Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
- Thread starter Loachman
- Start date
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,756
- Points
- 1,040
Having a different interpretation or weighting of the effects of the moving parts of international events is not "obtuse".
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,451
- Points
- 1,260
I am not a fan of the PM, but I am not sure what people expected him to say. Sorry was never an option for this fellow.
I think he did well to take it in and repeat that he takes responsibility for the findings.
I think he played this well, much to my disappointment, and will have helped usher this into a back pages, and distant memory very soon.
The torch now lays with Scheer to keep this story relevant too Canadians and show a solid footing as a parliamentarian but not grandstanding and being overly dramatic about it.
Scheer, play the facts; and facts alone; and show the country how you are better; and are in fact the positive and excellent alternative to Trudeau I hope you are.
I think he did well to take it in and repeat that he takes responsibility for the findings.
I think he played this well, much to my disappointment, and will have helped usher this into a back pages, and distant memory very soon.
The torch now lays with Scheer to keep this story relevant too Canadians and show a solid footing as a parliamentarian but not grandstanding and being overly dramatic about it.
Scheer, play the facts; and facts alone; and show the country how you are better; and are in fact the positive and excellent alternative to Trudeau I hope you are.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Halifax Tar said:
What is blindingly obvious to all but the most partisan of people is that Obstruction of Justice has occurred by the Prime Minister. This should be an unforgivable crime in our Democracy. If people sluff that off, this democratic society is eventually doomed.
Open the door to the new Canadian Banana Republic.
- Reaction score
- 3,100
- Points
- 1,160
Jed said:
He'll be fined an extra large New York Fries poutine and a regular Coke, and carry on doing whatever it is he actually does when he's not on vacation or shopping for socks on line.
- Reaction score
- 17,207
- Points
- 1,010
I wonder if Gerry Butts ever gets used to being thrown under the bus by Trudeau?
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,756
- Points
- 1,040
Looking forward to the media pundits arguing over whether "obstruction of justice" occurred. Also curious to see which media agencies will treat this as a one-day-and-done issue.
- Reaction score
- 2,140
- Points
- 1,160
Consider it done then. People apparently don’t care one way or the other.
I’m no fan of JT, or JWR, but I think that if it’s true that she took a principled stand, then she did her job as far as that goes. No more and no less.
I’m no fan of JT, or JWR, but I think that if it’s true that she took a principled stand, then she did her job as far as that goes. No more and no less.
Halifax Tar said:
It is sad, how those who lean left simply do not care about Trudeau's.. corruption. Or well at least in circles I run in.. I have brought it up and the replys are basic and ignorant "He is better then a conservative, we have to re elect him because he is better then Scheer because scheer may do blah blah blah"
Annoys me a fair bit, how much people do not care >.<
Abdullah
- Reaction score
- 2,140
- Points
- 1,160
Saw this on Twitter: “Canada is a place where journalists who cover politics will argue that the Prime Minister breaking a federal law is no big deal and that nobody really cares.”
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,220
- Points
- 1,010
The LPC has most of the media backing them. If only facts were reported, and less opinion, the public would make their own judgement. Presently, some of the media only cover what they feel they need to in order to maintain the appearance of non-bias, then add all kinds of op-eds to shape public opinion. Katie Telford spoke of having favourable op-eds on tap in the SNC scandal, Catherine McKenna talked about if you say it loud enough and long enough "everyone will totallybelieve it!". I have not seen a steady stream of media playing the PM's lies when he publicly stated there was no influence or pressure on the AG. Just Twitter. Is this not a major scandal? The fourth estate is on it's last legs IMHO. Only because of the internet and social media are we able to see the contradictions, otherwise it would be difficult to know any better. Warren Kinsella commented on Twitter the Dion report is even more damning than the Mueller report.
"Fake news media is the enemy of the people". I don't think you can argue with that. The question is; which outlets are peddling misinformation and when? Is Trump right?
"Fake news media is the enemy of the people". I don't think you can argue with that. The question is; which outlets are peddling misinformation and when? Is Trump right?
QV said:
So how is this MSM outlet backing trudeau?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-sought-to-influence-wilson-raybould-violated-ethics-rules-ethics-commissioner-1.4549332
I read this piece and saw nothing that says "look away nothing to see here". pretty factual actually
How about Robyn urback, here with an OP Ed on the affair...(yes an opinion piece)
A Prime Minister's Office drunk on its own arrogance: Robyn Urback
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion
Maybe people should actually take a look at what is being said by these "supporters" before judging
Wasn't hard to find either.
Fake news might be the enemy of the people. I just don't think Trump actually knows what fake news actually is though.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,756
- Points
- 1,040
>Annoys me a fair bit, how much people do not care
Are you certain? Words to the effect of "He is better then a conservative, we have to re elect him because he is better then Scheer because scheer may do blah blah blah" sound like people who care, but are rationalizing their decisions (or preferences) to favour other factors with more weight.
A host of opinion writers have recently taken to embarrassing their reputations by asserting that everyone who supports Trump is complicit in "white supremacy", or the like. But people have many reasons, not ranked by universally prescribed weights, for favouring politicians and parties.
What I find interesting is that in the comparison between fact (it happened) and fiction (future things imagined), fiction often wins.
Are you certain? Words to the effect of "He is better then a conservative, we have to re elect him because he is better then Scheer because scheer may do blah blah blah" sound like people who care, but are rationalizing their decisions (or preferences) to favour other factors with more weight.
A host of opinion writers have recently taken to embarrassing their reputations by asserting that everyone who supports Trump is complicit in "white supremacy", or the like. But people have many reasons, not ranked by universally prescribed weights, for favouring politicians and parties.
What I find interesting is that in the comparison between fact (it happened) and fiction (future things imagined), fiction often wins.
- Reaction score
- 6,299
- Points
- 1,040
QV said:
I keep hearing that the Liberals have the backing of MSM, but that's inconsistent with what I've actually been reading in the same MSM. CBC has had consistently damning reports on the handling of the current government on SNC and the JWR scandal, MMWIG, the electoral reforms, etc. G&M lead with a lot of the damning reports on the Adm Norman trial. National Post had similar coverage. At the same time they all were critical of the Conservatives over things like Scheer pleading ignorance to the white supremacist leanings for the Western convoy and other things, and in Ontario the previous provincial government and current Ford govt have both been taking to task. The Sun is a bit of a rag, but even then, their support isn't unconditional.
Generally I find the news articles reasonably free of obvious bias. Op eds are another story, but even there if they are critical, it's generally for a good reason and based on facts, with no party safe from criticism from their supporters when they drop the ball. I really don't buy the line that MSM is biased, and find the fringe media can be shockingly loose with facts and are effectively PR for a specific political group. You can't just look at op eds and say that the whole MSM is biased; their entire point is to give someone with an inherently biased opinion a platform.
Polls show Canadians are overall socially liberal and fiscally on the conservative side, which is why even our Conservative party is more centrist that even the US 'left wing' party. I think people confuse having liberal/conservative views with supporting the Liberal or Conservative party, and seem to think that reporting on issues that reflect the centrist values of the average Canadian is somehow supporting one or the other.
People have been predicting the end of the fourth estate since the advent of radio, and most internet columnists still seem to be shooting for a gig with the NYT or whatever. Smart papers business models are evolving, and if you look at outfits like the Guardian, have been successful at adopting an increasing number of online subscribers to offset the bottom line. They have done that by going with a low dollar value volume approach, which works with the internet when you can tap into a large international audience.
TL;DR: Calling BS on MSM bias; put up facts to support.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,756
- Points
- 1,040
Bias is subjective, as is perception of bias. I don't even particularly trust those who claim to measure bias, because they necessarily start with a subjective definition of what they are going to measure.
Bias is easy to detect in non-opinion journalism. Look to the prior premises taken for granted (popular myths, fashionable positions) and the modifiers used.
A paper napkin theory for bias: each person has it; major media agencies all have it, in their institutional culture if not as a matter of policy. It applies broadly to political alignments, and narrowly to specific issues. Weights are not equal, so a political party on the wrong side of an issue can find itself criticized by an otherwise favourably-inclined agency. There is always a tipping point beyond which those favoured become indefensible. The existence of criticism is not disproof of bias. Rather, the threshold at which criticism starts is itself a measure of bias.
Bias is easy to detect in non-opinion journalism. Look to the prior premises taken for granted (popular myths, fashionable positions) and the modifiers used.
A paper napkin theory for bias: each person has it; major media agencies all have it, in their institutional culture if not as a matter of policy. It applies broadly to political alignments, and narrowly to specific issues. Weights are not equal, so a political party on the wrong side of an issue can find itself criticized by an otherwise favourably-inclined agency. There is always a tipping point beyond which those favoured become indefensible. The existence of criticism is not disproof of bias. Rather, the threshold at which criticism starts is itself a measure of bias.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Opinion pieces in MSM yesterday on SNC-Lavalin:
And two good news stories in G&M:
Mark
Ottawa
And two good news stories in G&M:
Mark
Ottawa
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,756
- Points
- 1,040
Looks like things are on a knife edge; waiting to see whether a preference cascade starts (blows over, or becomes AdScam redux).
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,220
- Points
- 1,010
Specific to Trudeau, I think what we are seeing this week is reporting because they have to, not necessarily because they want to. As we get closer to election day I think we will see a flurry of positive reporting to diminish all the negatives in the last many months, just in time for everyone to head to the polls.
This hypothesis of mine isn't all encompassing, it's not everyone, but enough involved to sway public opinion. In many instances public opinion doesn't have to sway much to change the outcome.
This hypothesis of mine isn't all encompassing, it's not everyone, but enough involved to sway public opinion. In many instances public opinion doesn't have to sway much to change the outcome.
Similar threads
