Always the "us vs. them" victimization spiel from you…can you gain a couple?

The comment applies to media in general regardless of political stripes. The role of media should not be to shape the opinion of the public, it is to educate them. And if the government of the day or the opposition of the day are full of dumbasses, then they should be called on it through factual evidence.

And that is why groups who are insecure about power, like to suppress and control media. Because an ignorant populace is a malleable one.

Defending the debasement of journalism because of cost cutting is a red herring, and that "debasement" in fact hurts traditional media rather than helps them at the bottom line.

Part of the success of the internet over traditional media is that there is a gia-normous amount of information available in seconds, but the vast majority of it is garbage. If traditional media insists that repackaging that garbage helps them compete rather than filtering/analyzing/rejecting it, then it is should come as no surprise that they are failing miserably.

Well, that's your crowd.

It's not a criteria for either being a Canadian, or running a country.

What is this….group think?

More people go to museums, opera and art galleries in this country than ever watch hockey.

Never judge others by yourself and your own small group.

Focus Gayle.

There is nothing wrong with a night of beer and hockey.

It's just that not everybody does it.

And it's no way to judge someone's ability to run a country.

I said it's a false image….just as Harper's image is false.

Politics, not reality

No, I said it's a political image. All politicians have one. Some are accurate, some are not.

What you should never do is promote an inaccurate one. Harper and Iggy are both doing this.

However, I want politics of substance, not image.

I resent very much the idea that to be a 'real' Canadian you should drink beer, watch hockey and go camping in your spare time. Or are a regular Timmies patron. Or be a member of the working class.

This is another grab from Australia….where it's called 'mateship'.

You'd never know Oz has scientists, businesses, PhDs and so on….apparently they're all Crocodile Dundee. LOL

Without looking it up….do you know how many Nobel prize winners Canada has?

LOL Don't go away mad, just go away.

If you have convinced yourself that I changed any part of what I said in my opening post, I'm sure you can convince yourself of anything.

Even that you're gone when you're not.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with my point.

Maybe, but I was simply saying that professional, wealthy, well educated people like hockey too.

The one's I know also like to play hockey, and watch their kids play hockey.

Or that only people interested in watching sports…hockey or otherwise…go to the Olympics.

Anti-Harper rants may make 13 year-old school girls feel good, but do little else.

No, students drink beer and watch hockey and think it's a great evening.

Adults usually want something more out of a night.

I've been to a hockey game. Found it boring. Many do.

Some just go for business, some to appear 'regular'. Variety of reasons.

I've travelled more than you, yes. Probably better educated too.

Again, the confused one who can never keep up.

No, that's just your default position when you lose an argument.

Something that probably happens a lot on here.

Well, you'd lose I'm afraid.

And no personal attacks are not the hallmark of an intelligent debate.

So stop making them.

The topic here is Ignatieff, not me

What is it about plain English that confuses people?

I have nothing against students, or drinking beer or hockey.

It's just not the right image to project for Ignatieff.

Weak.

Uh, no, it's a straightforward description of what The Globe and Mail during an election campaign – not only cover it's front page in Liberal advertising (as they regularly do in election campaigns), but cover it's front page with a whole set of ads that the Liberals had released in one package… only with one ad from the package removed, because the Liberals had since realized that an ad attacking soldiers wasn't going to play very well. It was one of the most remarkable displays of press shilling for a political party ever seen: not only would a newspaper cover its' front page uncritically in Liberal advertising (as per usual), but at the same time they would help the Liberals to cover up an ad which they no longer wanted people to see. This a matter of record. You can look it up.

Whose advertising did they cover their front page in campaign after campaign? Which party did they help to hide ads which said party had become embarrassed of, while simultaneously helping said party to publicize the rest of the same ad package by plastering uncritically across the whole of their front page? Oh yeah…

The Globe's editorial page "supporting" Harper is not a reliable metric for two reasons: (1) very few people read official newspaper editorials (2) the paper wrote those editorials at the very end of the campaigns once they'd realized that the Liberals had no hope of winning – despite the paper's best efforts – and they needed to do something to ingratiate themselves with the new government, in the hopes of gaining access, especially given the fact that they'd disgraced themselves by shilling so obviously during the campaigns for the Liberals (by covering their entire front page in Liberal advertising, while also helping the Liberals to cover up an ad which they made but didn't want people to see). Look at this way: ask any political operative in this country: do you want The Globe and Mail to endorse you on its' editorial page, or do you want them to cover their entire front page in your advertisements (and also help you to cover up things which your campaign does but then becomes embarrassed by)? Every operative in the country would choose the second option, because they know that the editorial endorsement is irrelevant and read by no one outside of a tiny circle, mostly of other people in Ottawa. On the other hand, plastering Liberals ads uncritically all over your front page in election after election (and helping the Liberals cover up ads which they make but then decide they don't want people to see) has some actual impact.

It's neither made up nor a conspiracy theory. You could easily confirm this by looking up copies of The Globe and Mail from previous elections. In fact, it was so striking that Wells himself blogged about it at the time. As did others. The truth may be very, very difficult for to hear, and you may insist on denying it even when it consists of verifiable facts, but it is no less true for that reason. Simple facts. You can look them up.

I find it fascinating that you accuse me of promulgating a "paranoid" "conspiracy theory" while you yourself repeatedly deny or attempt to cast doubt on or demand some sort of proof for well-known, publicly-accessible, easily-verifiable facts about the recent history of the very newspaper that you are defending (facts which have even been described on the same blog on which you are commenting, although I'm not going to go through Wells' archive to find his post on it). None of the facts that I've stated are in any way controversial to anyone in the reality-based community because, well, if something is on the front page of The Globe and Mail, it's pretty hard to miss (e.g., I once had an exchange about this matter with Jeffrey Simpson; he defended the paper, but never challenged my description of the paper's front pages during the election campaigns because, well…it's a simple matter of fact). Anyway, get yourself down to a library, find a copy of "The Canadian Election of 2006" (ed. Dornan & Pammett), and in discussions of media coverage of the campaign, you'll find them recounting some of the same facts (e.g., p. 50). Or you could just look through the newspaper archives for a copy of the January 11, 2006 of The Globe and Mail and look at the front page. Then look up May 4, 2004 for more of the same.

In the meantime, why don't you continue to screech about how easily verifiable, well-documented, publicly-accessible, and widely-acknowledged facts constitute "paranoid" "conspiracy theories". Let me put it this way: when you're in the position of denying the existence of easily verifiable, well-documented, publicly-accessible, and widely-acknowledged facts someone is "paranoid" and espousing "conspiracy theories", but that person is you. The Globe and Mail's lead columnist doesn't deny these facts. Why do you?

I've just provided you with extensive sourcing. Look it up. It's not difficult. If you are affiliated with an educational institution you should be able to do it from a computer. If not, go to a library. Things do not fail to exist simply because you declare their non-existence. You could also lock yourself in a dark room, refuse to leave, and then claim that the sun fails to exist because it hasn't been "shown" to you. But that would just establish that you're an isolated crank. If you want to deny what's published on the front page of a national newspaper, which is available in archives of any reputable library system, and which is discussed in the leading academic accounts of the elections in question, you can deny that much as someone could deny the existence of the sun from the privacy of the dark room that they'd locked themself into. But the evidence of The Globe and Mail's front page, like the evidence of the existence of the sun, is lying out in public where any interested party can find it. Simply because you refuse to look at it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that you're a mental paranoid given to conspiracy theories/

So, let's see: when presented with facts that don't conform to your pre-conception of the world, you deny their existence; then, as an alternative, you decide to cite the *opinions* of others which support your pre-conceptions. But the simple facts you are still unable to deny. You are deeply confused person. Incidentally, your claim or characterization that The Globe and Mail posted the Liberal ads on it's front page to criticize the Liberals for releasing them is patent bullshit. As I mentioned above, the Liberals had released a package of 12 ads, and had subsequently become embarrassed by one of them. So The Globe and Mail just covered it's front page in the 11 ads that Liberals wanted people to see, and pretended that the 12th didn't exist. There was no criticism of any of the Liberal ads anywhere on the front page. To the contrary, the paper was in the process of helping the Liberals to cover up what they didn't want people to see. You are simply a deluded old bitch.

First, I am not saying anything. I am referencing your own material. The book you referred me to says that the coverage is negative. Why don't you follow the link and see for yourself.

Second, I guess I fail to understand how a television ad can be run in a newspaper.

Finally, what I am denying is your interpretation. The ads were reported on. They were reported on negatively. You have yet to provide any evidence of media bias in favour of the liberals. In fact, all you have provided proves the exact opposite.

"Who's playing the victim? It's the challenge that all conservative politicians face."

Your second sentence proves it is you, and other conservatives who, like you, subscribe to this particular paranoid conspiracy theory, who are playing the victims.

Thing is, I always thought you conservatives were all about taking personal responsibility for things. Instead, I see a bunch of whiners complaining that the only reason their party looks bad is because some mean, nasty reporters are out to get them.

I don't know what you learned growing up, but I learned that saying "everyone is against me" is playing the victim.

Reporters being critical of the government does not mean they are out to get them – it means they are doing their job. Reporters were critical of liberal governments too. Life sucks when you are in government. When you are the one making decisions, people are going to question you. Time for conservatives to man up and accept that.

As for your little prorogation example, the fact that you completely mis-characterize what happened is one reason why people like me think people like you are not only whiners, but dishonest. No liberal government ever prorogued in order to avoid a confidence vote. Until the 1970's, it was necessary to prorogue in order to end a session and send MP's home. Now we just end the session and send MP's home, without proroguing. So you really cannot compare proroguing because you are afraid of what a committee is going to find out about what you said or did to proroguing in order to send MP's home for the summer.

In 2009, we had Harper, the great conservative, who apparently belongs to the school of thought that holds that conservatives take responsibility for their actions. Instead of doing that, however, he shut down parliament, because he did not like them questioning him on his conduct.

But those facts don't fit your little victimhood narrative, so you ignore them.

Oh. OK. Instead of "everyone" I should have said "all the media", though if you understand context at all you probably would have understood the meaning.

There is no double standard. No matter how many times you say it, it is not going to magically become true.

And hey – way to deal with the actual argument. Nice defence of your mis-characterization of the prorogation angle, and way to totally put me in my place with your clever challenge to my point that the media are always critical of the government.

Oh no wait. All you did was whine, again, about being misquoted. Poor poor conservative. You guys never get a break.

Anyway…

Sure it does. Because just saying something magically makes it come true.

i was not aware Frank Graves has editorial control over any media outlet. Perhaps you can fill me on on that.

Cheers

I am simply taking your illogical statements to their logical conclusions.

What does Frank Graves have to do with media bias? What evidence do you have that would demonstrate that Frank Graves, pollster, is skewing his poll numbers in favour of the liberals?

You've got to be kidding – good grief.

start fostering paranoid conspiracy theories that the world is out to get them

Apps has done exactly that, haven't you noticed? It's actually nothing new though, Liberals have been behaving this way for a while. That explains their fund-raising woes.

CR, you know I love you, but sometimes…[sigh]…

You and I clearly have radically different understandings of the term "virtually uncontested". For me the word "virtually" is a crucial modifier: it means "nearly" or "as good as". Thus, a literally uncontested leadership race would (as you rightly observe) see the victor win by about 95% or so, the slack being taken up by spoiled ballots or ballots cast for marginal write-in candidates. A virtually uncontested race would see the victor win by 70%-80% against a hapless, purely symbolic candidate who was either enjoined to run in order to make it look like less of an embarrassing coronation or was asked not to run by party elites but who ran anyway and was punished by the rank and file for doing so. Both the Pearson/Martin and Martin/Copps races satisfy those criteria.

"Idiotic"? "Silly"? Good Lord.

Well, it's after 2:00 AM, so I suppose you've a good excuse for being cranky. I hope there's a bottle of warm milk waiting for you in the kitchen. I wish I could bring it to you myself.

…it would be just as idiotic to say that the anti-Harper campaign was "virtually uncontested" in the last election…

It would be idiotic indeed to compare a federal election fought by parties who each enjoy a theoretically equivalent chance of winning the PMO with a leadership race engineered by party élites to produce a specific result. As far as I can recall, Canadians did not have to press-gang a reluctant coalition of opposition parties to run against Harper in order to banish the appearance of a coronation, nor did the opposition run against the declared wishes of a nation that merely wanted to crown Harper as quickly as possible.

Thus, your analogy is preposterous. But you know that, because you're bright and, usually, polite.

I'm in Calgary, remember?

No, I wasn't aware that you're a Calgarian. So, it's only midnight-ish for you. That's disappointing: I was rather enjoying watching you expose yourself as a politically obsessed insomniac nerd fully as pathetic as I am.

…are you just being difficult?

Do I know how to be any other way?

The word "coronation" suggests an appointment by elites, rather than a proper democratic process (perhaps one that is written into the party's constitution).

By this reasonable interpretation of the word "coronation", Ignatieff is the first to be "coronated" in the party's history. You seem to think that "coronation" refers to any democratic contest that is not competitive, or not a "jeopardy-laden nail-biter". You're wrong, but you know this already; you're just trying to dodge your own silly hyperbole.

A leadership race wherein party élites either do everything they can to assure the result they want or drag a sacrificial lamb to the slaughter in order to make the inevitable overwhelming victory look less pre-determined is not a coronation.

Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that Ignatieff wasn't "coronated", because you claim that Liberal party leadership contests are routinely rigged by "élites"?

I think a more pressing question is whether you're merely impersonating the test-tube-spawned love-child of jarrid and wilson, or whether that unholy creature has hacked into your ID account before starting on his slouching journey towards Bethlehem.

As much as I appreciate the Yeats reference, I reject your argument that the mere act of pointing out your obvious inaccuracies and fallacies has somehow made me "the test-tube-spawned love-child of jarrid and wilson".

Oh for God's sakes, just have sex already you two!

This time it was a bit different thou eh? Not even the pretense, of a sham vote.

I think that is the point CR is trying to make. It's unprecedented.

Unpretensedented, as it were.