Oh, that Canadian MSM (Updated)

May 28 - Interesting debate going on up here which, although seemingly stemming from alterations in how PM Harper handles (or fields depending on your POV) questions from the press, reflects deeper problems with which most Americans are wearily all too familiar: rank partisanship by reporters, a news and commentary elite that cannot distinguish between fact and opinion, editorial statements disguised as questions, different reporters repeatedly asking the same questions already asked and answered (Sec. Rumsfeld deals decisively with them,) deliberate or lazy (again, depending on your POV) misrepresentation of what was actually said (remember the infamous Dowd ellipses?) and above all, in what amounts of a near-derelicition of duty, a failure to perform the kind of investigative reporting that might have brought attention to scandals like Adscam and over-spending for the Gun Registry much earlier.

JM at Newsbeat1 makes an extremely pertinent point on exactly that failure here in his link to the following item.

Stephen Taylor has an excellent post on the controversy giving Fair time to both sides of the debate and the comments are both stimulating and informative. Be sure and follow the links in both the post and comments; this is not an idle debate but one that exposes the degree of disenchantment that has led to the rise of blogs and questions as to the amount of unfettered access the media should have to the Prime Minister.

This comment by Maria cuts to the heart of what many of us see as a direct challenge to the assumumption of an "independent press":

I don't have exact source but here is another fact that makes Canadians suspicious of the motives of some members of the press:

56 appointed for life Senators were journalists (don't know how many of those were from the Ottawa press corps)

Of these 48 were appointed by Liberals.

Another extremely large number of journalists have been made Ambassadors.

The past two Governor Generals appointed by Liberals were from CBC.

There is a perception that these appointments are for "favours rendered".

No kidding. Certainly the prospect of getting a plum patronage appointment would indicate a potential conflict of interest if not a direct conflict of interest but (surprise!) the Canadian media hasn't exhibited much interest in pursuing that story.

Furthermore, the CBC is not the only news outlet that receives funding from the Canadian taxpayer so maybe it isn't so strange that much of the news media actively fanned a scare campaign in an effort to secure a Liberal win during the last two national elections.

(Please note that I am not singling out the Canadian news media for scorn -- laziness and the wholesale failure to check their facts is endemic among news organizations around the world and I cordially despise most of them all of the time and all of them some of the time.

I must admit, though, that U.S. press briefings would be far less entertaining without Dowager Helen Thomas.)

May 30 21:10 - Lorrie Goldstein points out in his column that the practice which is so outraging the PPG (Parliamentary Press Gallery) today was, in truth, instituted back in 2004 in honour of the the last two election campaigns. At those times, though, a Liberal, Paul Martin, was Prime Minister.

So the same press gallery that quietly accepted restrictions under a Liberal PM -- and, it must be stressed, during two national election campaigns -- has suddenly re-discovered the concept of a vigorous and investigative press? If we are to believe they are indeed neutral, then why didn't they stage walk-outs under the Martin government? Were they somehow afraid of the Liberals?

It is simplistic to always assume liberal (and Liberal) bias in the media, but their own inconsistencies are increasingly hard to fathom and they aren't offering any coherent explanations.

Posted by: Debbye at 11:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 642 words, total size 4 kb.