obnoxious, terribly ill-informed, and has a crush on Barack Obama — all of which are reasons why Matthews is perfect to host a program on MSNBC. I can’t help but notice, by the way, that the ratings for primetime shows on Fox News have skyrocketed during the Age of Obama. According to the latest ratings, Fox has the six top-rated cable news shows — hosted by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bret Baier, Shepard Smith, and Greta Van Susteren — each which draws 2 million viewers or more (Van Susteren drew a few dozen viewers short of 2 million). MSNBC’s top-rated shows rank ninth (Rachel Maddow) and eleventh (Keith Olbermann), with Olbermann drawing just over 900,000 viewers. And Chris Matthews doesn’t crack the top eleven rated programs. Perhaps this is evidence that MSNBC, which during the last few years have existed on embers of hate and resentment, is increasingly passé; Bush Derangement Syndrome is less interesting when Bush has left the stage. Secondly, the number of people who watched Ari slam Matthews could roughly fit in the size of a football stadium.

Chris Matthews long ago became a joke; what seems clear is that he’s an increasingly obscure one.

03/12 04:21 PM

---

In case you're interested to see a perfect example of why so few people are watching Chris Matthews, try to watch this video:

Question: Does any reasonable person unequivocally believe that Matthews is NOT in the employ of the Obama administration? Perhaps not through direct payments right now but some other favors perhaps?

---

On a possible bright note, a columnist named Ross Douthat has been hired by the New York Times. What's remarkable is that he is supposed to be a conservative. I've not heard of the gentlemen but several people at NRO seem to think highly of him. I'll reserve judgment until I read several columns of his in The Times.

One thing for sure: If the law were ever changed and Mark Steyn was elected President of the United States
then Ross Douthat could serve as a good double:
White guys with beards: The new face of conservative Americans?!? :-)

Sarah Palin Speaks Out About The Corrupt MSM

In an interview for the forthcoming documentary "Media Malpractice" Governor Sarah Palin, for the first time at length, takes on the media coverage of her and the 2008 campaign. Historians will look back at the 2008 American Election Campaign and note it as a low point in the once great history of journalism.

An Accurate Take on Canada's Corrupt Media

From a brilliant woman in Ontario:

I think it is clear that our biased MSM is hostile to Harper, for no reason other than that he is not a Liberal and the majority of the MSM all assume that the Liberal Party, regardless of its policies/no policies is the 'Natural Governing Party'.

This MSM ignores the Liberal corruption, ignores Adscam, ignores the stacking of the Senate with their cronies, ignores the patronage and cronyism of that Liberal Party in Ottawa - they are all part of this same 'gang'. Their anger against Harper is simply because he is there.

The fact that he is highly competent is something that they won't even refer to; it is totally and utterly ignored by our MSM.

Their juvenile adoration of Obama - and I simply fail to understand WHY - shows up when someone like Tom Clark gushes on CTV that Obama said 'he loves Canada'..isn't that great'!! Doesn't the idiot think that such a statement is not merely meaningless but only political? After all, how could anyone make such a statement about a country or person or whatever...when they have never, ever, visited the country before? Never set foot in it?

Oh, and Obama 'touched' Harper - that shows his friendship. When Bush did that, it showed his dominance over Harper.

The bias, the juvenile gushing of our MSM over Obama is shameful. And the insistent sneers at Harper - shameful. Meanwhile, the MSM is constantly, endlessly, promoting Ignatieff.

One article, if you can believe it, assures us that Obama and Ignatieff talked about mutual cafes they went to at Harvard, and tells us that both Obama and Ignatieff are 'intellects', deep thinkers...ignoring that Obama's two books are only autobiographies and most certainly not analytical or deep thoughts.

Other articles point out that Harper 'basked in Obama's light'...disgusting.

That's our MSM. By the way, does the MSM remember that Ignatieff signed the coalition agreement - the most vicious attack on our democratic rights in the history of this country?

Posted by: ET at February 20, 2009 10:14 AM

Prime Example of CBC Trying to Reshape the News

Remember Eric Millett, the Radical Leftie elementary school principal who decided to silence the daily singing of Canada's national anthem at his school? He claims that one parent told him that she didn't want her child singing Canada's national anthem "for religious reasons". Whether or not this is true has yet to be determined.

Parents at the school and many Canadians in general are outraged at this for a simple reason: Assuming Mr. Millett is being truthful about what one parent said to him, it is yet another example of special accommodations being made for one child in the entire school, at the expense of ALL the other children. And in this case these accommodations mean silencing our country's national anthem. Who could possibly defend that?

But of course, the age old crusader of oppressed minorities, the high & mighty CBC!!! Watch this video.

Mr. Millett makes some pretty serious claims:

• Parents have threatened to beat him up.
• Anonymous death threats have been received via e-mail.
• Threats against him have been made via his home phone.

Let me say unequivocally that if anyone has threatened him then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Interesting that the RCMP has been investigating Millett's claims and heretofore have not laid a single charge.

What's more interesting is how the CBC, both in their on-camera interview and on their website, never use the word "allegedly". In fact, the headline on their website reads, "N.B. school principal received death threats in anthem dispute". That's a pretty bold claim. Do they have corrobating evidence to support this statement? If so, it's certainly not cited in the news story.

This is yet another example of the shoddy journalistic practices of Canada's public broadcaster. As I explained recently, I've given up on complaining to them because their entire complaint process is phoney, fake, a sham. But if a future federal government ever pulls all of their funding, I will not be shedding a tear.

Charles Adler has much more on this story here (7:00). It's well worth a listen to learn of a prime example of how your tax dollars are being wasted by Susan Ormiston & co.

---

Update: Adler featured another hour of the CBC hit piece against rural and conservative Canadians, which you can listen to here (7:00).

More Paper Shuffling at the CBC

After a very long time I received a response to a complaint I lodged against the CBC's Don Newman. And it was written by a person who doesn't even know how to use apostrophes. Perhaps she's part of a Grade 10 Journalism Intern program they have running?! If you wish to read in chronological order then start from the bottom.

---

Dear Ms. Kinch,

I am not remotely satisfied with your response. You are simply stating the CBC "company line". I understand your situation though because failure to do so would eliminate your employment there. Sadly, my tax dollars just paid for your time to write me a completely worthless letter. I will refrain from making future legitimate complaints for it is purely a waste of time, energy, and money.

Sincerely,

Robert Werner

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Cynthia Kinch wrote:
February 3, 2009

Robert Werner
Vancouver, British Columbia

Dear Mr. Werner:

Thank you for your e-mail of December 5 addressed to Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. Since CBC Newsworld is part of my remit, I would like to reply. Please accept my apologies for the delay in doing so.

You wrote to draw our attention to interviews done by Don Newman, CBC News Senior Parliamentary Editor, over the preceding week. They are highly partisan …despicable, divisive and downright dangerous, you wrote.

Let me begin by saying that I sincerely regret that you are disappointed in CBC. I can assure you that the CBC prides itself on the excellence of its journalism. We take very seriously any assertion that our journalism is inaccurate, biased or unfair, or in any way fails to meet the rigorous criteria set out in the CBCs Journalistic Standards and Practices. Where criticisms are justified, we take immediate corrective action.

However, in this case - and I say this with respect - I strongly disagree with your assessment of our coverage and of Mr. Newman. Let me respond first to the several examples of the shortcomings you found.

In an interview with Transport Minister John Baird, you wrote, Mr. Newman was antagonistic, rude and utterly dismissive …objecting to most everything he said. Although you did not say so, I expect you are referring to an interview broadcast at about 6:30am PT (9:30am ET), on Thursday, December 4.

Regrettably you were not specific about the shortcomings you found, so it is difficult for me to reply in any detail.

It is fair to say that John Baird is a respected Conservative cabinet minister. He is articulate, outspoken, a skilled debater and a staunch defender of the government. Within minutes of the Prime Ministers arrival at the Governor Generals residence Thursday morning, Mr. Baird was in the foyer of the House of Commons making himself available to reporters, including Mr. Newman. He was there to sell the governments point of view and he put the case skillfully and in unmistakable language.

But Mr. Newman or any other CBC journalist would fail in his responsibility if he simply offered Mr. Baird a platform to express his views. Of course, he encouraged Mr. Baird to explain his point of view, clearly Canadians are interested, and it is CBCs obligation to give them the opportunity to hear it. But it is also an interviewers responsibility to test those views and that is what Mr. Newman did. That is part of the give and take of an interview: politicians understandably want to present (spin) their point of view in the most favorable way, while it is a journalists task to question assumptions, to challenge, to point out there are other views.

Of course, that is not always easy to do. Politicians in this age of communication understand the media like never before. They are practiced and usually trained in how to focus their message, convey it succinctly and skirt difficult questions until time runs out. A journalist who persists may be seen as rude, arrogant or disrespectful when that is certainly not his intention.

Nor do I believe it was the case here. I can tell you that a careful viewing will find the two men smiling at each other on a number of occasions during the interview, including at the end when they exchanged pleasantries and shared a laugh. Mr. Baird certainly appeared to take no offence, nor, as I said, did Mr. Newman intend any.

You contrasted Mr. Newmans objections to Mr. Baird with the fact that he did not object to the outrageous comment by Liberal MP Derek Lee comparing the Prime Ministers request to prorogue Parliament to the burning of the Reichstag in 1933.

Just after 8am PT (11am ET) that morning, Mr. Newman interviewed Mr. Lee, the Liberal MP from Scarborough - Rouge River and chair of the Liberal Partys Toronto caucus. Mr. Newman introduced him as an expert on Parliamentary procedure and committee procedure and asked what he made of the extraordinary events of the previous few days.

Mr. Lee replied:

…the main issue is confidence of the House. That runs through everything. In history youve had other governments that have tried to turn out the lights in Parliament. I think it happened in Germany once when somebody tried to burn down the Bundestag [sic].

A hyperbolic comparison, no doubt. But as I am sure you will recall, it was a time of hyperbole on all sides. Mr. Lee went on to explain that in his view the Prime Minister is essentially asking the Governor General to adjourn Parliament, not something that she does. The Governor General can accede to a request to prorogue, he added, but it would be tantamount to shutting off the lights in Parliament and shutting down Parliament. Although he couched it in inflated language, Parliamentary experts argue the distinction is a significant one. Rather than asking for prorogation, he suggested the Governor General take the Prime Ministers request under advisement until the following Tuesday, the day after the scheduled vote of no-confidence. That is Mr. Lees opinion, of course.

It is CBCs mandate, part of its obligation under the federal Broadcasting Act, to carry different points of view on controversial matters of public interest and concern like this one. Indeed, allowing the expression of the widest possible range of views is at the heart of the notion of fairness and balance in journalism. However, it is not the CBCs obligation to determine what views are acceptable (a truly dangerous notion for any broadcaster), but only to present differing views fairly and accurately affording Canadians the opportunity and the information they need to make up their own minds about the nature or quality of the views expressed. No doubt Canadians would draw their own conclusions about Mr. Lees comparison as the writer of the National Post article you drew to our attention did (Losers and bigger losers on Parliament Hill: A week in which nobody impressed the public - December 4).

You also pointed to what you feel is Mr. Newmans very one-sided diatribe initially posted on December 5 on CBC NEWS.CA under the headline, The coalition crisis and the lessons learned.

Again, it is difficult for me to reply in any detail, since you were not specific about the partisanship you found. However - although CBC NEWS.CA is not part of my remit - I can tell you that in this case Mr. Newman, an award-winning journalist and host of CBC Newsworlds POLITICS, widely regarded as a must-watch program in Ottawa, offered his analysis and insight into the extraordinary events that took place over the first week of December. Under CBCs Journalistic Standards and Practices journalists are free to reach conclusions on their own based on facts. As Mr. Newman did here.

Finally, you suggested that Mr. Newman does not meet the criteria for fair and balanced reporting, set out by former CBC News Publisher John Cruickshank in a letter posted on September 29 under the headline, We erred in our judgment. While Mr. Cruickshanks letter emphasized the importance to every news organization of including opinions, it focused on the reasons a recent opinion column by writer Heather Mallick was inappropriate and should not have been posted on the CBC News site. He was not referring to reporting. Again with respect, I can assure you that there is nothing in Mr. Newmans work that would even remotely match Mr. Cruickshanks description of Ms. Mallicks column.

On a broader front, I can also assure you that by any measure, the CBCs journalistic code of ethics is considered to be rigorous, comprehensive, and detailed. It is formulated in our own handbook of Journalistic Standards and Practices, which stresses lack of bias in reporting. It is distributed to our journalists, producers, editors and managers at all levels of the Corporation in Canada and abroad. We expect them to be familiar with and follow it scrupulously. If you wish to read it, it is also publicly available on the CBC website.

Thank you again for your e-mail. I hope my reply has reassured you of the continuing integrity of CBC News.

It is also my responsibility to inform you that if you are not satisfied with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. Mr. Carlin may be reached by mail at the address shown below, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca

Sincerely,


Cynthia Kinch
Director, CBC Newsworld
P.O. Box 500, Station A,
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6

cc. Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman






Cynthia Kinch
Director, CBC Newsworld
Phone: 416-205-6408

Please note my email address has changed to cynthia.kinch@cbc.ca
thanks


>>> CBC Ombudsman 07-Dec-08 4:33 PM >>>
Dear Robert Werner:

I write to acknowledge your e-mail which I am sharing with Jennifer McGuire, interim Publisher of CBC News, along with the request that your concerns be addressed.

Yours truly,

Vince Carlin
Ombudsman, CBC

Dear Mr. Carlin:

As you very well know, our great country has gone through the most
significant constitutional crisis of our lifetime. To say that it was, and
still is, an extremely serious situation would be the understatement of the
millennium. The actions of Don Newman throughout all of this have been
nothing short of despicable, divisive, and downright dangerous. If he were
merely an editorial pundit then I could offer little objection. But a major
portion of his role at the taxpayer supported CBC is to be a fair & balanced
moderator. In this capacity he earns an 'F'.

His behaviour has been nothing short of highly partisan in support of the
Coalition and against the Conservatives. Examples are aplenty. Let me
provide you two. On the one hand he was antagonistic, rude, and utterly
dismissive of Conservative MP John Baird in the recent interview with him.
On the other hand, here's a description of what transpired when he
interviewed Liberal MP Derek Lee:

Big Loser: Derek Lee. CBC was desperate to fill air time as they waited for
Stephen Harper to finish his chat with Michaelle Jean, so they made the
mistake of interviewing Lee, who promptly compared Harper's request to
suspend Parliament to the burning of the German Reichstag by the Nazis in
1933. Yeah Derek, they're exactly alike: a party of murderous thugs burning
Parliament to the ground is just like the Prime Minister driving to Rideau
Hall to request a temporary halt in proceedings while he prepares a budget.
How astute of you to spot the similarities.

Source:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/04/winners-and-losers.aspx

It is imperative to note that Mr. Newman did not object to this outrageous
comment whatsoever. Yet, he seemed to have no problem objecting to most
everything said by MP Baird. Would viewers be wrong to conclude that Mr.
Newman actually shares a similar view as MP Lee that Stephen Harper's recent
actions are comparable to those of Adolf Hitler's Nazis in 1933? I ask this
question not flippantly but absolutely literally.

To end this momentous week on a sour note, we get this very one-sided
diatribe from Don Newman:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/05/f-vp-newman.html

In the realm of Journalistic Ethics at the CBC, is there not a basic
requirement for your on-air staff to publicly disclose their clear biases
before engaging in an interview? If I'm not mistaken, on every business
program it is a mandatory requirement for all involved to fully disclose any
stocks they own and/or other company interests they may have related to the
discussion at hand. Let me assure you that in Mr. Newman's case, it is a
widely held belief of many CBC viewers I've spoken with that he has direct
loyalties to the Liberal Party of Canada.

To resolve this complaint to my satisfaction, any of the following would be
sufficient:

- Move Don Newman into a role solely as a pundit and clearly have the
words "Liberal Party Strategist" appear underneath his name each time he
appears.
- Require that all interviews he undertakes be done with a
conservative-leaning journalist as well, somewhat in the format of "Hannity
& Colmes" on Fox News in the U.S.

Finally, please note that my insistence for fair & balanced reporting from
Mr. Newman is in no way different from what your past head of CBC News, John
Cruickshank, publicly stated a little over two months ago:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/28/f-vp-cruickshank.html

I eagerly and respectfully await your response.


Sincerely,

Robert Werner
Vancouver, BC

Dennis Prager on Israel vs. Hamas

Radio talkshow host, Dennis Prager, captured several of my own thoughts here. A few seconds after the window opens, move the slider to 2:00.

Letter Sent to a BC Journalist

I sent this to a BC journalist today. S/he'll remain nameless but the points throughout have a broader meaning.

You know, and I truly say this with the greatest respect, it absolutely boggles my mind how those of you INSIDE the media bubble seem oblivious to the frequent charge that there's way too much Left leaning bias inside the media. The Obama adoration journalism you cited is but one little example of what I see & hear every single day.

In point of fact, with the exception of the taxpayer funded CBC, it actually doesn't bother me what a journalist's political bias is UNLESS they're unwilling to be UP FRONT about it. Most are not. So we end up with all of the following playing a game of "Pretend": Peter Newman, Craig Oliver, Jane Taber, Barbara Yaffe, and many more. The VERY WORST of these is BC's own Christy Clark. You're kidding yourself if you think these people aren't frequently talked about and despised by any news junkies who haven't drank the Liberal or NDP Kool Aid.

Just so you know, when it comes to conservative vs. liberal bias, I've frequently challenged my American Democrat friends to identify particular issues for which I am a far right conservative. About the only two I can think of off-hand are:

• Fiscal Responsibility
• Terrorism, incl. Israel's right to defend itself
  

Other than that, I'm think I'm fairly liberal on: Abortion, Gay Rights, Helping the Poor, etc.

You mentioned that you're a big fan of Obama. Even after the Blagojevich scandal? That has shaken to the core the faith of my Democrat friends in Chicago. They're still supporters but are less optimistic of the Greatness of the One. Hey, I hope great things happen for America under Obama as it'll be good for Canada. But it seems to me that the fiscal policies of Michigan and California have been examples of what Obamanomics will be like (Note: Schwarzenegger is a Democrat in all but name). And bailing out the Big 3 automakers will be a disaster IMHO. Bad for Bush, bad for Obama, and bad for the rest of us.

Anyhow, it'll be an interesting 4 years, starting with 2009.

Hoping only good things happen for you & your family,

Robert

Quotes from the Vapid Left

In the liberal media that is ... though we all know that they have no bias ... because they keep telling us so. Sigh.

Here's a list of the Top 10 choice quotes of the liberal media in 2008.

A few examples:

• "To see his [Jeremiah Wright’s] career completely destroyed by three 20-second soundbites, all of the work he has done, his entire legacy gone down the drain, has been absolutely devastating to me — to him, sorry....We are still a racist country." — Washington Post writer Sally Quinn on PBS’s Charlie Rose, April 30.
  
  
• "Not doing it [fighting global warming] will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years, and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals." — CNN founder Ted Turner on PBS’s Charlie Rose, April 1.
  
  
• "If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you ‘Pope.’ It’s like, if you can’t pay your mortgage, you’re a deadbeat. But if you can’t pay a million mortgages, you’re Bear Stearns and we bail you out. And that is who the Catholic Church is: the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia." — Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time, April 11.

Liberal Media Squirming

This video is absolutely priceless! Kudos to Joe Scarborough for asking some simple, but very important questions. The liberal media in America is now having to admit that they badly failed the American public by failing to properly ask questions of the Obama campaign.
More analysis here.

Non-Newsmakers of 2008

That well known journalist (well known in his own mind), Jesse Ferreras, just published the Top 5 Newsmakers in the minds of Canadians. Mark Steyn made #3, with this gem from Mr. Ferreras: "The New Hampshire-based neoconservative columnist is not an easy person to like."

It's a remarkable coincidence, because Ferreras made it into a list too:

Pelalusa's Top 5 List of Insignificant Canadian Blowhards

5. Maude Barlow
4. Olivia Chow
3. Jesse Ferreras
2. Jack Layton
1. Elizabeth May

Barbara Yaffe: The Left Coast's Resident Liberal Party Hack

Delusion: Barbara Yaffe wants an Obama regime in Canada

Reality

The Liberal Party of Canada's Marriage to The Mainstream Media

This morning, one of my great readers, John, posted this interesting tidbit. I wasn't surprised to hear that the Globe & Mail's Gloria Galloway has a direct connection (her husband) to the Liberal Party of Canada but I wasn't aware of it. His comment inspired me to create this diagram:

Everyone in B.C. who pays attention to politics is brutally aware who Christy Clark's husband is.

I want to significantly expand this diagram so that all Canadians can see just how interconnected our mainstream media is with the Liberal Party of Canada. Please leave me tips publicly or privately as per your preference. Thank you.

Iggy's Best Christmas Ever!

You can create your own Corrupt Canadian Media characters here!