Media Watch: From Public Villain to the CBC writer
cialis - buy cialis - order cialis - cialis online - cialis mastercard 
Did Greg Gutfeld go to the CBC, or was this an April Fool’s joke?
April 1, 2009
March 30, 2009
Media Bias: So much for fairness and balance
h/t to Brian Lilley who brought this story to our attention on his blog.
It seems that former CTV reporter, David Akin, thought to throw a little gas on the fire by pointing out that the Conservative government gave a magazine that bills itself as “Western Canada’s Conservative Voice” $27,124 “on behalf of all [Canadian] taxpayers.”
Mr. Akin’s next line to drive the point home: “This, of course, was the day after CBC announced about 800 layoffs…because of a budget shortfall it hoped Canada’s government, on behalf of all taxpayers, might cover.”
The message is clear: The Harper Conservatives are cutting needed funds from the CBC in favour of funding for partisan, western voices. The only problem is, Mr. Akin’s shallow evaluation has no basis, and in fact it is the ‘conservative voices’ that are getting the short end of the stick.
Here we must applaud Mr. Lilley (who is a friend and colleague of David Akin) for bringing balance to the report.
“Never assume a conspiracy when plain old incompetence will do.
In fairness to David, he may not know that this funding flows freely from government’s of all stripes. I’ve worked in Canada’s arts industry, of which most magazine believe they belong and I’ve seen the programs first hand. While those in the industry will always tell you there isn’t enough government money, the feds spend plenty on Canadian magazines and it isn’t limited to $27,124 in funding to a group of Alberta’s conservatives.
Consider this line from the website of the fantastically left wing This Magazine, a magazine that just might consider Jack Layton a right winger
”This Magazine receives financial support from the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Publication Assistance Program and the Canada Magazine Fund. “
Count ‘em, four different types of funding from government, three of them from the feds.
The Walrus Magazine, another publication hardly friendly to the Conservatives or conservatism, was able to grab $110,522 from the Canadian Magazine Fund. If I was Report Magazine, I might be a little miffed that I didn’t get more money, I mean even Urban Male Magazine got more money than they did.”
So now that the full facts are known, it’s really hard to justify David Akin’s innuendo about Conservative funding isn’t it.
The question arises: Why are the media complicit in propounding the myth that Conservatives are ultra-partisan and direct public funds only in their partisan interests? That sounds exactly like the cheap stunts that the Liberals try to pull in their “press releases.” Someone of David Akin’s calibre and experience should know better (and he should research his stories better).
What is most troubling however is that the Liberals have tried to type-cast Prime Minister Harper since 2004 by innuendo, attack ads and baseless accusations. What they have done to Mr. Harper makes the profiling of Stephane Dion look like child’s play. The sad part is that so many in the media are complicit in parroting these accusations and giving them credibility in the eyes of the public - regardless of the lack of facts to back them up.
March 26, 2009
Murphwatch: MP Brian Murphy in the media
Since the 2008 election, Brian Murphy has had his wrists slapped more than once in the media, including our very own Times & Transcript.
The first such case was when someone from Brian’s office apparently complained to the T&T about not getting enough coverage. As a result they were publicly rebuked. Next came the leak from Murphy’s office that funding had been approved for a new Peace Centre in Moncton. As it turns out, the funding had not even been applied for yet. The T&T publicly wondered if our MP was “out to lunch.”
Now Mr. Murphy finds himself at odds with his former prime promoter once again. This time the issue is enhanced driver’s licenses that would allow easier transit across the US border.
When asked whether NB should sieze the initiative and take the lead in providing licenses with citizenship data included, Mr. Murphy responded: “This is like walking through deep snow. Nobody wants to be the first to do it. Maybe New Brunswick is right to stay on the well-worn path and not be the first and make the mistakes, but be third or fourth and get it right.”
The Times & Transcript took issue with his reticence and encouraged Mr. Murphy to show some leadership instead of waiting for others to blaze a trail. “We also don’t subscribe to the rallying cry of Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe MP Brian Murphy, who suggests it is fine for New Brunswick to be third or fourth among Canadian provinces to adopt this technology. Moncton and Fredericton have been listed as two of the seven most intelligent cities on the planet. Smart card technology should not stump us. It’s time to show some technological leadership.”
March 7, 2009
Light at the end of the tunnel?
Conservatives take heart, there may actually be some hope for fair coverage in the media.
Many have long perceived a liberal bias in the media, but never has that been more evident than since Stephen Harper has become Prime Minister. Conservatives have never asked for ‘kid glove’ treatment, only fairness and balance in reporting - without the obvious delight at exploiting every misstep and warping the message.
In the last week we have seen two examples that indicate there might be some light at the end of the tunnel.
The first is a CBC Reality Check [link2] (can you believe it?) that actually defended the Prime Minister from accusations that he has reversed his opinion on the mission in Afghanistan. Many times the media has parroted opposition claims that the Prime Minister was inconsistent in his message, but the CBC clearly took exception this time. Will wonders never cease?
The second ray of hope came in the form of an editorial from the National Post (not as surprising) which openly chided the media for skewering the Prime Minister, while giving more liberal politicians a free ride on essentially the same comments. Two issues that they cited were budget comments by Prime Minister Harper and Dalton McGuinty respectively, and the second was Barak Obama’s virtual echo of our Prime Minister’s comments on the opportunity presented by low stock prices. The contrast in reporting was striking.
When the media begins to take note of media bias, perhaps there’s something to it after all.
The one fact that the Post left unremarked on was the reaction to the national vs. Ontario projected deficits. When the Conservative government proposed a $40 billion stimulus package to jump start the economy, the reaction ranged from how ‘outrageous’ and ‘unconservative’ it was of them to “this is not nearly enough!”
Consider this: Canada’s national GDP is somewhere in the range of 1.5 trillion dollars. The GDP of Ontario is less than $600 billion (about 38% of Canada as a country). So while Ontario produces roughly one third of Canada’s national economic output, they will be facing a deficit which is nearly half that of the entire country! Translation - Ontario’s deficit is much larger proportionally than what the Conservatives are proposing for the entire country. This is compounded by the fact that Ontario will be the largest recipient of federal stimulus, yet they are facing a massive deficit because they are adding to provincial debt as well.
Reporting on Prime Minister Harper’s deficit spending to stimulate the economy: ‘The world is coming to an end.’
Reporting on Premier McGuinty’s deficit spending (in addition to the federal stimulus): Silence
Perhaps an honest comparison of the facts is just too much to hope for - yet.
August 23, 2008
The “fixed election date” myth prevails
In a Toronto Star article by Allan Woods, the reporter perpetuates the myth that the “fixed election date law” prohibits the Prime Minister from calling an election earlier than October 2009.
“Under a Tory bill setting fixed election dates, the next vote is not supposed to occur until October 2009 unless the government is defeated in a confidence vote.”
This is the common presumption that has been perpetuated since the legislation was passed. The problem is, it has no element of truth. To make sure, we re-checked the version of C-16 that received Royal Assent and even conducted a word search for “confidence” and “vote.” The word confidence appears nowhere in the text of the bill or the summary, and the one place where the word vote appears has nothing to do with defeating the government.
There are only two reasons why this myth continues to prevail:
- The opposition and the news media are complicit in a scheme to slander the Conservative government by falsely alleging that they care so little about the law that they are willing to violate their own legislation. (Note: We do not believe this to be true, however some would make this allegation).
- The opposition has no clue of the substance of the bill that they debated and passed. Furthermore, the media would have to be simply parroting what the opposition is telling them, rather than simply checking the facts of a two page bill!
Given the two options above, one would be hard pressed to choose which one is worse! In any event, it remains to be seen whether or not some of the more esteemed reporters will eventually pick up on it.
Meanwhile, the erstwhile professor added his two cents to the pile:
“Dion, who has been reluctant to commit to toppling the Conservative minority in a non-confidence vote, said an election call by Harper would violate his own law setting fixed election dates.
“Now he wants to change this rule without changing the law, so he will break the law,” Dion as he wrapped up a three-day campaign-style swing through the GTA and southern Ontario.”
We invite readers to use the link above to read the full text of Bill C-16. The bill is very clear that the Governor General may dissolve Parliament at her discretion. In our previous post on this subject, we demonstrated clearly that the Governor General dissolves Parliament “on the advice of the Prime Minister” or when “the Prime Minister requests a writ.” The third circumstance which would prompt the GG to call an election is the understanding that “the government must retain the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons or tender its resignation.”
The maximum term between election dates was previously fixed at 5 years by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With this amendment to the Elections Act, the maximum fixed term is moved back from 5 years to 4 years between elections. We invite the Liberal leader et al to demonstrate how the Prime Minister could possibly violate this law by asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. From the rhetoric regularly spewing from the opposition, it is clear that the Conservative government does not have their confidence. It is interesting to watch all of the opposition parties squirm now that they are faced with the prospects of being held accountable for their bellicose allegations.
Bill C-16 (partial quote)
August 19, 2008
What is “fixed” about Fixed Elections Date?
Would the Prime Minister be “breaking his own law” by calling an election?
“But if Mr. Harper calls an election, Mr. Dion said the campaign would open with Opposition allegations that the
prime minister cannot be trusted since he’s breaking his own fixed election law.” - National Post, 19 August 2008
The Legislation
“Fixed election” legislation is embodied in Government Bill C-16, which received Royal Assent on May 3, 2007. The published summary of the bill states its intent clearly:
“This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to provide that, subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this enactment comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009. The enactment also provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may recommend an alternate day if the day set for polling is not suitable.”
What is “fixed” about this legislation?
- If Parliament is not dissolved sooner, the election must be held on the third Monday of October.
- If Parliament is not dissolved sooner, the election must be held in the 4th calendar year after the previous election.
- If Parliament is not dissolved sooner, the first “fixed election date” after this legislation comes into force is 19 October 2009.
- Whenever an election is called, the Chief Electoral Officer may move the date to “the Tuesday immediately following the Monday that would otherwise be polling day or the Monday of the following week.” [56.2 (4)]
Nothing in this bill changes anything about our Westminster tradition which allows the Governor General to dissolve Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister. Witness the following:
“56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.
56.2 (3) If the Governor in Council accepts the recommendation, the Governor in Council shall make an order to that effect. The order must be published without delay in the Canada Gazette.
57 (4) In the case of a general election that is not held on a day set in accordance with subsection 56.1(2) or section 56.2…”
“The Governor in Council” is defined as: “In Canada, the governor in council is the Governor General acting on the advice of the federal cabinet.”
Parliament of Canada elaborates:
“The process is set in motion when the Prime Minister requests the Governor General, who represents the Queen as the head of state, to dissolve Parliament and to request the issue of Writs by the Chief Electoral Officer for an election.
…the government must retain the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons or tender its resignation.” (1)
Dissolution terminates a Parliament and is followed by a general election, the date of which is set by the Governor in Council, with the Constitution Act, 1982 providing that Parliament must sit at least once every 12 months.Dissolution is proclaimed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. In the absence of such advice, dissolution is automatic following the expiration of a Parliament’s maximum five-year term. As a matter of interest, however, this has not yet occurred in Canadian parliamentary history. Parliament may be dissolved at any time. If the House is sitting, and there is not to be a prorogation ceremony, dissolution is usually announced to the House by the Prime Minister or some other Minister of the Government. If the House is not sitting, Parliament is dissolved by a proclamation of the Governor General. (2)
[Note: As of May 2007, the maximum five year term was amended to four years by Bill C-16. None of the other conditions were changed.]
Elections Canada’s clarifies the current status:
There are two things that regulate the timing of elections - The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and newer legislation passed by an Act of Parliament in 2007 which backs the maximum date up from 5 years to 4 years.
“According to subsection 4(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.”
That maximum five year term was amended in the Elections Act to be fixed at no more than four years.
“Since May 2007, the Canada Elections Act requires that a general election be held on a fixed date: the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election. The first “fixed-date election” would be held on Monday, October 19, 2009. However, the law does not prevent the Governor General from dissolving Parliament at another date, for instance, when the government loses the confidence of the House of Commons. The date of a general election is set by the Governor in Council.”
What does the Prime Minister have to say for himself?
“We did establish a fixed date for the next election. That said, in this minority parliament, two of the parties (the Bloc and the NDP) have indicated for some months now that they want an election immediately. Mr. Dion has indicated that the government should be defeated, but he’s not sure when he’ll do that because he hasn’t got good enough polls. I don’t think that’s a particularly responsible position.
I think polls do indicate that the next election in all likelihood would be a minority one way or the other. The fact of the matter is, what I will have to decide over the next few weeks is whether or not we can have a productive fall session of Parliament, or whether in fact the government needs a new mandate. That’s a decision, that’s an analysis I’ll have to reflect on.
I’ll have to talk to some of the other parties, but what’s absolutely clear from the comments of all three opposition leaders (including Mr. Dion) is that they have no intention of respecting the fixed election date so obviously we’re going to have to judge how the Parliamentary agenda is unfolding. I think we’ve had a productive two and a half years, I do think that has slowed somewhat in recent weeks. I will take the next few weeks do a thorough evaluation of the situation and ensure one way or another we can have a productive parliament in the future.” (CTV News 12:01 ff)
The law is clear, when the Government has lost the confidence of the “majority of the House of Commons [it must] tender its resignation” notwithstanding a fixed date for the maximum term of a mandate. The only thing that is absent is the Liberals’ formal declaration of non-confidence. Stéphane Dion is making a mockery out of Parliament and the democratic process by publicly declaring his non-confidence in the media, but refusing to back it up inside the House. The media is complicit in this, as they are the perception that the Prime Minister would be ‘breaking his own law’ by calling an election.
August 17, 2008
Forget George Bush, “Yasuo Fukuda clone” is the new stereotype
The Liberal press loves to link Stephen Harper to US president George Bush because he has become the whipping boy for America’s stumbling economy and the unpopular war in Iraq. Leaving aside whether this criticism is justified, this is an age-old political trick of trying to saddle a political opponent with the stigma of a leader who is widely reviled in Canada.
This raises the question however of “What will the opposition do when George Bush is gone?” Perhaps that is why Stéphane Dion is threatening an election this fall; after November he will lose a major stick that he regularly uses to whip his minions into a frenzy.
A case in point that reveals just how phoney this partisan stereotyping is, the Edmonton Journal published an article this week stating that Japan’s Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, is demanding that “developing countries be obliged to join their industrialized counterparts in cutting greenhouse gas emissions under a new international framework to combat global warming to come into force in 2013.” This is virtually identical to the position taken by the Harper government on the inclusion of all major emitters.
Of course this raises the question of who is following whom. At the end of the 2008 G8 Summit in Japan, the Prime Minister announced a “breakthrough” agreement on the urgent challenge of global warming.
“There is a new consensus on climate change,” said Prime Minister Harper. “The United States and Russia have joined with us this year and now all G8 countries agree on the goal of a 50 percent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Moreover, G8 leaders have also accepted our longstanding argument that the post-2012 global climate change framework must include all major emitters.”
Where is the Liberal apologist in the press who coins the new epithet “Fukuda clone“? It is just possible that Stephen Harper is demonstrating common sense and leadership because “developing countries are not obliged to cut CO2 emissions under the current framework” according to the article? The Edmonton Journal goes on to report that:
“Except for small island countries and the world’s least-developed nations, Japan will propose that developing countries be categorized based on certain indicators, such as per capita gross domestic product and their percentage of global CO2 emissions. Based on indicators showing the economic development levels of developing countries, Japan will demand those nations also be obliged to cut emissions.
The Japanese proposal aims to try to persuade emerging economies, such as Brazil, China and India, to accept obligatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.”
So is this some sad spinoff of The Clone Wars, or are world leaders finally coming to the conclusion that you can’t make any significant reductions in global emissions when the countries that produce nearly 3/4 of the world’s carbon are excluded from the agreement that Stéphane Dion led Canada into?
Trying to saddle Stephen Harper with George Bush’s unpopularity is a rapidly evaporating apparition. Sadly for the Liberals, “Fukuda clone” does not resonate with Canadians because the Japanese PM is not particularly unpopular here. No Liberal MP’s have been caught on tape stomping dolls of the Japanese leader. In short, the Japanese just don’t make as good of a lightning rod as a US Republican president. That is why you will hear very little in the press as the new crop of world leaders begins to coalesce around the brilliant leadership of Stephen Harper. That would only make him look better on the world stage, and the press will have none of that.
August 9, 2008
Canwest reporter’s story not “Akin” to the facts
Papers across the country this week carried an interesting article by David Akin. This is the same David Akin who was turfed by CTV for his alleged involvement in the “NAFTAgate” affair.
Akin, who now works for Canwest News Service, was virtually the only reporter who picked up on a government news release and reported on the publication of environmental regulations for reducing emissions. This is significant because of HOW Mr. Akin chose to report the government actions.
Akin’s article, which first appeared on canada.com was published in the Ottawa Citizen, Victoria Times and Vancouver Sun among others. The latter stories are merely mirrors of the first, with Akin reporting that “The federal government has published long-awaited draft regulations that make up an important part of the Conservative green plan.” He also includes a one line quote from Minister Baird.
The bulk of the article however is quotes from opposition environment critic, David McGuinty, and other criticisms of the Tory plan. Here is a sample of what Mr. Akin deemed fit for news:
“Critics have said the regulations are long overdue but their release helps the Tories avoid increasingly frequent criticism from the Liberals that the government is dragging its heels on the environment file.
‘We should have had the detailed regulations for industry in place long ago. Instead we have a draft of a very small piece,’ said David McGuinty, a Liberal MP and his party’s environment critic. ‘That the government released this on the Friday night of the opening of the Olympic Games is telling Canadians a lot about this government’s action on environment. They hope Canadians won’t notice that they are doing nothing.”
Minister Baird:
” ‘We’re choosing to go after big polluters,’ said Mr. Baird. ‘The Liberals are going after the middle class.’
…but Mr. Akin immediately counters that with the statement that:
“To offset the higher prices caused by their new tax, the Liberals’ plan offers consumers a massive income tax cut.”
The Canwest reporter concludes by saying:
“Mr. Baird conceded that some forms of energy would be more expensive under his government’s approach. But instead of tax cuts, the Conservatives are setting up a technology fund that businesses can tap into to develop new ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions.” [emphasis ours]
Let’s quickly dissect this smear piece:
- Fact: The details of the regulatory framework were published 6 months ago on Environment Canada’s website. Regulations published on the web are not considered official however until they are published in the Canada Gazette (which they were this weekend). Given the criticisms routinely smeared on the Conservatives, bureaucrats from the Department of Environment no doubt spent the last few months ensuring all the details were in order because “once a law or regulation is noted in the Gazette, ignorance of it is no longer a legal defence.” (1)
- By publishing the regulations earlier on the internet, the Conservative government gave businesses time to review them and make plans on how they were going to comply before the official publication. As an added benefit, environmental groups, industry and other stakeholders have been spending the summer in consultations over the new Conservative regulations.
- Fact: McGuinty’s allegations that “the government released this on the Friday night of the opening of the Olympic games…” is another red herring. The implication is that the government was trying to avoid the weekday news cycle and ‘hoping Canadians wouldn’t notice.’ The fact is that these type of publications come out every Saturday, as per the publication of Part I of the Canada Gazette. Nothing like a partisan shot with no substance.
- Fact: The Liberals’ “massive income tax” myth has been fully explored and exploded by various analysts. Their Green Shift plan returns only 60% of carbon tax revenues in income taxes. Much of the rest goes to new social spending. The Liberal plan will hit the middle class the worst.
- Fact: The Conservatives have never hid the fact that addressing climate change will be costly. In fact the Prime Minister stated clearly that there would be complaints that their regulations were ‘too tough.’ It is also true that penalties from regulation can be put into a green technology fund (which is true of most cap and trade systems). This means that revenue will actually go towards cleaning up the environment, in contrast with Dion’s Green Shift which allocates only 6% of revenues to any kind of environmental initiative.
- Fact: The Conservatives are proposing a green technology fund IN ADDITION TO tax cuts! The Liberal plan taxes everyone and everything, then gives partial tax cuts back to certain people. In contrast, the Conservatives gave Canadians $190 billion in tax cuts up front, then brought in regulatory measures to make sure that big polluters made absolute reductions for the first time ever. The Liberals tax Canadians first and keep over 1/3 of the revenue; the Conservatives cut taxes first, then regulate the big industries that cause real pollution instead of moms, dads and seniors across Canada.
The facts are at odds with Mr. Akin’s attempt to paint Conservatives as ‘dragging their feet on the environment’ and ‘hoping Canadians won’t notice.’ Notice the difference in tone and content between David Akin’s smear piece and the factual, in depth reporting and extensive quotes found in the Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch. You can often tell more about a reporter by what they leave out, than what they say.
July 19, 2008
Just when you think you’ve heard it all…
Apparently this is old news, but it turns out that Globe and Mail political reporter Gloria Galloway is married to Stéphane Dion’s communications director, Mark Dunn. According to The Hill Times, they were married in 2003.
Ms. Galloway-Dunn is a frequent guest on CTV’s Mike Duffy Live and Question Period, but never once have we heard the slightest disclaimer when she is offering political insight, criticism of the Conservative Party or validation of the Liberals.
One’s personal life should not preclude them from their chosen profession, but honesty demands disclosure in the face of such an obvious conflict of interest. The fact that the public is not afforded the opportunity to adjust their perception of Ms. Galloway’s commentary to the fact that she is married to a Liberal party spokesman is a discredit to the Globe and Mail and only serves to reinforce the perception of bias. If there really is no conflict, then why not exercise disclosure?
Hats off to Mary Hines who commented on a post of ours mirrored on NB Torylady for the first heads up on this tidbit. After chasing it down, it turns out it’s not just rumor. This certainly sheds new light on the general disposition of Ms. Galloway’s articles and the Globe and Mail coverage of politics.
June 22, 2008
Recommended Reading
It’s about votes, not Mother Earth
Politicians care about elections, not global warming
by Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
