Media Bias [Merged]

[Fishbone Jones]

CBC-Liberals update

Conservative Party of Canada Director of Political Operations Doug Finley has sent another letter to CBC Ombudsman Vince Carlin. Finley demands satisfaction!
January 8, 2008

Mr. Vince Carlin
Ombudsman
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6

Dear Mr. Carlin:

Back in December I wrote to you and asked that you, in your capacity as CBC Ombudsman, look into an allegation of CBC-Liberal collusion made by former Liberal cabinet minister and current TVA reporter Jean Lapierre. As you will recall Mr. Lapierre told a national television audience that CBC wrote questions for Liberal members on the House of Commons ethics committee.

On December 15th, Canadian Press reported that CBC spokesperson Jeff Keay admitted that a reporter pursued a story in an "inappropriate way" that was inconsistent with the Corporation's "journalistic policies and practices". Further, Canadian Press reported that the particulars of the matter were being investigated by the CBC and that disciplinary action was possible.

Given Mr. Keay's admission to Canadian Press back in December, I was troubled to read his comments in yesterday's edition of the Hill Times. Not only did he refuse to name the reporter who allegedly wrote questions for the Liberals he said he wasn�t sure when the CBC would be willing to do so. Further, he said he was unwilling to characterize the type of discipline the reporter could face.

Mr. Carlin, the CBC has already admitted that inappropriate practices were followed by one of its reporters. Given this I believe it is incumbent upon the Corporation to:

* Update Canadians on the status of the investigation and estimate when the investigation will be completed; and

* Commit to releasing the name of the reporter in question and outline what disciplinary measures have been or will be taken.

While recognizing that Mr. John Cruickshank has, according to CBC policy, up to 20 working days to respond to the substance of my December 14th e-mail I'd ask that you specifically assure me that the Corporation will commit to releasing the name of the reporter in question and outline what disciplinary actions have been - or will be - taken to ensure that Canadians view the CBC as a non-partisan source of news and information.

Sincerely,

Doug Finley
National Campaign Director
Conservative Party of Canada

 

[George Wallace]

I am sure they will find some "Fallguy" if they do name a name.  :-\

 

[Reccesoldier]

More CBC graft. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080109.wcbclibrary09/BNStory/Entertainment/home

Bin the whole lot. 

They obviously believe that they are (dare I say) "entitled" to operate separate from any governmental regulations, in spite of being publicly funded, so lets give them their wish and cut the umbilical.

 

[Bigrex]

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, then they wanted to abolish the Senate because the majority are Liberals. 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. Now they are trying to gag the CBC because they have been critical of the Harper reign, 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. 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.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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, then they wanted to abolish the Senate because the majority are Liberals. 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. Now they are trying to gag the CBC because they have been critical of the Harper reign, 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. 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.

Actually, the CPC are far from alone, wanting to see the CBC disbanded or privatized. I'm personally sick and tired of the tripe they shovel out, for the tax dollars we shovel in.

......and Bigrex, you're just bitter that we finally have a gov't that doesn't believe in wasting our tax dollars on your lieberal utopian socialist dream ;D

 

[Reccesoldier]

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

It has always been the policy of the Conservatives (the new party) and was always the policy of the Reform/Alliance that if the Senate refused to change to suit the times then it should be abolished.  You know policy, the same kind of policy as the Liberal policy of underfunding the CF.

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.

 

You mean like when the Liberals canned a done deal to move NDHQ out of Downtown Ottawa to the JDS Uniphase building because a Conservative got elected instead of the liberal incumbent in the 2005 election  Pot this is Kettle over...

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

No one here has said anything about the CBC's critique of the Conservatives, what we are all opposed to is our supposedly "unbiased" publicly funded media acting in collusion with the political opposition.  And in the last article I posted acting contrary to every single government regulation on tendering sales as well as contravention of the free trade act (US and Mexican companies should have had the right to bid as well)

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.

Wow, when the Liberals are in power do you put on the rose coloured glasses and slip into a socialist induced stupor?  This is politics as usual.  Do you ever recall the Libs giving into a Con "demand" .  Smoke and mirrors, bread and circuses.  Question period isn't about getting the work of the nation done it's about putting on the very best show, about the 15 second sound bite.

 

[Bigrex]

You accuse me of wearing rose coloured glasses, ha, that is laughable. If the CBC was supporting the Cons, nobody would be saying a da*med thing, but because it raises questions about the honesty and competence of the Harper Government  you all want it scrapped. The CBC is paid for by public funds (ie: taxes) and since the majority of Canadians who voted did not trust the Cons, then the majority of the taxes raised to pay for the CBC are from people who didn't support the Cons, so the peoples news broadcaster is in line with the peoples views. Also, the reporter, regardless of his occupation is a Canadian citizen, so he has the same right as you or I to approach an MP with concerns, so if he provided a question to an MP on a matter that concerned him as an individual and that MP thought it had merit, why not ask it when given the opportunity.

 

[armyvern]

You accuse me of wearing rose coloured glasses, ha, that is laughable. If the CBC was supporting the Cons, nobody would be saying a da*med thing, but because it raises questions about the honesty and competence of the Harper Government  you all want it scrapped. The CBC is paid for by public funds (ie: taxes) and since the majority of Canadians who voted did not trust the Cons, then the majority of the taxes raised to pay for the CBC are from people who didn't support the Cons, so the peoples news broadcaster is in line with the peoples views. Also, the reporter, regardless of his occupation is a Canadian citizen, so he has the same right as you or I to approach an MP with concerns, so if he provided a question to an MP on a matter that concerned him as an individual and that MP thought it had merit, why not ask it when given the opportunity.

Did you miss the bit where people wanted the CBC scrapped during the billion dollar boongoggle et al?

Come on, it's got ZERO to do with them calling down the Conservatives ... as the conservatives were calling for the CBC to be gone the way of the dodo even when it was focused on Liberals/Via Rail/Boondoggles/a Million bucks out on Canadian Flags (ie shit that the Liberals were pulling off and not being called to task for) ...

How soon we forget. Typical.

 

[midget-boyd91]

The CBC is paid for by public funds (ie: taxes) and since the majority of Canadians who voted did not trust the Cons, then the majority of the taxes raised to pay for the CBC are from people who didn't support the Cons, so the peoples news broadcaster is in line with the peoples views.

If it is a news broadcaster, let it be just that....report the news. Not do something to pull support for political parties.
I don't know about you, but I for one am pretty damned tired of turning on the News and catching all this 'subtle' bias against parties (against any party). When I turn on the News I do it to find out what has happened/is happening, not to listen to tax dollars being used as political leverage.

Also, the reporter, regardless of his occupation is a Canadian citizen, so he has the same right as you or I to approach an MP with concerns, so if he provided a question to an MP on a matter that concerned him as an individual and that MP thought it had merit, why not ask it when given the opportunity.

Yes, the reporters are Canadian citizens, and do have the rights to confront their members of Parliment when something concerns them. Those are their rights as Canadians, not their rights when they are supposed to be serving Canadians. (What I'm getting at is that they have the same rights as you and I, but those are their private rights, and because they are serving Canadians, those should not be their workplace rights.) There is no reason whatsoever for them to abuse the fact that they have a wide audience to spread their own beliefs.)

edited to remove some emboldened text

midget

 

[Reccesoldier]

You accuse me of wearing rose coloured glasses, ha, that is laughable. If the CBC was supporting the Cons, nobody would be saying a da*med thing, but because it raises questions about the honesty and competence of the Harper Government  you all want it scrapped.

Do you even know what this issue is about?  This is in direct reference to the Mulroney/Schreiber circus.  And just to set the record straight Mr. Mulroney was never a member of the Conservative Party of Canada nor was Herr Schreiber, but you knew that, I guess towing your own party line was far too tempting for you.  Facts be damned.

The CBC is paid for by public funds (ie: taxes) and since the majority of Canadians who voted did not trust the Cons, then the majority of the taxes raised to pay for the CBC are from people who didn't support the Cons, so the peoples news broadcaster is in line with the peoples views.

This has to be the weakest excuse for abuse of influence by the press that I've ever heard.  I can her it now.  "So when the Government ordered me to go to war I refused because they realy didn't win a majority in the house of commons and the opposition parties said I didn't have to."  Pure unadulterated bovine waste.

Also, the reporter, regardless of his occupation is a Canadian citizen, so he has the same right as you or I to approach an MP with concerns, so if he provided a question to an MP on a matter that concerned him as an individual and that MP thought it had merit, why not ask it when given the opportunity.

Another fine attempt to obscure the real issue.  The MP didn't listen to the complaints of a citizen but took dictation and directed his line of questioning exactly as instructed by the reporter.  Are you honestly saying that you do not see a problem with this collusion between a political party and a public broadcaster?

How about this Rex.  What if the CBC had done the same for the conservatives during the Gomery inquiry?

There is another faccet of this, if the CBC has received the favour of having their questions asked what then was asked of them in return?  Neither a MP nor a reporter gives that kind of pull for free.  In a business that revolves around give and take my question is when will the CBC be asked to softball an issue for the Libs?

 

[a_majoor]

From Stephen Taylor:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000927.html

January 08, 2008
CBC journo out?

Tonight, I'm hearing from a very well-placed source that Krista Erickson has cleaned out her desk and is going on "stress leave". Whether this indicates a hushed firing or a quiet reassignment outside of Ottawa politics after a short leave is unclear. (see update)

UPDATE: I've heard that she is moving to CBC Sports. (see update)

I should also mention that everyone that I've spoken to at the CBC about this has, for the past few weeks, told me that they do not approve of the ways by which Erickson pursued this story. From an outside source I've heard that she will issue an apology tomorrow.

I think it would also be important to note that the Liberals should shoulder a lot of the blame for this. Erickson's pursuance of the story, while over-zealous and inappropriate, would never have made the floor if a Liberal had not raised the issue. It was Pablo Rodriguez, Robert Thibault and Chair Paul Szabo, not Krista Erickson, that tore up the mandate of the ethics committee.

I should also say that I emailed Erickson the weekend after the Mulroney testimony for her comment on the story, but received no reply. Frankly, a frustrating element of this story was the silence coming from the CBC on this. While I don't blame Erickson for not commenting on the story (in fact, she probably received some sage advice not to talk to anyone), CBC did not respond except to release a tu quoque-ish letter in response to Conservative concerns. CBC management owed it to other reporters (especially in the Ottawa office) to dispel the dark cloud which hung unfairly over their heads. Yet management was quiet. As I've said before, there are a number of good professional people that report and produce news for CBC. Management that writes their cheques paid with our money should not use these people as a shield for its own comfort. Management should never shirk accountability.

So, will the Liberals now be called to answer for the damage that they have precipitated? While it was inappropriate for Erickson to hope that they would have contempt for Parliament, it was wholly inappropriate for the Liberals to go through with turning the committee into a free-for-all.

We should always demand better of our public institutions, especially the CBC. The state-funded broadcaster should always seek a balanced product when it reports the news. But it should go without saying that the institution of Parliament should never be abused.

UPDATE 1/9, 5pm: A well-placed source at CBC has amended some of the details given above. Erickson's reassignment to sports (or anywhere else) has yet to be confirmed (or even acknowledged by CBC management). At this time, I believe that a reassignment to CBC Sports will not happen. Further she still has her desk at CBC Ottawa and that she has not yet issued an apology today.

Outside of that, what remains is that Erickson has been the topic of meetings held by senior management for the past couple of weeks and that a disciplinary review has been held. She was the reporter who passed on questions to Liberals regarding the wireless spectrum (well outside of the committee's mandate on the Airbus settlement). CBC senior management has been very tight lipped about the proceedings of those meetings. What is known is that management must consider the appropriate balance between Canadian Media Guild concerns, political fallout, and details of the employee contract with respect to discipline. I expect a decision to be announced soon.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

CBC-LIBERAL COLLUSION: OLD MEDIA AND NEW MEDIA COLLIDE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Friday, January 11, 2008

National Post Misses Mark in Erickson Editorial

The National Post broke ranks with its mainstream media colleagues Thursday and published an editorial on the CBC investigation of collusion between a CBC reporter and the Liberal Party to damage the elected Conservative government.

The CBC has been counting on MSM solidarity to keep the story out of sight--off the pages of newspapers, off the nightly television newscasts, and definitely off the public's radar.

Their PR problem has just increased exponentially, even though, as you'll see, the National Post failed its responsibility to be as honest with its readers as possible.

The story of the collusion between the CBC and the Liberal Party of Canada is a watershed in journalism in the country.

Never before has the great divide between the Old Media and New Media been so stark.

From the very moment TVA reporter (and former Liberal Party cabinet minister) Jean Lapierre revealed on CTV's Mike Duffy Live that a CBC reporter collaborated with the Liberals to the point of writing questions for a member of the Commons ethics committee, the MSM showed its true colours.

Duffy, looking like he just swallowed poison, called the news libellous or slanderous (he couldn't decide which).

Did he ask the obvious question "Which reporter was it"?

We wish.

Instead he changed the subject and literally tried to push Lapierre away so he couldn't reveal more details. (Thank God for YouTube.) Only after a Liberal researcher confirmed the story did Duffy allow a panel to discuss the collusion.

Since then neither Duffy, Lapierre, nor any CTV reporter has done a follow-up story. Which comes as no surprise since no mainstream media reported the story initially, and the only follow was when CP did a story on the Conservative Party's official complaint to the CBC.

Only then did a few outlets like the National Post and The Toronto Star even mention it. After which the curtain of silence came down again.

Not one of the hundreds of reporters who cover Parliament Hill has done original interviews with Jean Lapierre, Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez (the benefactor of the CBC's question-writing), Don Newman, host of CBC Newsworld's daily politics show, or even Peter Mansbridge, the recipient of the reporter-in-question's up close-and-cozy attention in Winnipeg during the CBC lockout.

Maclean's columnist Paul Wells spoke for many CBC defenders when he dismissed the story by saying "reporters have been planting questions with MPs at committee hearings since the dawn of time."

Funny how he couldn't remember ever planting a question with the Opposition when the Liberals were in power, but, he claimed, "I'd have done it in a second" if he there had ever been a story that needed advancing.

Amazingly, there was never a single one.

The Blogosphere, on the other hand, approached the story like...well...like reporters.

They started with the question "Who?"

Pretty soon their sources, including many from within the CBC, coughed up a name, Krista Erickson. Then they worked the official CBC spokesmen, News Publisher John Cruickshank and Ombudsman (English Services) Vince Carlin, for comment, publishing e-mail exchanges that advanced the story. And finally, in the public interest, they stimulated discussion about bias in the media, particularly the publicly funded CBC.

If you want the news, you read the Blogosphere. If you want the cover-up, you get it in the mainstream media.

The National Post may have published an editorial calling on the CBC to come clean about its investigation, but to what purpose?

"We want a name" was the headline on the editorial. Yet the Post knows who the reporter under investigation is. Why the pretence?

Why not treat the matter like a real news story, the way the Blogosphere did, and assign a reporter to interview the relevent people, not the least of whom would be Krista Erickson. Does she deny working with the Liberals on questions for the Commons ethics committee? Or will she say her actions are no different than those of her Parliamentary colleagues, Julie Van Dusen and Terry Milewski, whose previously reported actions to embarass Prime Minister Stephen Harper were condoned, and even applauded as gutsy journalism, by CBC brass?

The CBC won't even contemplate that there's an anti-Conservative culture within the corporation. Instead, they're selling the idea that any criticism of the objectivity of the CBC is a partisan attack.

Any discussion of bias in the media is not in the pubic interest, sniffs the CBC publisher.

It's time to ask which public the CBC references when it assigns its Parliamentary reporters.

The left-wing Toronto intelligentsia that makes up their social circle?
Or the taxpayers forced to pay for CBC reporters who work hand-in-hand with the Opposition to defeat the elected government?
__________________
Link

 

[Reccesoldier]

That the mainstream media is so willing to close ranks and ignore this story should set off alarm bells with every person who believes in an open and free society.

Couple this obscuration with the deafening silence on the Ezra Levant inquisition and the picture isn't just scary its as bleak as a communist apartment block.

 

[Good2Golf]

Should we?  It's not a matter of public information when Private Bloggins screws up and gets a bunch of extras.

Unless the law has been broken it's simply a human resources matter, with all of the usual privacy issues inherent in human resources matters.

As a matter of fact, yes it is.  If Pte Bloggins messes up and is charged under the NDA, it absolutely is a matter of public record.  General Courts Martials are in fact open to the public.

 

[Neill McKay]

As a matter of fact, yes it is.  If Pte Bloggins messes up and is charged under the NDA, it absolutely is a matter of public record.  General Courts Martials are in fact open to the public.

Yes, but extras from, say, the RSM, are not.

You have to look at it in the context of my whole post: again, if the reporter has not broken the law and is only being subjected to internal disciplinary action then it is not a matter of public information.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes, but extras from, say, the RSM, are not.

You have to look at it in the context of my whole post: again, if the reporter has not broken the law and is only being subjected to internal disciplinary action then it is not a matter of public information.

This isn't someone that told the boss to take a hike at the office Christmas party. This is someone that colluded with the Official Opposition to subvert the democratic process of our government. It can't be downplayed and compartmentalized with quaint platitudes about the transgressors rights. They have to be weighed against the rights of the rest of the country. The journalist should have known, or at least thought, about the noose they were sticking their head into. Quietly being shuffled off to become the weather forecaster for Resolute Bay is not the way to handle something of this magnitude.

 

[armyvern]

My thoughts exactly Dave,

There was an attempt to subvert and influence a Federal Inquiry through the questions posed by the CBC (and like it or not -- she works for the CBC -- it IS a refelcection on their moral & ethical standards). These questions were not within the mandate of the Inquiry, however they were allowed anyway by the member of the Official Opposition heading it up. This screams collusion. Exerting undue influence into an Inquiry which is part of the democratic process in this Country -- lessens MY democratic rights and devalues the strength of MY vote.

The sitting party was elected to govern this nation, and deliberate attempts and collusion by the staff in publicly funded organizations with assistance by the Official Opposition to circumvent and bring down that government via "owning inquiries", despite the will of the Nation's majority of voters, especially in a time when our military is seen to be at war, equals something far greater than "extras" -- it borders on treason in my books.

Here's how I feel: the CBCs "vote" is now worth more than all of those Canadian votes combined who put the Conservatives in power. This is NOT a minor thing. If the CBC wants to state that this was only a "people problem" vice a systemic problem within that PUBLICLY funded organization -- then they'd better start fixing it and letting ME know what happened. I DO pay their salaries after all with my taxes. I want answers. I'm none too happy with what I'm seeing right now happening with my tax dollars there. I expect answers.

Just as anyone would expect answers if something happened in that taxpayer funded org that we call the CF.  Oooops --- I see that CBC already demands answers on that front for anything that tickles their fancy "on behalf of the taxpaying public"; well, CBC -- you're up now. Let's have it.

 

[Neill McKay]

This isn't someone that told the boss to take a hike at the office Christmas party. This is someone that colluded with the Official Opposition to subvert the democratic process of our government. It can't be downplayed and compartmentalized with quaint platitudes about the transgressors rights. They have to be weighed against the rights of the rest of the country. The journalist should have known, or at least thought, about the noose they were sticking their head into. Quietly being shuffled off to become the weather forecaster for Resolute Bay is not the way to handle something of this magnitude.

Here is what I'm saying on this:

If the reporter has broken the law then she is liable to be tried in court, and the proceedings and outcome will be public.

If the reporter has not broken the law but is still subject to some internal disciplinary process within the CBC then it's a human resources matter and should not be made public any more than your last PER should be.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Bullshit! I pay her wage, I own the company (I being the taxpayer) I'm entitled to know what my employees are doing. If they don't like them apples, they can divest and become a private, non government corporation, with no more handouts from me. Then they can keep all the secrets they want, while we watch the company circle the drain to, long overdue, oblivion.

I'm also sure that IF they were caught colluding with the CPC :, the lieberals would find some obscure law, or make one up, that was broken.

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

 

[armyvern]

Here is what I'm saying on this:

If the reporter has broken the law then she is liable to be tried in court, and the proceedings and outcome will be public.

If the reporter has not broken the law but is still subject to some internal disciplinary process within the CBC then it's a human resources matter and should not be made public any more than your last PER should be.

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?