One ad has been running on CTV Newsnet this morning. That in itself sounds like good strategy to run an ad on a channel that is part of the free-ride for the Libs.

Posted by: Steve Jefferson at January 29, 2007 01:24 PM

---

I just saw it on CTV newsnet

Posted by: huh at January 29, 2007 01:27 PM

---

If its running...so much for the all-prevasive Liberal influence.

These comments just shot down your assertion.

Or are you going to claim that CTV NewsNet is somehow outside this Telecaster's influence.

Wait a minute...if its outside Telecaster's influence...just how pervasive is this "Liberal influence"?

And if NewsNet is under Telecaster's perview...just how pervasive is this "Liberal influence"...seeing that at least one of the ads has been aired?

Hmmmm...Liberal Media? Not quite as powerful as the Conservatives want it to be. After all...what would Conservatives whine about then?

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 29, 2007 01:46 PM

---

Or are you going to claim that CTV NewsNet is somehow outside this Telecaster's influence.
Telecaster does ads. Not news broadcasts.

Posted by: up north at January 29, 2007 02:00 PM

---

Murray, what assertion?

All I got from Steve was this:

"Ezra Levant, working with the research of Stephen Taylor, has written a brilliant piece that makes me wonder if those devastating Conservative Party ads targeting Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion will ever make it to television."

So they made it to television. Good for the ads. The "assertion" of which you speak was no assertion at all, just a wonderment.

Go read Levant's column and see what **has** been shot down. In our country. On TV. I'm not making this up.

Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2007 02:08 PM

---

Wait a minute...if its outside Telecaster's influence...just how pervasive is this "Liberal influence"?
OK. In fairness, I'll deal with part deux of that. It's a fair question.
Murray, from where I (and probably a lot of the posters here) sit, the media seems horribly biased in favour of the liberal agenda. Maybe it's because most of them have gone through some form of post-secondary education which is -again- controlled by liberals. Think I'm a conspiracy nut ? Lets pull up stories about who's allowed to speak at universities -and who gets shouted off the stage- or what constitutes "credible news sources" and what doesn't (Toronto Sun articles, for one example).
The best argument about liberal-biased media, and the blogs they hate, can be summed up in two words:
Dan Rather.

Posted by: up north at January 29, 2007 02:15 PM

---

Hmm...

Instead of advertisers having to get approval from every single TV station in the country, Telecaster is their one-stop shop. Canadian TV stations outsource their judgment to Telecaster, which is in charge of basic standards -- no profanity, for example.

Telecaster approves political ads, too. And so, what is a rubber stamp when it comes to toothpaste and shampoo ads becomes a powerful political censor when it comes election campaigns.

One stop shopping for Ads...gotcha...

The problem is that Telecaster is run by a Liberal partisan, James Patterson:

Interesting...The one-stop shopping Ads clearing house is run by a Liberal Hack...

Implying...

Patterson, the big Liberal donor, is getting ready to block Tory ads in the upcoming campaign.

So..to sum up. The ads, which to me look like the start of an election campaign...will not see the light of day because a Liberal hack at Telecaster will Kibosh them.

However...

One ad has been running on CTV Newsnet this morning

and

I just saw it on CTV newsnet.

Wow. Either Patterson forgot his walking orders...or the "Liberal bias" is not so pervasive.

now we have "up north" claiming: "Telecaster does ads. Not news broadcasts".

But it was an ad...on a television channel...supposedly under the all-pervasive influence of the Liberal party...as implied by Janke and the first commentor Steve Jefferson.

"Liberal Media" somehow airing anti-Liberal ads...this despite the "fact" the ad clearing house it run by a Liberal hack who according to Janke is:

...unable to separate his political views from his work with Telecaster, and that he's applying different rules to make advertising difficult for the Conservatives

Hmm...

-------------------
-------------------
OK. In fairness, I'll deal with part deux of that. It's a fair question.
Murray, from where I (and probably a lot of the posters here) sit, the media seems horribly biased in favour of the liberal agenda.
-----------------------
Strange...from where I sit the news has a Conservative bias. The feeding frenzy of the '90s was was enough to end any idea of an overt "Liberal bias".

-----------------------
Maybe it's because most of them have gone through some form of post-secondary education which is -again- controlled by liberals. Think I'm a conspiracy nut ?
-----------------------

Or perhaps, in the "Marketplace" of ideas Conservative ideas just don't have any valid staying power.

-----------------------
Lets pull up stories about who's allowed to speak at universities -and who gets shouted off the stage- or what constitutes "credible news sources" and what doesn't (Toronto Sun articles, for one example).
-----------------------

So...Conservatives don't
"shout people" off the stage? Interesting.

And using anything from the Sun papers doesn't help your case.
-----------------------

The best argument about liberal-biased media, and the blogs they hate, can be summed up in two words:
Dan Rather
-----------------------

I'll see your Dan Rather (pompous git) and raise you...
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michelle Malkin
pretty much all of Fox News...
Disney/ABC

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 29, 2007 03:12 PM

---

Just a note, but most people will associate Telecaster with Fender's legendary guitar design of that name (Second only to the Stratocaster in their lineup).

Posted by: Adam Maas at January 29, 2007 03:19 PM

---

"Just a note, but most people will associate Telecaster with Fender's legendary guitar design of that name (Second only to the Stratocaster in their lineup"

Which ,believe it or not, had its antecedent in the 40's Fender 'broadcaster' guitar..

Posted by: kursk at January 29, 2007 03:32 PM

---

It would be interesting to see a break down of Political ads that have been knocked back.
It sounds as if the score would a whitewash for the Libs [ have they had any ads booted?]

Posted by: ian at January 29, 2007 03:48 PM

---

-------------------
OK. In fairness, I'll deal with part deux of that. It's a fair question.
Murray, from where I (and probably a lot of the posters here) sit, the media seems horribly biased in favour of the liberal agenda.
-----------------------
Strange...from where I sit the news has a Conservative bias. The feeding frenzy of the '90s was was enough to end any idea of an overt "Liberal bias"

Oh come on Murray, you and I both know that the majority of newscasters--not even close--have a personal liberal slant--they vote Democrat or LPC or Taliban Jack.

And if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that the newspeople aren't robots, and are therefore (consciously or unconsciously) adding their personal feelings into stories. See Lawand, Christina for a fairly recent example where they got caught.

Bob Fife. Don Newman. Giggles Taber. Bias abounds, leftist bias, and yet people still believe in this VRWC.

I'll personally take Rush and Sean and Michelle, raise you an Ann Coulter, a Mike Adams and a Glenn Beck. I'll take Fox News (actually fair or maybe a bit right-leaning) over CNN (blatantly left). And so will the viewership, BTW. (That choice thing really rubs leftists' knickers!)

ABC? Aside from John Stossel, please elaborate...

Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2007 03:49 PM

---

The funny thing about this is that Ezra wasn't even talking about the current anti-Liberal attack ads. Read his column. He was talking about ads from the last election.

And ABC? Media Matters' misinformer of the year:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220014

Posted by: john at January 29, 2007 04:07 PM

---

Oh come on Murray, you and I both know that the majority of newscasters--not even close--have a personal liberal slant--they vote Democrat or LPC or Taliban Jack.

So...how they vote is a factor to you?

Taliban Jack...nice. How is he a "Taliban"?

Last I saw, he was not advocate religious fundamentalism or closing schools to girls.

And if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that the newspeople aren't robots, and are therefore (consciously or unconsciously) adding their personal feelings into stories. See Lawand, Christina for a fairly recent example where they got caught.

And if you were honest with YOURSELF you'd know that the owners/boards of directors of these corporation can hire/fire as they will. Keeping the board happy doesn't figure into it, eh?

You can keep Rush et.al. And Fox is blatently Right Wing...not merely "Slightly". Or does Rupert Murdoch have no influence on his network?

As for ABC...the miniseries "The Path to 9/11". Right wing revisionist history.

By the way...CTV NewsNet IS under the Telecaster umbrella. I guess Patterson forgot to "censor" the ad.

Or the "Liberal Bias" is just not that pervasive.

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 29, 2007 04:58 PM

---

The first thing I thought of was my old '66 Tely, which I had in '68. I donated my '79 Strat to a charity auction, heavy mother.

Wonder if Fender has any problems with their using the Telecaster name? Might be a copyright violation....

Anybody who thinks there is a Conservative bias in the media has to be a Dipper.

Posted by: Selma at January 29, 2007 05:01 PM

---

Murray,

Rather, etal vs. Limbaugh & Hannity.

It's interesting, Limbaugh and Hannity actually compete in the marketplace. In order to stay on the air they have to attract an audience. Limbaugh to the tune of 20 million unique listeners each week, Hannity 16/17 million. And, God forbid...they make a profit. They sell advertising at high rates, and their advertisers profit. Of course, profit is a 4 letter word to some.

Why have Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox prospered? Because they fill a market vacumn. If you watch CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and CNN, and, IF you are of a more conservative stripe, you WILL RARELY hear anything from your point of view or addressing issues you find important.

I realize you probably don't believe that alternative points of view should have the right to be aired, you are welcome to that view...I humbly disagree.

Posted by: the Dragon at January 29, 2007 05:37 PM

---

Okay, one last time.

So...how they vote is a factor to you?

Taliban Jack...nice. How is he a "Taliban"?

Last I saw, he was not advocate religious fundamentalism or closing schools to girls.

No, how they vote is a factor in how they slant their news.

You haven't really heard, have you? This shows that, although he doesn't advocate religious fundamentalism or closing schools to girls, he's not against it, per se.

Hired and fired at will? Yes, if the person goes overboard (who's seen Christina lately, BTW) or, and here's my point, if they go against the editorial slant of the parent organiztion. Don't you get it? The eidtors, owners, people in charge--all lefties. Ergo, if you slant your story left, no problem.

Fox is actually only "blatantly" right wing compared to CNNBCBS. Talking relativity. In the real world of showing both sides, they're the most balanced. Go to the CBC or CNN for analysis, and you get left and lefter. The "balance" is a little skewed, non?

And about "The Path to 9/11", well, a) it was a miniseries, DRAMATIC, and not necessarily meant to be 100% accurate (top secrecy being what it is), and b) then when CBC shows "Fahrenheit 9/11" or some other Moore bullspit, will you admit that CBC has a left bias?

Posted by: Dave at January 29, 2007 05:47 PM

---

The ads have run at least three times tonight on Ottawa's "A" Channel. During the 6:00 O'clock news and the Habs-Senators game!! To see Dion crying "It's unfair, it's unfair," while Iggy Scolds him with "We didn't get it done," is priceless!

As to the "Taliban Jack" nickname, Layton was advocating "negotiating with the Taliban" from the get-go. Negotiating infers a willingness to give something up to get something.

Posted by: flurd at January 29, 2007 09:48 PM

---

it works)))))
libs are sh....less)))))

Posted by: george at January 30, 2007 01:19 AM

---

We were joking around about Taliban Jack. Someone suggested he should give it a whirl, negotiating with the Taliban, but that he should go alone, in peace. Someone else suggested he take his whole caucus with him in a show of farce - after all, it's tiny.

Then a comic strip idea came up - Taliban Jack meets Johnny Jihad...things got kind of silly after that.

I agree with JackL that diplomacy is the best course - but you can't negotiate with people who don't play by the rules.

I've heard he's in deep trouble with the caucus - I'll almost miss the guy when he goes. Endless source of giggles.

Posted by: Selma at January 30, 2007 09:33 AM

---

Why have Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox prospered? Because they fill a market vacumn. If you watch CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and CNN, and, IF you are of a more conservative stripe, you WILL RARELY hear anything from your point of view or addressing issues you find important.

I realize you probably don't believe that alternative points of view should have the right to be aired, you are welcome to that view...I humbly disagree.

Nice of you to "humbly disagree". I did not say "alternative points of view should have the right to be aired"...where did I say that?

36-37 Million people listen to Hannity/Limbaugh. Of course they have a right to "fill a niche". Of course they have a right to "make a profit".

36-37 Million people listening to those two...fightening.

Dave

Hired and fired at will? Yes, if the person goes overboard (who's seen Christina lately, BTW) or, and here's my point, if they go against the editorial slant of the parent organiztion. Don't you get it?

You just made my point for me. "Editorial Slant of the parent Organization". Those parent Organization tend to have Conservative slants.

And about "The Path to 9/11", well, a) it was a miniseries, DRAMATIC, and not necessarily meant to be 100% accurate (top secrecy being what it is)

"The Path to 9/11" was supposedly "based" of the 9/11 commision report. That's what it was touted as...being based on those findings. ABC hired a Conservative hack to write/produce it. It made up scenes to make it APPEAR that Clinton was responsible for 9/11. And it was screened ONLY to Conservative pundits like Limbaugh before being unleashed on the unsuspecting public.

Is profit mroe powerful than Truth, Mr. Dragon?

As for CBC...if it shows "The Path to 9/11"...will you drop the bogus "Liberal Bias" claim?

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

You haven't really heard, have you? This shows that, although he doesn't advocate religious fundamentalism or closing schools to girls, he's not against it, per se.

Wow...peace talks. That Radical. A "Comprehensive peace process " involving "All Combatants". I don't see where it says he's wants to negotiate with just the Taliban...as the Conservative nickname implies. Just think...in the Conservative mind peace talks equates going back to what Afganistan was like before the Americans invaded.

Of course, the American's got distracted by Iraq and left the job unfinished...but what are you going to do.

Afganistan's bolluxed up. The American's made a mess of it by not finishing the job before moving on.

Unless we get Pakistan to sto psupporting the Taliban, they will always be there. Peace talk are not a bad idea. But I guess to a Conservative, if it doesn't involve hot lead flying around it's not to be considered.

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 30, 2007 12:37 PM

---

I really should know better, BUT:

Strange...from where I sit the news has a Conservative bias. The feeding frenzy of the '90s was was enough to end any idea of an overt "Liberal bias".
The only "feeding frenzy" I can recall in the '90's was the military bashing that went on over the Airborne Regiment's Somalia murder and subsequent scandals. In fact, most of the media were having such a slobberingly good time giving everyone in the army a black eye, that they kinda forgot to report the largest battle Canadian troops had fought in since the Korean war (the 1993 battle in the Medak Pocket in Croatia).
But if you have something in particular in mind, I'm all ears.

Or perhaps, in the "Marketplace" of ideas Conservative ideas just don't have any valid staying power.
Or, perhaps, your "marketplace" is about as inclusive as a 1950's lunch counter in Alabama.

So...Conservatives don't
"shout people" off the stage? Interesting
So conservatives do ??? Fascinating. How about an example from the news ?
I can think of Coulter, the Minutemen spokesman and a Marine reservist who were all shouted off the stage (and/or physically attacked) -and can easily dig up links if you wish. Can you provide an example of a lib being shouted off a stage ? Please ??
Oh. I forgot. Conservatives control all the news agencies. It couldn't possibly be that liberals act like arseholes and conservatives don't.

And using anything from the Sun papers doesn't help your case.
OK, I'll bite. Why not ?

I'll see your Dan Rather (pompous git) and raise you...
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michelle Malkin
pretty much all of Fox News...
Disney/ABC
Righty-o. And which one of the above persons/agencies/studios tried to present -as news- a blatantly, ridiculously, false document in attempt to discredit a sitting US president (who happens to be conservative) just before an election in a time of war ?

Posted by: up north at January 30, 2007 01:06 PM

---

And about "The Path to 9/11", well, a) it was a miniseries, DRAMATIC, and not necessarily meant to be 100% accurate (top secrecy being what it is)

"The Path to 9/11" was supposedly "based" of the 9/11 commision report. That's what it was touted as...being based on those findings. ABC hired a Conservative hack to write/produce it. It made up scenes to make it APPEAR that Clinton was responsible for 9/11. And it was screened ONLY to Conservative pundits like Limbaugh before being unleashed on the unsuspecting public.

-Murray Rennie

So if it was so fictional, why did Clinton go ballistic over it? He forced ABC to edit a scene that showed Sandy Berger as the gutless slug that he is ... refusing to take Bin Laden when they had him ... as they did at least nine other times!
Don't believe me? Hannity and Combes had former Clinton advisor Dick Morris on WITH the 9/11 report and he showed exactly where Berger did this ... FICTION? the dialogue maybe ...the event was true.

Oh and Berger, the former security advisor was the one caught stealing sensitive document originals by stuffing them down his pants. Obviously no shenanigans going on here.

Now if they could only find that blood trail guy... maybe Hillary will give Bill up... of course she was probably involved...

Posted by: Sleepy Beagle at January 30, 2007 01:20 PM

---

I don't know better :)

"You just made my point for me. "Editorial Slant of the parent Organization". Those parent Organization tend to have Conservative slants."

Like to name one? Hope you aren't thinking of G&M, CTV (BellGlobemedia), TorStar, Standard Radio (any station), Global, AChannel, etc, Osprey), Canoe, CBC and so on.

Who did you have in mind, Murray? This big C Conservative parent company you mention that leads to a media bias in Canada? Never mind the States, apples to oranges. What about up here?

Oh, maybe the TO Sun, the paper you discount?

C'mon, I'm on the edge of my seat here..where can I turn for conservatively biased news which will feed my knee-jerk mindset?

Posted by: Selma at January 30, 2007 01:24 PM

---

The only "feeding frenzy" I can recall in the '90's was the military bashing that went on over the Airborne Regiment's Somalia murder and subsequent scandals. In fact, most of the media were having such a slobberingly good time giving everyone in the army a black eye, that they kinda forgot to report the largest battle Canadian troops had fought in since the Korean war (the 1993 battle in the Medak Pocket in Croatia).

So...a bunch of Soldiers blackening Canada's image by torturing/murdering a Somali while on a peace-keeping trip is not newsworthy?

If Medak is so obsure...why can a simple google search turns up many hits...including on the CBC page?

Perhaps your offended by Canadian's coming to grips with savagry done on a Peacekeeping trip. If so, that's your problem, not mine.

Or perhaps, in the "Marketplace" of ideas Conservative ideas just don't have any valid staying power.
Or, perhaps, your "marketplace" is about as inclusive as a 1950's lunch counter in Alabama

Yeah...right.

Was it Liberal's or Conservatives who supported Separate lunch counters in Alabama?

So conservatives do ??? Fascinating. How about an example from the news ?
I can think of Coulter, the Minutemen spokesman and a Marine reservist who were all shouted off the stage (and/or physically attacked) -and can easily dig up links if you wish. Can you provide an example of a lib being shouted off a stage ? Please ??
Oh. I forgot. Conservatives control all the news agencies. It couldn't possibly be that liberals act like arseholes and conservatives don't.

So every a**hole who shouts someone off a stage is a Liberal? Interesting...

So it was Liberal's who took the Dixie Chick's off the radio after one of them spoke out against Bush? ABC shutting down a blogger because said blogger posted some racist rants recorded from the radio in order to let that stations advertiser know what they were supporting, claiming copyright infringement.

Strange how this same ABC is not claiming Copyright infringement when portion of "Path to 9/11" are up on YouTube in violation of it. Rather selective...

And was it Liberal's who stop the airing of the Ronald Reagan mini-series?

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

I always found the Sun to be too much like a tabloid. Personal preference.

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

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michelle Malkin
pretty much all of Fox News...
Disney/ABC
Righty-o. And which one of the above persons/agencies/studios tried to present -as news- a blatantly, ridiculously, false document in attempt to discredit a sitting US president (who happens to be conservative) just before an election in a time of war ?

What...you forgot Limbaugh's et. al.'s little lies about Clinton when Clinton was in power already?

Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. That one was a hoot. Had Jerry Falwell up hawking a tape claiming just that...for 1.5 hours. I wonder if that was tax excempt.

Lets see...Troopergate, Trashing the Whitehouse in 2001, Whitewater (a land deal where the Clinton's lost money apparently).

Conservatives are reaping what Conservatives have sown.

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

Beagle...

So if it was so fictional, why did Clinton go ballistic over it? He forced ABC to edit a scene that showed Sandy Berger as the gutless slug that he is ... refusing to take Bin Laden when they had him ... as they did at least nine other times!

So, If I say a lie in public about, won't you go "ballistic"?

Aside from the fact that apparently there was no "hit team" there to take out Bin Laden...any Afghani forces that could have were nowhere near by...That the entire berger team looks to be pulled from thin air.

Wikipedia
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan to have spotted bin Laden. (When asked about this apparent discrepancy, Nowrasteh stated, "I've interviewed CIA agents who have told me otherwise. But that is the one concession we made. [In the original,] we had a CIA agent on the ground near bin Laden's compound—inside the wall even—and we took that out for the final presentation.")
He interviewed...but provides no proof...heh

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Ahmed Shah Massoud, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and therefore could not have seen Osama bin Laden.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced, and there would be no way to independently confirm bin Laden's presence in the target area by the time an already launched cruise missile would have reached it.

And when he tried to take out Bin Laden, he was accused of "wagging the dog"...because of the timing...Lewinsky and all.

Don't believe me? Hannity and Combes had former Clinton advisor Dick Morris on WITH the 9/11 report and he showed exactly where Berger did this ... FICTION? the dialogue maybe ...the event was true.

See above...

Isn't this the scene that Nowrasteh himself acknowledge was "improvised." Wasn't the mission scrubbed by Tenet weeks before the "scene" supposedly happened?

Apparently it only happened in Nowrasteh's mind?

Oh and Berger, the former security advisor was the one caught stealing sensitive document originals by stuffing them down his pants. Obviously no shenanigans going on here.

He's stuffs some documents down his pants, and this make ABCs' lies about him...true?

Is this the same a lying about Iraq-Al Qaida links...Non-existant yellowcake...non-existant WMD's...then starting a war over them.

Just asking.

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

Selma

Who did you have in mind, Murray? This big C Conservative parent company you mention that leads to a media bias in Canada? Never mind the States, apples to oranges. What about up here?

Never mind the States eh? More people probably watch American news than Canadian. Unfortunatly, what happens down there affects us up here. Or do you deny that?

National Post for one. Or is/was Mr. Black an Uber-Liberal?

Posted by: Murray Rennie at January 30, 2007 04:39 PM

---

Well, you see, I'm one of the few who gets the fact that 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean completely different things in each country.

And yeah, there's the Nat Post - good, you got that one. Any others? How about TV or radio?

I also get that loudmouths like Limbaugh aren't 'conservative', they're narrow minded, knee-jerk mouthpieces who occasionally make some sense. I know this from reading blogs, I don't watch US TV unless I'm visiting there.

People like B O'Reilly for example, just make things up and hurl insults at people. It's kind of like the Springer version of the news. We have nothing comparable in Canada.

Anyway, back to my original point. The CPC is much more like the Democrats in the US than the GOP. The Yanks don't have anything as left wing as the LPC or NDP and we don't have anything as right-wing as the GOP.

The whole right/left meme is a fabrication by the media in order to polarize people. What's wrong with using logic and reason? I don't really think of people in terms of left or right, I listen to what they have to say and decide whether I think they're full of it or not.

In Canada, I find the big C Conservatives make a lot of sense. The Liberals have demonstrated a lack of ethics and a lack of interest in what's actually best for the country, so they don't get my vote. I can't imagine ever voting for the NDP, not that they don't occasionally have good ideas too.

So, I vote Conservative. I'm not religious, I'm not a bigot, I'm not anti-immigration. Gays don't concern me. I'm in favour of universal free education and universal free healthcare. I'm in favour of building up our armed forces, working on useful and effective environmental solutions. I'm anti multi-culti because I think it creates ghettoization and is unfair to immigrants, keeps them out of the mainstream. I believe in the lowest taxes possible and total government transparency. I'm against handing out a cheque to every social engineering group, welfare applicant (corporate or private). I'm against spending public money on frills. What's wrong with having some money in the bank? I think the marketplace should determine the value of an idea.

I believe in helping the tiny minority who can't help themselves for whatever reason as in helping them to lead a life of dignity. I'd rather see three times the amount given to the welfare recipient who really can't fend for themselves and nothing to the ones who can, than have an entire underclass created by socialism, one with no mobility and no hope for the future.

In the States, that makes me a Democrat. In Canada, it makes me a Conservative.

Apples and Oranges.

Posted by: Selma at January 30, 2007 07:00 PM

---

Oh man...sigh

So...a bunch of Soldiers blackening Canada's image by torturing/murdering a Somali while on a peace-keeping trip is not newsworthy?
Of course it's newsworthy. We were discussing "feeding frenzys".

If Medak is so obsure...why can a simple google search turns up many hits...including on the CBC page?
Perhaps because a book was written -long after the fact- by a CBC journalist named Carol Off. It's called The Ghosts of the Medak Pocket. I never thought I'd say this about anything done by anyone from the CBC, but that book should be required reading for all Canadians.
The main reason that Canadian Soldiers were not massacred at Medak is because the ground commander had the good sense to call a press conference (our guys were squared off with a Croation armoured unit -they were hopelessly outgunned) knowing that the Croats were very sensitive to their international image. Lew MacKenzie also used the media to good effect for the same reason.
There were reporters there at the time of the battle. Yet it was kept quiet for a couple of years. Why ? Don't you think that would be newsworthy. Ms. Off herself notes in her book that when the soldiers returned to Canada they could not make anyone believe them. Those guys got screwed over big time (there is much more to the story).
Murray, all partisan left/right liberal/conservative bullshit aside -read the damn book. It's an eye-opener.

Perhaps your offended by Canadian's coming to grips with savagry done on a Peacekeeping trip. If so, that's your problem, not mine.
What I am offended by is Canadians happily remaining completely pig-ignorant of what our military does, how they're treated by the government, where they're sent, why they're sent and what they go through when they're there. And after they get back.
By the way -Somalia was not a "peacekeeping trip". At the last minute, the UN changed the mandate to peace-enforcement. The same resolution used in the Korean war.
That doesn't excuse what those guys from the CAR did. It's indefensible.
What's also indefensible is the fact that while other units in Somalia like the Royal Canadian Dragoons, 427 squadron, various other support units and even many of the CAR (Canadian Airborne Regiment) troopers did a lot of good work over there under very trying conditions -none of that was reported. The inquiry itself was shut down only after it started to peel away the layers of government sleaze and neglect that led to the problems in the CAR.
Canadians didn't come to grips with a Goddamn thing. They were simply entertained while the media had a high old time bashing the military and deliberately withholding facts. The glory days of the sixties all over again.
But don't you worry Murray. Those days will soon be back. Our guys will come home from Afghanistan eventually. The Americans will stop killing them accidentally -which means that liberals like you can stop pretending to give a damn about them. The government will go back to treating them like crap. The media will ignore that. It will be fashionable to laugh at them again.
And yeah, I am offended by that. But it's not my problem or your problem. It's the men and women serving this country that will be stuck with the problems.

Posted by: up north at January 31, 2007 12:15 PM

---

Oh man...sigh

...

Of course it's newsworthy. We were discussing "feeding frenzys".

As for "feeding frenzies"...just what do people like to read about...good or bad stuff. One of the reasons I don't like the Sun chain is because of their "feeding Frenzy" tendencies with respect to news stories.

Good stuff...most often buried inside. Bad stuff, front page. With lurid headlines.

Feeding Frenzies occur all over the Political Spectrum. However, since the ninties it has been Conservative Feeding Frenzies that have appeared more often.

As for Mendak...you implied it was hidden. I showed it was not.

But don't you worry Murray. Those days will soon be back. Our guys will come home from Afghanistan eventually. The Americans will stop killing them accidentally -which means that liberals like you can stop pretending to give a damn about them. The government will go back to treating them like crap. The media will ignore that. It will be fashionable to laugh at them again.

Yes, the conservative government, despite its promise, is treating them like crap. This time its the navy thats on the recieving end of the crap.

Yoru little quip about the Liberal "not giving a damn" is a fallacy. Bot the Liberal and Conservatives don't give a damn.

And as I stated in another thread...I am not a member of the Liberal Party. But it seems such distinctions tend to be lost on Conservatives.

And yeah, I am offended by that. But it's not my problem or your problem. It's the men and women serving this country that will be stuck with the problems.

One of the few things we agree on.

However, since the origional topic was "Would the Conservative attack ads run on TV". ..it appears the "Liberal Bias" at Telecaster is not as pervasive OR powerful. The ads appear to have run on CTV NewsNet (under the Telecaster Umbrella), and ther Conservative commenters have said they're running during the Super Bowl (Canada has a tendency to substitute Canadian Commercials for American ones).

So the answer to his query is...Yes. But, "Liberal Bias"...not so powerful.

Posted by: Murray Rennie at February 1, 2007 10:28 AM

---

Good stuff...most often buried inside. Bad stuff, front page. With lurid headlines
See, Murray ? More common ground. Headlines like "Karla's Kinky Killer Boyfriend" (the Winnipeg Sun actually printed that one a few years back) and their slavish coverage of celebrities, drives me right up the wall. The main thing I like about the Sun is their columnists -because they print both liberals and conservatives. I just don't see that elsewhere.
It is also germaine to note that during the height of the Somalia "feeding frenzy" I do recall the Toronto Sun putting a Canadian fighter pilot who had just won the "Top Gun" trophy on their front cover. At a time when all the media outlets (including Sun Media) were really raking the military over the coals, it was a nice gesture.

As for Mendak...you implied it was hidden. I showed it was not.
That battle was not reported for a couple of years. Bear in mind, Murray, that this fight involved an entire battalion of Canadian infantry (approx 850 men). There was an all-night firefight between Canadians and Croatians. People died (none of ours thankfully) in that battle. It ended with a huge Mexican stand-off the next day -the Canadians in armoured personnel carriers lined up on a road, with a minefield to either side. Croation tanks facing them (a very bad situation to be in). The Canucks had orders to go through Croat lines. They decided they were going, come hell or high water. Everybody on both sides were cocking their weapons (this was when the press conference was called by the quick-thinking Canadian commander -thus diffusing the situation). This wasn't just news, it was high-drama, real edge-of-the-seat stuff in real life (not to mention the "ethnically cleansed" village the Canucks found when they finally did go through the Croat lines).
Again -the press was there at the time. So why wasn't it reported at the time ?(!)
Then, it was news. Years later when it finally started coming out -it was history.
This all happened, by the way, on Jean Cretien's watch. The first I heard of it was a 1999 article in the "Alberta Report" magazine. The article pointed out that the Liberal Government was in the process of cutting the military budget yet again -at the time of the fight.
Call me crazy, but this brings up a few questions about our supposedly non-partisan press, in my mind.

This time its the navy thats on the recieving end of the crap.
The Navy is lacking funds to send a ship out on what is effectively a fisheries patrol. The lion's share of spending right now (not counting the transport planes) is on equipping the Army -which, as you know, is in the midst of a shooting war.
There should be money for both. There just isn't. This has been because of decades of neglect of our military.
Bear in mind that it was liberals who stripped the Navy of their "Royal" designation, their white ensign, their blue uniforms, their traditions and their pride. The Liberals allowed the entire fleet to rust out. Cretien cancelled the new helicopters, then refused to fly on a Sea King during a visit to HMCS Vancouver (he had himself flown out in an American Sikorsky -after sending the Canadian Sea King -sent to pick him up- back empty). The Vancouver, by the way, was one of 24 new and desperately needed ships ordered by Mulroney's Conservative government. Mulroney also gave them back their blue uniforms. That sort of thing matters.
I won't argue that overall, Brian Mulroney let the military down when he was in office (I personally think he is ultimately to blame for what happened in Somalia) , but compared to any Liberal before or after him, he was a virtual patron saint of things military.
It was also Liberals, in case you forgot, who sent our advance party to Afghanistan without weapons -because they couldn't be bothered to do the paperwork in time. Our troops had to be protected by Germans. It wasn't all that long ago that German soldiers used to be afraid of Canadians. Now we need them to protect us ?
If we're going to get into a who-did-what to the military, the Liberals are going to come out looking the worse. In a very big way.

One of the few things we agree on.
I'm glad to hear that. It occurs to me I'm getting tiresome here -as is this whole argument. I suspect we're both driving nails into the floor with our foreheads. I've had my time on the soap-box about the military, thank you -a subject near and dear to my heart for a number of reasons (and yes, I am an ex-serviceman -which doesn't grant me ultimate moral authority here, but at least give me credit for maybe knowing a little bit of what I'm talking about).
The last word on this is all yours, Murray. Kindly refrain from bashing the military in your reply.

Posted by: up north at February 1, 2007 01:04 PM

---

I don't really recall bashing the military. If that impression was given because of the Somalia example, it wasn't my intention. On the othert hand, I didn't bring the military up.

However, to exclusivly blame the Liberal's for the current state of the Military is a bit disengenous. That's the impression I'm getting here.

Ah well...

Posted by: Murray Rennie at February 2, 2007 03:53 PM

---

heres's a good PC video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceBr4nBwXtM

Posted by: j at February 10, 2007 02:55 AM

---