Media Bias [Merged]

[mariomike]

I don't know.  Mel Lastman was well known across the continent.

Come back, Mel. All is forgiven. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... I think what the Toronto Star did would qualify as irresponsible journalism.  If there is a video find it buy it get it whatever.  Just saying you saw it isn't good enough ....

1)  The CBC is in an even worse position, saying "there are reports of such a video, but we haven't seen it and can't confirm its existence".
2)  Be careful what you wish for - how many people thinking this way would also be saying, "how low can you get, giving $100,000 to a drug dealer for a video" if the Star did buy it?  Then again, some media outlets appear happy to get police involved if it advances the story, while the Star may be trying to protect its source.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The CRTC may have given a future government, possibly (but not probably) even this one, the tool it needs to privatize the CBC. Allowing (limited) advertising on CBC radio removes a final, key distinction: the CBC now competes, directly, service by service, with private broadcasters and it, too, ought to be wholly private.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Hmm,....a classic case of "careful what you wish for?".

 

[ModlrMike]

In what could be the first step in vindication for Mr Ford:

Gawker reports Rob Ford crack video may be 'gone'
CBC News
Posted: Jun 4, 2013 7:03 PM ET
Last Updated: Jun 4, 2013 7:20 PM ET

Gawker, the U.S. gossip website that has led efforts to purchase and bring to light a purported video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, now says their main contact fears the footage is "gone."

More at LINK

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This may, and I hope does, turn out badly for the Star. Their libel exposure just became exponentially bigger.

 

[GAP]

hmmm.....convenient, no?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A blind man could have seen this coming from a mile away.

The Toronto 'left' and 'elistias' will stop at nothing, including slander and libel to sully their arch enemy.

Death by a thousand (untruthful) cuts is the name of their game.

I can only hope he decides to run again and once more get elected by that majority that see him as someone that does what he says and refuses to kowtow to TO's fashionistas, a man that truly cares about TO and not the minority elitist vagabonds that try populate and influence it.

 

[PuckChaser]

The unfortunate part is the "crack" story will take forever to die, but the defamation and libel lawsuits will never see a front page.

 

[Good2Golf]

...on the Star, anyways...

 

[The_Falcon]

The unfortunate part is the "crack" story will take forever to die, but the defamation and libel lawsuits will never see a front page.

Oh I bet The Sun can't wait for lawsuits to happen, will gleefully keep everyone appraised.  As for the story not "dying" it's really only The Star, G&M, CBC (and left wing councillors) who keep bringing it up and pushing the issue.  Sun Media and the National Post have pretty much figured out, Ford isn't changing his tune, and given how stubborn and persistent he often is, there is no sense in continually badgering him.

As well, (if one believes polls), Sun Media conducted a few polls, and the finding are, about a 50/50 split between those who support him and those who say he should quite.  And a 50/50 split between those who think the video is real and those who don't. 

Even if the video is real and exists, this incident has shown 1) how low employees of media outlets (I can't bring myself to call them journalists or even reporters), will go for a story.  No corroboration, no authentication, no reliable trustworthy sources, just print whatever, sprinkle in the legal disclaimers in the hopes that that might stave off a lawsuit, and hope to god this video actually surfaces.  2)On the bright side, next person who says Sun Media are nothing but tabloid rags, and the Star and G&M are "higher quality", well this shatters that notion completely.  Hell I am pretty sure The National Enquirer does better fact checking and authentication than these clowns.

 

[mariomike]

I believe ( and I could be wrong ) that most Canadians do not allow themselves to get too worked up over Toronto's mayors ( Lastman, Miller and Ford ).

Because, love them or hate them, there is little point if you can't vote for or against them in elections. 

 

[The_Falcon]

I believe ( and I could be wrong ) that most people do not allow themselves to get too worked up over other peoples politicians (except the US president).

Because, love them or hate them, there is little point if you can't vote for or against them in elections.

Fixed that for you.  But I do agree with your sentiment, if you were to talk to someone form Vancouver, they might bring up (this particular subject), but their interest is probably at the "meh" level.

 

[mariomike]

But I do agree with your sentiment, if you were to talk to someone form Vancouver, they might bring up (this particular subject), but their interest is probably at the "meh" level.

The only mayor outside of TO that I can think of is Hazel McCallion.

Probably only because she has been in office for so long.

 

[GAP]

The only mayor outside of TO that I can think of is Hazel McCallion.

Probably only because she has been in office for so long.

Well then being so Toronto centric, you missed out on Glen Murray, gay pride extraordinaire, Ralph Kline of Calgary fame...you know....the ex premier of Alberta.... et al..

 

[Edward Campbell]

Not about the CBC but, rather a small rant about "journalism," in general ...

I often agree with the Good Grey Globe's Margaret Wente, but not this time. This time I take issue with one key premise in her column which is reproduced under the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/journalists-have-no-business-in-the-senate/article12426866/#dashboard/follows/

Margaret Wente: Journalists have no business in the Senate

MARGARET WENTE
The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Jun. 08 2013

Stephen Harper has always been allergic to journalists. He doesn’t like them and he doesn’t trust them. He has always suspected that they have only one agenda, which is to destroy him.

But the two journalists who’ve done him the most damage were supposed to be the ones on his side. Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, appointed to the Senate for their celebrity status and devotion to the party, have wounded him far more gravely than squadrons of investigative reporters ever have. They have helped to demolish the Conservatives’ claim to integrity in government and respect for taxpayers. And the Harper government’s inexplicable response to the scandal has disgusted much of his own base, who say they no longer recognize the party they thought they belonged to.

“I fear we’re morphing into what we once mocked, ” said Alberta MP Brent Rathgeber, who quit the caucus this week.

It’s hard to embarrass the journalism profession, but Mr. Duffy and Ms. Wallin have done it. Journalists are, after all, supposed to be in the business of holding governments to account and exposing public abuse. It is awkward, to say the least, when two of the most prominent former journalists in Canada become part of the problem.

Superannuated journalists have no business sitting in the Senate, which is often seen as essentially a reward for party loyalty. It makes a mockery of any claim they may have had to the appearance of impartiality. You can’t appear to hold powerful people to account if you at the same time allow yourself to be eligible for a reward of a nice sinecure, a housing allowance and a ready-made retirement plan from those same people. Journalists with any self-respect would do their jobs in such a way that they will never, ever get a Senate offer. If they want to go into politics, let them run for office like anybody else.

Mr. Duffy has attracted most of the heat because of Nigel Wright’s baffling decision to cut a cheque to help him pay back his illegitimate expenses. But Ms. Wallin is in deep trouble, too. Forensic auditors are now scouring her expense claims to determine whether she claimed expenses for personal or other business unrelated to the Senate. She has already paid back $38,000 in expense money she wasn’t entitled to, and, according to CTV sources, there’s more to come.

The picture that has emerged is of a highly energetic networker who parlayed her political connections into a lucrative career in the private sector. According to a report in the Toronto Star, Ms. Wallin has earned approximately $1-million in corporate board fees and stock options since becoming a senator in 2009. Until last month, she sat on the board of Gluskin Sheff & Associates, a private money management firm for wealthy individuals. That was worth $330,000 in cash, deferred shares and options. She collected almost $648,000 in cash and options awards from Oilsands Quest (now defunct). She has also collected more in undisclosed, but likely healthy, fees for sitting on the boards of directors of Porter Airlines and of CTVglobemedia, purchased by Bell in 2011. Presumably she didn’t need a loan to pay back those improper Senate expenses. (Disclosure: I know Mr. Duffy, Ms. Wallin, Gerald Sheff and Ira Gluskin. We media-political-business elites live in a small world.)

Senators of all stripes have been mixing business and politics for years. There’s nothing illegal about it. Senators can carry on business so long as they report it to the Senate ethics officer. But citizens of all stripes might be forgiven for asking why the Senate should serve as a handy base for lucky appointees to enrich themselves – and whether the nation’s business and the senators’ business are really so interchangeable. And despite other senators’ cries of shock and horror, it’s hard to escape the impression that the last people on Earth who want the Senate reformed are the senators themselves.

We can already infer that a good chunk of the $321,000 that Ms. Wallin claimed in expenses over a period of 18 months was illegitimate. How much? Eventually we’ll find out. Ms. Wallin also has another problem – the residency trap. Public filings by Gluskin Sheff list her residence as Toronto. Ms. Wallin, of course, insists that she lives in Saskatchewan. It’s hard see how both things can be true.

Yet I’m not entirely without sympathy for these people. Ms. Wallin and Mr. Duffy have been around Ottawa for decades. They knew how the Senate game was played. You take a little more than you’re entitled to, and hope nobody notices. Senators have never been subjected to the kind of basic oversight that’s routine in the private sector, even for CEOs. Some senators are frugal with public money. Others aren’t. No one ever cared about these matters until now. The rules changed retroactively, and nobody told them.

And now Ms. Wallin, the ultimate insider, is an outcast in Ottawa and beyond. She will likely no longer by an attractive candidate for lucrative board assignments. And she will be forever haunted by that damning image of her splayed hand thrust in front of an invasive camera – a gesture journalists love, because it makes their prey look guilty as hell.

Naturally, the media – the people Mr. Harper detests so much – are riding this for all it’s worth. The CBC is talking darkly of a PMO slush fund that may, theoretically, have been used to compensate Mr. Wright for making Mr. Duffy’s problems go away – or at least that is the insinuation. (Mr. Wright, a wealthy man, certainly doesn’t need the money, and the PMO denies that a secret fund even exists.) Mr. Harper, who has a very large left brain but a wholly inadequate right brain, looks as if he has no idea how to make his own problem go away.

As for the public, it’s no wonder so many of them doubt that journalists can be trusted to act impartially in the public interest. With examples such as these, who can blame them?

I have no issue with her comments about Senators Duffy and Wallin but I take serious issue with two sentences:

    "Journalists are, after all, supposed to be in the business of holding governments to account and exposing public abuse."

                            and

    "As for the public, it’s no wonder so many of them doubt that journalists can be trusted to act impartially in the public interest.

Rubbish; arrant nonsense; and tripe!!!

Journalism is not any sort of noble profession populated by high minded public servants. It is, at best, a craft that requires some skills at clear, concise writing. Journalists have no duty - not assigned by anything like a recognized professional status and no implied - to hold governments to account or to expose public abuse. That they have, on many occasions, done so is a byproduct of their job which is, as I think Rupert Murdoch said, to fill the spaces between the ads.

Journalism can be compelling ~ think Edward R Murrow broadcasting from London in 1940. Journalism can be educational ~ think of H.L. Menkin reporting on the "Scopes Monkey Trial." But the best political, informative journalism is closer to "muck raking" - Upton Sinclair, was the best at it - than to public service.

Now, don't get me wrong, I want Ottawa's muck raked ... ditto for Washington's and Beijing's ... but I don't want journalists to be held up as paragons of virtue; they aren't and I'm pretty sure Margaret Wente knows it when she says, "It’s hard to embarrass the journalism profession ..." Damned right it is, journalism, rightly, is held in very low public esteem, along with politics.

 

[Good2Golf]

Hmmm..."profession"?  She flatters her kind a bit much, I think.  I didn't know that journalists are a self-regulating, licensing professional body?

Career? Sure.  Calling?  Okay, I'll by that.  Profession? Nope...unless, of course, they are a cross-trained doctor, dentist, lawyer, accountant, engineer, etc...

Regards
G2G

 

[The Bread Guy]

Hmmm..."profession"?  She flatters her kind a bit much, I think.  I didn't know that journalists are a self-rugby laying self-regulating, licensing professional body?

FTFY - gotta love that auto-complete, no?  ;D

 

[Good2Golf]

It comes up with the darnedest things...

 

[Journeyman]

......journalism, rightly, is held in very low public esteem....

  Unfortunately very true....except for those who believe it unquestioningly...."I heard it on Fox News, therefore..."  or the 'chemtrail' crowd 

Enjoy the MilPoints.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A few days ago the Globe and Mail's Lawrence Martin, with whom I have disagreed over and over again on a wide range of issues, opined that "Canada’s political scholars fiddle while Rome burns ". I didn't post the article or even make a comment about it because I thought - still think - it was juvenile codswallop.

But Prof Philippe Lagassé, an associate professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa and a member of the government's panel that is evaluating option for a new fighter aircraft does take issue with Martin in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/defence+academic+fiddling/8500960/story.html
My emphasis added

In defence of academic ‘fiddling’
Scholars’ most valuable contributions to public debate are grounded in research, writes Philippe Lagassé.

By Philippe Lagassé, Ottawa Citizen June 9, 2013

Are political scientists failing to play their part as critics of the government in Canada? Lawrence Martin thinks so. Writing in the Globe and Mail last week, he lamented that academics are busy working on narrow research projects, instead of using their privileged positions to find fault with those in power. Pointing to the activism of scholars past, Martin wondered why a new generation of public intellectuals has not followed suit, taking to the op-ed pages and talk shows to name and shame politicians who abuse their authority.

Coincidentally, Martin’s missive appeared at the same time as the annual conference of the Canadian Political Science Association. The column was met with bewilderment by many at the conference. A quick glance at the program explains why. Included among the presenters were professors and graduate students who routinely analyze current events in print, online, and on the air.

There is no shortage of critical commentary about Canadian political affairs from academics, young or old.

Of note, Canadian newspapers and magazines have recently featured political scientists critically assessing the prorogation of the Ontario legislature, Supreme Court decisions, the tactics and rhetoric of the Conservative party, the Idle No More movement, Canadian foreign, health, and social policy, and military procurements. This newspaper has been particularly open to publishing academics, but more than a few of these articles have appeared in Martin’s own newspaper, the Globe and Mail.

While it is hard to measure, a good case can be made that these academic contributions have been influential, either eliciting a reaction from government or helping the opposition sharpen their attacks. Regardless, these articles have been informative, boiling down dense academic research into short, accessible pieces that fuel debate and discussion about Canadian politics.

Given the evident presence of political scientists in public debates, it appears that Martin is more concerned with what they say and write, instead of how often they do so. What Martin really wants are more vitriolic and categorical critiques of the Conservative government from political scientists.

Is this an appropriate request? I am skeptical. While there will be occasions when governments deserve to be lambasted by academics, this is a job best left to pundits and partisans. Just as we expect journalists to stick to the facts in their reporting, political scientists should strive to follow the research. If a professor’s work leads him or her to conclude that a government merits a harsh rebuke, then so be it. But, speaking for myself, I have noted that careful analyses of a government’s actions usually lead to cautious criticisms, or guarded defences, of what governments are up to. The same, it must be said, holds for policies and positions of the opposition parties.

Indeed, academic research serves as a useful corrective against the facile truisms that routinely take hold of political commentaries.

Discussions of Canada’s political institutions are a case in point. It has become “common knowledge” that the prime minister is all powerful, ministerial accountability is dead, and parties and partisanship hinder our democracy. As someone who is currently researching the executive and Parliament, I find these assertions problematic. It is not that they are wrong per se, but they should be tempered by a consideration of longer term trends and contrary evidence.

Other academics will disagree with my findings, of course. But it precisely because we “fiddle” with research projects, as Martin remarks, that we are able to compare competing theories, methods, and evidence, allowing us to refine our work and arrive at better answers to complex political questions. Political science professors would be failing as researchers if they simply embraced whichever meme about the state of Canadian politics happens to be popular at the moment.

For Martin, this concern with research is cowardice. He seems to think that our focus on “things that can be empirically proven” is a failing. This is a baffling statement. The credibility of academics rests with the fact that they are preoccupied with what can be proven. If political scientists gave up on rigour and evidence, they would not be of much use to anybody, including those opposed to the current government.

Philippe Lagassé is an associate professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Suffice it to say that I agree with Prof Lagassé.