The Problem With the Media May Not be Lack of Balance

In her book The Right is Wrong, Arianna Huffington devotes a chapter to the media's search for truth, or abandonment of it, depending on how you look at it.

Huffington is a former Republican who left the party when she realized that they had gone completely crazy.  If you recognize her name, it's because she is the founder of the Huffington Post.

She claims not to be angry with the right-wing media.  After all, they are only doing what we expect them to do, so we don't read their papers, listen to their radio programs,  or watch their television stations.

They have become part of our culture, so we're aware of them, but they don't have an impact on our own views.

Where the problem lies, she believes, is with what is supposed to be the mainstream media.  Those charged with providing unbiased news and seeking the truth in every story.

However, in today's toxic political climate, an attempt to seek the truth, may be an archaic principle, because the mainstream media has allowed the Right's radical ideas to become "ordinary".

A key to understanding the fanatical Right's takeover of the Republican Party and how their ideas spread to the rest of the country is looking at the role of the media—not the Fox News pseudo-newsmen or the talk radio blowhards, but the respectable, mainstream media. Without the enabling of the traditional media—through their obsession with "balance" and their pathological devo­tion to the idea that truth is always found in the middle—the radical. Right would never have been able to have its ideas taken seriously. If not for the media's appeals to balance, nea-conservatives would have been laughed out of the court of public opinion long ago. And when the media do attempt to dig into the ideological underpinnings of debates about policy and current affairs, they get buried in another form of disorder. (1)

Fox News and Sun TV have contrarians on all the time, but only to set them up for ridicule.  They are not seeking the truth, but simply reaffirming their truth, to the people who watch their programs.

When Shelley Glover remarked in a CBC segment, that "it is a well known fact that all cops vote Conservative and all criminals vote Liberal", she should have been rebuked. Yet her insane comment was allowed to stand as legitimate. A contrary point of view, that we have a Conservative law enforcement, instead of one paid with the tax dollars from those of all political stripes?

The Left/Right Paradigm

Richard Nixon was the first to suggest that there was a left wing media bias.  From his inauguration in 1969, until the day he left office in disgrace, he exacted his revenge on the press, once stating:  "One day we'll get them - we'll get them on the ground where we want them.  And we'll stick our heels in, step on them hard, and twist." (2) 

His anger wasn't unjustified, though it had nothing to do with a left bias, but a stalker columnist named Jack Anderson,  who matched dirty journalism with dirty politics.  As for the rest of the media, Nixon simply didn't like getting caught.

However, since that time, the media has enabled the Right to set the tone of debate, by establishing a left/right paradigm.  Thus all arguments are now based on left/right "opinions", instead of established facts.

Climate change is a perfect example of this.  Jim Hansen, a climate scientist and director of NASA's Goddard Institute, wrote in the New York Review of what happens when highly qualified experts try to make their case in the mainstream media.

I used to spread the blame uniformly until, when I was about to appear on public television, the producer informed me that the program "must" also include a "contrarian" who would take issue with claims of global warming. Presenting such a view, he told me, was a common practice in commercial television as well as radio and newspapers. Supporters of public TV or advertisers, with their own special interests, require "balance" as a price for their continued financial support. Gore's book reveals that while more than half of the recent newspaper arti­cles on climate change have given equal weight to such con­trarian views, virtually none of the scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals have questioned the consensus that emissions from human activities cause global warming. As a result, even when the scientific evidence is clear, technical nit­picking by contrarians leaves the public with the false impres­sion that there is still great scientific uncertainty about the reality and causes of climate change. (3)

Can you imagine if today's media was around at the time of other scientific breakthroughs?  When Jonas Salk developed a vaccine for polio, would we have Stanley Knowles (CCF/NDP) and Louis St. Laurent (Liberal) arguing its merits and pushing to immunize all Canadian children, with contrarian Solon Low (Social Credit) calling it a Jewish plot to suck money out of the treasury.

Of course not.  We trusted science and science prevailed in combating the disease.

So why are we leaving information about the devastating results of climate change, and human activity that is accelerating it, to politicians and political pundits?  Harper claims that it is only a "theory" and that Kyoto was "essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." (The Star, January 30, 2007) and we allow that to stand, just as we allow Glover's remark that all cops vote Conservative to stand.

Instead of truth vs lies, science vs non-scientific opinion, and fact vs myth, it has all come down to left vs right.

Not So Much Anger as Disappointment

I have found myself many times getting angry with the media, and not the obvious right-wing media, whose job it is to spout nonsense, but with the mainstream media.

As Huffington suggests, it is because of disappointment.  We expect more and get less.  In an effort to seek balance, they have allowed the conservative movement to frame all debate.  We know that Canada's crime rate is the lowest in history, but apparently only those on the left pay attention to the facts.  And by giving the contrarian viewpoint, that crime is on the rise, so we need more prisons; there is an implication that the facts may be open to debate.  A confused public shrugs and moves on.  They'll let future generations deal with the mess that this change in direction will create.

During Harper's first and second term, every time that conservative corruption was revealed, the MSM countered it by bringing up the Sponsorship Scandal.  In other words, yes the Harper government was corrupt, but what about those darn Liberals?  They gave him an excuse.  And yet not one mentioned that most involved in the scandal, were hired by Brian Mulroney (4), in the first Adscam.

With such an entrenched right-wing media, the old rules of "balance" no longer applies.  What we need is argument against right-wing nonsense, instead of providing it with a platform.

And What About the Auditions?

There is a joke often thrown around, that many journalists and columnists are jockeying for senate seats, so that their work becomes their portfolio.  It is well known that Mike Duffy had been trying to get a senate seat for years, but it was his complicity in the annihilation of Stéphane Dion, that finally gave him his coveted spot.

But what of others, like Angelo Persichilli?  I used to enjoy his columns, with the exception of the Quebec bashing, until he started acting weird.  Becoming the Liberals' Jack Anderson (2) he turned into a tabloid writer, listening in on private conversations, in an effort to discredit them at every turn.  He went from a respected columnist to a peeping tom.

So should we have been surprised that he was given the top job on Harper's communications team?  They needed someone without integrity, who would do anything to dig up dirt on Harper's political opponents, and he proved with his latest columns, that he was up for the job.  Or I should say down.

We have some very good journalists in this country, but the Chantel Heberts, Evan Solomons and Lloyd Mansbridges, must step up to the plate and debunk conservative spin, instead of turning the crank.  Talk to experts not idiots, or risk joining the latter.

Sources:

1. Right is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution and Made us All Feel Less Safe (And What You Need to Know to End the Madness), By Arianna Huffington, Aldred A. Knopf, 2008, ISBN: 978-0-307-26966-9, p. 5
 
2. Poisoning the Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson and the Rise of Washington's Scandal Culture, By Mark Feldstein, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-374-23530-7
 
3. Huffington, 2008, pp. 23-24
 
4. On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years, By Stevie Cameron, Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 1994, ISBN: 0-921912-73-0

Why Are we Allowing the Media to Write the Narrative?

I've found myself getting upset the past few days reading columns about the Harper majority.

There is an overwhelming attempt to rewrite Stephen Harper's political story.

Angelo Persichilli tells us that yes Harper was in the Reform Party but left because "he was disappointed" in them.

He left in part because of a power struggle between he and Preston Manning, and in typical vindictiveness, that has come to define him, held a press conference accusing Manning of pilfering money from the party.

He wasn't, but that didn't matter. The damage was done.

However, what Persichilli missed was the fact that Stephen Harper had become disenchanted with Parliament, and felt that he could do more for the movement, heading up the National Citizens Coalition, without the restraints of politics. And indeed he did.

With the help of top Republican strategist (Richard Nixon's campaign manager), Arthur Finklestein, he attempted to make the term "liberal" a dirty word.

Others in covering the Conservative convention have suggested that the "new" Conservative party is a marriage between Red Tories, or what Harper spat out as "pink liberals", and the Reform-Alliance. A bigger myth than Harper turning his back on Reform.

But the best piece of nonsense this week comes from Bruce Anderson in the Globe: Why ‘Stop Harper’ protests are no canary in majority coal mine

On the surface the article appeared to be critical of Canadians. We weren't upset that Tony Clement handed over $50 million dollars to a handful of people in his riding, that was used on some of the most ridiculous projects known to man. And when he gave them the money, he demanded no receipts, so consequently we have no idea what was spent where, though I hear the lighthouse on a stump was a real bargain.

It made Muskoka look like a miniature golf course.

Anderson also mentions the fact that Harper used a military jet to go to a hockey game, but that we forgave him because he took his daughter. How cute. Of course I'm sure she'd have rather stayed home with her dad spending quality time, and not be the victim of a photo-op with Conservative cronies and 11 bodyguards.

I remember when Stephen Harper was critical of Brian Mulroney for using his family in photo-ops.

He also speaks of a gentler mood in Parliament, which makes me wonder if he too does crossword puzzles during Question Period.

It's gone from cocka-doodle-dooing, to inane tripe.

But his most bone-headed remark was suggesting that "Strong leaders, with clear ideas for the future, passionately argued: This is the recipe for the success enjoyed in the last election by Stephen Harper and Jack Layton."

When did Stephen Harper passionately argue clear ideas? He spent the early weeks of the campaign stuck on a "coalition threat", while limiting questions to five.

And even then with the limited number of questions, he refused to answer those he was uncomfortable with, or had no script for. In fact, when reporters pressed, the crowd on cue yelled and hollered and drowned them out.

It's funny, I was just reading a story on Gaddafi's son, who has a PhD from the London School of Economics, and was pressing for reform, long before the Canada led war on his country.

He refused an appointment in his father's government and actually invited human rights activist to come and speak on how to improve the lives of the Libyan people.

But at the event, his father's supporters "yelled and hollered and drowned them out".

Maybe all dictators work from the same playbook.

But this begs the question, why are we allowing the media to create the narrative, by rewriting history?

It's like they've given Stephen Harper a do-over.

Forget the human rights abuses at the G-20. Forget the vilifying of watchdogs and hostile takeovers of arm's length government agencies. Forget the 200 page manual instructing Conservative MPs in the art of disrupting committees, investigating their wrong-doing.

Forget the more than 200 million spent on self-promotion ads, the ethics czar given hush money and the death grip on information.

We have a "new and improved" Stephen Harper now that he has what he wanted. Complete control to do whatever he feels like.

Including destroying the careers of any journalists who do attempt to tell the truth, I suppose.

Maybe it would be best to just not say anything at all.

As a Political Analyst Angelo Persichilli Makes a Great Shoe Salesman

Angelo Persichilli finally came out of the closet a few months ago and admitted that he was indeed a Conservative. Phew!

And I thought he was a liberal.

Persichilli certainly isn't the only right-wing columnist in the country, but at one time I thought I remembered enjoying his work. But that was a very long time ago. Now he doesn't even try.

Harper has "moved to the centre"? Of what? Persichilli's universe? I mean he can't be serious.

And though I'm sure he hopes that "the Liberal party is at risk of extinction", I think he needs to pick up a history book.

Party support comes in waves.

The Conservatives under R.B. Bennett, won a majority in 1930 with 134 seats. By 1935 they were reduced to 39.

In 1958, the Conservatives under John Diefenbaker won 208 seats (Liberals 48 with no viable third party). By 1963 they were reduced to a minority, and then knocked on their keister.

In 1984 Brian Mulroney won 211 seats. By 1993, his party was reduced to just 2 and eventually folded.

The NDP's success this time around was due to a wave, that headlines announced before it actually took place. They will have a lot of trouble getting it to hold, unless they do something bold, and not just try to pretend to be Liberals, in the same way that the Harperites are pretending to be Tories (or according to Persichilli, also pretending to be Liberals).

This next five years will be hell, as Canada has now taken on an aggressive foreign policy. We are in the market for 1300 bombs, and according to University of California's Michael Allen, we are taking over the "Democracy" (violent coup) business.

This will forever change who we are and how we are viewed by the rest of the world. If the NDP support this, they are no longer NDP. And the fact that the Conservatives are inititating this, means that they are no longer conservative. Not in the Canadian tradition.

Pay attention Angelo. There's no excuse for your drivel.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Canadian Media

“We are so cleverly manipulated and influenced by the media and establishments on both the right and left, that the truth has become hopelessly lost in semantics.” Jules Carlysle

Canada has one of the highest concentrations of media ownership in the world.

As corporate mergers and takeovers, that began in the early '90s, increasingly swallowed up smaller news outlets, independent sources have become almost obsolete.

For example, in 1990; 17.3% of daily newspapers were independently owned. By 2005, just 1% were.

In his book Traitors among Us: The Betrayal of Canada, Raymond Samuels states that this began with Brian Mulroney.

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had dysfunctionally inspired a new generation of greed-driven mercenaries who operate in the mass-media, in the likes of CanWest Global owners (who help fund the Conservative Party), TorStar, Quebecor Sun Media, and other such neo-conservative public relations outlets. Only BellGlobe Media, inclusive of the Globe and Mail, CTV, and CHUM, (as well as in particular, a handful of community and campus media outlets) have maintained any semblance of journalistic integrity, in the present sea of elite-managed propaganda.

However, even this is no longer true, because in 2007, "CTVglobemedia, Astral Media, Quebecor, Canwest Global and Rogers all expanded significantly, through the acquisitions of CHUM Limited, Standard Broadcasting, Osprey Media, Alliance Atlantis and Citytv, respectively." (Wikipedia)

And CTV has joined the Harper family, with the acquisition of Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Steve Murphy. And the fact that Peter MacKay is now engaged to an executive of CTV, our chances of any of that 'journalistic integrity' are all but gone.

This is very problematic for a country that has never been right-wing, because we are no longer being informed but indoctrinated.

Frances Russel wrote a piece in the Winnipeg Free Press, entitled Right-wing media covering up political scandal. In it she discusses the rightward migration of Canada's news sources.

Lawrence Martin has written several articles about the Canadian media's rightward migration. In a January 2003 column headlined It's not Canadians who've gone to the right, just their media, he quoted an unnamed European diplomat saying "You have a bit of a problem here. Your media are not representative of your people, your values." Too many political commentators are right of centre while the public is in the middle, the diplomat continued. There is a disconnect.

A disconnect indeed.

So as part of my mission to help restore democracy in Canada, I've started calling out some of this country's so-called journalists, while recommending some of the better ones.

They are a huge part of the problem, and not just because they allow Stephen Harper to control them, but because they write crap. And I mean absolute crap. Many of them don't even try anymore. They get the copy from the PMO, they add a bit of a personal touch, publish the photos taken by the PMO, and call it news.

Well that is simply not good enough. We deserve better than this, but we won't get better than this, until we start demanding it.

Lawrence Martin, Don Newman, Murray Dobbin, James Travers, Frances Russell, Antonia Zerbisias, to name a few, are credits to their profession.

Don Martin, most of the time. Anyone else from the National Post, are absolutely ridiculous.

Jane Taber, is usually only interested in the gossip. Angelo Persichilli, Norman Spector and Rex Murphy, don't get me started.

If we are going to get our country back, we have to start being diligent. If you read a story that is pure crap, tell them so. Better yet, tell their editor that you deserve better.

We deserve better, and we will get it dammit.

********************

Giving Credit Where's It's Due

Another Winner James Travers. But ... but ... but ...

Thank You Ralph Surettes For Proving There Are a Few Good Journalists Left

James Travers Hits the Nail on the Head: Harper's Speech Was Rhetorical Hokum

Calling Out the Culprits

Dear Mr. Spector. It Was Childish Manouvers That Got Him Into This Mess

Update on Norman Spector's Admiration for Childish Manouvers

Canadian Soldiers Should Not be Dragged Into This Jane Taber. You Should be Ashamed.

Angelo Persichilli Really is the Quintessential Lazy Columnist

To All Media Out There Trying to Spin the Tax Issue: A Pox on Your Houses!

Stephen Harper Lives Like a King While Peter Zimonjic Becomes Another Court Jester

Sorry David Akin But Again You are Dead Wrong

Angelo Persichilli Really is the Quintessential Lazy Columnist

Angelo Persichilli was recently described as the quintessential lazy columnist.

This was after his ridiculous 'exposure' of a Liberal plot, was 'revealed' without checking facts or even providing sound judgement.

I thought I had remembered a time when Persichilli was one of the good guys.

And by that I mean a fair and impartial journalist. According to his resume he's actually won awards.

Yes, he's used a lot of print trashing the Reform/Alliance movement as being the wrong fit for Canada, but that was a no brainer.

I don't know if he's just plagiarizing Kelly McParland at the National Post now, but he's certainly borrowed his writing style, and I use the term 'style', VERY loosely. I no longer read McParland and try not to read Persichilli.

When my mother was angry with someone, she'd say they were enough to make a saint swear. Well, I'm no saint, but the drivel these guys produce can create so much blue air in this room, that I think I'm under attack by the Tory death squad.

However, yesterday, an Angelo special came down the pipes at CAPP, so I thought I'd give it a read. Big mistake, because now I have to be the fact checker on one of his laziest and most ridiculous columns to date.

Federal opposition is missing in action

The difference between democracy and dictatorship is not so much in the way the governments behave, but in the capacity of their opposition to offer an alternative and of the media to expose any wrongdoing by either.

Hmmm ... where do I start? First off, in a dictatorship there is no elected opposition, and the media are not allowed to expose any wrong doing. And given the fact that Harper sent our elected opposition away for two and half months and refuses to speak with our media, defines our new dictatorship.

If we take the federal opposition seriously when it says say the government is not doing a good job, the logical course of action would be to offer Canadians an alternative and go to the polls. Unfortunately, for the past four years, while they have accused the government of not fulfilling its duties, the opposition parties have failed to fulfill theirs.

I'm not even going to get into neoconservatism that engages in filth to turn people away from the polls, but I might remind Angelo that the opposition did try to take Harper down with a coalition. The media imploded, the Conservatives went nuts, and it had no chance of getting off the ground; dying the same way that Harper's 2004 attempt did. The only difference with the more recent was that they learned not to include the full support of the Bloc, as Harper had done.

And let's not forget what happened this fall when Michael Ignatieff suggested that he was no longer going to prop up the Harper regime. He tanked in the polls and the media gave him the kiss of death.

In a democratic country like Canada, there is an official opposition that can freely do its job. If it is not able to defeat a minority government, the problem is not the government, it's the opposition. Governments deserve criticism when it's due, but they also deserve support, especially in difficult times like now when they are engaged in a massive fight against a global economic crisis .... I believe that the federal Conservative government could do better but, considering the difficult times we are now in, I believe it's doing a pretty good job.

OK, I really don't know where Persichilli has been, or if he even tries anymore; but this government is doing a lousy job. Even our auditor general has confirmed this.

So here are a few facts, not that I expect he'll read them, given that he's obviously no longer reading anything except his own tripe:

Economy

1. Rather than targeting stimulus money to areas hardest hit by the recession, the Reformers targeted it to their own ridings; especially those that could be vulnerable next election. They also set up a creative system of accounting, that makes it almost impossible to track the money.

2. Jim Flaherty has played fast and loose with this country's finances by allowing high-risk mortgages to infiltrate our once sound financial sector. The Financial Post recently called Canada the Fanny Mae of the mortgage industry, as the Canadian taxpayer has become the largest lender of sub-prime mortgages in the world.

The head of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge is now sounding the alarm on these risky ventures.

3. The Harper government has encouraged liberalization at home and abroad, going so far as suggest that developing nations become 100% foreign owned; much like Haiti, which has become one of the poorest nations in the world. This has been described as "a high-octane form of financial speculation similar to gambling".

According to Ellen Gould: The thing is, the Harper government is responsible for pushing the envelope on deregulation both domestically and internationally despite cautionary events in the U.S. clearly indicating what could go wrong.

So no, Mr. Persichilli, this government is not doing a good job, and if you were doing yours, you'd know that. Our international reputation is tanking, our sovereignty has been sold down river in a bogus Buy American trade agreement, and foreign newspapers are accusing our soldiers of abusing prisoners in Afghanistan, because Harper chose to transfer the blame to them.

And if you were doing your job Mr. Persichilli, you would know that the opposition has indeed been working to restore democracy, by listening to experts ... and they refer to them as experts, not 'university types' or 'elitists'. Maybe that's why a recent poll has the Liberals 4 points ahead of the Reform movement you once detested.

But this once respected columnist did get one thing right: I guess, according to some, this makes me a Conservative.

Yep! He hit the nail right on the head.

Is there a "Dump Harper" Movement Brewing Within the Conservative Party?

Charles McVety is promoting Jason Kenney as the next Conservative leader. Jim Prentice has a website, run by some unknown Conservatives suggesting that he should replace Stephen Harper. John Baird too.

"A press release was sent out by the John Baird website claiming that it is supported by a "group composed (of) over nearly 100 members from across the country, including two (2) Members of Parliament and one (1) Senator - who have
requested (to) remain anonymous." The website claims to be under the copyright of an organization called Conservatives for Change.

The Draft John Baird site responded to CTV.ca Sunday night via email saying: "For the time being the identity of the founders is not being made public because of political retaliation concerns within caucus. I am sure you can appreciate the fact that, there would be significant consequences for those members and staff who are involved with this movement. "The Jim Prentice folks are already doing prep work behind the scenes, so we thought it was prudent to layout some initial groundwork, in hopes Mr. Baird runs."

And from another source:

A certain Globe & Mail reporter used to write columns about the "Dump Harper" movement building within the Conservative Party. She even had in her possession copies of letters by "top Conservative organizers from the Toronto area", from which she quoted liberally (no pun intended) to back up her claims.

And not just Harper but MacKay may be on the chopping block:

While everyone is focused on the campaign to dump Stephen Harper as leader of the Conservative Party, little attention has been paid to the growing movement to give Peter MacKay the old heave ho from the CP caucus.

The Conservative party faces a new crisis this week after a number of MPs signalled their frustration with Tory Peter MacKay, whom they feel is undermining Stephen Harper’s leadership to position himself as the party’s saviour-in-waiting.

Several Conservatives have told CanWest News Service that MacKay, the leader of the former Progressive Conservative party and a front-runner to succeed Harper, has rankled some of his fellow caucus members with comments made in the media that suggest he is distancing himself from the embattled party.

My point is that stuff like this happens all the time. It's called politics. I don't know what Angelo Persichilli was thinking. He must be getting really desperate. Colby Cosh weighs in:

And the Black Rod is made of chocolate!
by Colby Cosh
December 7, 2009

After some hours trying to decipher Angelo Persichilli’s column about the Château Laurier Conspiracy, I think I’ve found the key. One must disconnect Persichilli’s speculation about What It All Means from his actual reporting. It seems likely he overheard or was given access to audio of some genuine conversation, though the whole account is slathered in enough passive-voice sauce to turn anybody’s stomach.

Ignore the carefully placed buttresses to the story’s authority and importance, like “This was not an isolated meeting between a few MPs”, and what you’re left with is… an isolated meeting between a few MPs, who bellyache tipsily while Bob Rae listens politely and encourages frank discussion but strongly insists he is not interested in a coup.

One reader put it in perspective:

Thanks Colby Cash! Angelo Persichilli is the quintessential 'lazy' reporter/columnist who needs his chain jerked every now and then by his hard working fellow journalists. He is a closet small 'c' conservative who dresses up in old-fashioned liberal garb so he can earn his living at the Star.

Journalists and their readers have very short and very selective memories. It was not so long ago that the majority of central Canada's journalists, including Pershichilli, were hounding Harper and predicting that his Reform/Alliance/Conservative coalition would go the way of the dodo bird.

They forget to remind their readers of this important fact. Now most central Canadian journalists, having gambled that PM Harper is here to stay for a while, portray him as a political genius who needs to be pandered to so they can get access to his pearls of wisdom and the status the Harper government offers them ....