I knew that it would happen. The MSM is already getting into the campaign in a partisan way. Here we have the Globe and Mail itself starting that the long-awaited "nasty" phase of the election campaign and publishing an illogical, unfair and boldly biased spin article slamming Conservative leader Stephen Harper while favoring Liberal leader Paul Martin.
The paper claims Harper has gone negative, simply for pointing out a very well-known fact:
The election campaign's veneer of civility dissolved a little more today as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper accused Liberal rival Paul Martin of trying to reduce the Canadian taxes paid by his private sector company when he still headed the firm.
Note the article claims the "...veneer of civility dissolved..." and blamed Harper for it. Come on, Globe and Mail, what do you think you're doing, with this blatant opinion-editorial slickly, stealthily interspersed within a supposed factual "news" article? Very cleverly manipulative, obviously designed to unfairly influence the reader's perception as to what's going on and to paint Harper in an unjustly negative light while acting as an apologist for Martin's own already-begun actual nasty campaign.
To its credit, the Globe properly points out that:
Mr. Harper was responding to questions about his own love of Canada that were raised Tuesday in a speech by the Liberal leader.
"Mr. Martin has questioned my patriotism," said Mr. Harper, whose frustration was evident.
For some reason, the Globe believed it absolutely necessary to add its opinion as to Harper's state of mind as being "frustrated". So much for simply reporting what was said without opining as to what people are feeling. What qualifies the writer of the article to deem anyone's demeanor?
The Globe goes on to quote Harper:
"The fact is Mr. Martin lived a good deal of his professional life under the flags of other countries and Mr. Martin constantly tried — and was successful, I gather — at avoiding paying taxes in Canada. That's the record."
And doesn't argue against the facts as stated by Harper.
The rest of the article goes on to report Harper's correct explanation that he's only responding with facts to Martin's nasty implication that Harper's supposedly less patriotic than he (and without basis in fact).
The article also quotes Martin's defense of his behavior while head of Canada Steamship Lines:
"I am very proud of having started with a small Canadian company which today builds most of its ships in Canada . . . has the majority of its employees who are Canadian and has its head office in Canada, yet operates around the world," he said.
"In fact, I think that that's what we want to see Canadian companies do from a Canadian base, a Canadian head office, employing Canadians, operating around the world."
Notice how many times Martin said "Canada" and "Canadian"? Why didn't the Globe rightfully raise the question as to why Martin would describe his company as "Canadian" while the ships flew the flags of foreign nations? And why didn't it point out that Martin refused to address his clever avoidance of paying Canadian taxes on his profits, like most Canadians have to do by law or else face prosecution? Why only paint Harper with the brush of editorial opinion and not Martin? Isn't that consistent with bias? One would expect a true professional news organization to scrupulously avoid even the appearance of bias. But as is often the case, this hasn't happened here.
The Globe stealthily lets Martin off the hook while leaving the average reader with the impression that Harper has gone negative and nasty, which is untrue as far as the astute, critical news consumer can see for oneself.
So... I accuse the Globe and Mail of biased reporting against Harper.
And this is a bad thing, as it may improperly influence the thinking of some voters. Interesting, as we have a "gag law" restricting election-campaign free speech by individuals and groups, supposedly to prevent this very "influence" on the thinking of voters during an election. Why would the Liberals bring in such a law (and why did the Supreme Court of Canada uphold it) while allowing the famously Liberal-leaning MSM to either deliberately or negligently manipulate the perceptions of the electorate?
