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

MSM gone awry

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
33
Points
560
The MSM have been accused of holding bias, but this is pretty over the top. Anyone have more examples?

http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2008/12/police-investigate-winnipeg-free-press.html

Friday, December 05, 2008
Police investigate Winnipeg Free Press reporter for alleged Porkgate assault

The divide between the Winnipeg public and the city's mainstream news media has never been this wide, and it's growing by the day.

Winnipeg police are investigating a complaint that a reporter from the Winnipeg Free Press screamed obscenities at--and shouldered aside-- a man who innocently asked Agriculture Minister Roseann Wowchuk a question outside the NDP Caucus Room at the Manitoba Legislature.

Not a word of this incident has been reported in the mainstream press, even though it was witnessed by professional reporters at the scene, the Minister, her press assistant, and, likely, security guards monitoring security cameras.

The reporter is Bruce Owen who is assigned to cover the Legislature for the Free Press.

His target was Jim Cotton, a local blogger who's been a thorn in the side of the Free Press for a while.

The reason for the outburst was to stop Cotton from asking Wowchuk about the three quarters of a ton of frozen minced pork her department paid for and distributed to Manitoba food banks, but which was mysteriously turned up in the hands of picketing employees of the Winnipeg Free Press during their recent strike.

Cotton held a news conference Friday to announce he is filing an assault charge against Owen.

What? You haven't heard a word about that either?

That's no surprise is it?

There is a total blackout in the mainstream press about the mystery pork, even though city and federal health authorities have cautioned that the meat may be unsafe to eat.

Why is it unsafe? Bruce Owen himself answered that in an internet post where he said the meat had thawed and that a portion that had obviously gone bad was thrown away. The rest was refrozen, he said, and strikers who weren't going to eat it themselves planned to give it away in Christmas hampers.

The health authorities have cautioned against eating refrozen meat, especially from a batch that has obviously been kept in unsafe conditions which allowed dangerous bacteria to grow.

Owen is understandably sensitive regarding questions about the tainted meat, where it came from and who its going to be given to. But there is no excuse for assaulting a member of the public in the Legislature in front of a shocked cabinet minister.

An assault on a citizen in the halls of the Legislature is a news story. When the alleged assailant is a member of the press, it's more so.

But what do you call it when the news media in the city collectively refuse to report the incident?

A massive press cover-up.

An attempt to stifle free speech by hypocrites who claim to be champions of free speech.

A reporter with CBC French watched the confrontation between Owen and Cotten unfold in front of him. He may even have recorded it on his tape recorder. Certainly the obscenities were loud enough to be heard throughout the hall by other politicians and political staffers unused to hearing swear words shouted at the top of someone's lungs.

We're told that this same CBC reporter was at Cotton's news conference, but standing aside and watching a CBC television reporter ask questions. The CBC decided not to run a story, so as, we were told, "not to embarass him (Jim Cotton)".

But we know who the CBC is protecting. And it's not Jim Cotton.

Cotton knows about embarassment. He's handed out his share to the Winnipeg Free Press, most recently when he revealed that a down-on-her-luck woman Gordon Sinclair was raising money for, was spending her sudden riches on booze and clothes after Good Samaratins paid her back rent.

Right now the embarassment is all on the so-called "professional" reporters, especially those who claim to be reporting on the Manitoba Legislature on behalf of the citizens of the province.

To have the tiniest shred of credibility, the Manitoba Press Gallery must act immediately. It must suspend Bruce Owen pending the completion of the police investigation.

The halls of the Legislature DO NOT belong to the mainstream news media. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT to walk the halls free from intimidation. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT to approach politicians and ask questions respectfully.

The Winnipeg Free Press DOES NOT have a veto over who can ask questions at a scrum.

A scrum in the hallway is NOT a private, invitation-only affair. There is a press room in the basement of the Legislature for official news conferences where the government can try to control who enters and who doesn't. But the hallways belong to the people.

That lesson must be reinforced whenever professional journalists begin thinking they are special people and the rules don't apply to them.

Reporters certainly like to think they're special. They do it by joining groups like the Canadian Association of Journalists which tell them they're special. They're special because...well, let the CAJ tell you how their members are really, really special:

WHAT WE DO:

The CAJ promotes excellence in journalism, encouraging investigative journalism. We serve as the national voice of Canadian journalists, and we uphold the public's right to know.

Except, obviously, when a member of the public wants to exercise his right to know by asking about the Winnipeg Free Press union and how possibly stolen meat intended for the poor and hungry wound up in the home freezers of strikers.

Nobody wants to investigate that, do they? Not when it involves reporters who are, you know, special. In such a case a cover-up is just okey-doke.

Statement of Principles
Approved at 2002 Annual General Meeting
Preamble
It is our privilege and duty to seek and report the truth as we understand it, defend free speech and the right to equal treatment under law, capture the diversity of human experience, speak for the voiceless and encourage civic debate to build our communities and serve the public interest.
Freedom of Speech
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press. A free flow of information sustains and vitalizes democracy because understanding emerges from vigorous discussion, openly reported. Our legal traditions give media privilege and protection. We must return this trust through the ethical practice of our craft.

It helps if the truth "as you understand it" is that assaults on citizens in the Legislature aren't news, attempts to muzzle bloggers aren't news, stonewalling citizen journalists isn't news, refusing to help health authorities with their investigation of a possible public health problem isn't news.

That puts a whole new spin on free speech and "encouraging civic debate" doesn't it?

Back when the Winnipeg Free Press reporters, editors and columnists were leading the mob attack on police at the Taman Inquiry, they were full of righteous indignation. It's enlightening today to compare what Dan Lett said in just one column (Same Excuse, same language heard from police at inquiry, July 22, 2008) with his own involvement in the coverup of the growing scandal being called Porkgate.

A certain police officer "did nothing to help the reputation of police officers who have testified at the Taman inquiry," he sniffed.

You could say Bruce Owen did nothing to help the reputation of reporters who cover the Manitoba Legislature.

"Black's feeble excuses for why he didn't see or hear any evil..."

Listen to the feeble excuses of the Winnipeg Free Press employees for how food stolen from the poor and hungry wound up in their eager hands. The pork was going to be thrown out anyway, one employee said. It was forced on us, another cried. We're going to give it away to the needy, said Bruce Owen feebly.

"...incidents like this add to the cloud of skepticism that has settled over both the East St. Paul and Winnipeg police forces," lectured Lett.

Well, incidents like Porkgate just add to the cloud of skepticism that has settled over the reporters of the Winnipeg Free Press and the rest of the mainstream media which is pretending to see nothing and hear nothing unusual about food designated for food banks being handed out from the back of a truck to FP strikers.

"It had been very difficult to believe a certain police officer...could have lost all specific knowledge of who did what..." sneered Lett.

Is it easier to believe that certain news reporters like Bruce Owen, Bartley Kives, Mary Agnes Welch, Dan Lett, Lindor Reynolds, could have lost all specific knowledge of who did what when a mystery man drove up with 1500 pounds of neatly packaged pork labelled Winnipeg Harvest?

"It is beyond all reason to believe that another veteran police officer would not only forget all the same details..." said Lett.

And it is beyond all reason to believe that a veteran reporter like you, Dan Lett, would forget all the details of the pork delivery.

Lett, who is never at a loss for words when pontificating about the lack of ethics of others, hasn't written a word about the ethics of highly paid journalists taking food out of the mouths of the poor. Instant amnesia.

"Hearing the same version of events and the same excuses...may make for dreary testimony but it may expose the core of this tragedy," concluded Lett's column.

And hearing the same version of events and the same lame excuses from employees of the Winnipeg Free Press may eventually help expose the core of the Porkgate tragedy.

In fact, The Black Rod has picked up a faint trail of the tainted pork on its way to FP strike headquarters. Our team of bloodhounds is working the trail to discover its source.

If the trail leads to where we think it does, there are going to be a lot of red faces in the city...

...starting with the mainstream media who will have missed yet another good story while demonstrating once again how their management of the "news" poorly serves the public.
 
The Blackrod is one of my favourite webpages. These are the same folks who exposed the federal NDP member as being a 9/11
conspiracy theorist. It will be interesting to see what happens with this "porkgate" affair.
 
Am I the only one hearing "union hat, not reporter hat" in my head on reading the account?
 
Hmmmm... I live in Winnipeg, and work in healthcare and I this is the first I've heard of the subject.
 
ModlrMike said:
Hmmmm... I live in Winnipeg, and work in healthcare and I this is the first I've heard of the subject.

Not surprising, given the limitations on information passage when the main media isn't reporting all the available news.
 
You'd think this would be vital information if people start dying from e. coli 0157:H7
 
Which shows you how screwed up the self-protecting FP media types' thinking is!
 
The more general case of the MSM dying of self inflicted wounds:

http://chizumatic.mee.nu/high_quality_journalism

High Quality Journalism

Michael Hirschorn writes (regarding the impending demise of the NYT):

    If you’re hearing few howls and seeing little rending of garments over the impending death of institutional, high-quality journalism, it’s because the public at large has been trained to undervalue journalists and journalism.

Ah, several things spring to mind in response to this. "Undervalue"? A thing is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and if "the public at large" considers journalism to be worth very little, then pretty much by definition they're right, because they're the ones doing the paying. The problem here is not that the public is undervaluing journalism, but that journalists have gotten into the habit of thinking that their work is worth more than it really is.

Which brings up the other point: "high-quality journalism"? It's been a hell of a long time since any of that has appeared in the NYT. And that's another reason why the NYT (and the Chicago Tribune, and the LA Times, etc.) are losing circulation and money: they abandoned any pretense to "high-quality journalism" years ago, and the public increasingly won't pay for what they're offering instead. (That being "agenda journalism" aka "propaganda".)

The big reason you aren't seeing the public shedding many tears over the demise of the NYT is that we all know that they've dug their own grave. The impending demise of the NYT isn't tragedy, it's justice.
 
Scary how close to the truth this is!

Liberal media slant:

Read All About It:

An MP is driving by the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage.

Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The MP jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the MP brings her back to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has seen the whole scene, and addressing the MP, says:

'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life. What do you do for a living?'

'Well, I'm a Member of Parliament, and, it was nothing, really. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'

'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's papers will have this on the first page.  What party are you with?'



'The Conservative Party of Canada.'

The journalist leaves. The following morning, the MP buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

HARPER'S THUG MP ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH!

 
Remember this when you read any Canadian reporting on the Obama Administration. For people who are anti-Americans in general, the cheerleading from the Canadian MSM on the Obama administration is rather bizzare (as the fawning coverage of his Ottawa visit this spring shows):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/28/baracks-in-the-basement/

EDITORIAL: Barack's in the basement
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.

According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.

As the attached chart shows, five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.

It's no surprise the liberal media aren't anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued. USA Today's front page touted the April poll results as positive, with the headline: "Public thinks highly of Obama." The current cover of Newsweek magazine ponders "The Secret of His [Mr. Obama's] Success." The comparison with previous presidents is useful because they are usually popular during their first few months in office - and most presidents have been more popular than Mr. Obama.

The explanation for Mr. Obama's low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left. The fawning and self-deceiving press won't go there. On Sunday's "Meet the Press," host David Gregory asked a panel about critics who "would say one of the things that he's done in 100 days already is expand the role of government, the size of government." Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin claimed, "That's what he ran for the presidency in the first place for."

Perplexed about complaints over Mr. Obama's expansion of government, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham asked: "does no one listen during campaigns?"

It was these pundits who weren't paying attention during last year's campaign. In all three presidential debates, Mr. Obama promised to cut government spending and reduce the size of the deficit. He blamed the economic crisis on excessive deficits. At no time did candidate Barack Obama say that more deficit-spending was the solution.

Mr. Obama's popularity after 100 days is the second-lowest for a simple reason: He is more partisan and divisive than his predecessors - including Richard Nixon.
 
Back
Top