Did the CBC twist the story about the prime minister's motorcade?
The CBC takes Prime Minister Stephen Harper to task because his motorcade was idling for several hours on Parliament Hill.
See, the Conservatives don't care about the environment!
Really? What I see is deceptive reporting by journalists who don't care about people.
Here is a transcript of CBC Paul Hunter's report for January 9:
Paul Hunter: No ice, no snow, no frigid temperatures here on the still unfrozen Ottawa river. The fishin' is fine. January 9th, 2007. Now cut to exactly one year ago. January 9th, '06... see any difference? Weather patterns can change yearly, but environmental groups believe there's a globally warming trend here. So on parliament hill today, emboldened with growing public concern about it, some of Canada's biggest environmental groups gave the federal government their plan for the only way out. Some key points... Canada must recommit to Kyoto, it must impose tougher standards on the auto sector and other big industries, and must aggressively promote and support renewable energies. We are very rapidly entering a phase where we will not be able to avoid 2, 3, 4° more of warming. This is a very serious situation.
But is the government listening? Even as the environmentalists were saying that inside, just outside, the prime minister's motorcade sat idling. At 10:30 this morning, 11:30, 12:30, and beyond, just metres from his office door. For Canada's self-titled new government, what many might call an old symbolic no-no. Two summers ago, liberal cabinet ministers were chastised for idling their limos during a heat wave. Liberals ordered an end to it. Today R.C.M.P. Said with these, they try to keep the idling down as the Harper government seems trying to appear greener.
So I tracked down someone who I knew is usually close to the Prime Minister, and who would have seen what the CBC reporters had seen.
First off, my contact, a senior government official, was adamant that the motorcade vehicles were not running their engines throughout the two or more hours that passed. In fact, he said, the CBC camera crews were quite careful to tape only when the cars were being turned over.
Most of the time, he said, the waiting cars were off.
So why were the cars waiting for so long outside of the House of Commons in the first place? Because the RCMP Protective Detail has no choice -- the Mounties are not allowed to set foot inside the buildings:
The right of the House to control its precinct extends to considerations of security and policing. The House of Commons maintains its own protective service, the House of Commons Security Service, under the direction of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Beyond the precinct, the RCMP is responsible for security on the grounds of Parliament Hill, [294] as well as for the security of the Prime Minister and any visiting dignitary up to the entrance of the Parliament Buildings. Inside the buildings, it then becomes the responsibility of the House of Commons Security Service.
So the protective detail is forced to cool their heels on the curb. They aren't even allowed inside the front door to keep warm. But they can't drive off to the Tim Horton's at Sparks and Metcalfe either. They have to be close by and ready to move if something should happen and the Prime Minister needs to be evacuated from the Hill.
So the Mounties are stuck out in the cold, exposed to the elements. To keep warm, they run the cars occasionally to run the heaters, both to keep themselves warm and the specialized equipment in the limos.
And how cold was it? I was in Ottawa on Tuesday, and it was cold. The recorded temperature for January 9 was -1C at 10:30 in the morning, with a wind chill of -7C.
I don't know about Paul Hunter, but if I'm forced to stand outside for two or three hours or more in -7C weather, I'm running that engine now and again to warm up.
But Paul Hunter doesn't mention any of this. Not the rules the force the Protective Detail out in the cold. Not the weather conditions at the time. Not that these men and women put up with the cold and the wind because they volunteered to protect the prime minister from any danger.
Instead, Paul Hunter tries to score a cheap shot about the environment.
There's what your tax dollars have paid for. A national broadcaster staffed with reporters who witness the brave men and women of the RCMP Protective Security Program forced to shiver in the cold, and from that decide that the real story is how their attempts to stay warm are melting the ice caps.
Well, now you've read the other side of the story. Call it my contribution to balance in a media environment dominated by the CBC.
Hopefully that state of affairs will change one day.
Stephen Taylor has more, including video.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Stephen Harper Conservative Party Ottawa Parliament Hill RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police CBC Paul Hunter
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
That's right, the CBC and every other media liberal outlet in Canada is out to destroy Steve.
No more cool-aid before bed bucko.
Posted by: A Quantum Liberal at January 12, 2007 02:31 AM
Stephen Taylor asks: Does the CBC idle its satellite trucks?
Posted by: EBD at January 12, 2007 05:07 AM
I find your story implausible. I don’t see a “senior government official” checking the PM’s motorcade so often as to be “adamant” that is was not idling.
Posted by: buck at January 12, 2007 05:42 AM
hmmmm Shades of Christina Lawand .... let's call them on it - the CBC is a smarmy bunch of left wingers bent on saving their jobs by using innuendo, false reporting and making up stories.
Posted by: Alberta Girl at January 12, 2007 07:47 AM
"In fact, he said, the CBC camera crews were quite careful to tape only when the cars were being turned over.
Most of the time, he said, the waiting cars were off."
Are you actually accusing the CBC of completely falsifying this story? I'll believe Paul Hunter over your mysterious unnamed government official any day of the week.
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 08:02 AM
Gosh, john. Why would you believe Paul Hunter?
He's one of the CBC mutants, who doesn't seem to think, act, feel, and talk like most of the rest of us. There's something UNREAL about CBC reporters, who seem to inhabit an alternative universe from the rest of us. When they come up against reality, like RCMP security vehicles idling outside the HOC, so that the RCMP detail can warm themselves up, Paul Hunter has to take offence AT PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER AND HIS INSENSITIVE CPC GOVERNMENT. Tch, tch, tch.
Please give me a break.
We didn't get this kind of assinine reporting when the Liberals were in power. Heck, it took YEARS for the CBC to begin reporting on the million$ of dollar$ the Liberals were siphoning into their own pockets, and only because Conrad Black's National Post started to blow the whistle.
So, one of the only things the CBC "has on" the CPC is RCMP officers on a security detail idling their vehicles in order to keep warm? Paul Hunter and co. are living on another planet: Planet Cry Baby Critics. It's just too bad that the Canadian public has been suckered into paying their costs of living.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 12, 2007 09:15 AM
John:8:02. A few years ago I would have believed the CBC. Today, I'll take the mysterious unnamed government officials' word.
Posted by: rebarbarian at January 12, 2007 09:18 AM
BTW, john: What planet do you live on?
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 12, 2007 09:39 AM
I think Kool-Aid is spelled with a K.
More important than delicious, ready-to-mix drinks however, is the implication that the CBC is twisting reality in order to subvert a Conservative government.
I think it is fairly naive to assume that merely because something was reported by the CBC we should accept it at face value. That organization has a decided interest in a governance ethos that favours larger government.
They have to; their very existence depends on an administration that sees the CBC as a good use of taxpayer dollars. The moment a Government starts to consider why tax dollars are paying for a government agency to play at being a business, while real businesses are out there do the same thing, arguably better and more profitably, the CBC is in trouble.
So no, it isn't in any way shocking that anyone should take whatever the CBC reports and measure it against their collective interests. The nature of their 'business' model creates that suspicion and the only way they could be absolved of that would be to stop depending on taxpayer dollars to operate.
Posted by: Michael Westcott at January 12, 2007 09:57 AM
The funding of the CBC is not the issue here, Michael.
Angry is accusing the CBC of lying when it said the PM's motorcade was idling for more than two hours. Do you believe that?
BTW, Angry, you missed the memo. Neither Taylor nor CBCWatch is disputing the story:
Taylor: "RCMP security protocol demands that the Prime Ministerial motorcade (ie. security detail) be ready to evacuate the Prime Minister at a moments notice."
CBCWatch: "Someone needs to remind Humper and Stombo that the Prime Minister’s “motorcade” is alternately known as his "security detail." As in, let’s get the f*%k out of here fast in case of an emergency threat."
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 10:08 AM
Re your 10:08 post, john. What's your beef then?
It's pretty obvious that the RCMP detail has their vehicles running for warmth and for the Prime Minister's security, so why did Paul Hunter spin the story to make the CPC look unfriendly to the environment?
Did the RCMP not do the same for the LPC and its Prime Ministers?
So, why would you defend Paul Hunter and the CryBabyCritics?
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 12, 2007 10:16 AM
'been: My beef is the accusation of outright laying. I see you don't buy Angry's story either.
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 10:22 AM
Er, lying.
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 10:22 AM
"'been: My beef is the accusation of outright laying. I see you don't buy Angry's story either. "
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 10:22 AM
Lying or misleading....remember the Christina Lawand story from the summer misrepresenting Harper during the Hezbollah/Israeli conflict?
The Media may not outright lie on a story, but they certainly do some creative editing to put someone in a back light.
Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at January 12, 2007 10:38 AM
john: Please enlighten me as to how it is I don't buy Steve's story. I've defended it through at least three comments.
What lies is he telling?
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 12, 2007 10:50 AM
Do you believe that the RCMP vehicles were idling for more than two hours, as the CBC reported, or do you believe Angry's story that "Most of the time ... the waiting cars were off," and the CBC lied to the Canadian public?
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 12:06 PM
john, you must be younger than I am, and more naive, to be defending the CBC's reliability on any given story, especially where it concerns the Prime Minister or the CPC. The Cry Baby Critics' "news" items are invariably slanted in favour of the left/lib/fem crowd.
I've been catching out CBC lies for almost 30 years, but have found Steve Janke to be extremely reliable ever since discovering AGWN.
So, I'll leave it to you to figure out who I'm gonna call in an emergency.
Also, could you please answer my question why the CBC chooses to highlight idling cars to put the CPC in a bad light when, for years, they ignored reporting on AdScam?
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 12, 2007 12:33 PM
Just a guess but wouldn't the decision lie with the RCMP as to cold weather policy either written or un written?
Bashing the government for how the RCMP security detail do their job seems typical of a spiteful little child [CBC]
Posted by: at January 12, 2007 12:35 PM
"But is the government listening? Even as the environmentalists were saying that inside, just outside, the prime minister's motorcade sat idling. At 10:30 this morning, 11:30, 12:30, and beyond, just metres from his office door."
Don't you see how you've been capture hook, line and sinker by the story. You stated..."vehicles were idling for more than two hours, as the CBC reported", but they didn't actually report that did they?
They reported specific times not from 10:30 - 12:30 and beyond, there's a big difference. I don't know the routine, but Steve stated from a source that "Most of the time, he said, the waiting cars were off".
Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at January 12, 2007 12:39 PM
Anyone on here who does not think the cbc will run a false story to make Harper look bad,please go research what happened to Christina LeWand and the CBC when they did exactly that during the war in Lebanon.They took video clips,spliced them together and made Harper's remarks look the exact oppossite of what he said.
The CBC were forced to issue an apology and LeWand ended spending some trime in hiding.
Posted by: paulsstuff at January 12, 2007 12:41 PM
Permit me to also comment on john's 12:06 PM comment. Anytime an editing job is done to create a false impression (and one would think that the professionals with CBC who do the newsroom editing know what they are doing - if they don't they should be fired), that is the moral equivalent of telling a lie. Remember Christina Lawand?
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 12, 2007 12:41 PM
No, I won't. You can criticize the CBC all you want about bias and story choice. I don't care. And I don't accept your premise that CBC ignored reporting on AdScam.
And you didn't answer my question: On this one fact -- whether the PM's motorcade was idling for more than two hours -- do you believe an unnamed source on this blog or do you believe the CBC?
And to those who are saying that the CBC never ran stories when Liberals were caught idling, I ask, did you even watch the video? Did you miss this bit?
"Two summers ago, Liberal cabinet ministers were chastised for idling their limos during a heat wave. Liberals ordered an end to it."
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 12:43 PM
The optics of this story is that the CBC is down to grasping at straws.
It doesn't matter whether the PM's security detail let the cars idle for two hours or shut them off every ten minutes.
By the very nature of their job,they are supposed to be on the alert and ready to roll at a moments notice.
Previous Deputy PM Anne McClelland unofficially used the gov't Callenger Jet on occassion to fly home to Edmonton to feed her dog and check the local mail.The CBC never reported on that but thankfully the now retired Alberta Report Magazine did.
Canadian winters are cold and a security detail can not perform effectively if their hands are frozen. Its a Canadian fact.
The CBC knows it is losing its hold,hence the feeble attack.
Posted by: Simon at January 12, 2007 12:47 PM
Remember the commercial about "two, two, two mints in one"?
A form of convergence is called for: shut down either Newsworld or the CBC & thus save electricity & help the environment. Why does Canada need The National @ 9:00, @ 10:00, short version @ 11:00, rebroadcast @ 12:00 a.m.?
A bonus: we'd be less exposed to all their hot air, spewing all that CO2 ...
Posted by: Gabby in QC at January 12, 2007 12:49 PM
Simple solution...as soon as the Conservatives form the next majority Govt. they can sell off the Lefty CBC and use the BILLION DOLLARS saved per year for USEFULL purposes. People like Mansbridge and Hunter can go and work for the Libranos FULL time!
Posted by: Al W at January 12, 2007 12:52 PM
The CBC deserves to be crticized for this.
While I am a Conservative Party supporter and am concerned at the way that the CBC distorts the its reports on the Harper Goverment, I regret to say that my sense is that the CBC is an equal opportunity distorter. I recall many times when CBC journalists were equally irresponsible in reporting on past Liberal governemnts.
Alas, I don't think it is a bias against a specific political party. I think it is simply bad journalism.
Posted by: Two Cents at January 12, 2007 12:55 PM
John, i believe the unnamed source and do NOT believe the CBC's version. I have no doubt their facts are correct - they quote some "environmentalists", give a few ominious details about the time and purposefully give the impression they want. When the cars run and when they don't run are not up to anyone in the gov't. Did the CBC attempt to find out this totally relevant point like a "journalist" should? No. The CBC is doing another drive-by smear job (bicycle-by smear job maybe is more appropriate?) and it is clearly evident in this piece.
As stated earlier, you are naive to think otherwise. Debating the facts in a CBC article aren't the point - what is the impression they are trying to give? It comes down to bias, and THAT's the point.
Posted by: daryl at January 12, 2007 12:55 PM
Wow. You guys are sure getting deep. After watching the CBC News for 30 or 40 years, I've concluded that they lie about everything. Not only Christina Lawand, but also Neil Macdonald, Hana Gartner, Nalah Ayed, Tony Burman, and David Suzuki. So, it's no contest; I'm siding with the unnamed source. Meanwhile the global warming trend has finally reversed and Vancouver is 5C colder than usual, paralyzing transportation according to an unnamed source.
Posted by: JJJoseph at January 12, 2007 01:13 PM
CBC operating budget was 1.5 billion for 2002-2003. This did not include salaries. I would imagine that these numbers have only increased since. What a savings to the taxpayers if this white elephant was sold off and forced to survive on its own!
Posted by: odie441 at January 12, 2007 01:41 PM
"My beef is the accusation of outright laying"
(John @ 10:22 am)
...or lying (you can tell this is a fairly classy site when that little faux-pas didn't get jumped all over :-)
John, the fact is, that anyone who spends a lot of time on sites like this one, can easily sit down with a CP, AP, CBC, BBC, or any other "MSM" article and pick out the lies. Yes, it's a serious charge. The press is supposed to be the watchdog keeping the government honest. But who is the press accountable to ? Nobody. Except the public -most of whom are too busy watching MTV or ogling shots of Brittany Spears' you-know-what.
There have been several polls taken in both Canada and the US that show that members of the media overwhelmingly vote Liberal/Democrat. There is considerable evidence to show that getting through post-secondary education (including journalism school -or whatever it's called now) requires an adherence to liberal doctrine if one wishes to receive a passing grade.
Yes, they lie. They lie shamelessly, and the general public lets them get away with it.
Here's a test for you, John: pick one of those oh-so prolific "conservative leaning" media outlets (I mean, the media is so slanted in favour of conservatives -right ?) and pick out the lies in IT. I will (if asked) do the same with those oh-so honest non-partisan sites (like the CBC, CP, AP, etc).
Go ahead. Make my day.
PS: Steve - Minus 7C is COLD ??? (giggle). As of 10am the temperature here was minus 28C (no appreciable wind).It's supposed to be -43C tonite (I'll be out working in it- geez you guys, whatever happened to being CANADIANS ?)
Posted by: up north at January 12, 2007 01:44 PM
up north: "John: pick one of those oh-so prolific "conservative leaning" media outlets ... and pick out the lies in IT."
I don't have to. That's Matter Matters' job.
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 01:57 PM
I gave up watching the CBC years ago when I realized what a terrible mistake I made in voting for Trudeau. I guess nothing has changed..
Posted by: Old and Grouchy at January 12, 2007 02:11 PM
Sorry, John. Who ???
(I did a quick google of matter matter. It didn't seem to have anything to do with politics or the media).
I'm not being sarcastic here, John. One of the reasons I like this site is because there are liberals who will actually try to present an argument -rather than just resort to name calling. Please steer me towards he (or that) whom you refer to.
Posted by: up north at January 12, 2007 02:14 PM
Sorry. Media Matters. mediamatters.org.
And I'm not a liberal, at least, not a capital 'L' one.
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 02:20 PM
OK. Thanks John. I will definitely look at that site.
And yes, I'm bad for referring to anyone to the left of me as being a "liberal".
This includes: Stephen Harper, Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, Darth Vader, Genghis Khan...all the usual suspects...
(though I can't blame you for distancing yourself from the "capital L" ones...show's you're honest). Thanks again for the link.
Posted by: up north at January 12, 2007 02:26 PM
Definately a cheap shot..
"So the Mounties are stuck out in the cold, exposed to the elements. To keep warm, they run the cars occasionally to run the heaters, both to keep themselves warm and the specialized equipment in the limos"
anyone, including environmentalists who have a clue, know that police and securtiy personal are the worst offenders for idleing vehicles...
and it has nothing to do with keeping warm...
turning off the engine requires the specialized equipment, much of it computer based to "Reboot" a process that can some time... that is an unacceptable saftey and security risk when a officer may need access to the information on that equipment at a moments notice.
in my books safety ususally trumps insignifacant environmental effects every time.
the CBC reporter was out of line and didn't do his research, both inexcusable errors as a reporter.
Posted by: Sierra at January 12, 2007 02:45 PM
"I find your story implausible. I don’t see a “senior government official” checking the PM’s motorcade so often as to be “adamant” that is was not idling."
And I find it implausible that the CBC news would have sat around watching the Prime Minister's motorcade all day just to see if they were idling outside. I find it even more implausible that they would even actually take notice of this unless they were trying to come up with a story.
I just wonder how anybody in their right freakin' mind would even CONSIDER this a story. I mean, come on.
Stephen Harper's motorcade...
Idling...
We sat and watched...
For hours...
We did not make this up.
Meh. Is this quality of newsworthy items that the CBC gets paid for? Talk about a waste of money and time. Ask yourself questions:
a) If it were true, why didn't the members of the CBC interview anybody about it?
b) Since the people who drive the motorcade aren't allowed inside the building (under their rules), then should they just sit in the car freezing?
Just the fact that the CBC couldn't be bothered to go up to the people in the motorcade and ask why they did what they did shows what this is: a smear. They weren't on some fact exploration mission, otherwise they would have done something more than just sat around watching cars. They would have actually talked to somebody.
Did they? No. And that says everything.
Posted by: Surecure at January 12, 2007 02:55 PM
Yes, Hunter did talk to the Mounties at the scene. Another one who didn't watch the video.
(Cut to PM's idling motorcade)
"Today, RCMP said with these they try to keep the idling down."
Posted by: john at January 12, 2007 03:01 PM
...some of Canada's biggest environmental groups gave the federal government their plan for the only way out. Some key points... Canada must recommit to Kyoto, it must impose tougher standards on the auto sector and other big industries, and must aggressively promote and support renewable energies. We are very rapidly entering a phase where we will not be able to avoid 2, 3, 4° more of warming. This is a very serious situation.
Ha! How's that for a preamble? He presents the opinions of some of "Canada's biggest environmental groups" as iron-clad fact. I especially like the part about how we are "very rapidly entering a phase where we will not be able to avoid 2, 3, 4° more of warming." Fascinating how green lobby groups know this stuff. I wish I were that smart. Also fascinating how they can on one hand sound the alarm about global warming, and on the other, defend Kyoto as a necessary step. The agreement was smoke and mirrors right from the start, and any intelligent, thinking person should see that.
Posted by: Raging Ranter at January 12, 2007 03:03 PM
If a person (or relative) aggravates you then the best thing to do is to ignore them. The CBC (judging by the reaction in this blog) has scored a hit. I personally have resolved not to watch 99.9% of CBC news exception being the broadddddcccast (POLITICS) with Don Newman (an admitted Lieberal). I tell my conservative friends to ignore the CBC, however they are gluttons for punishment.
Maybe someday it will be sold off but for now ignore it.
Posted by: OVC (ottawa valley conservative) at January 12, 2007 03:41 PM
And next on the news - Paul Hunter reports on Conservative MPs leaving the light on in the john at the parliament building.
Would anybody be surprised to hear that on the CBC news? Of course not! and it indicates the total irrelevance of the CBC news organizations.
Compare any CBC report from Afghanistan to those provided in WW2 by Halton and weep at how irrelevant the CBC has become.
Time for some deep cuts.
Posted by: cascadian at January 12, 2007 03:59 PM
"Today, RCMP said with these they try to keep the idling down."
That's the "interview"? That's it? Wow. Standards sure have slipped these days.
Usually an interview consists of somebody actually from a situation explaining that situation, not hearsay by the reporter presenting the story. I've seen more in-depth interviews with nobody's on the CBC than that.
Posted by: Surecure at January 12, 2007 04:08 PM
Uh John, what worse? Janke's un-named source, or the fact that a billion dollar taxpayer paid organization smears a bunch of poor cops whose thankless job is to guard the boss?
At this point I couldn't care what Janke says, I'm peeved that my tax dollars seem to be going down the toilet once more so certain people can run their biased mouth's off.
Posted by: langmann at January 12, 2007 04:11 PM
John:
There was a windchill of minus seven. The security detail, who were forced to wait in their vehicles, had the heat on.
Do you think that's a national news story? Or are you just being nuanced?
Posted by: EBD at January 12, 2007 04:19 PM
My point exactly EBD. Can you think of any other self-respecting news source running with a headline of:
"Locked Out RCMP Officers Use Cars to Stay Warm"
Seriously, only at the CBC do they consider this nothing drive-by pap as a story.
Posted by: Surecure at January 12, 2007 04:24 PM
Interestingly, it was the CBC's handling of a REAL story that first led me to ponder the possibility that newspapers lie. Long one here - I'm sorry...
It was the night Saddam (de mortuus nihil nisi bonum) Hussein marched into Kuwait. CBC held a panel discussion on the topic, and one of their experts said (I quote to the best of my memory): "Well, Saddam has the western world by the short-and-curlies now; if I were him, I'd start shooting one hostage an hour until they gave me everything I want."
A vision sprang into my head - George H.W. Bush and his Generals, lounging in their club chairs with mugs of draft and big (Cuban) cigars, cheering the TV and yelling "Yeah! YEAH! Go Saddam, go go GO! Give us an excuse!!!"
- but I had military knowledge, which very few other Canadians did at the time. And after all these years I still find myself wondering, "Who was that BOZO? And what in FRIG was he doing on a TV, expounding his utter ignorance of the topic?" For the fact is, he was an expert on Middle East affairs - right? His bona fides were established by his very presence there on the TV; I mean, would CBC have put some bozo who knew nothing about the topic at-hand, on their panel discussion in the first place?
Posted by: Jim at January 12, 2007 05:55 PM
"I mean, would CBC have put some bozo who knew nothing about the topic at-hand, on their panel discussion in the first place?"
The short answer: of course they would.
Posted by: Surecure at January 12, 2007 06:21 PM
Experts and critics predict CBC will be history in 2 years!
Posted by: george at January 12, 2007 08:17 PM
The CBC is a disgrace.
Posted by: Paul at January 12, 2007 09:40 PM
Okay, John is just another Lieberal moonbat asscap trying to justify the lying CBC action.
Posted by: Rick at January 13, 2007 12:18 AM
The thing about CBC panels is this: Out of three panelists, one will be slightly left of centre, the other will be considerably further left of centre, and the third guy/gal will be right out in left field.
That's called balance at the CBC.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 13, 2007 10:07 AM
John, I think you were sucking too long on the socialist teat that made sure your ability to think independently and analytically has been taken away from you.
I have personal friends of mine who work on the PM's security detail. They stand outside and wait for him for when he leaves the HoC. They do not leave their cars running for hours because that uses up gas that they may need in the event of an emergency. Think man, think. This is the same modus operandi for the GG's security detail
I also know chauffeurs for CEO's of crown corporations who are in fact the security detail for these managers. They wait with their cars off while he/she is in a meeting.
Call the RCMP and validate what the procedure is suppose to be before you defend the CBC (which is the least reliable source of news information in Canada).
Posted by: Fiumara at January 13, 2007 10:31 AM
John, it sounds like you're taking a bit of a pounding here. We (conservatives) get that on liberal sites too. What the heck, until someone figures out how to reach through a computer with a boxing glove (and I'm sure it's being worked on) what's the harm?
I checked out your "Media Matters" site. To be blunt, it's pretty lame. Sorry. Leaving aside how weak some of their arguments are (and they definitely are), the vast majority of the articles go after either bloggers or talk-show hosts -neither of whom are accredited news sources (like the CBC or the CP) and most of whom make their political leanings quite clear. This site uses "tearing liberal thinking a new one" and Media Matters makes it clear that they're going strictly after "conservative reporting".
Let's go back to accredited news agencies. Think of the power they wield. It's a sacred trust -at least, it's supposed to be. "The right of the people to know" and all that good stuff. Does this CBC article about the PM's protective detail idling their cars on a cold day, in order to stay warm, fall under things that you just need to know ? You no doubt work and have a life and therefore have limited time to follow the news. Was that little tidbit really worth your time compared to everything that's going on in the world today ? If not, then why do you suppose they reported it at all ?
You don't seem like a troll, and you're obviously interested in what "the other side" has to say (else you wouldn't be on this site). For that matter, you're obviously interested in what's going on around you (else you'd be reading about Anna Nicole Smith -or some other idiot- instead of news blogs).
Read the CP articles. Ditto for the CBC and any other accredited news agencies. Ask yourself if you're being given both sides. Pay careful attention to see if what you're reading is opinion being presented as news. Back check the stories. You might be surprised -and then pissed off (like the rest of us).
Good luck to you.
Posted by: up north at January 13, 2007 12:39 PM
...CBC are aliens, it is a conspiracy to take over Canada and greenhouse gas from their endless tirade over nothing worth reporting.
Pull the plug on CBC Mr. Harper, it will be one of the best things you can ever do to right Canada back to her feet.
Posted by: tomax7 at January 13, 2007 01:31 PM
Me thinks John either works for CBC or is in media himself..... he is being much too defensive, even though he denies the request to provide facts - as lefties often do. Smear, innuendo and lies - the modus-operandi of the left leaning MSM.
Posted by: Alberta Girl at January 13, 2007 03:59 PM
CBC Hatchetmeisters at work reporting, use the term loosely, petty crap as usual.
It's OUR Corporation, we pay for it, they work for all of us.
Can we not expect at least the when, where, what and whys be reported truthfully without snide remarks and innuendo to manipulate opinion?
There may be one only one way to sort out the CBC and the hacks know what it is, they are working to prevent it, a Majority Conservative government.
If we are going to support it we have to at least demand honest reporting, they cannot be an arm of ANY political party.
They don't know the meaning of "neutrality", we have to educate them.
Posted by: Liz J at January 14, 2007 09:23 AM
Media Matters. Lol. Funded by convicted criminal George Soros. Media Matters' founder and CEO is David Brock, who incredibly, thinks that the MSM is conservative.
Here is a brief bio of Media Matters:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
Posted by: Toontown Kid at January 14, 2007 10:30 PM
I was told by an OPP officer one time that the reason they have to leave their cars running all the time is to keep the battery charged. There is a huge drain running all those computers and radios and would kill the battery withing minutes if not left running (and charging). If they recived a call to an emergency and the car wouldn't start because of a dead battery it wouldn't be good.
Posted by: TJ at January 15, 2007 11:45 AM
'Makes total sense, TJ.
I'd love to know how much fuel David Suzuki would be consuming in his annual flights all over the globe compared to the fuel consumption of the idling RCMP cars in the same time period.
Then, let's look at the comparable benefits. It's not clear at all that Suzuki's worth the amount of fuel it takes to jet him all over the world. Junk science, environmental acrobatics, signifying nothing...
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 15, 2007 12:35 PM
 
|
|
