# Harper says he is finished with the Press Corps



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

story here

(I beat AS! )

So, discuss. Does this matter? Given that he has ignored the press other than to issue statements that no one is allowed to question, will this make any difference? Is this going too far in trying to reign in a rude press gallery?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> story here
> 
> (I beat AS! )
> 
> So, discuss. Does this matter? Given that he has ignored the press other than to issue statements that no one is allowed to question, will this make any difference? Is this going too far in trying to reign in a rude press gallery?


1) Congrats RM, I was wondering what was taking so long.

2) I think Harper is being a baby over this. Knee-jerk Conservative reaction (see perceived problems with the civil service and judiciary).

3) Some media aren't exactly being grown up about this.
....
On Tuesday about two dozen Ottawa reporters walked out on a Harper event when he refused to take their questions.
....

Sad but, as the primary cause, Harper holds the most blame in my mind. The media doesn't like you? Welcome to government. Martin was rightfully lambasted during the campaign. The media is about blood and they know where they smell it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

But you missed the good quotes


> *Harper says national media are biased against him and he will avoid them*


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/24052006/2/national-harper-says-national-media-biased-against-avoid.html

Yes it matters. 
There is absolutely no accountability and goes to show what kind of control freak he is.
This is a page out of GW Bush.

Wonder how many lobbyists he will have to pay to get his propaganda out...

This is self-inflicted by Harper. Vetting all communications, restricting access, muzzling his cabinet, focussing of 5 priorities... Maybe the Beej can give the big baby a hug?

(Congrats RM for being first and to the Beej for expressing an opinion)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, this isn't a mature response from Harper. I hope he kisses and makes up with them.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

better that the Canadian electorate remember this come election time
and then Harpo et al can kiss my a$$



> Harper says national media are biased against him and he will avoid them


I'm surprised Hugh Segal let Harpo get away with this one.
Harpo is either showing the utmost contempt for Canadians or is just showing how stupidly childish he can be.
Either way, it's a loss for freedom and democracy in Canada.

Is this what Stephen Harper meant by more "transparency and accountability?"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacSpectrum: You'll be in sunny Ecuador by then.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

If the press loves to slam the Conservatives, why would Harper want to give them more fuel?

I say good for him until the media smartens up.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> If the press loves to slam the Conservatives, why would Harper want to give them more fuel?
> 
> I say good for him until the media smartens up.


because this way Harpo doens't have to answer any questions from any reporters that don't "think" the same way he does

no press conferences = no questions = no political coverage NOT controlled by Herr Harper


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Attaboy Stevie!

Give 'em hell.

Especially the CBC, the biased @#%&'s.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Talking to local media instead of Ottawa media isn't some grand loss of freedom and democracy. Ottawa media coverage over local is now a basic foundation of democracy? No wait, that's just mad people ranting.

I think it's childish but, to many, local works best. God forbid the Ottawa media not get first pick. Not my recommended course of action but, as we've seen with a few big 'ehmac' issues, the polls don't match this localities' outrage. Surprise.

He may be setting himself up for a hard fall (autumn too). We'll see. I'm not impressed but it's about more than what I want or you want. Believe it or not, there are millions more voters out there that have a say and maybe, just maybe, they're not impressed with Ottawa media complaints. Again, we'll see. Could be another straw, could be a clear distinction about something many don't get.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Attaboy Stevie!
> 
> Give 'em hell.
> 
> Especially the CBC, the biased @#%&'s.


a bit of throwing the baby out with the bath water, eh SINC?

I'm sure we'll a fireside chat with some talking head at Global-Canwet. (no typo)

with probing questions like;
"Mr. Prime Minster, tell us how great you are."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Whiny versus Whiner (and vice versa)

For those who think little Stevie is being unfairly targeted :-( (from The Toronto Star):



> Harper has groused publicly about an anti-Conservative bias in the media before — but not since becoming prime minister.
> "I have trouble believing that a Liberal prime minister would have this problem," he said Wednesday.
> "But the press gallery at the leadership level has taken an anti-Conservative view."
> Ironically, senior Liberal officials earlier this year complained of an anti-Liberal bias in the national media.
> In the dying days of the last election campaign, Paul Martin's staff grumbled that reporters were out to get them and were working to elect Harper.


Hmmm


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Harper is free to do a news conference as he likes.

If the media don't like the rules, they are free not to cover it. It won't take long until they start following the rules because they need the content.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think Stephen Harper is on very shakey ground on this matter. He would do well to simply remove the new requirement to only take questions from a pre-arranged list. The Fourth Estate have a responsibility to report the news, but our politicians should not use them as their personal tools. The press should simply print the press releases from the PMO until this nonsense is resolved. Trying to control the message from his own party members is his perogative. Trying to do the same with the press is like waving a red rag to a bull. If the PMO paid the press some respect, perhaps they'd reciprocate the gesture?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> following the rules


???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

VD is stuck on Divine Right of Harpo....as is Harpo.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Politicians have always had this choice. Exercising it to this degree seems like a bad idea, but they were always able to choose when to talk to the media. They set the rules. These rules seem self-destructive so anti-Harper ideologues should be happy.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Political spin is an odd thing for all parties. They cannot control it, try as they might, but they are fully responsible for it. They can work with it and thereby direct all their energies at getting the message out. They can work against it and thereby divide their resources between fighting it and getting the message out. Minority governments, as caretakers, play a short-term game that can make the latter seem like a good idea. 'Can' and 'seem'. This may work, given the publics' lack of trust of the media, but the scent of blood is a powerful thing.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Harper is free to do a news conference as he likes.


And the press is free not to report any of his propaganda....
But then he would just hire PR flacks to push his message....

What happened to accountable? We don't have direct access to Harper (doubly so now that he has a presidential motorcade), so free questions from the press is the only way of getting information. 
Hand picking the questions and the journalists turn this into a joke. 

What's he trying to hide?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What Harper's doing isn't wrong. He's accountable to the people, not the press, but it may be inopportune for him in the long run.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> VD is stuck on Divine Right of Harpo....as is Harpo.


You're stuck on stereotyping me.

Read what I said again. I never said I supported what he is doing. 

All I am saying is that it is within his rights. Seems a bit petty for it to have gone this far, but I do agree the media has had an anti-Harper bias is the past. That said, I think the media was fairly balanced in the last election so Harper should have just left the issue alone.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You're stuck on stereotyping me.
> 
> Read what I said again. I never said I supported what he is doing.
> 
> All I am saying is that it is within his rights. Seems a bit petty for it to have gone this far, but I do agree the media has had an anti-Harper bias is the past. That said, I think the media was fairly balanced in the last election so Harper should have just left the issue alone.


I don't support what he's doing but I'm glad he's doing it.... nice argument.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I think VanDave was pretty clear in his statement. Stop twisting it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't support what he's doing but I'm glad he's doing it.... nice argument.


Lost in translation? Try reading it again.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm sure that if Harpo had lost the election you'd be singing another song...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm sure that if Harpo had lost the election you'd be singing another song...


Instead of singing the blues...like you AS!!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Since MacDoc loves GlobeandMail polls, I thought some might be interested in their latest regarding this subject.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has accused the national media of being biased against him, do you agree?

Yes

10944 votes (75%) 10944 votes

No

3667 votes (25%) 3667 votes


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, that poll proves AS is wrong.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Since MacDoc loves GlobeandMail polls, I thought some might be interested in their latest regarding this subject.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has accused the national media of being biased against him, do you agree?
> 
> ...


Another useless poll....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: You've quoted polls before--that support your viewpoint. I suppose that makes them useful...to you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: You've quoted polls before--that support your viewpoint. I suppose that makes them useful...to you.


I don't quote polls without knowing the methodology behind it. A web poll is next to useless....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You're right of course, AS. The only poll that really counts...is the one at election time.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't quote polls without knowing the methodology behind it. A web poll is next to useless....


Agreed.


----------



## ThirtyOne (Jan 18, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What Harper's doing isn't wrong. He's accountable to the people, not the press, but it may be inopportune for him in the long run.


I think this is a good point to remember. Harper is exercising the authortity of his office, which he is entitled to do within the limit of the law. I don't personally agree with it, and I will get a chance to voice my displeasure at the next election if I so choose.

Is he being a big baby? No. He is just not being a spineless pushover like the last guy. In fact, Harper is acting somewhat like Chretien at his prime.

Are the media being big babies? Yes they are. They are failing to do their job in a spectacular way.

If Harper was throwing this little tantrum of his while *not* doing his job, then there would be a little more traction. But Harper *is* doing his job, and he is doing it well. It is painful for Liberals and NDPers, and quite a few others (like me) to hear it, but Harper *is* doing his job. Arguably more has been accomplished in the last 4 months than in all of Paul Martin's tenure.

The media, on the other hand, are not doing thier job. They are being paid to report on the government, and they are refusing to do so. They are doing a huge disservice to the Canadian people. The government will get their message out one way or another. With the internet the way it is, they don't need the G&M or the CBC or the Post or anybody earning a journalist's salary to get a message out.

The end result: Harper and his party are at 43% in the polls and climbing, and newspaper circulation and TV news ratings go down. Who is losing this fight?

I've lived in countries where there are true limits to press freedom. I've lived in places where reporters get hauled to prison or even murdered for saying one negative thing about a politician. What Harper is doing is nowhere near comparable to that level of repression. But what the media is doing is being lazy. They've been used to getting spoonfed both by Liberals (here, have some more quotes from Harper's days at the NCC) and Conservatives (here, have some more allegations of corruption and misuse of funds by the Liberals.) All of a sudden Harper is making them work for a living again, and they don't like it. As for Harper, he'll have to face the people in an election one day soon.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You can mark the exact point when Stephen Harper decided that he could not trust the media. And, without a shadow of a doubt, he has been very wary and suspicious of that breed of critter ever since.

Know when it was?

Think back a bit. 

During the very last days of the most recent election...when Harper was on a huge roll and Paul Martin was looking very ragged and tawdry...

Harper was feeling very relaxed and confident and all the polls (and I mean ALL of them) were predicting a pretty substantial win for the new Conservative party over the tired old corruption-ridden Liberals. Paul Martin was dealing with a brand new scandal practically every single day...

Remember that?

Okay then. there was a moment when Stephen Harper granted an interview with Kevin Newman of Global TV where they would both show up at Harpers boyhood home in Ontario. They would go through the neighborhood of Harper's youngest days and Harper figured it might be a sure way of demonstrating to the frightened Ontarian/Liberal supporters that he was actually one of THEM at heart.

It took place on a snowy day. Pure eye candy for a photo-op.

Then...part way through the haqppy backhome reminice about Stepehen's boyhood neighborhood...while the big snowflakes were falling....

Kevin Newman suddenly asked Harper if he would outlaw abortion in Canada once, he was elected Prime Minister. 

Stephen Harper was caught totally off guard and seemed to be shocked by the question. He stated, as he has always done, that "This is NOT on our agenda"

But Newman worked the moment for all it was worth, and got himself a nice hot little sound bite for the evening news.

One that put a question mark in quite a few minds, at a very crucial moment.

It was a cheap shot. A rabbit punch that was driven home when the poor guys guard was down and he was in a warm and fuzzy mood. But it worked it's tawdry magic on quite a few swing voters. 

Many political pundits think it may have cost the rapidly rising Conservatives as many as twenty seats or more, in that election.

It probably...singlehandely... created the small minority that we now see. Instead of a clear majority. And Kevin Newman was hailed as a top reporter for delivering this cheap shot too. But only by his peers. Ugly manipulative stuff, to be sure. But it worked at the time.tptptptp 

And, ever since that pivotal moment, Stephen Harper has been deeply suspicious of the popular media. No wonder he wants to control and limit his exposure to their shoddy tactics.

I can't say I blame him.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Kevin Newman suddenly asked Harper if he would outlaw abortion in Canada once, he was elected Prime Minister.
> 
> Stephen Harper was caught totally off guard and seemed to be shocked by the question. He stated, as he has always done, that "This is NOT on our agenda"


When should these kinds of very important questions get asked? When there is enough time to camoflauge your response ? When you can read from your 'book of spin'? 

I don't think it was a cheap shot at all. I think it was a strategy for getting a more honest and straightforward response. I suppose he got it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There is such a thing as a reporter's decorum. There's a big difference between writing a profile of someone and reporting a news story--and it oughtn't to be a surprise to the subject when the reporter switches midstream.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I think the abortion debate fits rather nicely into a profile, don't you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I think the abortion debate fits rather nicely into a profile, don't you?


It might, depending on how the interview concept was presented to the subject. Part of a journalist's job is maintaining professional decorum. If, while you're writing a profile of Jean Chretien, he says "Excuse, me, eh--I hear a baby seal dat needs clubbing," then you've got a story. 

If you tell the PMO that you want to conduct an interview on the PMs relationship with the G8 leaders--than break in with "Oh, and that thing about clubbing baby seals..." 

That's not professional.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: By the way, I WAS being facetious about the web poll--gotta start using smileys I guess. Web polls, of course, measure only the response of people motivated to reply. 

Phone polls now measure the response of people who are still willing to pick up the phone, after hours, from "unknown caller."

This comment is accurate to within three percentage points, three out of four times.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> That's not professional.


Fair enough but you nor I know the details of that set up. 

It seems that true responses are born out of unpreparedness. That's a healthy relationship between the media and Government. 

Which would you rather hear?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't even know if true responses are born out of unpreparedness. I think the more accurate statement is "unprepared responses are born out of unpreparedness."

You get a different type of response by catching someone off guard--at which point you can also make hay out of the apparent discomfort of the interiews subject. How they sweated. How they stammered. How you cracked their "cool."

You can make someone so uncomfortable that the story becomes the subject's discomfort.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I worked for a major Ottawa news service for 10 years and there was definitely a smug bias against conservatives (reformers at the time) with the vast majority of journalist. I used to here many of the off the cuff remarks in staff meetings. We had a University journalism professor that did some copy editing for us and I asked him once why there was a disproportionate number of NDP supporters among the media compared to their support with the general public (about 6% at the time) and he told me straight out "Journalist tend to be progressive people and the NDP is a progressive party". That from the same guy teaching the next generation of writers. He then went on to make some derogatory comments about the Reform Party.
I have no doubt in my mind that the majority of media (not all) in this country are probably just slightly less biased against the Conservatives than our beloved AS (well maybe more than slightly less). I sometimes wish I were back there after the last election to see the dumb founded looks on their faces in the post election meetings. I'm just waiting for the paparazzi photos of Harper spraying some dandelions at 24 Sussex or wearing a speedo at the pool. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I'm just waiting for the paparazzi photos of Harper spraying some dandelions at 24 Sussex or wearing a speedo at the pool.


That's simply an awful thought. 

Wearing _nothing_ beside the pool would be different. His buddy GWB would probably consider him a WMD and invade....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Macguiver is right. That bias does exist though it's hard to quantify. For the members of the lefty media, any election success for conservatives or conservative ideas is an indication of the public's stupidity. My personal experience is that writer's with the other bias (far fewer of them) are more likley to express disappointment than anger.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

This is a real tempest in a teapot. Watch what they DO, not what they SAY.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> For the members of the lefty media


does that include the boys and girls over at the National Pest and Global ?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Blame the left-wing media - what a load of BS.
The politicizing of the media is far more right-wing. From FOX to Rush and in Canada private news media. CBC shows much more neutrality and a penchant for facts. 
A good dose of cynicism is what is needed: at times all politicians and their actions border on twilight zone...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> does that include the boys and girls over at the National Pest and Global ?


They are not really news - they just make up stuff and read press releases from the PMO...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> They are not really news - they just make up stuff and read press releases from the PMO...


sorta like Pravda back in the days of the USSR

[cue Beatles song "Back in the USSR"]


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> sorta like Pravda back in the days of the USSR
> 
> [cue Beatles song "Back in the USSR"]


Meet Amerika's little cousin Canuckistan 

(Cue X-files theme song)

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i can't stand harper, but i think what he's (unwittingly) done is good for democracy.

the government and the press should have an adversarial relationship, kind of like the relationsip between government and official opposition, checks and balances etc. 

i've been struck lately by the extraordinary laziness of many journalists. now they will actually have to go out and get stories, and not have them spoon fed to them by spokespeople.

maybe now the press will live up to its duty under the social contract.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I'm not sure if people are aware of this but:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/visitors/public-e.asp

The House of Commons has a public gallery, where you can sit and listen in on what's going on.

You know what? They even broadcast what goes on via television! You could sit in front of the TV, and write an article about what's going on.

And, I'm not sure about this one, so I'll have to check, but I think that the opposition actually gets to asks questions directed at the party in power! They get to ask questions! And on top of that, Stephen Harper can't tell the people on the other side of the floor who gets to ask questions.

Ahhh...the political process in action.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> sorta like Pravda back in the days of the USSR


A modern day version for sure. 
Today Harpo is hard at work on a smear campaign


> In response, Harper's office circulated a memo to friendly lobbyists asking them to make the point that the journalists who walked out were lazy.


http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne...15_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-POLITICS-MEDIA-CA-COL.XML
Wonder who is paying those lobbyist....
I don't really think the reporters were lazy - they wanted to ask questions. Lazy would be journalist that take press releases verbatim. 
I think that local journalist will be more open to pass the message - heck they are just happy to talk to someone high up in the government.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/kinsella/index.html?post=3499

The Prince of Darkness weighs in. Worth reading.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

What's the point of having a press conference if you aren't going to allow the press to ask questions. The press can simply take his stuff off the wire and print it. The idea of a press conference is to provide interaction with the press. 

Yes, the prime minister isn't accountable to the press, he's accountable to the people. But the people don't have the time to go to parliament hill and ask him questions, and in fact probably don't have the access the press has to him. We depend on our press to ask him the hard questions, and if he doesn't like that I'll vote him out the next election. 

I didn't mind the gag order on his cabinet ministers, but this is going overboard.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - it's showing contempt for democratic institutions of which the press are a critical part.
Very "divine rightish" ..remarkable how well THAT term seems to fit


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The institution is "the press", not the "Press Corps."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:



> Yep - it's showing contempt for democratic institutions of which the press are a critical part.


He's also taking the time to tell us what we should be thinking


> PM presses on in his feud with the news media
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper thinks you won't be interested in reading this article because it's just "inside Ottawa stuff."
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...6/BNStory/National/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp

Why are the Cons afraid of direct questions? This is supposed to be an accountable government? Everytime they are asked questions on difficult subjects, they are never available...


> PMO muzzles MPs on gay Mountie union
> 
> The gag order went to all MPs but was aimed at "the small minority who might say something stupid," said one caucus member.
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...l_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mr. Harper is probably right that most people don't care about this. Screening questions in advance WOULD help the person answering to prepare--but were they refusing to answer specific question?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Mr. Harper is probably right that most people don't care about this. Screening questions in advance WOULD help the person answering to prepare--but *were they refusing to answer specific question*?


Please MF, don't insult our intelligence here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Never mind--I read the article and it had no more information on my question than you do.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Spin, spin, spin....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Spin, spin, spin....


You don't happen to sing like Roger McGuinn do you?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ArtistSeries said:
> 
> 
> > Spin, spin, spin....
> ...


There's a 22 Minutes sketch in there somewhere - with the Imperial Stephen on lead karaoke.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

_To everything
Spin, spin, spin
There is a season
Spin, spin, spin
And a time for all our BS
under Stephen._

Carry on guys ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

_To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a season - spin, spin, spin
And a time for all our BS under Stephen

A time for the un-born, a time to lie
A time to plan, a time to creep
A time to shill, a time to squeal
A time for crap, a time for - *beep* (censored)

To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a season - spin, spin, spin
And a time for all our BS under Stephen

A time of war, whatever Bush wants
A time of love, - well at least if you're straight
A time that you *will* embrace
Because one-third is a huge mandate_

Haven't figured out how to work in Emerson and Fortier, yet.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

GA, that's pretty good stuff, eh !
make a video and submit it to the THIS HOUR HAS 22 MINUTES folks and RICK MERCER


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It needs a little work with meter, but not too bad.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It needs a little work with meter, but not too bad.


But it won't change a thing in Ottawa, nor will it change the policy towards the press.

Seems to me, only the press can change their ways to solve the issue.

Perhaps it is about time. I tire of the same old media hacks on the hill playing the same old tune on their fiddles. Time for change and good for Harper!

:clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sinc, frankly I'm sick of people insulting the Ottawa media and their wonderful Celtic fiddle music. It may be self-serving and idiotically presumptive, but da*n can they fiddle! No local media can match that and it is crazy of anyone to assume that local media combined with REAL journalistic digging could replace the fiddlin'. Shake your head Sinc. 

Disclosure: I don't like what Harper is doing in this case, but I'm not messed up enough to think this is some basic rights issue or challenge to the constitution, or opposition to our way of life and country. Get a grip. I consider it a short-term astute, long-term stupid political decision. This is not new to politics or to Harper, depending on whatever base he is pandering to at the moment. Politicians + short-term pandering = OBVIOUS!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> GA, that's pretty good stuff, eh !
> make a video and submit it to the THIS HOUR HAS 22 MINUTES folks and RICK MERCER


You *don't* want to hear me sing. Trust me on this.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Politicians + short-term pandering = OBVIOUS!


cue dance of new found lovers; Harper and Charest


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> cue dance of new found lovers; Harper and Charest


It sounds better than the love song of Harpocrites...


> Question anything the Harper government is doing, and we are inundated with fan e-mail that may contain scenes of violence and offend some viewers.
> 
> Some of the e-mails we get are definitely from Mars, the work of assorted anger-management drop-outs and otherwise ill-meaning kooks who have tragically slipped off their meds.
> 
> ...


http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2006/05/25/1596517.html

Why does this so sound so familiar...?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Disclosure: I don't like what Harper is doing in this case, but I'm not messed up enough to think this is some basic rights issue or challenge to the constitution, or opposition to our way of life and country.


It's not one big action but a series of smaller ones. 


> The row between Harper and reporters began when the PM stopped disclosing times of cabinet meetings, barred media from hallways outside meeting rooms and muzzled ministers and MPs.
> 
> It escalated when his staff tried to impose a list of reporters who could ask questions at news conferences -- thereby giving the PMO the opportunity to avoid journalists likely to broach embarrassing issues. It blew up in Harper's face this week when reporters walked out on him.


http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Editorials/2006/05/26/1598403.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I only hope that one day a title of a thread would read; "Canada says it is finished with Harper"


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Kosh said:


> We depend on our press to ask him the hard questions, and if he doesn't like that I'll vote him out the next election.


Should we not be depending on our local MPs and the official opposition to ask "the hard questions"?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I only hope that one day a title of a thread would read; "Canada says it is finished with Harper"


I'm hoping for "Conservatives Win a Majority - GuyToronto New Prime Minister".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> I'm hoping for "Conservatives Win a Majority - Gay Toronto New Prime Minister".


now THAT'S a headline


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Should we not be depending on our local MPs and the official opposition to ask "the hard questions"?


What happens when your MP is of the same party as the ruling government?

And what is odd about Harper and the media is that criticism comes in this form:


> Tim Goddard *used his eulogy* at his daughter's funeral *to criticize the new policy of Harper's Conservatives* that bars the news media from covering repatriation ceremonies for fallen soldiers.
> "I find it troubling that the privacy decision means that we are keeping the press outside the wire," Tim Goddard told mourners in a Calgary church.
> *"I would like to think Nichola died to protect our freedoms, not to restrict them."*
> In fact, Harper says he left "clear" instructions that media be allowed to attend the return of Goddard's body, if the family wished.
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Wonder what the difference is between "clear" and "fairly clear"....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why does this so sound so familiar...?


Probably because fringe types of all stripes wind up sounding the same, no matter which side of the political MacSpectrum they support.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Wonder what the difference is between "clear" and "fairly clear"....


answer: same as sh*t and bullsh*t

looks like the harpo spin machine are at the "finger pointing" stage
I wonder which Harpo-ite will take the blame for this one?
cause we all know "da boss" don't make no mistakes


----------

