Blue Like You

The Gazette’s Elizabeth Thompson on Sandra Buckler being hospitalized for thyroid cancer (H/T National Newswatch) :

…The press gallery is sending flowers - although a flowering cactus might be more appropriate given Ms. Buckler’s prickly relations with most members of the fourth estate on the Hill …

Get well, Ms. Buckler. And do your best to ignore the tasteless comments from the peanut gallery.

* * * *

Update : Some of the earlier nastiness was captured by Reid and Jack , before Ms. Thompson had a chance to hit the edit and delete buttons.

Upperdate : Thompson’s blog keeps changing as she desperately attempts to dig herself out of this hole, but just ends up getting in deeper. Via Jack’s Newswatch , we see that Warren is not impressed. Jack has been doing an excellent job keeping up with this fast-changing story.

* * * *

Reid has the latest . Elizabeth Thompson has sent a personal apology and a bouquet of non-prickly flowers to Sandra Buckler (see Update 2 ).

Personally, I hope this incident has raised awareness between the PPG and the PMO about what really matters in life - which is life . When you come right down to it, we’re all on the same side.

Thursday update : Liz’s editor returned Dr. Roy’s phone call on the matter. Read all about it here - Elizabeth Thompson’s editor called .

Fagstein - Over the top . Just not sure if he’s referring to Thompson’s comments there, or the reaction from the blogosphere…

Check out the rhetoric that the Sun’s Michael Den Tandt uses to describe the Prime Minister of Canada:

The crows are coming home to roost for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and a mangy bunch of birds they are. Will this provoke an election? Not likely. Not yet.

Harper must wake up some mornings and wonder where it all went wrong. Not long ago he was the Iceman, firmly in control of every teensy strand of his government, and seemingly managing it all with aplomb.

With Harper at the helm there were no mistakes. You didn’t get charm, but you did get efficiency, intelligence and a ruthless instinct for political combat that made him more winner than loser.

Most Canadians were buying that package, when compared with the alternatives. We weren’t warming to the man — the piranha smile and assassin’s eyes make that difficult – but we were getting used to him. Harper and Stephane Dion, mano a mano? Dion was sure to emerge with two black eyes and his glasses fastened together with Scotch tape…

Assassin’s eyes?

Why is it that bloggers need to be so careful, but MSM can say anything they want?

Premier will sue the Canadian Press - by the Canadian Press.

Pinch me. I must be dreaming.

Good grief! Perhaps some of the MSM forgot to publish their formal declaration on how politicians are supposed to convey their emotion. Is there an official, politically-correct, media-endorsed format? You’d almost think so, watching how they sit in judgment like little demagogues deciding whether a particular MP’s display of emotion passes their smell-test. (Remember how Helene Guergis couldn’t please Don Martin?)

Let’s face it. If Stephen Harper had said anything at all during his visit to Auschwitz, it would have been condemned as too trite.

Instead, he chose to keep his emotion as private as possible and left his thoughts in a book of remembrance.

Oh, but that’s not good enough for the Star. Instead of showing a photo of the Prime Minister kneeling in respect and prayer, the Red Star displays an image of Harper ranting in Parliament. The inference is that he has plenty to say there, but his lack of public rhetoric in Auschwitz does what? Portray some kind of lack of feeling?

Some emotion is so intense, it cannot be conveyed by words.

But the Toronto Star Inquirer’s level of insight is so superficial, that it’s not surprising they would pillory the Prime Minister for the way he handled himself at such a profound occasion.

Hunter points out at CBL’s that the Globe originally had posted the photo of Harper kneeling, but then changed it. Why?

She suggests that it may be time for all the ‘knuckle draggers’ to start fighting back.

I’m in.

CP’s Alexander Panetta reports that some folks seem a bit incensed by the CPC’s offer to coach talk-show callers with party talking points in an effort to counter some of the generally pro-Liberal MSM. Apparently CFRA’s Mark Sutcliffe isn’t impressed, although he doesn’t think they get a ‘ton’ of callers using the crib sheets.

Actually I had no idea such a service was available, and therefore felt compelled to check it out myself. You go to the main party site, and then click on login to My Campaign, which takes you here.

Then you click on Call Talk Radio, input your postal code and topic you wish to discuss, and Poof! You’re taken to a page showing all the talk shows in your immediate area, complete with times and tips on how to call in. The ‘talking points’ are merely lists of information to highlight Conservative accomplishments and failings of the other parties.

All in all, a fairly innovative and interactive program. It could even be useful to Conservative bloggers.

However, as the site suggests, you need to be prepared to ad-lib it with the show’s host if he or she interrupts with some questions. As such, I doubt Joe Blow off the street would be inclined to get much use out of it. I always think it’s better to talk from the heart on talk shows.

Liberal party spokesman Daniel Lauzon seems quite outraged:

“This undermines our democracy,” said Liberal party spokesman Daniel Lauzon.

“It’s not up for someone in Ottawa to tell someone in Blind River what they should think. . . All we tell our supporters is, ‘Speak your mind. Get out there and talk.’

“Never do we dictate messaging.”

My gosh, you’d think Stephen Harper himself arm wrestles every Conservative supporter to the ground and forces a recitation of the party line at gun-point.

More likely Mr. Lauzon is just expressing a sour grapes regret that they didn’t think of it first.

Will someone please just wake me up when this is over?

Interesting how the Globe story from this morning seems to have disappeared from their home page. It’s still available using the search engine or by clicking on the Afghanistan special report link, but it sure isn’t getting top billing anymore.

Could it have anything to do with Maj. General (Ret’d.) Lewis Mackenzie’s appearance on MDL this evening, not to mention the PM’s dismissal of it this afternoon?

Oops!

What is the responsibility of the press concerning ‘anonymous’ leads and fact-checking?

H/T to Neo for pointing out this important exposé by the National Post’s Jonathan Kay - How Falconer hoodwinked the Toronto Star.

This tendency of MSM to run with a story before thoroughly checking out the facts is nothing new. In fact, Kay admits that the Post itself has been responsible for inaccurate stories, but the difference is in the retraction:

This was a major, major screw-up — one that deserved a candid mea culpa editor’s note of the type this newspaper published after it ran a similarly inaccurate story about Iranian Jews in 2006. Instead, Sunday’s quasi-retraction was an exercise in verbal weaseldom. Particularly embarrassing was the fact that the heart of the issue was buried in this virtually unintelligible double-negative: “When Falconer was asked [Saturday] night if [superintendents] were never asked to contribute their views, he replied simply: ‘No.’

(Original Star report here; ‘retraction’ here).

It has become blatantly obvious that most media outlets have some kind of political axe to grind, or at least some kind of agenda. Headlines, news reports and editorials are often torqued accordingly. (As Jonathan Kay points out, the Star’s agenda is clearly stated in the ‘Atkinson Principles‘. So it is no wonder that it generally supports socialist-leaning parties.)

However, we do expect a certain degree of due diligence and honesty when reporting a story. Perhaps we are naive in this expectation. A reporter can make an honest mistake, but shouldn’t the editors be overseeing the article, and checking to make sure for example that Star reporter Michele Henry had interviewed a few school board officials to corroborate Falconer’s story?

And what about the person who deliberately misleads the reporter in hopes of having the story skewed in their favour? Do they bear any responsibility? eg. Julian Falconer in this case?

Kay seems to feel that Falconer is more culpable than the Star here:

Nor do I see this as an innocent misunderstanding, which is what some people involved suggested to me over the phone. Falconer clearly wanted to sex up his report, and the reaction to it, by portraying the school board as a sort of dark, secretive Magisterium.

As my colleague John Turley-Ewart noted in his critique of Falconer’s report last week, the human rights lawyer seems far more interested in riding politically correct hobby horses like bashing Mike Harris and blaming the pathologies of black schools on racism (the word “racialized,” a fashionable PC term that roughly translates to “black and presumably oppressed,” appears 84 times in the report.) His disgraceful spin job on the Toronto Star only serves to confirm the impression that he is more interested in furthering a political agenda than helping Toronto’s schools.

So on a scale of guilt we have Falconer as the worst, followed by the Star’s senior editors, followed by the ‘hoodwinked’ reporter Michele Henry.

The other concern I have about MSM is how they seem to have the ability to be gatekeepers of information. Do they have any obligation to report all major stories, or is it simply that which they deem newsworthy or appropriate to their agenda? Perhaps some journalists could enlighten me here.

For example, letter-writer Chas Wynne of Oakville accuses the media of playing favourites when it comes to the Global-warming debate:

Lorrie Goldstein says we should “Skip the Kyoto snow job” (Jan. 8). Well, Lorrie, we wish we could, but it won’t happen. Lorrie’s analysis of the Kyoto Accord is spot on, but it is a small light in a wasteland of environmental political correctness. Most media and, consequently, most politicians parrot the man-made global warming mantra that has been driven by the radical environmentalists for years. The result is that, like a giant snowball rushing downhill, it continues to pick up speed and mass that will inevitably result in dim-bulb government policies. We have to wait until the mostly unintended consequences of these policies produce enough political resistance to enable sound environmental policy to be constructed and implemented. It could be quite awhile, but, in the meantime Lorrie, keep pitching.

(I like the snowball metaphor!)

Then we have two stories that have inundated the blogosphere, but are largely ignored by MSM.

The first is CBC-gate or Pablo-gate.

The other is Ezra Levant’s fight against the Alberta HRC. (I guess we could throw in Maclean’s and Mark Steyn’s battle as well.) The National Post has covered the Levant story, but few others.

Why are these stories barely making an appearance in MSM? Do the various media outlets have any obligation to cover them?

The point of today’s rumination is wondering whether it’s sloppy journalism, naive reporters, biased editors or skillful lobbyists and agenda-drivers mainly responsible for the deficit of honesty in Canadian MSM?

Or all of the above?

Friday Update: Taxpayers deserve better from their national network - Calgary Herald via National Newswatch.

Why don’t we dispose of any pretense, and get the powers that be to name the CBC as the Liberal party’s official communication team?

The CBC is unique — and therefore uniquely accountable to its viewers — because it is funded by the state. As such, it has a particular mandate to present the Canadian story…

…The CBC ombudsman is apparently looking into the incident, but it isn’t likely to be the transparent investigation that is needed to truly serve the public good.

There has been no word of any investigation within the Liberal party.

Yet, all of them remain on the public payroll…

Awesome letter in the Post - Media’s silence is shameful by Bill Parish of Ottawa.

Check out Steve Janke’s Karlheinz Schreiber Timeline to see why Pablo Rodriguez and any complicit others are on a fool’s mission.

Excellent! Let’s keep it going.

(Original Thursday post)

Adam Radwanski weighs in on Pablogate - She just got caught.

According to Adam, “it’s common practice for journalists to use MPs as they try to advance their stories.” Apparently, the unfortunate part apparently is that one got caught - Someone who works for a publicly-funded broadcaster.

Adam calls it a stupid question - “For suggesting a really stupid question, the reporter deserves some flack. But for suggesting a question at all, she shouldn’t get raked over the coals any more than a whole lot of other reporters.”

Instead he puts the onus on the one(s) who actually went ahead and used the questions (in an Ethics committee).

I think Adam is making sense here. Is the person who asks someone to do something shady actually more in the wrong than the person who agrees to the idea and carries it out?

Of course not. Someone in the Liberal party obviously made a stupid, unethical, politically-motivated decision.

Time for Liberal party to step up to the plate and divulge the details. Who was in on this, and how high up the ladder of authority did it go?

SDA - Mr. Carlin: Tear down that wall! - with interesting comments and speculation why we’re not hearing much about this from MSM. I guess the CBC will never hire me now.

Speaking of the CBC, check out The Tea Makers - Guest blogger: In the court of the crimson logo.

Good taste.

Bad taste. (i.e. the cartoon; not the Torch)

Apparently the Star didn’t learn a thing.