Thursday, September 22, 2005
More Manipulative MSM Bias Against Harper, CPC
Ah, yes. Here the MSM goes again. With their fetish for negatively reporting on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. In this article from CNews, written by Dan Dugas, with the headline: "Harper angry at dissidents, media", we see more pure opinion without fact to back it up.
Whoever wrote the headline, be it Mr. Dugas or some special, sinister MSM headline-for-manipulation-of-readers specialist, certainly seems to me to have ignored the lack of evidence of any "anger" on Mr. Harper's part and nevertheless chose to perpetuate the popular MSM stereotype of Mr. Harper as "angry", as if having any kind of emotion makes one unfit to be Prime Minister (hey, Jean Chretien was many times visibly angry, we recall, and current PM Paul Martin is on record as declaring "I'm mad as hell...").
Mr. Harper said:
"Any Conservative, anywhere, at any time, can, by criticizing other Conservatives, become an instant and enormous media star. That's just the way it is, we'll have to get used to it."
How is that evidence of any "anger"? Reporters should simply state what Mr. Harper actually said without declaring their own belief as to what he may have been feeling as he said what he did.
Here's some more of what Mr. Harper said, with reference to a small number of party malcontents who have maliciously, unreasonably badmouthed him:
"The Conservative leader who wins, the leader who brings Conservatives together and unites them, is a leader who, frankly, ignores such people.
"It is a leader who does not spend his time attacking other Conservatives, it's a leader who spends his time attacking the Liberals and that's what I intend to do."
Can anyone explain how in the world this is evidence of "anger"? As far as the I'm concerned, it sounds very rational and leaderly.
Since the early nineties I have noticed the MSM abuse the headlines in an attempt to hurt Reform, the Canadian Alliance and now the CPC. CNews should be ashamed of itself and, I believe, should retract the misleading headline claiming "anger" on the part of Mr. Harper. And declare they regret the mea culpa.
UPDATE:
Sept. 23, 2005:
CNews has changed its headline today. It now reads:
"Harper ignores Tory dissidents".
CNews has done the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Are you weird, stupid or what? I clicked on the article and the headline is "Harper ignores Tory dissidents." Time to get your medication adjusted. Again.
Don
Guess they changed the headline after all. ;-)
I read the same headline as Canadian Sentinel read yesterday, late afternoon/early evening. I guess its a self fulfilling prophecy on behalf of the msn, take a calm Conservative, write a biased article claiming they are 'angry', watch said Conservative get angry.
I don't know "expert" Tom, it seems like a lot of effort just to twist Stevie's knickers. Maybe we'll find out the truth in the next spell binding issue of HQ INTEL ALERT.
Don
I was telling the truth about the headline, Warren Kinsella (Don). They subsequently changed it. I think you know that. You must have seen it too, but naturally you think you'll necessarily get away with lying yet again.
Wonder why they changed the headline? Would they have otherwise if no one pointed out their screw-up?
Should've taken a screenshot, whatever that is. Rookie, me.
Warren, why is it you believed everything Mr. Chretien said and vigorously vilified anyone who dared question his dictates, yet you dis me at every opportunity? I deal in truth; you deal in lies; no wonder they call you the "Prince of Darkness".
Hry little buddy, you are certainly one angry little man. This obsession with WK is worrisome however. I suggest you get help.
D-O-N
Don
Anonymous,
You're dangerously close to being banned. I don't care what you'll say about that. I really don't want an MWW of my own, even if it is Warren Kinsella, who actually just bores me now. This is my site and I'll turf whomever I see fit. Got a problem? Then fuck off.
Do you, Anonymous "Don", solemnly swear you are not Warren Kinsella? If you, therefore, are not Warren Kinsella, then you're guilty of having impersonated him by allowing myself and others reading our exchanges to believe so.
On the other hand, the alternative is to admit you are Warren Kinsella writing abusive comments on other's sites just to make them look bad so you can feel good.
I'm serious. No more, or you're outta here, Librano scum.
I'm poised and ready. Further crap from you will get you bounced permanently.
Let's get this straight: if Don is not WK then he has committed a fraud because you've led yourself to believe he is WK, but if he doesn't admit it, then you'll ban him from your site?
You'd make a great police officer.
Peter, Warren Kinsella himself addressed my specific question on "Comments Please" and didn't deny being "Don", nor did "Don" deny being WK. The actual words spoken by WK in his one response are telling, in addition to my analysis of "Don"'s commentary both on SDA and on CP.
An excerpt:
My question:
"You know, I just scrolled down through a bunch of Warren Kinsella's old posts. I noticed he never participates in the comments section. If I'm wrong, could someone pls. steer me to a post wherein Warren actually participates?
Perhaps he thinks he's too good to fraternize with us nobodies?
I also noted that some of the stuff "Don" has said, and, shiver me timbers, "Don" sounds eerily like Warren Kinsella.
I cannot help but begin to see a pattern forming...
I betcha Warren won't dignify this with any sort of response lest he let the cat out of the bag or something... ;-) but don't be shy, War...
Posted By .../ Posted At 9/9/05 5:05 PM
Warren Kinsella's response:
"..., you nasty man! As you well know, I have 13 children under the age of two, four dogs, and I am working the night shift at Corporate Death Burger to make ends meet. I am a lurker, baby.
Off to have my 22nd doppio espresso of the day! Ta!
Posted By warren k / Posted At 9/10/05 5:08 AM
Notice he said "I am a lurker, baby."
Just put all the evidence together if you really care about this at all, which I doubt- I know you've better things to do.
You may read the thread for yourself but try to think outside the box:
WK, Sept. 9, 2005 "NAFTA's naff (British slang)" on CommentsPlease.com
But you know what? It doesn't matter now. I acknowledge your disdain for the stuff between myself and that anonymous troll, but I really don't care to discuss it anymore. It's a silly chapter that's been finished and a new one begun...
Post a Comment