They're onside with the Liberals. Sure, sometimes they'll poke Liberals with a pointy stick if the current party leader (ie. Paul Martin, who enjoyed none of the Big Old Media laissez-faire we saw the Evil Chretien enjoy), but in the end, they're staunchly Liberal no matter what. The Liberals could be, for all the world, a cross between the Mafia, Al Qaeda, NAMBLA and a neo-Nazi party and still enjoy the Big Old Media's loyalty and their covering-up of the inconvenient truth about Liberals, just as the Obamacrats enjoy the astonishing coverups of their monumental faults, both historical and contemporary, which, if applicable thereto, would destroy the Republican party and a Republican Presidential candidate. Like, if the Czars were appointed by Sarah Palin, we'd be hearing about all of them all day long until they were forced out. If ACORN was a Republican organization financed by a right-wing billionaire Nazi collaborator, the Big Old Media would make sure everyone knew. Problem is that, even though such things, and much, much, much more, about the Democrats and Obama himself, are shockingly true, the Big Old Media nevertheless covers it all up as long as they can get away with it. Of course, FOX News, bless them, march, to the great annoyance of the Left, to the Drummer of the Truth.
As for the Canadian Liberals, for one thing, the Big Old Media is appallingly uncurious about the hateful, influential extremists within the Party. Such as those Jew-bashing Islamic Supremacists who played an important role in the leadership election of the hapless Stephane "Do-Over" Dion, who got the Liberals to strike down the very anti-terrorism law they themselves brought in following 9/11.
When the Chretien Liberal Regime did all of those undemocratic things, such as using the Liberal-majority Senate as nothing more than an instant rubber-stamping tool for legislative bills, and such as shutting down debate in Parliament and such as shutting down the Somalia Inquiry into the murder of Shidane Arone, the Big Old Media, while mentioning that stuff, didn't try to tell Canadians that it meant that the Liberals were bad and must be kicked out in the next election. No top-and-bottom-of-all-hours-day-after-day-after-day hysterical, hypocritical screaming about how undemocratic and dictatorial the Liberals were... none of that... just a little mention, though of course, those of us who paid attention to the Big Old Media before the advent of the New Newsmedia and the blogosphere (what choice had we then?), well, we noticed when they did mention stuff, and we wondered how come they didn't make anywhere near as much a big fat hairy deal when the Liberals did something naughty, compared to the way they've always been treating Conservatives. We could tell that something was wrong, that there was something amiss, perhaps sinister, about the Big Old Media. It became obvious after a while of watching the whole double-standard attitude play out. We don't need the Big Old Media to tell us that, yes, they're biased assholes. We can tell, because there's no denying it obvious!
Suddenly, after years of bashing the Reform Party, a predecessor of the Conservative Party, the Big Old Media has become reformist? How hypocritical. Now the BOM is "extremist", "radical" and "out of touch with Canadian values" itself! What a turnaround!
What on earth does the Globe and Mail mean by:
It is time for greater knowledge and understanding about the unwritten rules of the constitution (...)What are they, crazy and delusional? "Unwritten rules"???
Are they trying to B.S. us yet again? (Yep, obviously!)
Talk about making stuff up according to one's convenience. How typically... LEFTIST!
Granted, some of what the G&M proposed wrt reform is a good idea. But I don't remember them proposing these reforms when the Liberals dictated over us, so contemptuous of democracy and so abusing of procedure for political advantage and legislative-passage speed, etc...
As for reform, well, hey, the Left and Big Old Media don't seem to want it when it comes to the Senate. They keep making up reasons not to do it, citing the BNA (our constitution), as if they knew jack about it. They don't want to listen when reformists say that some things can be done without changing the Constitution. And I suspect they'd want to do other things without caring whether there'd need to be Constitutional change...