Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper Dance to the Beat of a Shared Drummer

Someone posted a link to an interesting article yesterday, from January of this year.  At the time the NDP were third in the polls and going nowhere, so the party met in the Conservative caucus room, to discuss strategy.

Tom Mulcair is trying to turn around the NDP’s flagging fortunes as he gears up for a federal election within nine months, shaking up his office and campaign team and stepping up his attacks on Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.

That the NDP has been more focused on Justin Trudeau, than Harper, has been evidenced for quite some time. However, there was another comment made by Mulcair, in the context of the following, that was a bit revealing.

And he contrasted that with Trudeau’s upbringing, implying that the Liberal leader was born into privilege as the eldest son of a former prime minister and believes “he can just inherit power without proposing a thing.” 

“Whether it’s meeting with premiers to work on the future of our federation or with world leaders to discuss global economic opportunities or terrorist threats, being prime minister is not an entry-level job,” Mulcair said.

"being prime minister is not an entry-level job".

This was several months before the Conservatives used that in a national ad campaign.  Bruce Carson, in his book, relates that Stephen Harper had met with Jack Layton in 2008, wanting him to join the Conservatives in destroying Stephane Dion.

So did Mulcair provide Harper with his talking points?  

Yes this is politics, and Canadian politics have become nasty since Harper came on the scene.  We also know that Jack Layton and Stephen Harper had worked together in the past, beginning with their 2004 coalition attempt, to take down Paul Martin and make Harper prime minister.  So it's only understandable that Mulcair and Harper would make natural Samba partners.

But Who's Providing the Dance Music?

Thomas Mulcair never did inspire his way to a bump in the polls.  It was the over the top campaign against Trudeau and Bill C-51.  What made this completely bizarre, was the media's complicity in it.  They are supposed to be the Fifth Estate, not the staff of the wannabe Second Estate.

Jooneed Khan, a former journalist, had helped with Mulcair's 2007 campaign in Outrement, that won him his first federal seat.  However, by 2012, be noticed that something was happening.

A piece in La Presse, glowingly comparing Mulcair to Tony Blair, caught his attention.  By then, he knew what the current NDP leader stood for, and was sounding the alarm.

Revealingly, they all look backwards to 1990s Britain and to Tony Blair's so-called "New Labour" as the appropriate recipe for a Mulcair-led NDP ...

No statement has struck me as more contemporary and forward-looking than Brian Topp's unhesitant and courageous answer to a media question on Palestine's bid for a UN seat when he launched his own NDP leadership campaign: "We want Canada to vote with the rest of the world."

Mulcair's ultra-Zionist position on Palestine and the Middle East would never countenance such a possibility. On this issue, he remains solidly entrenched in his bunker with Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman (and their friend Tony Blair, the Quartet's very ineffectual special Mid-East envoy), while the entire Middle East is changing as people demand a future of social and economic justice and democratic participation.

Khan could see what was happening, as the major Quebec, and many other media outlets, were promoting Mulcair as Harper's replacement.  If he could turn the NDP to the right, just as Blair had done with the Labour Party, they would never have to worry about a progressive agenda, that might threaten their hegemony.  First they had to get rid of the Liberal Party, where they no longer had many friends.

Rabble also published a piece by their editor Derrick O'Keefe: Following the money: Is Bay Street backing Thomas Mulcair?

Information on individual donors to Canada's political parties, and to the NDP leadership candidates, is made publicly available at the Elections Canada website. Mulcair's donor list is of particular interest, since he is a perceived frontrunner and because some have speculated that he would aim to move the NDP further to the right of the political spectrum, given that he was a Liberal cabinet minister in a right-wing Quebec provincial government.

What I found out about Mulcair's donors should be of interest to NDP members and to everyone watching and covering this leadership race ...

I've actually printed out the list, and Khan is not wrong about the newspaper conglomerates.  They are not only promoting Mulcair, while trashing Trudeau, but are also financing his career.

After Mulcair's coronation, long time NDP supporter, Murray Dobbin, wrote of a party in mourning.  They chose the bombastic right-winger to take out Harper,  but, says he:  "Facing a ruthless tough guy? Get your own ruthless tough guy. And possibly create a monster you can't control."

It's pretty obvious that the media is once again trying to engineer the making of a prime minister, just as they did for Stephen Harper, with the help of Conrad Black's empire.  Now it's the Power Corp and allies.

When are we going to say enough is enough?

My Little Experiment

As I've mentioned in several posts, Thomas Mulcair was a horrible Environment Minister in Quebec, who earned the wrath of many environmental groups, in part because of his deregulation and privatization agenda. 

Yet our media continues to allow him to perpetrate this lie.

Another lie, that is going unchecked, is his claim that he left the Charest government on principle, because he opposed the sale of a portion of Mont Orford Park.

I posted on this before in my other blog.  The story went something like this.

1.  Mulcair proposes selling the park in a caucus meeting.  Charest told him to look into it.

2.  Mulcair approaches developers who only ask if it is legal.  He assures them that he can fix that.

3.  Mulcair prepares the legal framework, required to pass legislation, allowing the sale to go through.

4.  Mulcair launches a public attack on Coca Cola, after they announced that they would be ending the voluntarily can deposit on non-carbonated beverages, without even consulting them.  The company was understandably upset.  This was the last straw for Charest, who had already been embarrassed enough by Mulcair..  He called him into his office and told him that he could no longer go to the media unless it was first cleared by him.

5. It was common knowledge that Mulcair was after Charest's job, so he pulled a stunt that might assure his boss's defeat.  He released to the media that the Charest government wanted to sell portions of Mont Orford, creating a public outcry.  Everything was gong in his favour, until Charest called a press conference, showing the papers that Mulcair had drawn up.  Oh, oh!

6.  Mulcair went into hiding for a month, refusing to talk to anyone, not even his beloved press.  Then he came up with a new strategy.  He announced that the papers were only hypothetical and that he hadn't signed them.  

7. This rift in the party was fair game to the opposition.  A committee met, and several witnesses were sworn in, who testified that it was indeed Thomas Mulcair who proposed the sale of the Park.  Mulcair went ballistic.  It created a lot of tension, and it took several government staff, to hold him down. 

His lie was exposed and his dreams of being premier, were dashed.  He left Quebec in shame. 

Yesterday, I sent a link to a 2006 story, confirming the actual events, to several key members of the Canadian media:  Rosemary Barton, Susan Delacourt and Don Martin.  I put it on their Twitter pages so that it could be viewed by many.

I wanted to see if any of them would do the right thing, and inform the Canadian public, that Thomas Mulcair was not being truthful, in his representation to us, or to his followers.

This is the link and this is what it reveals:

"L'Esperance also revealed in testimony that Thomas Mulcair, who resigned from Charest's cabinet, saying he disagreed with plans to sell off the mountain, assured him last fall the government would approve his plan to build condos on 85 hectares of park land. 

"It was definitely confirmed to me several times," he told reporters. "Once by himself (Mulcair) and other times by his representatives." 

L'Esperance said that, on the strength of assurances from Alain Gaul, then Mulcair's chief of staff, that "You have a project. Go ahead and prepare your winter season," Mont-Orford invested another $1.5 million to $2 million for the 2005-2006 ski season. 

Questioned by Mulcair, L'Esperance admitted Mulcair, at the time environment minister, raised the issue that the sale of provincial park land was illegal."

And remember this wasn't just "testimony" but "sworn testimony".

Witnesses at National Assembly hearings are rarely sworn in but, at the request of the Parti Quebecois opposition, L'Esperance took an oath, swearing to tell the truth, before he testified.

And then there's this:

"However, according to the Canadian Press, Mulcair had indeed approved the project Monday. The proposal would have been accepted ten days prior to the redesign of 27 February." 

"Mulcair had indeed approved the project Monday."  Ten days before he resigned after being demoted.

Now that we know that we are not only fighting two right-wingers, but also the Canadian media, we have to be diligent.  Own the comments sections to set the record straight. Go after those in the media who refuse to be honest with us and out them.

We cannot have another election where the press determines the results.  Only we, the voters, should have the right to do that.

Besides blogging on this, I'm going to create a list of links to articles that reveal the real Thomas Mulcair.  His admiration of Margaret Thatcher was no passing fancy.  He lived and breathed her Neoliberal legacy.

This country will never survive another Stephen Harper, whether it's in the form of our current prime minister, or the man who wants to replace him. Another " monster" we "can't control".

Stephen Harper Not a God After All. Just a Frightened Politician

Something huge is taking place in Canada. Our media is no longer afraid of Stephen Harper. For five years he controlled them. Refusing to answer questions unless presented in advance.

But recent scandals and the unprecedented Contempt of Parliament charges, have weakened his hold on power. He no longer incites fear. Instead he is now the one who shows fear.

When he suggested at a press conference that the economy was too fragile for an election, his empty words fell on deaf ears. Our wonderful media shouted questions at him and no RCMP beat them up. No threats from Dimitri Soudas to ruin their careers.

We need to mark this moment. It's pivotal.

Even the Senate is rejecting this government's secrecy, giving the power back to Parliament.

And the good news, no more tax dollars going to self-promotion ads. They've had to pull them back.

Alice Klein is elated:

The timing drama is over and the spring election is definitely on. Thank goodness. I am one Canadian who couldn’t be happier to see an end to the Stephen Harper government’s giant f*&*-you to the values of the majority of Canadians. I’m sorry, but strong language is called for. I am not talking about a government that has won a mandate to radically reengineer the social fabric. That would be terrible, but I couldn’t cry about democracy.

Two-thirds (63 per cent) of all voters voted against Harper and his Conservative party. Election results don’t lie. But the Harper government does. Oh, pardon me – evades, misinforms, denies, twists out of shape.

Spring is in the air and an election around the corner. Stephen Harper has been reduced to just another politician. His crown tarnished. His days numbered.

Life is good.

Media Manipulation: Setting Agendas and Shielding Your Bum

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"[The media] seem to be nothing in themselves, and often say that they merely report what goes on. In truth, they do nothing on their own; they act in the manner of a compassionate passerby who sees an accident in the street and rushes to see if someone else can be of any assistance. But the media greatly affect how we regard government." Harvey Mansfield Jr.

There is a lot of discussion today about the absence of independent media, and the way that the majority of journalists treat the news.

It has become a game where they set the rules.

And while the right claims that the media is against them, the exact opposite is true, as corporate media now controls the message, and corporations stand to gain the most from neoconservative/right-wing policies.

I prefer to read columnists who are neither right nor left, but honest. And I avoid those who have lowered themselves to the standard of partisan hacks.

Barry Cooper, a member of the Calgary School that helped bring Stephen Harper to power, co-wrote a book; Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the News. In it, he correctly reveals how the media now manipulate the story, but his suggestion that it is always with a left-wing tilt, is wrong.

Case in point, though there are many examples, is the John Turner "bum pat".

In their book The Newsmongers: How the Media Distort the Political News, Mary Anne Comber and Robert S. Mayne discuss an incident during the 1984 federal election campaign.

After greeting Liberal president Iona Campagnolo: John Turner threw one arm around her shoulder, then slapped her backside and exclaimed, "Come on, Iona, let's circulate!" Iona's welcoming smile froze. She stepped behind Turner and whacked his backside. The pursuing reporters had their cameras rolling. The rest is history. The infamous "bum patting issue" was born.

It was offensive, dead wrong and definitely a political faux paus, but how important was the issue?

The way in which this story "broke" is interesting in itself. According to the Globe and Mail account, the film footage of John Turner patting Iona Campagnolo's bottom was first shown on the CTV news, July 20th, after a few days hesitation on the part of the network. The Globe and Mail claimed that, during the period between the event and the showing of the footage, pressure by reporters was mounting on CTV editorial staff to air the film clips. Finally, they gave in and aired the film. Could it be that CTV editors were asking themselves: "Is this fair coverage? Is this the kind of event we should draw to the public's attention?" We will never know. The footage was shown, and the extensive coverage that followed turned this one-minute event into the most-discussed issue of the 1984 federal election campaign.

The day after CTV aired the footage, the Globe and Mail printed two front-page articles on Turner and bum patting. In the days that followed, most Canadian newspapers carried editorials, cartoons and photos on Turner's gaffe. Bum patting was a bonanza! Everyone had an opinion on the matter, and the media establishment appeared to delight in just saying the phrase over and over again. (1)

John Turner didn't help matters, by refusing to apologize, and instead continuing the practice of not only patting the bums of women but men alike. Something he claimed he always did.

So it wasn't really a sexist issue, so much as an inappropriate one.

This might have been a perfect time to bring women's issues to the forefront, and as important as being seen as sexual objects was, there were other things that could have been discussed. Things like equal pay, a child care plan, discrimination. Maybe the fact that the president of the party was a woman, might have meant something.

The point of most interest about bum patting (besides all the wonderful opportunities it gave Canadians to make a wide variety of dreadful puns) is that it was an issue placed on the political agenda by the media. It wasn't that the party leaders had different policies on bum patting that needed to be publicly discussed or debated (although the imagination takes flight with the possibilities for slogans, placards, and Rhinoceros Party pamphlets.) No, the point is that the media placed bum patting on the agenda and then, by dint of constant attention, kept it there ... Turner's campaign aircraft was renamed "Derri Air" by reporters. (1)

We want our politicians to discuss issues of importance, but when we allow the trivial to dominate the agenda, we cannot expect intelligent political debate. Policy gets put on the back burner, when every one's looking for the "zinger" or the embarrassing image that can crush a hopeful. Like a prime minister mining old tapes of a political opponent during a time when the country wanted answers on the state of our economy.

And these incidences cross party lines. From Robert Stanfield fumbling the football, to Stephane Dion's difficulty with an intentionally convoluted question, to garner the expected response.

These images are "fair game", but how much is too much, especially when they overwhelm the important issues that our politicians should be addressing? And all too often those are the things that decide elections.

If we want to save our democracy, this is a good place to start. We won't get better from our media, unless we start demanding better. We are the ones who must set the agenda.

In 1863, Sir John A. Macdonald threw up during a campaign speech and his opponent tried to paint him as a drunk, suggesting that he was suffering from a hangover.

If that had been today, there would have been days of commentary, and the image of the puking Tory leader, played over and over. It would have been analyzed by experts, including a medical team who would reveal the contents of his stomach , and "Joe the boozer", who would provide an "expert" opinion on the stages of the "morning after".

Instead, MacDonald retorted: "I get sick ... not because of drink [but because] I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent." – case closed.

Sources:

1. The Newsmongers: How the Media Distort the Political News, By Mary Anne Comber and Robert S. Mayne, John Deyell Printing, 1986, ISBN: 0-7710-2239-5, Pg. 44-45

Stephen Harper Claims That "It is the Absolute Right of the State to Supervise the Formation of Public Opinion"

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"Why should you have the slightest difficulty in adjusting the trend of what you write to the interests of the State? It is possible that the Government may sometimes be mistaken—as to individual measures—but it is absurd to suggest that anything superior to the Government might take its place. What is the use therefore of editorial skepticism? It only makes people uneasy." Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda & Public Enlightenment, Nazi Germany(1)

It would appear, dare I hope, that the Canadian media is finally waking up, and fighting back against Harper's attempt to not only silence the press but manipulate public opinion.

A few weeks ago, many journalists nodded knowingly at this Tweet by Canadian Press reporter Jennifer Ditchburn. "My Friday giggle... a spokesperson who emails me 'on background' and then says: I can't answer your question." It's a bit of gallows humour about a problem that began as a minor annoyance for reporters working on Parliament Hill in Ottawa and has grown into a genuine and widespread threat to the public's right to know. (2)

From Time Magazine 1933 concerning Joseph Goebbels: He held in his thin, knob-knuckled hands last week a new National Press Law making it a crime to practice journalism in Germany except as a licensed member of a nationwide closed shop. The law covers "all persons who take a share in forming the mental contents of any newspaper or political periodical through the written word or pictures." (1)

From the Ottawa Press Gallery:

Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the flow of information out of Ottawa has slowed to a trickle. Cabinet ministers and civil servants are muzzled. Access to Information requests are stalled and stymied by political interference. Genuine transparency is replaced by slick propaganda and spin designed to manipulate public opinion. The result is a citizenry with limited insight into the workings of their government and a diminished ability to hold it accountable. As journalists, we fear this will mean more government waste, more misuse of taxpayer dollars, more scandals Canadians won't know about until it's too late.

It's been four years since Harper muzzled his cabinet ministers and forced reporters to put their names on a list during rare press conferences in hopes of being selected to ask the prime minster a question. It's not uncommon for reporters to be blackballed, barred from posing questions on behalf of Canadians. More recently, information control has reached new heights. Access to public events is now restricted. (2)

From Time Magazine 1936:

Because Adolf Hitler's speeches may be used to prove almost anything, the Nazi Commission of Inspection of Nazi Literature announced that Hitler's speeches may not be quoted in print hereafter without the Commission's express permission. Hearing that the rebellious pastors of the German Evangelical [Lutheran] Church plan to print and circulate privately their unanswered protest to the Reichsführer against practically everything going on in Nazi Germany, the Gestapo (secret police) raided Confessional Synod offices, lugged off typewriters, mimeograph and printing machines. (3)

We are now one "lugged off typewriter" away from the Gestapo:

Photographers and videographers have been replaced by hand-out photos and footage shot by the prime minister's press office and blitzed out to newsrooms across Canada. It's getting tougher to find an independent eye recording history, a witness seeing things how they really happened -- not how politicians wish they'd happened. .. Those hand-out shots are, unfortunately, widely used by media outlets, often without the caveat that they are not real journalism. In the end, that means Canadians only get a sanitized and staged version of history -- not the real history. (2)

From 1934 Time Magazine:

Perhaps Germany's Minister of Propaganda & Public Enlightenment, Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, compelled the publication of a report in Berlin newspapers last week that a Nazi anatomist had discovered the precise cause of cancer. At least that is what scientists who respect Wilhelm von Bremer of Berlin's State Biological Institute would like to believe ... When he read the Berlin news, Professor Francis Carter Wood, director of Columbia University's Institute for Cancer Research and editor of the American Journal of Cancer sneered: "This is all rot. There's nothing to it. Plenty of this sort of stuff is coming out of Germany just now." (4)

From the Ottawa Press Gallery:

Meanwhile, the quality of factual information provided to the public has declined steadily. Civil servants -- scientists, doctors, regulators, auditors and policy experts, those who draft public policy and can explain it best to the population -- cannot speak to the media. Instead, reporters have to deal with an armada of press officers who know very little or nothing at all about a reporter's topic and who answer tough questions with vague talking points vetted by layers of political staff and delivered by email only. (2)

The point is that Canadians really have no idea who or what this government is. We have no idea what they are really doing and we have no idea who Stephen Harper is:

Adolf Hitler in repose can look as flaccid as a circus fat lady, but so far as the German people know he never rests from his heroic labors, dashes constantly up and down the Fatherland in multi-motored planes, never smokes and subsists wholly on fruit, vegetables, nuts, and dairy products... In unlacing this straitjacket of a national inferiority complex no Nazi has helped Adolf Hitler so much as the taut, vivid, sometimes hysterical, little man whom all Germany knows as "The Doctor," famed Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, now Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. To an amazing degree Herr Hitler and Dr. Goebbels possess in common the trick of talking to grown Germans as if they were children ... (5)

We are not children and Stephen Harper is certainly not our father. We need to see him in repose .. in a natural light that will allow us to pass judgement based on information, not manipulation and spin. Because for the record, Adolf Hitler was NOT a vegetarian (6). He hate mounds of sausages and the only time he went off them was when his doctor would say "Adolf you are eating too many mounds of sausages". But Germans never knew that. "Journalists aren't looking to judge the policies of the Conservative government. Rather, we want to ensure the public has enough information to judge for themselves." (2)

One time girlfriend of Leo Strauss (who is deemed to be the father of the neoconservative movement), Hannah Arendt, herself a respected political philosopher, once questioned whether Nazi Germany was in fact a full totalitarian dictatorship, since it depended so heavily on a "certain societal consensus". Their success depended on directing and exploiting public opinion, and they did it masterfully. (7)

So is Harper a dictator or simply a master of directing and exploiting public opinion?

But not everything Harper does is based on Goebbel's brilliance. There is another master of manipulation that we are all familiar with.

The Bush White House's media operation was top flight. His handlers often arranged for him to strike heroic-looking poses. The trip to the USS Lincoln was one of their well-plotted attempts at image enhancement. When Bush delivered a speech at Ellis Island on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the White House rented three barges of giant lights and floated them in the New York Harbor, so the Statue of Liberty, appearing behind Bush, would be illuminated just right. When tornadoes struck the Midwest in May 2003, Bush stood stoically in the Missouri rain—without an umbrella—and expressed his concern. With water running down his face, he also defiantly vowed to bring to justice the terrorists that had recently blown up several compounds for Westerners in Saudi Arabia and killed eight Americans. "They understand the visual as well as anybody ever has," Michael Deaver, Ronald Reagan's chief image man, told the New York Times. (8)

I'm not sure who's worse.

Sources:

1. Foreign News: Consecrated Press, Time Magazine, October 16, 1933

2. How to Lift the PM's Muzzle: Under Stephen Harper citizens' right to know has been smothered. Journalists must take a stand. By Helene Buzzetti and Press gallery colleagues, The Tyee, June 11, 2010

3. GERMANY: Tyranny, Time Magazine, August 03, 1936

4. Medicine: Cancer Rot, Time Magazine, September 17, 1934

5. GERMANY: WE DEMAND!, Time Magazine, July 10, 1933

6. Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover, By: Ryn Barry, Pythagorean Books, 2004

7. The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda, By: David Welch, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 0-203-93014-2.

8. The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception, By David Corn, Crown Publishers, 2003, ISBN: 1-4000-5066-9, Pg. 313

The Press vs The People. How Canadians Lost Their Voice

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"The mainstream media in this country no longer represent the views of the majority of Canadians." Lawrence Martin

There was a story yesterday that Kory Teneycke will be leaving the CBC. But the real story is, what was he doing at the CBC in the first place?

Teneycke, a self described Reform Party activist. One of Preston Manning's "storm troopers" who used to go around to Liberal constituency offices to raise Cain. Who only recently left Stephen Harper's office, was working at our public broadcaster. The only place where we had a hope in hell of having our voices heard. But not to worry, he's moving to Quebecor Media Inc. where he will be responsible for the Sun media chain's Ottawa bureau. (1)

He used to write and approve Harper's press releases and now he's going to attempt to offer unbiased reporting on the Harper government. At least he won't have to risk being beat up by the RCMP for asking Harper a question, that he's already written the answer to.

They don't even try now.

In 1996, David Taras at the University of Calgary, wrote an article: The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism. In it he discussed a new phenomenon in the Canadian media; the increasing number of journalists who had become "ardent political activists". (2)

It was in reference to the Winds of Change conference that was taking place to try and unite the right wing parties under one banner.

The Winds of Change conference, which took place in Calgary in May 1996, brought together approximately 70 leading right-wing thinkers and activists in an effort to bring unity to conservative forces before the next federal election, expected in 1997 ...

... The conference's real significance, its real meaning, however, may have little to do with whether the goal of unity on the right is ever achieved. More important perhaps is that the conference highlighted a phenomenon that has been taking place for quite some time in American politics, but seems only now to be emerging full-blown in Canada: that an increasing number of journalists have become ardent political activists. Where objectivity was once the gold standard on which the professional credibility of journalists rested, today the rules seem to have changed. Some journalists have been able to enhance their status by openly championing partisan positions and causes. (2)

Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy went right from CTV to be named to Harper's senate. Peter MacKay's fiance is an executive at CTV. Harper MP Lee Richardson's girlfriend is a journalist for CBC. David Frum, the organizer of the Winds of Change, is a regular contributor to the National Post and a former speech writer for George W. Bush.

The shift to the right started when Conrad Black bought up most of Canada's media in an attempt to shift public opinion to the far-right, but so far it isn't working. Canadians are still Canadians. A few right-wing hacks are not going to change that.

[Lawrence] Martin traced the change of the journalism culture in Canada to the mid-1990s, when Southam, the country's biggest newspaper chain with a history of hewing to a mainstream political course, was taken over first by Conrad Black's Hollinger Inc., and then by CanWest Global, which makes no secret of its pro-American, conservative bias. As well, the conservative tabloid Sun chain became Canada's second largest newspaper group in the last decade. The result was the establishment of two major newspaper chains to the right of the political spectrum, and none on the left or in the centre.

Further, Martin pointed out, the two national newspapers are major agenda-setters: the National Post is decidedly right-wing, the Globe and Mail conservative. At Madcan's magazine, Kenneth Whyte, former editor of the Post, runs the show, and L. Ian MacDonald, a Mulroney devotee, now edits Policy Options, once a liberal magazine. Even the publicly owned CBC gives prominence to right-wing voices. On Peter Mansbridge's "At Issue" panel on The National, regulars include Gordon Gibson of the Fraser Institute, Andrew Coyne of the National Post, and former Conservative pollster Allan Gregg; only Chantal Hebert, national affairs writer for the Toronto Star and a columnist for Le Devoir, represents a more liberal point of view. (3)

Chantel Hebert is our lone voice? I've quit watching this show, because on the last one I did see, they were discussing Michael Ignatieff, and while Hebert thought he could redeem himself, she went on to say that "even learning to tie his shoes will be an accomplishment." A man who got his PhD at Harvard and has taught at schools like Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, and the best she could do was suggest that he still needed to learn how to tie his own shoes. And she is our ONLY VOICE? And forget them ever having anything nice to say about Jack Layton, Elizabeth May or Gilles Duceppe. Their tongues would catch on fire, I think.

... "The conservative media tends to favour a closer embrace of the United States and its values. Canadians themselves show little inclination to go that route. It is a story line — the press vs. the people — that runs right to the heart of the debate over the future of the country." Martin added that as a result of the corporate takeover of the Canadian print media, the largest segment of the population, centre-left Canadians, were at risk of losing their voice. (3)

The press vs the People. Very well put. In 2007, Frances Russel wrote for the Winnipeg Free Press:

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.

Martin believes the disconnect began when Conrad Black converted the Financial Post into the National Post, hired a stable of conservative commentators like Mark Steyn, David Frum and George Jonas, bought the centrist Southam chain and turned the entire package into a vehicle to unite Canada's right and retool the country's values to U.S.-style conservatism. Even further right rests the Quebecor-owned tabloid Sun Media chain. Mulroney was chairman of the board of Sun Media and sits on Quebecor's board. (4)

So Stephen Harper's former communications director will now be reporting on his government, in a vehicle that is further right than the National Post? Wow. I thought the only thing further right than the National Post was Fox News.

And speaking of Fox News:

CanWest's 'Global Sunday' bills itself as "Canada's number one current affairs talk show." But a lot of Canadians won't find their views reflected in the talk.

... The program's rightward tilt is not accidental. Indeed, Global Sunday's wider purpose may be to shift political discourse to the right. The model for this mission can be found on the Fox News channel and, in particular, the falsely balanced Hannity and Colmes debate show. This show pits the aggressive conservative Sean Hannity against the mildly liberal, often conciliatory Alan Colmes in a format "where conservatives outnumber, out-talk and out-interrupt their liberal opponents," as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting explains the strategy.

Global Sunday follows the same formula, tilting sharply to the right. Progressive and left-wing perspectives on public policy issues are blanked out – they don't seem to exist in Global Sunday's world. Host Danielle Smith has a long history of advocating for the libertarian right. She started her career as an intern at the Fraser Institute, then launched the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute. This short-lived organization was sponsored largely by Alberta ranchers and its goal was to promote private property rights, opposing endangered species legislation and bans on smoking in indoor publicly accessible places.

Smith was a natural for this job, having written a turgid essay for the Fraser Institute titled "The Environment: More Markets, Less Government." She left the property rights organization in October 1999 to join the Calgary Herald as an editorial writer – perhaps they liked her Fraser Institute screed. (5)

Danielle Smith is now head of the Wildrose Alliance Party and will probably be Alberta's next premier.

We're scewed!

Sources:

1. Conservative pundit Kory Teneycke quits CBC, By Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, June 8, 2010

2. The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism, By David Taras (University of Calgary), Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 21, No 4, 1996

3. Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future Within Fortress North America, By Maude Barlow, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 2005, ISBN: 0-7710-1088-5, Pg. 13

4. Right-wing media covering up political scandal, By Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press December 12, 2007

5. Fox News Format Infiltrates Canada: CanWest's television talk show. Fair? Balanced? You decide. By Donald Gutstein, The Tyee, March 17, 2005

The Murder of Television News Was Premeditated

"The greatest power of the mass media is the power to ignore. The worst thing about this power is that you may not even know you're using it." --Sam Smith

There's no argument that we have a serious problem in this country when it comes to our media, or lack thereof.

Most newspapers are a joke, which is why more people are turning to international news or social media if they want to know what's going on in this country.

We can trace a lot of this back to Conrad Black, when he bought up many of the country's papers and made them a vehicle for the far right.

But even some of the more moderate publications have become a disappointment. Very little investigative reporting and far too much fluff.

That's not to say that they are all bad. We still have a few very good journalists, who aren't afraid to tell it like it is: Lawrence Martin, Murray Dobbin, James Travers, Don Martin, Antonia Zerbisias, Frances Russel; to name a few.

But most of the others are now just cut and paste specialists, or topic spinners; so I rarely waste my time.

And television news is just as bad if not worse. Again a few good ones, but the majority are more into entertainment than keeping the country informed.

And if we don't believe that these so-called news 'personalities' are partisan, look at how easily they move into government. Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy from CTV. Peter Kent from Global. How can we believe anything they tell us now?

I thought however, that a lot of this problem started with Stephen Harper, and while he is definitely the worst to control the media, bar none; a 2000 article from the Ryerson Press, describes how Mike Harris manipulated the press, so it's definitely a neoconservative trait.

We may not have anything as deplorable as Fox News, but give it time. Everything these guys do, they learned from the worst of the Republicans.

TV newsmakers need vivid images to illustrate their stories. Harris's Tories, easily the most communications-savvy provincial government this country has ever seen, are delighted to oblige — on their terms. They dodge negative coverage at every chance and will go to ridiculous lengths — giving preferential treatment to friendly reporters, shutting out critical ones and staging elaborate, unrelated events — to avoid it.

With expectations so superficial, many television journalists are losing the incentive and initiative to go out and chase stories beyond the pre-packaged photo ops offered up by government communications staff. Even if they want to go beyond these prefab items, with shrinking political reporting staff and dwindling resources, they can only pursue one or two stories a day. Government PR people know this and are prepared to make it easy for journalists to get their precious pictures, provided the coverage doesn't end up being too hard on them. The result is political coverage that serves no purpose other than promoting a government that's already very good at promoting itself.

But what happens if a television anchor tries their hand at a little honesty?

... in October 1984 when Lesley Stahl said on air what President Ronald Reagan was really doing: she called him on all the promises he had failed to keep, particularly to the poor, since his election, calling him a president who "highlights the images and hides from the issues."

But minutes after the CBS Evening News Broadcast was over, Richard Darman, Regan's deputy chief of staff and Michael Deaver, a republican political consultant, called to thank Stahl. They'd watched it with the sound off, and without her verbal assault, it was just five minutes and 40 seconds of sweet, wholesome pictures of the American president with balloons, the president with the flag and the president with needy children.

As Stahl found out, consistently getting the right pictures on the evening news is a PR tactic designed to keep government in the public favour. Harris's communications staff, many of whom are trained by Republicans in the U.S., subscribe to the Mike Deaver school of thought: they know they can't control what journalists say, but they do their damndest to control what they show. Robert Fisher, a Global anchor and host of Focus Ontario, a weekly half-hour political analysis show, says he's never seen such tight control by a premier's office in his 19 years of political coverage.

"This government, unlike any governments before it, is absolutely obsessed with image," he says, "whether it's what shirt the premier wears or what the bus looks like or what backdrop he's in front of. I don't remember governments before being that concerned. If they stood in front of a grey curtain, they stood in front of a grey curtain. I've seen these guys change the curtain because it clashed with the premier's suit."

Image politics. It's the new norm. And news programs are not written with a view to keeping a country informed, but keeping a country pacified. Or even worse, and something that is all too common with Harper's divisive style, keeping a country turned off.

Being offered flawless pictures isn't the kind of help reporters need, but it's the only help they're getting. CTV's Queen's Park bureau, which had three full-time reporters in February 1997, now depends on one CFTO reporter. Global also has just one. The Ministry of Health, however, has a communications staff of 40. "I've sort of adapted to it more, maybe because I'm younger and I can go with the flow a little more," says Kelly. "But it drives guys like Robert Fisher nuts. In his day, we always did issue stories, issues were important."

Fisher admits the decreasing emphasis on solid political reporting does aggravate him, but he recognizes why it's happening. Issues don't usually make for good pictures and, once reporters commit their meagre resources to a superficial event, they can hardly afford not to cover it. This budget-induced apathy is compounded by the stations' general disinterest in traditional political coverage.

Bill Fox, author of Spinwars, who has been both a political journalist and a communications advisor for Brian Mulroney, says news executives are giving up too easily. "Behind a lot of this focus on dumbing the news down is the belief that you can't communicate anything of substance on television. But the academic research indicates the opposite. Used properly, television is an excellent medium to communicate very complex issues," he says.

Used improperly, local news becomes more vulnerable to communications initiatives. "You won't have the time to get behind the pre-packaged announcement," says Fox. Over time, consumers will realize that and move on.
North Americans are already giving up the evening news as a source of daily information. In the late 1970s, 92 percent of Americans watched one of the big three stations' evening news but that number, according to Fox, is now below 60 percent.

Toronto news organizations don't seem deterred by these statistics and, according to Kelly, are perpetuating the dumbing-down trend. "We're an inch thick and a mile wide," he says. "TV news has always been very shallow and in the past five years we've become even more so. It's shorter clips, shorter stories, more pizzazz ...

More pizzazz ... Yep. I guess that's why I've only watched television news very sporadically for the past 20 years. I just couldn't handle the pizzazz.

Without Freedom of the Press in Canada How Can we Call Ourselves a Democracy?

Much has been written about China and their media's struggles to obtain information, and reprisals for sharing that information.

However, what we have neglected in this country for the past four years, is our own media's struggles with the very same thing.

There is an interesting paper written by undergraduate Jeffrey Wartman, entitled Freedom of the Press and Democracy in China. He begins:

Many people have different ideas about the true nature of democracy. One school of thought believes that democracy is the act of the people electing representatives to make decisions, held accountable through elections, for the populace. Others believe that democracy is rule by the people, in which the will of the populace is the almighty sovereign. Yet , while to many people the word democracy may mean many things, there is no doubt that if democracy is truly going to exist, there must be a free flow of ideas, both majoritarian ideas and those in the minority, so that people may make proper judgments when choosing their leaders. “The role of the press stands out in every major democratic transformation in modern time” (Xiaogang 212). Without a free press, a free flow of ideas and a minimal tolerance of dissent, the Democratic ideal of governance by the people can not occur if the people do not know much of what is occurring. In the People's Republic of China, some citizens understood this.

'Without a free press, a free flow of ideas and a minimal tolerance of dissent, the Democratic ideal of governance by the people can not occur .... '

Interesting words those. However, while written about China, how exactly does Canada differ now?

OK, our media is not being imprisoned, but they are being banished, which could often mean their careers. As a result they live with the constant fear that they will suddenly remember that they are journalists, and ask a question not on the list.

David Akin discusses this after being held hostage on a plane in Newfoundland.

Harper's detractors may think we should just give the metaphorical finger to such directives from the PMO but, at one photo opp while we were here, a reporter who did just that and asked a question at a photo opp, despite warnings not to, was immediately warned that, if she continued, reporters would no longer be allowed to attend such photo opps. That would not be good for our access would be curtailed even further.

PMO staff also made veiled threats that that individual's organization might suffer further sanction -- all because of the impertinence of asking a question. If you are a media organization in Ottawa, these are no small consquences. If the PMO doesn't like you, you can bet that every cabinet minister is going to give you the cold shoulder, too. I know, I know: Those who hate Harper say, tough! Ask away and bring on the consequences! Well, ... maybe: But if we did yell at him and disrupt his schedule and annoy his rather large RCMP bodyguards, what would we get for our trouble?

Akin is rather dismissive, by suggesting that it is 'those who hate Harper' who object to this.

But you don't have to hate Harper. You don't have to dislike Harper. Heck, you don't even have to know who Harper is; to know that this is simply wrong.

There was an editorial in the Cornwall Free Press recently entitled The Stephen Harper Government Burning the Edges of Democracy – Flirting with Facism in 2010

... Without true freedom of the press, and true freedom of speech unspeakable horrors can be brought down on society.

We need to really look at issues like this. It’s not about partisan politics because frankly there have been moments in Liberal Governments that are in the same family of some of these behaviors, but never in Canadian history have such a total combination of Undemocratic energies been focused.

'Never in Canadian history ....'

So why is our media allowing this? Why are we allowing this?

I often wonder what student in the not too distant future will write of Canada's loss of democracy ... of the rise of our dictator .... of our plunge into fascism.

Who will write of the time when Canada was a free and independent nation, proud of it's sovereignty and joyous in it's so-called second rate status.

And what will the final chapter be?

I guess we are the only ones who can write that.

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

More Postings on Harper's Control of Information

Harper Declares War on the Media and Paralyzes System

Conrad Black, Stephen Harper and Media Manipulation

The Murder of Television News Was Premeditated

How Harper Got Caught in the Spin Cycle

Did Harper Learn How to Silence the Press from Mike Harris?

Stephen Harper Promotes Freedom of the Press. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

Harper Using RCMP to Control the Media While He Controls the Message. Why are we Allowing This?

Stephen Harper's Weak Performance at Business Round Table Raises Red Flags

Is it Any Wonder Stephen Harper Likes Fox News? He's on it All the Time!

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

There is a very good book available, possibly at your local library. (I bought mine used off Amazon.com.)

It was written by Trevor Harrison on the rise of Stockwell Day, entitled; REQUIEM FOR A LIGHTWEIGHT: Stockwell Day and Image Politics. You can read a review and the first chapter here.

I would have liked to have said the rise and fall of Stockwell Day, but since he is now poised to turn this country inside out; it could very well be us taking the fall.

However, what's interesting about Mr. Harrison's revelations, is the idea of image politics and the creation of a political leader. He wrote this before Stephen Harper and Danielle Smith were household names.

For all of the 'hype' about Stockwell Day's accomplishments by the various media, in the spring of 2000 he was an untested politician of modest accomplishments, a meager national profile, and enough controversial baggage to fill a Ryder truck. Yet, a few months later, he was leader of Canada's newest political party, a rising star in the new right firmament. How this came about is the question that sets in motion Trevor Harrison's Requiem for a Lightweight.

From his days as an Alberta politician, to the transformation of the Reform party into the Alliance party, to the high-point of Day's coronation as Alliance leader, to the 2000 federal election, to the debacles of early 2001 that shattered the Alliance dream: this book chronicles it all--the people, personalities, and politics.

The disastrous Goddard lawsuit that cost Alberta taxpayers roughly $800,000, and the series of very public gaffes that began Day's quick slide into political oblivion, is laid out in detail. The disenchantment directed at Day, the ongoing infighting within the party, the resignations leading up to the breakaway of eight MPs: nothing yet published anywhere has adequately put together this story, fascinating from start to finish.

Throughout, the question of media image is placed front and centre as this book explores the growing problem of rational democratic politics in an era of celebrity, image, and instant culture.

All of these statements could very well apply to Stephen Harper. Like Day he was nurtured by Conrad Black, moulded by the Calgary School and promoted by the Fraser Institute. They take someone with narcissistic qualities who will feed off the attention and power. It also may have been a plus in the case of Day and Harper, that they had strong religious convictions, so they wouldn't let things like scientific knowledge or common decency get in the way. And both of these men had extremist pasts, so wouldn't be afraid to get their hands dirty.

I call them political sociopaths.

I don't believe Danielle Smith fits, but as a journalist and television personality her views were always right-wing libertarian. Of note though, is that Pierre Poilievre is one of their creations, and though young now, he is definitely being groomed.

I often get angry with our media for allowing this to happen, but the fact is we helped. I have been noticing a bit of a change though as many are remembering why we found Stephen Harper scary in the first place; before the days of his taxpayer funded image consultants and $400.00 haircuts. We got a sense of his sinister side, and said not on your life.

But his rise to power was not so much because of him, but because of Adscam, that was founded by Brian Mulroney and capitalized on by the Liberal bureaucracy of the day.

I voted NDP in 2004 and 2006. I've now joined the Liberal team for the first time since Pierre Trudeau. But I'm a Canadian first and am now motivated to getting our country back, and making sure that we don't get blindsided by pure evil again. So pick a progressive team and make sure you vote, then hold their feet to the fire, to make sure they put us first.

Journalist Ralph Surettes, wrote an excellent piece for the Halifax ChronicleHerald, and while he took a lambasting for it judging by some of the comments, I'm so glad he was brave enough to say the things that need to be said. I hope more in the media will speak up.

When two of their numbers were held hostage by Stephen Harper the other day, one suggested that he had to write for his Harper supporters as well as sane Canadians. Could you please explain to me, how what happened to them, can be written off as unbiased reporting. In my day that was called kidnapping.

So my hats off to Mr. Surettes. I may just have to give him a Joe Canadian Award, for putting us first. I'm definitely going to email him, and thank him for his courage. You can too, here: rsurette@herald.ca .

Democracy under assault: time to wake up
By RALPH SURETTE
January 30, 2010

I HATE to be grim, but there’s this gnawing question in the air: Is democracy in trouble? If so, what does it mean? In both Canada and the U.S., what’s transpiring is astonishing.

In Canada, Stephen Harper unilaterally shuts down Parliament with an astounding rationale: Parliament is just a bother, an impediment to doing real work, and people don’t care if it’s shut down. You’ll remember that this is the language used by generalissimos plotting coups: Democracy doesn’t work — it’s just a bunch of squabbling factions, scheming intellectuals and protesting students — so authoritarian measures are needed to break the logjam and get things done ....

The War in Iraq Has Made Democracy There Less Attainable

We don't talk about the Iraq War much in this country anymore. In fact, we don't really talk about anything of importance.

The wonderful Helen Thomas, who covered every U.S. president since JFK, discusses her disappointment with the White House Press Gallery, and if you didn't know better, you'd think she was discussing our own non-existent press gallery, who seem more concerned with what MPs are wearing, than what the most secretive government Canada ever had, is doing in our name.

A few are coming out of their coma, but sadly not many, and I'm afraid our involvement in Afghanistan is going to create the same mess that we are now seeing in Iraq. Billions of dollars and so many lost lives for absolutely nothing.

Maxime Bernier stated that this war was about control of the drug trade. Others suggest it's for oil and military contracts. They're probably right on all counts, but it sure isn't about democracy, because we've just seen the end of democracy in this country. How can we hope to spread it anywhere else.

The only thing being spread these days is pure shite.

Journalist and author of “The Death of the Grown-up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization”, Diana West, discusses the chaos that now rules the day in Iraq, and how much more difficult it is for Christians in that country, and indeed all citizens.

Victory? Really?
By: Diana West,
The Dickinson Press
December 29, 2009

There’s at least one more aspect to consider when appraising the past six years in Iraq climaxed by the “surge.” This would be the indirect effect of “reflected glory,” if such a quaint term applies, and has to do with the sort of state the U.S. helped create in Iraq.

I don’t know how to candy-coat reality: Post-surge Iraq is a state of increasing repression, endemic corruption, religious and ethnic persecution and encroaching Sharia. Recent media reports flag just some of these glaring truths that American elites, civilian and military, seem to shy away from.

In October, from AsiaNews, came the latest news of, to quote the headline, “Sharia Slowly Advancing in Najaf and Basra, for Non-Muslims Too.” Here, the Sharia (Islamic law) is invoked to ban alcohol sales and consumption by non-Muslims — namely, Christians, given the eradication and dispersal of Iraq’s ancient Jewish population — “on the grounds that Iraq’s constitution,” as Ahmad al Sulaiti, deputy governor of Najaf, notes, “bans everything that violates the principles of Islam.’’

In November, Reuters highlighted the government crackdown on the media via lawsuits against criticism, and laws enabling the government to close media outlets that “encourage terrorism, violence,” and — here’s a handy catch-all — “tensions.” There are new rules to license satellite trucks, censor books and control Internet cafes. “The measures evoke memories of ... the laws used to muzzle (journalism) under Saddam Hussein,” Reuters writes.

In December, the British paper The Observer reported that hundreds of Iraqi police and soldiers descended on Baghdad’s 300 nightclubs where they “slapped owners’ faces, scattered their patrons and dancing girls, ripped down posters advertising upcoming acts and ordered alcohol removed from the shelves.” The official reason? No licenses. But, the paper reports, “the reality is that a year-long renaissance in Baghdad’s nightlife may be over as this increasingly conservative city takes on a hard-line religious identity.” As one club owner said: “This is a political decision with a religious agenda. (Prime Minister Nouri al-) Maliki needs the votes of religious parties ... They (the government) supported us and gave us incentives to reopen the clubs, then when it suited them, they sold us and themselves out to the fundamentalists.”

There’s a lot of that “selling out to the fundamentalists” going around post-surge Iraq, where, it must be faced, one particularly shocking, unintended consequence of U.S. involvement has been the religious “cleansing” of Iraq’s ancient Christian populations. In 2003, 1 million Christians lived in Iraq. Six years later, after successive waves of violence and intimidation largely unchecked by either Iraqi government action or U.S. intercession, more than 500,000 Christians have fled the country. It is a crisis that inspired Christian leaders to assemble in Baghdad in December for a conference piteously titled: “Do Christians Have a Future in Iraq?”

This anti-Christian persecution is a large part of why the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended in December 2008 that the State Department name Iraq a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) — its dread Saddam-era designation. (Recommendation denied.) In May, to strengthen human rights in Iraq, the commission’s Iraq report included suggested amendments to Iraq’s constitution, which, not incidentally, boil down to abolishing the constitutional supremacy of Islamic law. (And yes, U.S. legal advisers helped write this same Sharia-supreme governing document.)

For example, the commission suggested deleting the line in Article 2 that says no law may contradict “the established provisions of Islam.” It suggested revising the “guarantee of ‘the Islamic identity of the majority’ to make certain that this identity is not used to justify violations” of human rights. It also suggested that “the free and informed consent of both parties (be) required to move a personal status case to the religious law system,” and “that religious court rulings (be) subject to final review under Iraq’s civil law.” Another suggestion was to remove “the ability of making appointments to the Federal Supreme Court based on training in Islamic jurisprudence alone.”

Good ideas — if religious freedom is the objective. But it is not the objective in Iraq, or in other Islamic countries. Which should make the United States, founded and defined by such freedom, look before nation-building, and ask: Do we really want Americans to “surge” and risk death to build nations such as this to stand as monuments to “victory?”

Stephen Harper Promotes Freedom of the Press. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

I must admit that this story offered a bit of comic relief after the horror show put on by Harper and his Reformers this week. But come on. Stephen Harper touting the media and then refusing to answer their questions. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Now that's funny.

And we thought Gerry Ritz was the party's official comedian.

PM lauds press freedom in speech, doesn't take questions from reporters

TORONTO — Prime Minister Stephen Harper urged journalists to "shine light into dark corners" of government affairs during a speech late Saturday, but wouldn't take questions from reporters covering the event. Harper, who is known for his sometimes prickly relationship with parliamentary reporters, made the comments during an ethnic media awards dinner in Markham, north of Toronto.

Freedom for Canadians goes hand-in-hand with journalistic freedom, he told the dinner guests gathered at Seneca College in Markham, home to thriving Asian communities.

Harper is Spinning Out of Control and May Wear a Hole in the Ground

There was an excellent column by Jeffrey Simpson that I wanted to share, describing the way that Stephen Harper and his Reformers control the spin. This should be unacceptable.

Jeffrey Simpson
And the Conservative spin machine spins on …
This week it turned its attention to diplomat Richard Colvin
November 20, 2009

Stephen Harper's Conservatives just cannot help themselves. They carry on for a while sticking to a carefully controlled message, appearing reasonable and sensible. Then, the temptation for ferocious partisanship gets the better of them. This temptation is deeply ingrained in the Harper party. It shows itself in the Conservatives' propaganda attack machine, in which opposition leaders' physical mannerisms are mocked and patriotism is impugned. It is displayed with how Conservative MPs use their mailing privileges, as in the recent outrageous mail-outs playing politics in the Jewish community against the Liberals.

It is revealed almost daily in the Commons and beyond in the ad hominem partisan attacks on previous Liberal governments. But, most starkly, it appears in the verbal muggings given anyone – even civil servants – who dare get in the way of the government's massive, well-financed and all-pervasive spin machine. Two weeks ago, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, attacked, of all institutions, the RCMP for having dared to suggest that the Canadian Firearms Program's latest statistics “highlights the importance of the program to law enforcement.” ...

Harper Not Only Controlling the Spin But Now Trying to Control the Flash

Since coming to office Stephen Harper has been very careful about controlling the media and keeping us on a need to know basis. For instance we need to know that he can play the piano but we don't need to know that he has sold us off with the SPP. We need to know that he once had a paper route but we don't need to know that he has secretly removed the terms 'gender equality' and 'humanitarian' from our foreign policy. We need to know that he is a good little Christian boy, but we don't need to know that he trying to accelerate Armageddon.

Author and publisher Mel Hurtig had details of an SPP meeting and offered it to all of the mainstream media, but no one thought there was a story there. So who's getting a little help from 'his' friends? It sure isn't the Canadian people. (I probably should start capitalizing His and He now, when referring to Harper because he's obviously the media's God)

In true Orwellian fashion, Harper claims that He only answers certain questions because the media hates the Reform Conservatives. Give me a break. These kingmakers have forgotten His extremist past(?) and are complicit in selling him to us as a moderate to the centre politician. He is not a centre politician. He just plays one on TV.

However, given that the PMO now apparently writes their own copy, should we be surprised that they are also taking their own photos? Doctored and airbrushed they arrive to go with the stories they direct. Isn't democracy grand?

Is Stephen Harper going too far in trying to control his image?
The PMO is sending out a steady stream of publicity photos in the hope they will be used in newspapers and blogs across the country. But photojournalists believe Harper's handlers are going too far in trying to control his image

Minutes after Stephen Harper finished his now-famous rendition of With a Little Help from My Friends , the Prime Minister's Office e-mailed Canadian media an arresting close-up shot of what it described as the gala piano performance. Only it wasn't. The picture, which featured Mr. Harper framed by dazzling theatre lights, was actually snapped by a PMO photographer at a private rehearsal hours before the Oct. 3 evening concert.

The shot – used by media outlets including The Globe and Mail's website – is cited by photojournalists who cover Mr. Harper when they discuss what they see as recent PMO efforts to exert more influence over images of the Conservative Prime Minister.

Since the spring, the PMO has effectively set up its own picture service, e-mailing photos to Canadian media almost daily in an effort to find a market for publicity shots of Mr. Harper's activities. It's a service that ultimately competes with the work of photojournalists, but one, they argue, that should not be relied upon as a record of events ....