So the media is complaining (and doing and publishing polls about) the belief that they don't get to pester Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative) as much as they'd like to.
Fine.
But why do they make a big deal out of PM Harper's "control" of "access" whereas I didn't see them making a big deal out of former Liberal PM Chretien (and Martin after him, briefly) being able to enjoy softball questions only and ignore the rare tough, inconvenient ones?
And why is it that the media in both Canada and America let US "President" Barack Hussein Obama off the hook for, amongst many things, not being accessible for media questions, particularly tough, inconvenient ones?
It's a little hypocritical of the media to make a big stink over a conservative leader being "inaccessible" to them, whereas they don't mind the tight control exercised by those leaders who are closer to their own ideological orientation.
Fine.
But why do they make a big deal out of PM Harper's "control" of "access" whereas I didn't see them making a big deal out of former Liberal PM Chretien (and Martin after him, briefly) being able to enjoy softball questions only and ignore the rare tough, inconvenient ones?
And why is it that the media in both Canada and America let US "President" Barack Hussein Obama off the hook for, amongst many things, not being accessible for media questions, particularly tough, inconvenient ones?
It's a little hypocritical of the media to make a big stink over a conservative leader being "inaccessible" to them, whereas they don't mind the tight control exercised by those leaders who are closer to their own ideological orientation.
6 comments:
"But why do they make a big deal out of PM Harper's "control" of "access" whereas I didn't see them making a big deal out of former Liberal PM Chretien (and Martin after him, briefly) being able to enjoy softball questions only and ignore the rare tough, inconvenient ones?"
Uh...they did, during the Chretien years. He wasn't as bad as Harper, but he was raked over the coals by media for his micromanagement of media opps. Martin wasn't as bad. But Harper has taken it to a whole new level.
@ Balbulican:
Bullshit.
A slightly more adult tone and a little more substance would be a welcome change. But of course, it's your blog, and you're free to set the standards as low as you want. ;)
However, if you care to assay a more articulate rebuttal...perhaps something with some actual fact?
Substance:
http://www.globaljournalist.org/stories/2002/10/01/fired-canadian-publisher-superhero-of-free-press/
Adult tone:
Good morning C.S.
Would be so kind as to pass me the metaphoric megaphone?
Ah, yes. There it is.
Thank you my good man.
Articulate rebuttal:
Bullshit!
Wasn't it american Iganieff who said "No one speaks to the liberals but me"......
No one speaks for the liberals but the media alone.
The PM and the Conservatives have been running Canada for five years and the media couldn't have cared less about canadians or the PM. So why the complaints now from the media.
Canadians questions the media for answers not yet delivered nor intent to. Yet they want answers from us. Lazy Bastards.
Like the Iraqi voice that keeps drumming in my head who told an american reporter when asked why they (iraqis)don't ask their media for answers which they said to her (reporter)"that is not our media that's Saddam's media.
Well, same here, " that is not our media that's the liberals and now coalition, very own personal media."
Those Iraqis saw more of the corruption within saddams media than most canadians ever will see in theirs.
In fact, the reason behind story the Iraqis gave to the reporter for their distrust for the media was 'chilling'.
If only you knew what a newly immigrant said to a radio show host in alberta about the liberals and what they told him. man, I felt sorry for him, but the host eased his fears and told him that there is nothing to be afraid of, he is entitled to vote for any party not just liberals. The sigh I heard comming from the man was a sign of relief that he is not 'bound' to vote for the liberals.
The media are 'BOUND' to protect the liberals at all cost doesn't matter how it is done-just do.
Ignatieff: "I speak for the Liberal Party of Canada. Nobody speaks for the Liberal Party but me.
Arrogant.
Per Levant, per "The Russian Album"
Ignatieff told CTV his "family lost everything in the Russian revolution. They started over again in Canada. They came here with nothing."
But like so many, they were able to squirrel away money. The Ignatieffs fled to London in 1919, where they had £25,000 waiting for them in a bank. That's worth more than $2 million in today's currency. The Ignatieffs lived there for nine years before moving to Canada in 1928.
"I was born... a poor black child."
The jerk.
I wonder when the movie “Network” airs, what percentage of people are startled by the similarities between Arthur Jenson and Soros?
I guess Beck will atone?
I wonder if people are startled by the similarities between Soros and Asper and if anyone can see one big difference.
Well... I think no one speaks to liberals. That would be intolerable for them. So we speak at them. It seems that is the only way. The Liberal Elite and the "lazy bastards" who follow them…
Hmmm. "Man is a lazy animal" Trotsky.
Ah yes, elitist one man management and the militarization of labor.
Ding!
Post a Comment