• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Media Bias [Merged]

George Wallace said:
As it should be.  I find it offensive that organizations and unions have become so politically vocal in their attempts to influence which way people vote.  The Ontario Election was really a shyte show in my opinion, with all the partisan politics being played out by the Civil Servants, the OPP, Teachers and other such organizations.  I don't agree with that type of tactics.  These Veterans groups are no different.  Leave the 'politicking' to the political Parties.  Leave the voting to the individuals.


On this topic, Unifor, a trade union representing 2,600 journalists and other media workers at 35 media outlets including the Toronto Sun, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, was part of the 2014 Ontario Election, campaigning, actively, against Tim Hudak as Lorrie Goldstein Explains in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/19/why-voters-distrust-the-media-party
logo.png

Why voters distrust the media party

BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2015

One thing journalists never like to be reminded of -- especially during a federal election campaign -- is that the public doesn’t trust us.

In fact, they trust us only slightly more than the politicians we cover.

An Ipsos Reid poll last September found the Canadian media is only considered “extremely trustworthy” by 18% of the public, in the same league as lawyers (16%), auto mechanics (16%) and airport baggage handlers (12%).

Our only saving grace, and it’s nothing to be proud of, is that the public trusts politicians even less, with only 6% considering them “extremely trustworthy”, in the same league as bloggers (6%), car salespeople (5%) and telemarketers (4%).

Indeed, the public’s attitude to elections, in which journalists pursue politicians, can best be described by Oscar Wilde’s famous contemptuous quip about fox hunts as, “the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable”.

It’s not hard to see why the public holds journalists and politicians in low esteem.

Unlike professions Canadians consider extremely trustworthy like firefighters (77%), paramedics (74%) and pharmacists (70%), politicians and journalists spend an inordinate amount of time not helping people, as the above professions do, but telling them what to think and how to live.

And yet journalists and politicians constantly reveal themselves to have feet of clay.

For example, the biggest story so far in this election campaign is the ongoing criminal trial of a former prominent journalist (Mike Duffy) turned politician (Conservative senator) on 31 counts of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

Similarly, Pamela Wallin, another prominent former journalist and Conservative senator, is under investigation by the RCMP for fraud and breach of trust.

(No charges have been laid, the allegations have not been tested in court and Wallin denies wrongdoing. Almost 30% of the Senate, including Conservatives and Liberals, have had their expenses flagged for review by the RCMP.)

But there are other reasons for the public to distrust the media, especially during elections.

Increasingly journalists, through their trade unions, are not just covering elections, but attempting to influence their outcomes.

The Canadian Media Guild (CMG), a union representing 6,000 workers in the Canadian media including the CBC, recently registered as a “third party” with Elections Canada, so it can advocate and advertise for more funding for the CBC during the election.

As CMG President Carmel Smyth explains the decision on its website: “As a media union we are non-partisan, and do not support or give money to any political party. But we have a responsibility to let Canadians know how destructive and unnecessary the recent (CBC) cuts have been, and to encourage CBC supporters to share their belief CBC should be funded to produce original Canadian content in both official languages and local news across the country.”

Despite Smyth’s claim of non-partisanship, in the world of realpolitik -- practical versus theoretical politics -- the CMG will effectively be campaigning against the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, since it is the one which imposed what it describes as the “destructive and unnecessary ... recent (CBC) cuts.”

Journalists shouldn’t be surprised then (the CMG also represents workers for The Canadian Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, TVO, TFO, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, ZoomerMedia and Shaw Media), if many Canadians, especially Conservative voters, question their objectivity in their coverage of this campaign.

In the Ontario election last year, Unifor, a trade union representing 2,600 journalists and other media workers at 35 media outlets including the Toronto Sun, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, went further than the CMG, noting it was “breaking its traditional silence” during elections.

Unifor openly campaigned against the Progressive Conservative Party and its then-leader Tim Hudak, urging its members not to support, as Unifor Local 87-M President Paul Morse put it, “Hudak and his circle of Tea Party groupies”.

Given such highly-charged, partisan rhetoric, it’s hard to argue with the tweet from federal Conservative cabinet minister Jason Kenney at the time that: “Journalists’ union picks sides in ON election... but we’re told to believe there’s no such thing as liberal media bias.”

Of course the sword cuts both ways.

Just as journalists are accused of having an anti-Conservative bias, so the owners of many media outlets -- as well as journalists and commentators -- are accused of having an anti-NDP and anti-Liberal bias, including the Sun papers for which I work.

The larger point is that when it comes to the public’s distrust of journalists, it’s not as if we haven’t given them good reason to be distrustful.


Following that same meme, Jeffrey Simpson, discusses Stephen Harper's "war on the media," without ever once mentioning the unions which represent the media in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Glkobe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/how-the-tories-war-on-media-fills-party-coffers/article26023945/
gam-masthead.png

How the Tories’ ‘war on the media’ fills party coffers

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015

That Conservative Leader Stephen Harper dislikes the media is well known.

Perhaps less well known, except to hard-core Conservative supporters, is how his party beats up on the press to raise money and how successful this appeal has been.

For example, before the Aug. 6 leaders’ debate, the party sent a letter to its supporters urging contributions. “Why?” asked party president John Walsh in the letter. “Because already you’re seeing the professional Harper critics and left-wing press pundits striving to pre-dispose public opinion and shape the post-debate public reaction their way – long before the first word is spoken!”

Phrases such as the “chattering class” and “anti-Conservative media bubble” and “media pundits on the left” adorn the letter. But Mr. Walsh likes variations on the theme of “liberal media,” as in the “liberal media filter” and “liberals in the Canadian media,” people presumably working assiduously and deliberately to “risk Canada’s future to the left, far left or extreme left zealots.”

To help the beleaguered Mr. Harper withstand these media assaults, Mr. Walsh urged recipients of the letter not just to send money to the party but to write letters to the editor, and to post comments on Facebook and Twitter to “balance out the biased opinion columnists who oppose a Conservative Majority Government.” Please send a special $100 (or more) donation, Mr. Walsh said, to help launch a “pro Conservative media blitz immediately after the debate,” because Conservatives cannot allow opponents to “dominate the airwaves.”

Speaking of dominating the airwaves, which party spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars advertising its policies such as those loosely associated with the Economic Action Plan? Which one began before the election campaign a radio and television campaign denigrating Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau? And which party called an early election so that it could spend more money than the others, especially during the final week of the campaign with an unprecedented media buy?

All these efforts were from Mr. Walsh’s party, but to read his letter the untutored might believe the Conservatives are indeed being outspent by their opponents. Worse, they are being done in by “liberal media” whose tentacles have wrapped themselves around the country’s collective brain and warped it against the Conservatives.

All is fair, one might say, in love, war and elections, so this sort of Walshian hyperbole might be expected. As, perhaps, also might be the photographs in the letter of Mr. Harper smiling, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair looking like the devil possessed and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau sporting a moustache and looking like a cross between Zorro and Lothario.

New Democrats and Liberals send messages to their supporters warning about Mr. Harper, even demonizing him, and of course rounding on his government’s policies. They, too, entreat their supporters to send more money because, contrary to Conservative claims of being outspent, they know the Conservatives do indeed have more money.

What differentiates the Conservative appeals is not attacking the other parties and warning of their nefarious policies, but the idea that there are other institutions, elitist ones such as the “liberal media,” that are out to undermine the Conservative Party and conservatism. The fight is therefore not merely partisan politics, but against wider forces.

Of course, political parties have been known to spar with, and even dislike, the media. Liberals under prime minister Pierre Trudeau thought their party got a raw deal, especially after all but two newspapers in English-speaking Canada endorsed the Conservatives in the 1980 election – which the Liberals then won.

New Democrats historically considered the media hostile, owned by capitalists who decried socialism of every hue. Take The Toronto Star, a defiantly Liberal newspaper, out of the picture, and it’s hard to see a print media conspiracy against the Conservatives. But that’s the way they see the world, facts notwithstanding.

As for private television, it’s difficult to discern any pro- or anti-Conservative bias in a systematic way, although as everyone in the media knows, bias is often in the eye of the beholder. AM radio is overwhelmingly conservative, as any consumer of open-line shows knows. As for social media, from which many younger people now get their information, it’s all over the map politically speaking.

But conjuring up the enemy of the “liberal media” has worked for the Harper Conservatives, so to that well they return.


I know I'm repeating myself, but, I expect the media to be biased. Journalists are, by and large, smart, well educated people who are in the infotainment industry and they would not be human if they didn'r have biases. Owners and publishers of newspapers are supposed to have biases, in some cases (e.g. the Toronto Star with its (in)famous Atkinson Principles, which, long after the author's death, still guide that newspaper today and make it a reliable Liberal (and liberal) organ) the bias is formal, even institutionalized. I hope that journalists will confine their biases to opinion pieces and try to report hard political news in a straight forward, factual basis... my hopes are, more often than not, unfulfilled.

I expect to see Jeffrey Simpson, who takes journalism, and himself, very seriously ~ far more seriously than I think is necessary ~ mount an implicit defence of the media against CPC attacks, but, equally, I am heartened to read Lorrie Goldstein's article which acknowledges that the media is anything but the paragon Mr Simpson imagines.
 
On the topic of media, I would contest that the media campaign occuring on facebook, twitter, etc, while overlooked, is a cheap and extremely effective way of reaching the younger votes and getting a message across.

Pictures like the one attached have circulated widely on facebook recently and certainly help to paint the "Harper is anti-Canadian" narrative popular with the liberals and conservatives. To be honest, I would suspect that with voters leaning liberal or NDP a social media campaign is likely to be more successful (and print/TV at conservative leaning voters). The traditional print and TV medias are becoming more and more marginalized by the day, and are also likely to lash out against the government as a convenient scapegoat for their declining readership and relevance.
 
Simpson will not allow himself to see the problem, so he will not see the problem.

To propose that the behaviour of "the media" may be excused by comparing it to that of any other organization or agency is to concede that "the media" should no longer be thought of as professional.

A profession exists to serve a public good.  The public good the media exists to serve as a profession is to inform the public - not to shape opinion, but to inform it.  If the media are no longer an objectively-minded* profession serving a public good, they no longer deserve or need any protections or privileges greater than the pajama army.

Every time a journalist caves to the temptation to put his biases in play in print, he tears a little bit more away from any attempt to rebuild his occupation as a profession.  Politics is simply the realm where the temptation is greatest.

*"Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
On the topic of media, I would contest that the media campaign occuring on facebook, twitter, etc, while overlooked, is a cheap and extremely effective way of reaching the younger votes and getting a message across.

Pictures like the one attached have circulated widely on facebook recently and certainly help to paint the "Harper is anti-Canadian" narrative popular with the liberals and conservatives. To be honest, I would suspect that with voters leaning liberal or NDP a social media campaign is likely to be more successful (and print/TV at conservative leaning voters). The traditional print and TV medias are becoming more and more marginalized by the day, and are also likely to lash out against the government as a convenient scapegoat for their declining readership and relevance. 

The funny thing is that if you look at the uniform of the soldier walking with the kids, you realize he 's not even a Canadian soldier.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
The funny thing is that if you look at the uniform of the soldier walking with the kids, you realize he 's not even a Canadian soldier.

Maybe that was the point  ;)
 
I am not sure that the claim is true. (If in doubt, make up some statistics.) It is irrelevant anyways as the situation has changed dramatically from the Pearson era.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
On the topic of media, I would contest that the media campaign occuring on facebook, twitter, etc, while overlooked, is a cheap and extremely effective way of reaching the younger votes and getting a message across.

Pictures like the one attached have circulated widely on facebook recently and certainly help to paint the "Harper is anti-Canadian" narrative popular with the liberals and conservatives. To be honest, I would suspect that with voters leaning liberal or NDP a social media campaign is likely to be more successful (and print/TV at conservative leaning voters). The traditional print and TV medias are becoming more and more marginalized by the day, and are also likely to lash out against the government as a convenient scapegoat for their declining readership and relevance.


Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.

Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml

And let's look at a period from, let's say, 1990 to 2015 and see if the people who fabricated that photo (either 'accidentally' or deceitfully) were even close to any shred of truth in their efforts to demonize Stephen Harper compared to Paul Martin, or Jean Chretien or even Brian Mulroney:


2015 - #1 Bangladesh 9398,  #68 Canada 112
2014 - #1 Bangladesh 9400,  #68 Canada 113
2013 - #1 Pakistan 8266,  #61 Canada 115
2012 - #1 Pakistan 8967,  #55 Canada 150
2011 - #1 Bangladesh 10394,  #54 Canada 190
2010 - #1 Pakistan 10652,  #53 Canada 198
2009 - #1 Pakistan 10764,  #56 Canada 170
2008 - #1 Pakistan 11135,  #49 Canada 179
2007 - #1 Pakistan 10610,  #58 Canada 149
2006 - #1 Pakistan 9867,    #69 Canada 132

2005 - #1 Bangladesh 9529,  #32 Canada 387
2004 - #1 Pakistan 8140,  #34 Canada 314

2003 - #1 Pakistan 6248,  #38 Canada 233 (note: now invading Iraq and USA is still #22 at 518)
2002 - #1 Pakistan 4677,  #31 Canada 263 (note: still doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #19 at 631)
2001 - #1 Bangladesh 6010,  #32 Canada 295 (note: even doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #18 at 750)
2000 - #1 Nigeria 3523,  #25 Canada 568 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #14 at 885)
1999 - #1 Poland 1039,  #15 Canada 291 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 619)
1998 - #1 Poland 1053,  #17 Canada 265 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #8 at 681)
1997 - #1 Poland 1084,  #19 Canada 254 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 644)
1996 - #1 WTF?!? USA...really???  ??? Yup...2449,  #11 Canada 956
1995 - #1 Pakistan 8795,  #6 Canada 2585
1994 - #1 Pakistan 9110,  #7 Canada 2811
1993 - #1 France 6370,  #7 Canada 2808

1992 - #1 France 6502,  #3 Canada 3285

1991 - #1 Finland 1006, #2 Canada 971
1990 - #1 Canada 1002 (the last time Canada was ever the #1 contributor)


So...the graphic should actually show "Lyin' Brian" as the last PM to have been the #1 contributor to UN Peacekeeping.  Five years later, 'Ptit gars from Shawinigan had busted Canada double digits down the list as USA soared like an eagle to #1.  For the rest of Chrétien's tenure, Canada was always behind the USA, usually less than half the peacekeepers provided from south of the border.  Paul Martin takes over from Chrétien and starts to work things back up, almost doubling the peacekeepers that Chrétien left behind.  Stephen Harper took over and Canada ramped up capability in AFG and about halved its peacekeepers from Martin's days.

So, to summarize...

- Canada was #1 under Mulroney
- Chrétien let Canada slide from #3 to #38...nicely done, dude from same party as "Peacekeeping Pearson." :slow clap:
- Martin reversed Chrétien's slide and raised Canada from #38 to #32, even as we were ramping up in AFG.
- Harper let peacekeeping slide from #32 to #68 and 275 less peacekeepers than in Martin's last year.

i.e.  That photo/meme is pure BS.  Those sheeple who pass that kind of patently mal-informed stuff on without critically thinking for themselves should at least be a little embarrassed...

:2c:

G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.

i.e.  That photo/meme is pure BS.  Those sheeple who pass that kind of patently mal-informed stuff on without critically thinking for themselves should at least be a little embarrassed...

G2G

So this is your first day on the interweb?  ;D

Social media is full of BS.  From free disney cruises, fake amber alerts, Obama b-cert conspiracies to, yes, fake feel good soldier stories.  I doubt anyone passing this stuff feel any embarassment at all given how people don't feel there are consequences to their actions.  And in elections it ramps up on all sides.

I love SNOPES, exactly because it debunks a lot of that crap.
 
Good2Golf said:
Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.

Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml

And let's look at a period from, let's say, 1990 to 2015 and see if the people who fabricated that photo (either 'accidentally' or deceitfully) were even close to any shred of truth in their efforts to demonize Stephen Harper compared to Paul Martin, or Jean Chretien or even Brian Mulroney:


2015 - #1 Bangladesh 9398,  #68 Canada 112
2014 - #1 Bangladesh 9400,  #68 Canada 113
2013 - #1 Pakistan 8266,  #61 Canada 115
2012 - #1 Pakistan 8967,  #55 Canada 150
2011 - #1 Bangladesh 10394,  #54 Canada 190
2010 - #1 Pakistan 10652,  #53 Canada 198
2009 - #1 Pakistan 10764,  #56 Canada 170
2008 - #1 Pakistan 11135,  #49 Canada 179
2007 - #1 Pakistan 10610,  #58 Canada 149
2006 - #1 Pakistan 9867,    #69 Canada 132

2005 - #1 Bangladesh 9529,  #32 Canada 387
2004 - #1 Pakistan 8140,  #34 Canada 314

2003 - #1 Pakistan 6248,  #38 Canada 233 (note: now invading Iraq and USA is still #22 at 518)
2002 - #1 Pakistan 4677,  #31 Canada 263 (note: still doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #19 at 631)
2001 - #1 Bangladesh 6010,  #32 Canada 295 (note: even doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #18 at 750)
2000 - #1 Nigeria 3523,  #25 Canada 568 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #14 at 885)
1999 - #1 Poland 1039,  #15 Canada 291 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 619)
1998 - #1 Poland 1053,  #17 Canada 265 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #8 at 681)
1997 - #1 Poland 1084,  #19 Canada 254 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 644)
1996 - #1 WTF?!? USA...really???  ??? Yup...2449,  #11 Canada 956
1995 - #1 Pakistan 8795,  #6 Canada 2585
1994 - #1 Pakistan 9110,  #7 Canada 2811
1993 - #1 France 6370,  #7 Canada 2808

1992 - #1 France 6502,  #3 Canada 3285

1991 - #1 Finland 1006, #2 Canada 971
1990 - #1 Canada 1002 (the last time Canada was ever the #1 contributor)


So...the graphic should actually show "Lyin' Brian" as the last PM to have been the #1 contributor to UN Peacekeeping.  Five years later, 'Ptit gars from Shawinigan had busted Canada double digits down the list as USA soared like an eagle to #1.  For the rest of Chrétien's tenure, Canada was always behind the USA, usually less than half the peacekeepers provided from south of the border.  Paul Martin takes over from Chrétien and starts to work things back up, almost doubling the peacekeepers that Chrétien left behind.  Stephen Harper took over and Canada ramped up capability in AFG and about halved its peacekeepers from Martin's days.

So, to summarize...

- Canada was #1 under Mulroney
- Chrétien let Canada slide from #3 to #38...nicely done, dude from same party as "Peacekeeping Pearson." :slow clap:
- Martin reversed Chrétien's slide and raised Canada from #38 to #32, even as we were ramping up in AFG.
- Harper let peacekeeping slide from #32 to #68 and 275 less peacekeepers than in Martin's last year.

i.e.  That photo/meme is pure BS.  Those sheeple who pass that kind of patently mal-informed stuff on without critically thinking for themselves should at least be a little embarrassed...

:2c:

G2G

I agree with you that the meme is 100% BS, but in terms of "media" its great because it works with the sheeple's views that Harper is the great devil. Social media, for all it's benefits, is a machine that can create immense rage and interest within moments... look at the Lion thing of a couple weeks ago. 2 weeks ago people were willing to tell a dentist they'd never met in a place they'd never been that he should rot in hell, die, etc because he had (potentially unknowingly) shot a lion that no one in North America knew existed.

For politicians and parties, the power of "outrage" that the internet seems to be able to produce is endless. A properly timed outrage campaign on social media before the election with all of its glory could swing undecided young voters at the right time as the ability to "fact check" is dubious.
 
Crantor said:
So this is your first day on the interweb?  ;D

Second day actually, I now know how to haz cheesburgers and who Leeroy Jenkins is...but I did know that some people were sheeple well before the interwebs was invented by Al Gore...  ;D
 
FYI I stole this graphic and your research on my FB.  My ardent liberal friends are less than impressed

Thank you G2G

Good2Golf said:
Sadly, those who spew tripe like that picture are hoping that others don't actually fact check the figures or seek the truth.

Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml

And let's look at a period from, let's say, 1990 to 2015 and see if the people who fabricated that photo (either 'accidentally' or deceitfully) were even close to any shred of truth in their efforts to demonize Stephen Harper compared to Paul Martin, or Jean Chretien or even Brian Mulroney:


2015 - #1 Bangladesh 9398,  #68 Canada 112
2014 - #1 Bangladesh 9400,  #68 Canada 113
2013 - #1 Pakistan 8266,  #61 Canada 115
2012 - #1 Pakistan 8967,  #55 Canada 150
2011 - #1 Bangladesh 10394,  #54 Canada 190
2010 - #1 Pakistan 10652,  #53 Canada 198
2009 - #1 Pakistan 10764,  #56 Canada 170
2008 - #1 Pakistan 11135,  #49 Canada 179
2007 - #1 Pakistan 10610,  #58 Canada 149
2006 - #1 Pakistan 9867,    #69 Canada 132

2005 - #1 Bangladesh 9529,  #32 Canada 387
2004 - #1 Pakistan 8140,  #34 Canada 314

2003 - #1 Pakistan 6248,  #38 Canada 233 (note: now invading Iraq and USA is still #22 at 518)
2002 - #1 Pakistan 4677,  #31 Canada 263 (note: still doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #19 at 631)
2001 - #1 Bangladesh 6010,  #32 Canada 295 (note: even doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #18 at 750)
2000 - #1 Nigeria 3523,  #25 Canada 568 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #14 at 885)
1999 - #1 Poland 1039,  #15 Canada 291 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 619)
1998 - #1 Poland 1053,  #17 Canada 265 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #8 at 681)
1997 - #1 Poland 1084,  #19 Canada 254 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 644)
1996 - #1 WTF?!? USA...really???  ??? Yup...2449,  #11 Canada 956
1995 - #1 Pakistan 8795,  #6 Canada 2585
1994 - #1 Pakistan 9110,  #7 Canada 2811
1993 - #1 France 6370,  #7 Canada 2808

1992 - #1 France 6502,  #3 Canada 3285

1991 - #1 Finland 1006, #2 Canada 971
1990 - #1 Canada 1002 (the last time Canada was ever the #1 contributor)


So...the graphic should actually show "Lyin' Brian" as the last PM to have been the #1 contributor to UN Peacekeeping.  Five years later, 'Ptit gars from Shawinigan had busted Canada double digits down the list as USA soared like an eagle to #1.  For the rest of Chrétien's tenure, Canada was always behind the USA, usually less than half the peacekeepers provided from south of the border.  Paul Martin takes over from Chrétien and starts to work things back up, almost doubling the peacekeepers that Chrétien left behind.  Stephen Harper took over and Canada ramped up capability in AFG and about halved its peacekeepers from Martin's days.

So, to summarize...

- Canada was #1 under Mulroney
- Chrétien let Canada slide from #3 to #38...nicely done, dude from same party as "Peacekeeping Pearson." :slow clap:
- Martin reversed Chrétien's slide and raised Canada from #38 to #32, even as we were ramping up in AFG.
- Harper let peacekeeping slide from #32 to #68 and 275 less peacekeepers than in Martin's last year.

i.e.  That photo/meme is pure BS.  Those sheeple who pass that kind of patently mal-informed stuff on without critically thinking for themselves should at least be a little embarrassed...

:2c:

G2G
 
I'm surprised anyone in this day and age thought Peacekeeping should be an election issue. This gov't can be raked over the coals for so many other military issues (like procurement), it seems odd to drag us back to the days of a UN "White Man's Burden."
 
Acorn said:
I'm surprised anyone in this day and age thought Peacekeeping should be an election issue. This gov't can be raked over the coals for so many other military issues (like procurement), it seems odd to drag us back to the days of a UN "White Man's Burden."

A few months ago I had a gentleman who is part of the Parliamentary Bureau for one of our major networks, but not an on air personality bend my ear for several minutes about the many failings of the PM. He finished his well practiced tirade by saying he changed us from a peacekeeping nation to a militarized nation.

 
Acorn said:
I'm surprised anyone in this day and age thought Peacekeeping should be an election issue. This gov't can be raked over the coals for so many other military issues (like procurement), it seems odd to drag us back to the days of a UN "White Man's Burden."


I think references to peacekeeping, especially to the baby-blue beret notion of it ...
27d799aa87f78ff3f0653f0f5751b59f.jpg
... are very popular.

Successive Canadian government, especially in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, aided by a sympathetic (and compliant) media made much of the whole blue beret thing ~ the notion, as Andrew Cohen put it, fully 10 years ago, of: "This great delusion -- soldiers as boy scouts and do-gooders -- has taken root in the Canadian psyche. We have fallen in love with the idea of Canada as peacekeeper. It has become a cherished part of our iconography, celebrated on the $10 bill and in that imposing granite monument on Sussex Drive in Ottawa." That notion is still very, very popular in, especially, Liberal and NDP circles. Remember this: "We will always be there, like the Boy Scouts"? That was Jean Chrétien ... he wasn't trying to insult the Canadian Forces, he was just telling the truth, as he understood it (probably very correctly), about what Canadians want from their military. I believe that many (maybe even most) Canadians still want that and they are the voters over whom the Liberals and NDP are fighting.
 
HT, de nada! 

No one should get me wrong, I am in no way trying to apologize for Mr. Harper and how he does things, many of which do not at all align with how I would wish to see things done.  I'm more of a Joe Clark, Paul Martin, John Manley kind of guy, but seeing blatantly untrue things thrown out there are irritating at best, and deserve time and effort of others to rebut...  :nod:

Regards
G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
HT, de nada! 

No one should get me wrong, I am in no way trying to apologize for Mr. Harper and how he does things, many of which do not at all align with how I would wish to see things done.  I'm more of a Joe Clark, Paul Martin, John Manley kind of guy, but seeing blatantly untrue things thrown out there are irritating at best, and deserve time and effort of others to rebut...  :nod:

Regards
G2G

The funniest thing is happening.  People are sharing the graphic without having read your words and continuing to buy into its fallacy.  It's amazing, it's errors are right there in black and white, and disproven, and they choose not to read it.  I now fully buy into the theory of sheeple.
 
Halifax Tar said:
The funniest thing is happening.  People are sharing the graphic without having read your words and continuing to buy into its fallacy.  It's amazing, it's errors are right there in black and white, and disproven, and they choose not to read it.  I now fully buy into the theory of sheeple.

HT- exactly. That's why I truly believe that social media, vice traditional print and TV media, is the best way to gain the quick and easy votes near an election to win. It's easy for people to see something on facebook, put in comments, "I can't believe this is happening!", and than share it. Fact checking and being informed is hard. Social media is great at whipping up moral indignation... a well timed "moral indignation" point just before an election could mroe readily swing votes than TV or print can IMHO.
 
FWIW, i think that you will find that Bosnia and Kosovo are not counted, as they were NATO missions.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
FWIW, i think that you will find that Bosnia and Kosovo are not counted, as they were NATO missions.

Heretic!  Those were peacemaking and R2P missions...  :nod:
 
Back
Top