Jeffrey Simpson: When the facts don't support you, just make stuff up.

Are there any editors at the Globe and Mail?  I have to ask because in Jeffrey Simpson's column today he manages to get away with writing something that is a complete fiction*, and not on some minor obscure fact or even on something that could be considered passable as it may skirt on the edge of truthfulness either. No, Simpson totally gets the Liberal tax policy wrong and to make matters worse he does so while claiming to be correcting the record on the subject! 

From his column today:

"Falsely, the Conservatives are insisting that the Liberals want to “raise” taxes, whereas, in fact, the Liberals propose to forgo coming corporate income tax decreases, a quite different approach from raising taxes."

To put it simply: What Simpson wrote is total bullshit. 

From Liberal.ca: "The Liberal Party of Canada has put forward a motion today in the House of Commons calling on the Conservative government to reverse $6 billion in tax cuts for Canada’s largest corporations back to 2010 levels in the upcoming Budget."

There are of course numerous other examples available because the (already well known) Liberal tax policy does call for raising the corporate tax rate back to pre Jan 2011 levels (which IS a tax increase) and a simple Google search or even a quick look at numerous articles from Simpson's own paper easily proves. I am not going to waste my time listing them all as there is no need to do so, but I do have to ask; 

why didn't Simpson already know the readily available facts and just how does such a blatant error make its way past the editors, who should also know or if they didn't perhaps they could check, and into 'Canada's newspaper of record'?

 

BTW Jeffrey, adding the words "falsely" and "in fact" to a BS story does nothing to help its credibility, it only hurts the credibility of the writer; and that sir is a fact.

 

 

* and by complete fiction I do mean a lie.

Heather Mallick : yes someone pays her.

If there was any lingering doubt about the Toronto Stars leanings, may I present Heather Mallick's latest in all of its smeartastic, fear mongering glory. 

Canadian democracy Soviet style.



Related: Background on the baseless allegations her article is based on, also from the Star; some coincidence that eh!  BTW Toronto Star, repeating baseless allegations over and over again does not make them any more true.

A treasure of the left.

CTV News gets caught again.

CTV News has once again been caught selectively cherry picking comments. The second time in little over 3 weeks.

The first happened late last month when CTV was caught selectively editing out the first half of a sentence where Michael Ignatieff had commented on US Secretary of Defense 'Gates', and second occurred yesterday when CTV was caught doing something similar. Only this time it was done to the comments of PM Harper but unlike the Ignatieff example, it wasn't done to make the PM look better.

In fact I would say it was a deliberate attempt at the opposite.


Brian Lilley has the details here.

The highlights:

CRAIG OLIVER: Raw street power for 18 days. Despite police intervention,
assault from Mubarak thugs, the cut-off of internet and cell phone
service, and a non-violent army standing by, the peaceful protestors
would not back down. Twice Mubarak went on television promising reforms.
But you the surging crowd would not believe him and continued to demand
his resignation. The president finally fled the city on Friday. The army
announced it would lead a national council and move the country toward
democracy. US President Barack Obama eloquently praised the outcome. 

BARACK OBAMA: The people of Egyptian have spoken, their
voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.

OLIVER: And here is what Prime Minister Stephen Harper had to say.    ( NOTE: Craig compares what Obama said AFTER Mubarak left to what the PM said BEFORE Mubarak left.)

STEPHEN HARPER: I think the old expression is
they’re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one.


Here is what PM Harper actually said: (and remember this was BEFORE  Mubarak stepped down)

Well, first of all, you know, let me just be clear, as I’ve been clear every time I’ve answered this question, that the future of Egypt is for Egyptians to decide. What I think we all want to see and what I think is clear most of the people of Egypt want to see is a transition to a democratic Egypt. We want to see free and fair elections. We want to see the rule of law and stability. We want to see respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, including the rights of religious minorities, and we want to see a government that will continue to respect peace treaties and seek peace in the Middle East. As I say, we are all seeing what’s happening. A transition is taking place in Egypt. That transition, in my judgment, there is no going back. I think the old expression, “They’re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one.” Our, you know, our strong recommendations to those in power would be to lead change: get in front of it, be a part of it, and make a bright future happen for the people of Egypt.


A textbook example of misleading news don't you think? 




Video:  Updated with PM Harper's entire remarks. Thanks Gabby!

BC Blue's thoughts.

Blue Like You.

CTVGate: CTV cuts 2 seconds out of Ignatieff's answer

And what a difference 2 seconds can make.

Watch the video.  (Now available on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egy2POCd8tM )

  

What Ignatieff actually said: "”We think that Bill Gates, the secretary of defence, knows full well the problems with the F-35s,..."

What CTV chose to put on the air:  ”..., the secretary of defence, knows full well the problems with the F-35s,..."

A big difference don't you think?

Imagine that, CTV left out a major gaffe by a politician. Perhaps it is their policy not to show slip ups of politicians, or than again maybe not as the very next segment aired dealt with another gaffe from a politician, this time our Minister of National Defence.

One was given its own story, while the other seemed to be edited out and never mentioned.

Why the difference in coverage?


Update: Even in their print stories on this subject, CTV manages to leave out Ignatieff's "Bill Gates" quote :
 Gates "knows full well the problems with the F-35. This thing is late, it's over-budget," Ignatieff told reporters at an event in Montreal. While Peter MacKay's comment gets fully reported on in print by CTV.     (HT to Joanne @  BLY)

Update3: How important are gaffes to CTV? Do they think they are worth covering?:  If you look at the pic from Lisa LaFlamme's twitter account below, you can see that in the week previous she made 6 tweets.

2 of those were about MacKay's gaffe and the CTV coverage of them. 

So yes, it does look like CTV not only believes that gaffes are important and worth covering, they also appear to believe that their coverage of those gaffes was worthy of promotion over the other news of the day.

So again I have to ask; why the difference in coverage between what Peter MacKay said and what Michael Ignatieff said?


Update 2: During the same presser and after the Bill Gates gaffe, Ignatieff had the gall to attack Peter MacKay on his gaffe: "Well, I just think our minister of defence should get a map," 

Too funny.  Michael Ignatieff, he does not attack people (40 second mark), he attacks irony.

HT Wilson in the comments @ Blue Like You.

They are not even pretending to be non biased anymore.

It looks like CBC Power and Politics has given up even pretending to be non biased.

“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix


Yesterdays Question of the Day: "Is money for home-care a better use of taxpayer dollars than funding corporate tax cuts?"

Seriously, this was the question put up on the CBC website yesterday. It is not bad enough that the results of this bogus poll should be obvious, long before the first vote was cast, to anyone who passed grade 6, but the question itself comes right out of Liberal Party talking points and in fact Ignatieff used almost the exact same words himself when announcing the program. Want to make a wager that if you asked the question: Is buying puppies for everyone better use of taxpayer dollars than tax cuts?, that the puppies would win hands down?

Or better yet ( and I DARE you to ask this one Ryan): Is money for home-care a better use of taxpayer dollars than funding the CBC?


Today's question: "Are you concerned about illegal lobbying for government contracts?"

Wow, I wonder what the final results of this QOTD are going to be. DUH!

What does the CBC think they are accomplishing by rewording LPC talking points into their QOTD? Maybe they should get Frank Graves to write their question for them. On second thought...

“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix

Sure you do. 

BC Blue on another fair and unbiased report.

If Don Newman doesn't like Fox News, why did he steal Bill O'Reilly's slogan?

Most of you are already aware of the proposed "right leaning" news network that is being put together by Kory Teneycke for Sun Media and the recent bizarre article written by Don Newman against such a network.

I use the word bizarre for a couple of reasons. First because nobody who works at a government funded network that does not have to raise it's own money to operate has any business ever criticizing a privately funded network, which is forced to compete against it's own government (CBC), and second, because Newman spends more time writing about the merger of the Liberals and the NDP ( BTW Don believes this to be some kind of conservative plot which shows just how messed up his thinking really is) than he does about the proposed new network.

Don writes in his article that "Fox News has been hugely polarizing. It specializes in drive-by attacks and misrepresentations, and is positively Orwellian at times, claiming to be "fair and balanced" while implying that its competitors aren't. The reality is that it mainly spews out propaganda that is dangerously misleading and often factually wrong."

This is all kind of funny considering that Don Newman, while he was the host of "Politics" on the CBC, "borrowed" the well known tag line (The spin stops here) from the very popular Fox News show The O'Reilly Factor (the highest rated news program in the USA).

I guess when you use the "propaganda" for yourself Don that makes it all OK. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and stay retired.




Bonus video courtesy of Proud to Be Canadian who has been on top of the shenanigans at the CBC for years.

Bill O'Reilly on Don Newman and the CBC: "The theft starts there."

Whitewash.

The CBC releases its interim report on bias/balance.

Report here.

Executive summary here.



A couple of quick thoughts. The report does NOT include CBC's massive coverage of the prorogation issue in the report (even though it falls right in the middle of the events used for the report) and they totally gloss over 'climategate' which the CBC did not even mention at all for days after it became known. They do however include coverage of the PM visiting India and China ( of course these were good news stories which conveniently balances the other crap) and the CBC praises it own coverage of H1N1 (on which Mark Sakamoto agrees) and seems to think that diversity in who reads the news is just as important as the news itself.


More to come...

"I decided to disclose this event to the public because I play a public role and consider that I must be transparent at all times,"

Pablo Rodriquez: "I decided to disclose this event to the public because I play a public role and consider that I must be transparent at all times,"

All is good except for the little detail that Mr. Disclosure and transparency came clean a full 28 days AFTER the incident.


I wonder what took him so long and if the the big news 28 days ago might have had some influence on just how transparent he was.


ATTENTION MSM: When did Ignatieff find out about this, and was he running in front of any camera available slamming Rahim Jaffer knowing full well what was going on with his own MP?

You might want to ask Iffy the next time you see him because he is all about good timing. Or is he?


Monday update: Bias? What bias?

CBC to investigate if its news is biased.

What they should be investigating is reporter bias, which in turn leads to biased stories, but at least this is a start. (or an attempt to whitewash?)

The CBC has commissioned a study to determine whether its news is biased, the president of the public broadcaster told the Senate finance committee this week.

“Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do,” CBC President Hubert Lacroix said.

I am not sure who the third party is that will be doing the study but if they want examples, the blogs are full of them.


Updated: As I noted above, the blogs are full of examples of, lets call it shaky, CBC coverage.

CS put this up tonight listing a few recent examples and his comments are a great place to list the examples you know of, but if you really want a more complete look at all things CBC visit Joel at PTBC.

Feel free to let the CBC know your thoughts here.

Even when they are writing about bias they still take a shot at conservatives: "Lacroix’s comments come on the heels of weeks of criticism from Conservative loyalists who disagreed with the CBC’s decision not to acknowledge that one of its house pollsters and frequent guest on the air also donated substantial sums to the Liberal Party."

"Conservative loyalists"? Labeling people just because they disagree with you is not the way to show that you have no bias CBC, but then again EVERYONE who had issue with this had to be a conservative, right?

And on the Graves thing, it is not about donations specifically but rather that his loyalty or his advice to the Liberals based on polls paid for by tax dollars was NEVER disclosed. Say it with me; full disclosure.

Helena Guergis beat me up and stole my lunch.

Traffic has been kind of slow lately so I figured I would try to get picked up by National News Watch. For those of you that don't know, NNW had a link up yesterday to this story and continued to keep the link up even though within a short period of time the story was debunked by many people, including the author of the blog that the Hill Times blog entry was supposedly based on.

One good truth deserves another, so here is my 'truth'.


Helena Guergis beat me up and stole my lunch.


Wow. That was kind of liberating. As my therapist says; the road to healing starts with being able to speak about traumatic events, and let me tell you the day that Helena beat me up and stole my lunch will live in infamy in the annals of my personal traumatic events.

It also feels good to join the pile on; you should give it a try as well. I hear that it is all the rage at present.


Come on National News Watch, what are you waiting for? Do I need to write a letter to my MP to get some action from the press on this outrage?

McGuinty Prorogues. Media strangely silent.

Dalton McGuinty is proroguing the Ontario Legislature.


CTV: NOTHING up under it's politics category or on the main news page.

CBC: NOTHING under politics or on the main Canadian news page.

Ardvark: Not surprised at all.

This will make for an interesting case study on the media bias in this country and how 1 prorogation garners multiple stories over the period of months vs another prorogation story already bumped from the front pages after only hours.


Feb 12th update: Joanne has a post up on the subject with a few good links on the media coverage. NP. WFP The Squidzone.

McGuinty was not the only to prorogue recently, Ed Stelmach prorogued in Alberta as well.

Licia Corbella Calgary Herald Sun Feb 14th.

I'm sorry, so sorry.....

NDP MP Pat Martin has apologized to the government. Earlier this week Martin called federal Sports Minister Gary Lunn and the Conservative government "crass" and "petty" and claimed that "There's clearly some political interference here" when a list of Olympic torch relay events released was heavy on Tory ridings and light on opposition turf. Martin went ballistic in the belief the list meant the torch wasn't going anywhere in Winnipeg fired off an angry letter to Lunn, accusing the Conservatives of using the torch relay to promote Conservatives. "I think your deliberate gerrymandering of the torch route to avoid opposition ridings is cheap, petty, and offends the Olympic spirit," Martin wrote. "Any reasonable person would route the torch through the corner of Portage and Main and if you are willing to do so I'll even agree to stay away if you're worried about having to share the glory with an opposition MP."

But once reality entered the picture, including the fact that the torch will be going through his riding, Martin had this to say: "I wish I had known this earlier, before I accused the (government) of deliberately manipulating the torch relay in Winnipeg to avoid NDP ridings," Martin said. "I apologize for these remarks and appreciate the invitation to participate in this exciting event for Winnipeg when it occurs in January."


Now the question is, will the MSM, who ran with this story in-spite of the fact that the head of VANOC has flat out denied any Conservative involvement. "At no time did anybody in any government, or any political party offer one iota of counsel or influence about that," John Furlong said. "We did our jobs the way we should have done them.", put as much ink or air time into the apology as they did with the original unfounded smear?

Ok, I know that the MSM really couldn't be bothered, has anyone seen any MSM outlet other than the Telegraph-Journal apologize for the fake wafergate coverage, but one can always hope.


.

Selective Outrage from the left.

George W Bush was in town yesterday for a speaking engagement and as expected the protesters were out in full force for the cameras. Nothing out of the ordinary really as GWB has always had this ability to drive the left absolutely nutty, but watching the news last night I wondered just how many of those people protesting would be doing the same thing if it was Obama in town rather than GWB. Afterall the Obama administration has not exactly changed much if anything from the last guy in the way of policy, in spite of what they said during the campaign, and in some ways they have done some things that make GWB look good by comparison.

Case in point: the vilification of Fox News.

Normally in a non bizarro world if a President and their administration tried to control or manipulate the media, or direct opinion on the media, bloggers, the media, and the left would go batshit crazy over these efforts, and rightfully so. But in this case not so much. In fact they are getting support for their efforts from not only some others in the MSM but from lefty groups such as MoveOn.org Contrast that with what would have happened if GWB did the same thing with CNN or MSNBC.

Taken from a more Canadian perspective could you imagine what the reaction would be if PM Harper or someone from the PMO went on to CTV and Global and declared that the CBC was not a news organization because they had an agenda and therefore the CBC and any of their stories should be ridiculed and ignored? Yes it would get ugly and it would get ugly fast. Remember early on when the PM got the PPG all worked up because he had the audacity to try to have some control over HIS OWN pressers and asked reporters to put their names on a list to ask questions? The press and the left went nuts and we are still seeing the effects of that even today in stories from the MSM when they sneak references into their reporting of how the PM likes to 'control' everything.


So where is the outrage on what the Obama administration is trying to do?


Vilifying a news organization because you do not like the stories they are doing about you is not only petty & cheap, it exposes your lack of leadership, thin skin and inability to deal with criticism, and it just reeks of something seen in 3rd world countries and dictatorships and is not what one would expect to see from the leadership of a free and democratic country such as the USA. Wrong is wrong.

There are ways to deal with negative or even slanted press stories, fighting back with the truth is the best IMHO, but the government trying to control/manipulate or even vilify the press is not the way to do it and in fact it is a very dangerous game to be playing in a free and open society. But it is a game that the left, in this case because they dislike Fox News so much, is only too happy to play. The next time this game gets played however the left may not be so supportive and when they scream out in outrage it will ring hollow because the last time it was played everyone will remember that the left were on the side lines cheering it all on.





To be fair there has been some backlash from this coming mainly from the press but you know as well as I that the level of outrage we have seen over this so far is nowhere close to what it would have been if GWB or even PM Harper had done the same thing.

CP. Just one question.

Dear Canadian Press: Since your story about pictures of the PM being removed from a government website has proven to be totally false; I think in the interest of openness, fairness, and public information that you should provide your readers with the names of these 'critics' who spawned this story spawned this story and headline? (edit: added 'and headline' to my poorly worded question. Thanks M)

The Canadian Press

Harper Photos Removed from Government Website.
Only a half-dozen of PM's 40 or more photos survive the cut after boosterism accusations

OTTAWA–The Government of Canada website set up to promote the Conservative economic action plan had a leaner look yesterday: more than 30 photos of Prime Minister Stephen Harper had been removed.

"Critics have complained that the website, actionplan.gc.ca, looks like a partisan promotion – complete with a Tory-blue colour scheme, glowing third-party testimonials, more than 40 photos of Harper and repeated references to "the Harper government" rather than the Government of Canada."


I think it is a valid question to ask and even more-so since we all still have this made up story so fresh in our memories and who there was that other time........


So let us know CP we will be waiting.




Remember it is your job to cover the news, not be the news; or worse, create the news.

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

Update: This is the so-called evidence found at Impolitical.

Case solved:

The picture still remains on the site and can be found here.

Google News caught torquing headlines?

Google news Sept 4, 2009


The Real Headline:

Isn't it amazing how one little word can change everything.

Update: It has come to my attention that the original error may have been made by the National Post on this and not Google News.

H/T maz2 in the comments at BLY

I know I have said it before but BLY is a daily must read.

CTV News Staff: Giving advice to Ignatieff.

CTV News Staff: Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's main task today: turn the doves in his caucus into hawks, and set forth a plan to take down the Tory government in the fall.

Since when does CTV news dictate what the main task is for the leader of the official opposition. Get over yourselves, it is not like you are Krista Erickson.

In the tank for Obama

I think I have seriously misunderestimated just how far the US media is in the tank for Obama.

Take this bit from CBS News and Katie Couric as just one recent example.




Can you imagine if George W Bush had said that? You don't have to since a simple Google search will reveal just how different he and Obama are treated for the same type of thing. BTW here is a look at the words "wee wee" from PTBC.

Just crazy. The next thing you know even media darling Cindy Sheehan will be criticised by the very same media that was fawning over her just last year and such things as legitimate protest are going to be looked down upon by the same people who were all for it a few months ago because the media won't call them on it.

Nuts.

Don Martin:Smelling up the place.

Don Martin has out done himself with his latest on the Dhalla nanny scandal. (My comments in bold and I have highlighted some of the more interesting parts.)

Being young, ethnic, female, ambitious and camera-friendly should be the dream ingredients of Canadian political star power.

But in federal politics, they make you a juicy target. (Based on what Don, your own opinion or is it that anyone in politics is a target. Juicy or otherwise.)

Ruby Dhalla is the Liberal MP at the epicentre of an incredibly nasty smear campaign as she moves to fight allegations by a pair of Philippine nannies who accuse her of making them work too hard doing menial tasks beyond their job description. (It only a smear if it isn't true. Neither you nor I know this at this time but don't let it stop you.)

This has triggered a mighty media firestorm, with some of her own MPs, quoted as anonymous sources, decrying her as “high maintenance” and gleefully piling on her in payback for being all-about-Ruby with little Liberal party dedication.

Now is the time at AA where we steal Kate's line...

Now is the time at Alberta Ardvark where we steal a line from Kate and juxtapose.


CNN reporter Susan Roesgen covering a protest 2009



CNN reporter Susan Roesgen covering a protest 2006



Bias. What bias?


h/t Hunter

Why the Omission?

What is missing from the following Globe and Mail story?

CAROLINE ALPHONSO and KIRK MAKIN

Globe and Mail update

April 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM EDT

Ontario Superior Court Judge Paul Cosgrove has resigned from office, Canada's Minister of Justice and Attorney General announced Thursday.

“A recent report to the Minister of Justice from the Canadian Judicial Council recommended Mr. Justice Cosgrove's removal. In view of the fact that Justice Cosgrove has resigned, there is no further action to be taken,” federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said in a statement.

The resignation is effective immediately.

Last month, the CJC had recommended Judge Cosgrove be removed from office, placing the former federal cabinet minister one step away from being the first judge ever voted out of office by Parliament.

“We find that Justice Cosgrove has failed in the execution of the duties of his judicial office and that public confidence in his ability to discharge those duties in future has been irrevocably lost,” said a inquiry report from 22 members of the CJC who presided over the case.

“We find that there is no alternative measure to removal that would be sufficient to restore public confidence in the judge in this case,” they said. “Therefore, we hereby recommend to the Minister of Justice, in accordance with section 65 of the Judges Act, that Justice Cosgrove be removed from office.”

Judge Cosgrove ran into trouble after he made 150 findings of misconduct by the Crown and police at the 1997 first-degree murder trial of Julia Elliott, in Brockville, Ont.

After the Crown successfully appealed a stay of proceedings in the case, Ontario's attorney-general at the time, Michael Bryant launched a CJC complaint against Judge Cosgrove.

Ms. Elliott's was a circus-like proceeding in which the defence embarked on numerous allegations of conspiracy and evidence fabrication. It ended on Sept. 7, 1999, when Judge Cosgrove stayed proceedings as an abuse of process.

Judge Cosgrove told the CJC that, during and after the Elliott trial, he was criticized so much for his actions that he became “desensitized” to it.

He implored the CJC to allow him to work until he retires on his 75th birthday next December, and offered to avoid sitting on any case involving the Ontario government.

A former federal cabinet minister and mayor of Scarborough, Ont., Judge Cosgrove was appointed to the bench in 1984.

Figured it out yet?

ht/ Halls of Macadamia.