Media Bias [Merged]

[Neill McKay]

But you see, extra duties ARE published in Routine Order Entries under the Duty Listings ... accessable to the public via Access to Information request.

So, no crime committed, ergo no charge laid, but extras assigned for say telling your peer to "piss off". Accessable by the public as we are a federally funded (ie taxpayer) institution.

Why's the CBC to be treated any differently under the circumstances?

Okay, bad example on my part -- If the ROs refer to the extras as such, as opposed to just blending in with the rest of the duty pers.

What about that PER -- public or not?

State your case, because I'm ignoring it anyway.

How does that advance the discussion?

 

[Reccesoldier]

What about that PER -- public or not?

We're not asking to see her PER. 

You seem to be missing the point.  The actions were intended to publicly discredit a public figure in a public forum by through collusion with another publicly elected official. So why the hell should we the public be hoodwinked into suddenly granting anonymity to either the individual or the punishment meted out?  This persons actions were morally reprehensible, publicly damaging to the ideals of free and balanced media (one of the pillars of democratic government) and we have the right to know who and what is being done about it.

I would go farther though.  Because a free and balanced media is such an important part of a pluralistic democracy I would call a public inquiry into the manner in which the CBC operates in order to determine just how widespread this rot is.

 

[GAP]

I would go farther though.  Because a free and balanced media is such an important part of a pluralistic democracy I would call a public inquiry into the manner in which the CBC operates in order to determine just how widespread this rot is.

And during this inquiry the guilt ridden CBC employees and mandarins are just going to breakdown in guilt and remorse and tell all?  ;D

 

[RangerRay]

Wow...where to start...?

And people wonder why the Cons are considered a power hungry regime, they try to disband any organization that criticizes them, first it was the court challenges program that enabled less privileged persons to sue the government,

The "less priviledged" were not taking advantage of this program.  Special interest groups were in order to circumvent the will of Parilament.  Why should taxpayers pay for special interest groups to over turn laws brought in by democratically elected governments?

then they wanted to abolish the Senate because the majority are Liberals.

Wrong.  They want to change the current unelected anachronism into an elected and equal body like in the Commonwealth of Australia.  PM Harper only said that if the Senate refuses to reform, then this anachronism should be abolished.  The NDP are the ones calling for outright abolition of the Senate.

They showed preferential treatment to areas and persons that supported the Tories in the last election, ignoring opposition ridings in a partisan back scratching fiasco.

Not exactly sure what you're talking about here, but the Liberals were famous for patronage.  Just look at the Senate, the Courts, and the upper echelons of the bureaucracy.

Now they are trying to gag the CBC because they have been critical of the Harper reign,

At this point, the government is not trying to "gag" the CBC.  The Conservative Party (not the government) wrote letters demanding the CBC explain the actions of their reporter.  Individual conservatives have been calling for the privatisation for years (which I agree with).

and every reporter will have personal opinions, and put them into their articles, some will report every time Harper doesn't allow a minister to talk, call him controlling and over bearing, while others will report that Dion farted while in the HOC and say "If he can't control his bowels, how can he control our country?" or other nonsense.

Yes, reporters have biases.  However, the CBC funded with public funds, and with the mandate of "representing all Canadians" has an added duty to be as politically neutral as possible.  A reporter, feeding questions to an MP, for committee that has nothing to do with the subject of the questions, is interfering in the process rather than reporting the news.  This, along with many other examples, shows that the CBC is not even trying to be politically neutral.  Private media outlets (National Post, Toronto Star) do not have the same obligation to be neutral.

If the Cons spent more time telling the people what exactly they have done instead of what the other parties have done or haven't done in the past, they might garner more support, but since they are master of mud slinging, their campaign will be reduced to nothing more than a "I know you are, but what am I?" battle. If they get a majority in these next election, I wouldn't be surprised if they decreased the HOC sitting time, so they can do whatever they want without having to answer for it to the opposition in question period as often, not that they answer questions anyways.

I think PM Harper learned from the Grand Master of Canadian politics, Da Liddle Thug from Shawinigan.  Everything you say Harper has done, Chretien has done with the advantage of a majority, and with gusto (gagging MP's, invoking closure, confidence motions on most bills, mud slinging, etc., etc., etc.).

 

[Bigrex]

Ok, if the reporter had no right to influence the questions by the opposition board member, then neither did the PMO, yet the Torie members not only used PMO written and approved questions, they used briefing notes to the media afterwards that were provided by the PMO as well. At least the Liberal MP had a choice of whether to use someone else's questions, while the Tories were probably told to adhere to what was written or face dismissal from the caucus.

Harper and the PMO haven't been shy about politically interfering wherever the sheep will let them, instructing committee chairs on how to delay bills at committee and blame the Opposition, Harper peroging (SP?) parliament and killing their own legislation and blaming the liberals. Now they've fired Keen for doing her job. She was hired to ensure the safe operation of nuclear facilities, so when safety was being overlooked, she ordered the reactor shut down for repairs,it was not her concern or responsibility to find alternatives sources for isotopes, that was the Ministers job. If she had failed to act and they had a catastrophic meltdown, then she would have been to blame, but Harper would rather use a Liberal appointee as a scapegoat and void a high paying position so he can give another patronage job to a Torie associate.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and you don't think the Liberal and NDP members stuff wasn't vetted by thier leaders?  Of course it would be, to do otherwise would be pretty friggin' stupid.

..and your blinding hatred is doing the same thing to you.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Lessoned Learned.

Go to bed with a lieberal, they'll put on their pants and sneak out before daybreak. Question their motives and you'll be distanced, denied and branded a deranged crack whore, with no credibility. They will deny they even had contact with you.

Bigrex,

The liberal appointees and the products of the Trudeau era are the problem with society today. It is their mantra that is condoning early release, 3 for 1 time of sentence, hug a thug and catch and release of the most violent offenders in our society. The perpetuation of the welfare state to garner votes and get re-elected is their goal. Non work for welfare pay is the ethic they estue. Yet they are the same panty waist, milquetoasts that perpetuate the system, then blame everyone else for the failure of the system. They perpetuate the loss of our system of Charter, Our loss of property rights. The loss of our right of self protection. Depend on the government to protect you while you get mugged or raped? It ends up being your fault and the criminal has more rights than the accused. They perpetute the nanny state extrodinare, then can't fathom why thier utopian socialist system has fallen apart and they have lost control. Rather than admit they may have got some things wrong, they play the opposition blame game where EVERYTHING is EVEYRONE elses fault. Talk to a lieberal. They've done nothing wrong. The people in this country voted for Harper because they were tired of the pompous, overbearing, dictorial government of the Cretin\Mr Dithers governments. Most parties have few scruples when it comes to how they are elected. However, they have some. The lieberals have none, and have proven time and again, both provincially and federally, they will stoop to the lowest levels possibly. Lie, cheat and tell half truths. They will do anything, no matter how despicable, to garner favour, and put themselves in the position to force their personal will on the rest of Canadian society. Under a Liberal government, you as a Canadian, have NO rights. Check into how they have abrogated the Charter before you respond.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Of course there are two sides to every story........I'm a lot more fickle with my vote than either one of you.

A few years down the road and you two could still be arguing, only for different parties.

However, we have delved off topic here.

 

[Armymedic]

it was not her concern or responsibility to find alternatives sources for isotopes, that was the Ministers job. If she had failed to act and they had a catastrophic meltdown, then she would have been to blame, but Harper would rather use a Liberal appointee as a scapegoat and void a high paying position so he can give another patronage job to a Torie associate.

Bull. The Minister is nothing more han a politcial peon who was put in the portfolio. This case is purely about AECL and AEC covering thier collected asses. It is the role of those people who answer to the minister to give him options and sort out problems. His job is to make sure that his department continues to serve and work for Canadians. Do you think that the MND tells Hillier what regiment want to serve in Afghanistan next?

We as a country put too much wieght into our Cabinet ministers. It is the mandarines under them that make the decisions and sort out the problems.

 

[GAP]

The heads of both AECL and AEC have been sacked and rightly so....for a variety of reasons, all ass-covering and valid, both did not proform their respective jobs and are gone. Now get somebody in there that is not a political appointee (in either position) and get the job done.

 

[Bigrex]

Bull. The Minister is nothing more han a politcial peon who was put in the portfolio. This case is purely about AECL and AEC covering thier collected asses. It is the role of those people who answer to the minister to give him options and sort out problems. His job is to make sure that his department continues to serve and work for Canadians. Do you think that the MND tells Hillier what regiment want to serve in Afghanistan next?

We as a country put too much wieght into our Cabinet ministers. It is the mandarines under them that make the decisions and sort out the problems.

The MND has also tried to tell Hillier how to do his job, and that is exactly what Lunn did as well, he told Keen what she was supposed to do, which was against the mandate set by her position and was fired when she, as the head of an arms length organization, refused to be politically interfered with . But to use your comparison, if there was a safety concern with our aircraft, where if they continued to fly, loss of life could occur, but by ordering those aircraft to be grounded until adequate repairs are completed, it caused a serious lack of operational capabilities, it would be the MND responsibility to contact other nations to arrange temporary use of aircraft to fill that role, and we all saw how the Tories  reacted when the CDS stepped over his boundaries, according to Harper and the MND, when he made a statement about the possible length of the Afghanistan mission based on his experience as a professional soldier. This is purely about the Tories looking for a scapegoat and in this case, it was Keen.

And back on topic, by raising complaints about where the Liberal MP acquired his questions and dwelling only on that, they are merely trying to shift focus away from the reason they were meeting, which was the Mulroney-Schrieber case. Emphasizing one scandal to ignore another, because Harper and the Tories don't really care about getting the truth about the situation.

 

[armyvern]

...
And back on topic, by raising complaints about where the Liberal MP acquired his questions and dwelling only on that, they are merely trying to shift focus away from the reason they were meeting, which was the Mulroney-Schrieber case. Emphasizing one scandal to ignore another, because Harper and the Tories don't really care about getting the truth about the situation.

Finally!! An admission by you (see my bold)!! The committee's mandate was to examine the Airbus settlement.

Now you tell me what is appropriate then, about a supposedly neutral taxpayer funded press directing questions to be asked, with the "look-the-other-way" approval of the Head of the Inquiry on a topic absolutely unrelated to the Inquiry topic?? Because, that's exactly what the CBC, with Liberal Party collusion did with the wireless auction line of questions. COMPLETELY outside the mandate.

And what party is it again that was attempting something scandalous and trying to run in off-topic directions?? Or do you not care when the Liberals do this as long as they pour more funds into the patronage trough, because they certainly don't care about anything other than maintaining their own trough via your rosey vote. Talk about rose coloured glasses.  :

Now do you see the problem?? I'd suspect not ...

 

[Bigrex]

Any misdealing done by Mulroney is important because it sets the context of his character. If he acted inappropriately recently by lobbying current ministers and using political influence on behalf of a company that he was invested in, then it cannot be positively said that he wouldn't have acted inappropriately during the Airbus time frame and wouldn't have accepted kickbacks or bribes, leopards cannot change their spots. It is similar to charging someone for dealing drugs, but there is no evidence, so he is released and given a hefty settlement for defamation of character, only to arrest the same man again years later, but this time there is evidence, therefor his innocence on the first charge is seriously put in doubt. If it can be proven that Mulroney is a crooked individual now, then it is only reasonable to assume he was a crooked individual back then, he certainly hasn't done anything to disprove it. Our jails are full of people who exhibited "poor judgement".

People may not like the source of the question, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it, in trying to get a picture of what type of person Mulroney truly is.

 

[armyvern]

People may not like the source of the question, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it, in trying to get a picture of what type of person Mulroney truly is.

Oh yes, some of our recent Liberal Party leaders have been just sooooooo much better.  :-\

Funny, how when confronted with your own arguement -- you spin off into yet another direction; I'd be getting that prsrciption looked into stat if I were you.

Point of note for you: you have claimed in this very thread that the only reason the Tories are now bitching and that their supporters are now calling for rescinding taxpayers funds from the CBC is because of this Commission. Please look at the very first post in this thread -- perhaps it's even factual enough for you -- given that it's from 2004; well before the Tories were elected as the governing party.

 

[Hunteroffortune]

Any misdealing done by Mulroney is important because it sets the context of his character. If he acted inappropriately recently by lobbying current ministers and using political influence on behalf of a company that he was invested in, then it cannot be positively said that he wouldn't have acted inappropriately during the Airbus time frame and wouldn't have accepted kickbacks or bribes, leopards cannot change their spots. It is similar to charging someone for dealing drugs, but there is no evidence, so he is released and given a hefty settlement for defamation of character, only to arrest the same man again years later, but this time there is evidence, therefor his innocence on the first charge is seriously put in doubt. If it can be proven that Mulroney is a crooked individual now, then it is only reasonable to assume he was a crooked individual back then, he certainly hasn't done anything to disprove it. Our jails are full of people who exhibited "poor judgement".

People may not like the source of the question, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it, in trying to get a picture of what type of person Mulroney truly is.

Any misleading done by a CBC reporter with the collusion of the Liberal Party of Canada is important, because it sets the context of their character. If the CBC reporter and her Liberal buddies were actively compromising the ethics committee, their previous actions should be looked into.

So, Mulroney was compelled to answer questions from Pablo, dictated by a CBC reporter, and that's okay with Liberals? Let's open up an investigation into the character of Chretien then, he showed bad judgement over Adscam, you know, the 40 million they took from taxpayers that the Liberal party still can't find, how's that for lack of character, and kickbacks and bribes. Like PM Harper said, do you really want me to start investigating former Pm's, maybe they should, and not just Conservative Pm's, maybe the sights should be on some Liberals, like ex-PM Martin and his "unCanadian" shipping company.

People may not like the source of the question, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it, in trying to get a picture of what type of person/s  Chretien/Martin truly are.

Watch out for what you wish for. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Chretien still never officially stated when he ceased being a partner in the golf course beside the Grand-Mere Inn in Shawinigan....said he had a receipt for the sale of his shares on something like a napkin (to prove the timeline that he no longer had an interest) when he was lobbying BCD President Francois Beadouin to give a loan to friend and owner of the Grand-Mere Inn, Yvon Duhaime.  There were three partners freely identified, but the Golf Course never identified the fourth shareholder...

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.  After the conservatives win the next election, I think there should be an ethics hearing into the Adscam bit, worse in both scale and maliciousness, I believe.  Adscam and "Da Boss" (ref).


Mulroney was a choir boy compared to the crap going on on the other side of the fence.

:

p.s.  Don't forget about the $100M given to Chretien's brother-in-law's company for two 640 Challenger aircraft that the CF hadn't even asked for...but you know how fiscal year-end is when you sometimes have to pump out an unsolicited, untendered contract to your brother-in-law for a tenth of a Billion dollars so you have a upgraded bathroom in your private jet...

 

[Bigrex]

I've never said that the Liberals were great, or even honest, but just because one party had corrupt leaders in the past doesn't mean I'm going to blindly follow another party, which is what most of you guys are doing. If the conservatives break a promise, I say they broke a promise, you guys only say" well the Lieberals broke plenty of promises". I say a Torie is corrupt IMO,You say ALL liberals were corrupt. Whoever gets into power should be of a higher moral fibre, and when they act immorally, every Canadian should be standing up and crying foul, not sitting on their arses saying, I support his party so I'm gonna let it slide because it's that type of blind partisan obedience and dismissiveness that enables these politicians to take kickbacks and award patronage appointments and breach parliamentary rules. Lets look at some of the things that, as opposition, the tories rallied against but have done the exact same or worse since coming into power.

1.Transparency - Since gaining power, access to information request have been slower to be processed, if at all, and when they do release it, the majority is blacked out, leaving little more than a few ands or the's .
2.Spending on Polls-they said the Libs spent too much money on polls, yet in two years the COns have spent more money than the Libs ever did, and actually have fewer polls, and in some cases having different dept paying twice for the same poll.
3.Accountability-Several  single source contracts, ministers using private jets to ferry them to and from their ridings, A personal groomer/physic for the PM (whom they never did say who paid her wages), the MND lying to the house on several occasions on Afghan detainees, yet he didn't get fired, a minister harassing the head of an arms length commission, Awarding patronage appointments to long time Torie personnel. The list goes on, yet not one firing, except for one MP who didn't toe the party line, but stood up for his constituants.
4. Ignoring the will of the House- Harper, as the leader of the oppostion, once said that if a motion passes in the House of commons, even if not supported by the sitting party, it should still be taken as law. yet when the Veterans first motion was passed in the House in Nov 06, the Tories ignored it, and still haven't acted upon a single point of the five the motion addressed to better the lives of veterans and our families.
5. Leadership- Harper calls himself a strong leader, and in some ways he is, not letting his ministers speak, but on any major issue, the appointing of a board or a commission or an inquiry  to look into the situation before making a decision isn't being a leader. they paid a guy to  look at whether a Mulroney inquiry was needed, even though Harper said that he would order one. the Manly group to look at the future of Afghanistan missions is a waste of money because Harper said that any troop involvement after 09 must pass the House, which it won't, so anything the board suggest will most likely be ignored anyways.
6. Surpluses - the Tories rallied against huge surpluses as Opposition, but have since have had two huge surpluses, and instead of using their brains to think of how that money could have been spent in Canada, they put it towards the deficit.
7. Preferential treatment for big business- the Tories always said that the liberals gave too much away to friends in big business, only to turn around and announce the biggest Corporate tax breaks for big business, doing little or nothing for the small business or struggling ones, if you have no money coming in, who cares what percentage you pay taxes at, 19% and 25% of zero is still zero. But it certainly benefits the oli companies in Torie held Alberta.

 

[a_majoor]

It seems you have more than drifted off topic; you are steaming full speed towards the horizon.

The point in question is the ethics of a "neutral" news organization funded by taxpayer dollars (i.e yours and mine) openly colluding with one political party for partisan purposes against the sitting government. Let me ask you this: had the CBC reporter dictated questions to a Conservative MP to ask former PM Jean Chretien at an ethics committee hearing on his business dealings, would that be acceptable?

Think carefully now, because if you say no you are being hypocritical, and if you are saying yes then you are opening a huge can of worms regarding the role of the press and the ability of the elected legislative bodies to act as your representatives.

 

[Good2Golf]

Thanks, Thuc, that was the point (as well made by Hunteroffortune, above) that should be considered.

It was entirely inappropriate for the CBC reporter to have been interfering with due process, no matter who the hearing was demanding information from.  That Mulroney, or anybody for that matter, was asked a question which ABSOLUTELY had nothing to do with the Commission's mandate, yet was bound to answer because of the wording of the Commission's charter and government policy was IMO an incredibly bad example of misuse of process.  Whomever the chair was, be it the Liberal it was, or other party member it could have been, would be improper to misuse the hearing in such a way.

Ironic that the topic was an ETHICS hearing, and we saw a pretty bad display of ethics (or lack thereof) in its conduct.  Disappointing on two fronts: when viewing poor ethical behaviour of the reporter, and equally disappointing for what I would consider unethical misuse of the hearing by the chair himself.

G2G

 

[The Bread Guy]

And now, for a bit of closure - this, from the CBC (with MSM coverage links below)....

CBC releases response to Conservative Party of Canada complaint

    TORONTO, Jan. 21 /CNW/ - CBC News today released the following letter:

    Doug Finley,
    Director of Political Operations
    Conservative Party of Canada

    January 21, 2008

    Dear Mr. Finley:

    This letter is in response to your complaint to the CBC Ombudsman about
"collusion" involving one of our reporters during the recent
Mulroney/Schreiber hearings in Ottawa, during which questions were asked about
lobbying efforts by Mr. Mulroney directed toward the current federal
government.
  Following an investigation by senior management of CBC News, we have
determined that our reporter Krista Erickson did, in fact, provide questions
to a Member of Parliament in the lead up to the Ethics Committee meeting in
December. Those actions, while in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate
story, were inappropriate and inconsistent with CBC News policies and
procedures, specifically under our Principles, Sec. 3:

    "Credibility is dependent not only on qualities such as accuracy and
    fairness in reporting and presentation, but also upon avoidance by both
    the organization and its journalists of associations or contacts which
    could reasonably give rise to perceptions of partiality. Any situation
    which could cause reasonable apprehension that a journalist or the
    organization is biased or under the influence of any pressure group,
    whether ideological, political, financial, social or cultural, must be
    avoided."

    Our investigation determined there was no bias in related news coverage.
However, our reporter, acting on her own, used inappropriate tactics as a
result of journalistic zeal, rather than partisan interest. CBC News
management has made the decision to reassign its reporter from the story and
to Toronto, effective Jan. 21.
    Given the potential risk to the journalistic credibility of our Ottawa
bureau, its reporters and CBC News generally, we have chosen on an exceptional
basis to make the detailed outcome of our disciplinary process available to
you, our employees and the public at large.
    I trust this addresses your concerns.
    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. The
Ombudsman 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,

    John Cruickshank
    Publisher
    CBC News

    Box 500, Station "A",
    Toronto, Ontario
    M5W 1E6

    cc. Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman



More from

Canadian Press

CanWest/Global - National Post blog

Globe & Mail

Reuters (U.K.)