[Zipperfish]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think the National Post is one to be talking about issue bias.

You would have alot more credibility if you were capable of challenging the message rather than shooting the messenger.

Dismissing everything with which you disagree as another example of "bias" is lazy thinking.

I take enormous issue with almost everything printed in the Lefty-Toronto Star. But I also read it on a regular basis. That forces me to think through my positions and justify them. I do the same with CBC.

Eyebrock obviously does the same.

That's why we are better advocates for our position than you.

Well, the Natonal Post distinguishes itself by its virtual unanimity of support for Israel in the current conflict. Not just the paper's editorial stance, but also almost every single one of their opinion columnists, and even the letters to the editor.

That's fine -- folks don't have to read the paper if they don't like it. It's just a little rich when they turn around accuse other news media of being biased.

Recently the National Post had an opinion column on how Israel was at war with Hezbollah and the media. Yet, here in Vancouver, the editorial boards of all four major daily newspapers are staunch supporters of Israel. Where is this anti-Israel bias of which they speak?

Wise people know that if they significantly right of centre, then the media will generally seem slanted to the left. Obviously this wisdom as yet eludes you.

[Motorcycleboy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, the Natonal Post distinguishes itself by its virtual unanimity of support for Israel in the current conflict. Not just the paper's editorial stance, but also almost every single one of their opinion columnists, and even the letters to the editor.

That's fine -- folks don't have to read the paper if they don't like it. It's just a little rich when they turn around accuse other news media of being biased.

Recently the National Post had an opinion column on how Israel was at war with Hezbollah and the media. Yet, here in Vancouver, the editorial boards of all four major daily newspapers are staunch supporters of Israel. Where is this anti-Israel bias of which they speak?

Wise people know that if they significantly right of centre, then the media will generally seem slanted to the left. Obviously this wisdom as yet eludes you.

Very little has eluded me on the Middle East Conflict of late, I can assure you. I am as right wing as they come. But...

With a few exceptions, such as CBC, I don't subscribe to the position that the media is "biased" to the left.

And I would be the first to admit that the National Post is adamantly pro-Israel, and right wing, in their editorial stance.

At the same time, I would also argue that Israel is right more often than not. I'm not saying that because of something I read in the Post, but because I've taken the time to study the issue, and found that to be the case.

I would also suggest that the reason the four major dailies in Vancouver are Pro-Israel is because Israel is right. It's got nothing to do with a bias.

[Patrick_Ross]

IceOwl IceOwl:

Well, okay, so you went to school for journalism. My next response is that, if you are an expert, you should already know what I'm telling you, and better.

No, IceOwl, it is because I am a journalist who strives to do good work that is untainted by bias, that I can telly you that your excuses regarding CBC bias is absolute unadulterated horseshit.

IceOwl IceOwl:

It demonstrates that TV news edits content for time, and little more. TV news is the least informative of all media formats.

No. It demonstrates that this particular piece was edited in order to attempt to change the context of Harper's words. Dammit. Did you even watch the video?

IceOwl IceOwl:

And he said as much too. Where's the confusion here?

You get that impression if you watch the CBC piece. But if you watch his comments in entirety, as broadcast by CTV, you get the sense that he is trying to understand their perspective, but states that he will not allow his government's policies to be puppetted about by anyone.

IceOwl IceOwl:

Oh noes! So a period is all that would have made the difference between spin and no spin? Somehow, I don't think it quite works that way.

Let's test the deductive validity of this assertion:
1.)If Protestors express their opinions to Peter McKay, AND
2.)Stephen Harper, who did not speak with them, remains unconvinced, THEN
3.)Stephen Harper doesn't care what they think.

This is purely an absurd exercise in trying to twist something that actually should speak in the government's favor -- listening to protestors to show respect for them and their concerns -- into a shot at the government. Let me reiterate again: it's absurd.

IceOwl IceOwl:

$1:

She's using the activists' meeting with MacKay to take a shot at Harper.

...and Stephen Harper happened to say something that agreed with what she said. I fail to see the spin here.

Once again, you clearly didn't watch the clip, and did not hear Harper's full comments -- or, at least, you didn't bother to listen to them.

IceOwl IceOwl:

Supposed to? According to what?

According to you, apparently.

IceOwl IceOwl:

You're the one who said she outwardly lied. I'm not sure what I was supposed to glean from that extra, nonsensical (in the context you used it) word you inserted.

It means she explicitly lied. This isn't a case of her reporting something she didn't know to be false -- she reported something she knew to be false.

IceOwl IceOwl:

]He more or less said he doesn't give a shit. It's the equivelant of saying "I'll listen, but I don't have to care. I'm just going to do whatever I want."

Watch the clip, stupid. He says:]

Stephen Harper (according to CBC) Stephen Harper (according to CBC):

I'm not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think that reaction is very predictable.

But then, let's compare this to his statements, in entirety (and the only reason I'm even putting these here is so that you can't continue to ignore them):

Stephen Harper (according to complete statement, as provided by CTV) Stephen Harper (according to complete statement, as provided by CTV):

Prime Minister Harper, you seem to be recieving new support from the Jewish community in Canada. How do you feel about that, do you think that's a direct result of your Middle-East policy, and on the flip side, are you concerned about the negative response among some in the Arab community?

Let me just say this: we know that this particular issue has pretty strong resonance in certain cultural communities in this country. That's not a mystery. People will have strongly held ideas that may or may not influence their vote in a future election. The government of Canada can't take positions based on polls; we can't take positions based on reaction within certain domestic communities. These are serious internation issues. There are a lot of lives at stake. There are a lot of long-term strategic interests of this country and of the world at stake here. That's why we're taking the positions we're taking. In particular, if I can emphasize the two elements of our policy once again: peace and stability and the threat that terrorists would represent to that; represent to that not just in the Middle East, but in Afghanistan in Toronto where we've arrested some and elsewhere. These are important strategic considerations. At the same time there are important Canadian interests. There are humanitarian concerns we've had to deal with through evacuation, and that we'll have to deal with, obviously, in the reconstruction of Lebanon. There are the focuses of our activity. I'm not concerned or preoccupied in any way with reaction within individual communities. I think that reaction is very predictable.

Now, of all that, Lawand chose to focus on "I think that reaction is very predictable", and it seems damning. But wait! There's more:

Stephen Harper (according to complete statement, as provided by CTV -- not CBC) Stephen Harper (according to complete statement, as provided by CTV -- not CBC):

Mr. Harper, can you tell us why you agreed to meet with those two demonstrators, and what you've told them and the message you had for the other protestors who are outside now?

I think they're meeting with minister MacKay and minister Berner. We communicate, as a government, regularly with people in various communities who have strong views. We want to make sure we understand all perspectives. Notwithstanding the responsibility, ultimately, to make the best judgement in collaboration with the international community on how to handle this. At the same time, we have a responsibility to understand all perspectives. We understand that the perspectives of some communities are very unique, and are very intensely held. They can't and shouldn't be ignored. They can't and shouldn't guide all of our decisions, at the same time. We have to make them on a wider basis.

Thank you, CTV.

IceOwl IceOwl:

I don't see where the bias is. I think you're reaching.

The CBC chose to use "I'm not concerned or preoccupied in any way" (a statement actually made in response to a question about polling) over "we have a responsiblity to understand all perspectives", in a story meant to make Harper appear callous and unresponsive to the concerns of Canadians. If you see this, and see no bias, then I'd say you're blind to it, and I'd in fact say you are willfully blind. If you ever manage to regain your sight, you may want to try actually watching the clip.

IceOwl IceOwl:

Oh, but it would be, if they'd just agree with Stephen Harper.

There you have it: it's OK if they're taking shots at Harper, if they weren't it wouldn't be. I can't even begin to find the words necessary to describe your kind of hypocrisy.

In the end, I think it matters not. There's only one thing to say at a time like this:
Everyone, say it with me now:

...wait for it... wait for it...

OWNED!!!

[RUEZ]

Good post man.

[Zipperfish]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

Very little has eluded me on the Middle East Conflict of late, I can assure you. I am as right wing as they come. But...

With a few exceptions, such as CBC, I don't subscribe to the position that the media is "biased" to the left.

And I would be the first to admit that the National Post is adamantly pro-Israel, and right wing, in their editorial stance.

...which was my point. Thank you.

[hamiltonguyo]

Everything is biased.

In fact the Hamilton Spectator hates all my views except on the Caledonia Crisis.

All hail our dictator Mayor. DiAnni and All hail Allah and Hezbollah

[Zipperfish]

$1:

No, IceOwl, it is because I am a journalist who strives to do good work that is untainted by bias,

Then I'm afraid your journalistic career is doomed from the start. There is no such thing as "untainted by bias." Every single adjective you select comes fraught with its history of connotation and will be read by other humans -- who are, by definition, subjective and not objective -- in contexts you cannot predict.

Much better to strive to print what people will read.

[Zipperfish]

IceOwl IceOwl:

Whether you think it's scientific or not, it's still about convincing people. Whether things presented as facts are actually facts or not, someone is still trying to convince you that what they are saying is true.

So true. It's a common misconception that people are swayed by facts and science. We are not the rational beings we like to believe we are and I think wer'e much mroe susceptible to persuasive and morality-based arguments than we are to factual and science-based arguments.

[SireJoe]

"I think wer'e much mroe susceptible to persuasive and morality-based arguments than we are to factual and science-based arguments."

Well dont speak for everyone on that front. Science has again and again swayed me more than any "moral" argument ever could. I could care less about the moral arguments that some make, as they are based on emotions and often times outdated ideologies.


To me, the world IS round.

[SJ-24]

The worlds Round!!!! When did this come to light???? Shit! I've been working and think all along that the world is flat and that Jesus actually existed...Now that I know it's round I'll have to rethink everthing!

[Wullu]

Well Iceowl, maybe having it explained out loud can help you understand. I have my doubts.

[Yank-in-NY]

Hardy Hardy:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

The old service to the boondocks argument is out of date. As I said before elsewhere, with the internet and satelite, broadcast television is becoming a dinosaur.

I bet rural areas have really bad telegraph service, too. Who cares?

About 1/4 of children in rural areas of the US live below the poverty line. "Let them eat cable" won't cut it for them.

I agree.

Define poverty line.

[RUEZ]

Wullu Wullu:

Well Iceowl, maybe having it explained out loud can help you understand. I have my doubts.

Very interesting, I like Charles Adler. I doubt that IceOwl will see the light on this.

[Patrick_Ross]

It's been more than 24 hours since I dropped the bomb on our good friend IceOwl. If he hasn't responded by now, he's given up the "good fight".