Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Gloria Watch V

Thanks to Uncommon Truths, who caught this one from Gloria today. (and thanks for the "esteemed colleague" comment, and for the hat tip too)

Despite what some of you may think, I don't go looking for each and every piece she writes, in order to pass judgement... just to set the record straight. So, if you see something she's written, be it positive OR negative towards the Tories, send it my way, so we can keep an ACCURATE count. This needs to be a group effort, if we're going to build an honest and realistic profile of her leanings.

That being said, on to today's feature.
"While Canadians support the troops, they do not necessarily support the war in Afghanistan. Nearly 60 per cent of people polled in October by the Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV said they believe the price Canada is paying terms of casualties in that conflict is too high."
I have to disagree a little, just a little, with Uncommon Truth's evaluation of the above quote. While I can see how she's clearly spun the numbers, they do allow a little room for her interpretation. That being said, however, she chose to spin them in the negative light.... she very well could have spun them the other way, but she didn't. So, I'd give her a 50-50 split on this one... half a mark Negative, half a mark Neutral.

However, she loses that half Neutral mark for the rest of the article. Immediately after the above section, she writes this...
"Mr. Harper's address came shortly after a news conference at which an advisory council to the Veteran's Affairs Department said Canada's war vets have earned the right to government-sponsored health benefits and should not have to navigate the complex maze of qualifying criteria that is demanded of them."
Nice segue, eh? Go from the speech, right into the criticism... nice. And don't you find it interesting how it looks like she's trying to pin the problems of these veterans on Mr. Harper? No mention that the direct cause of the neglect these veterans have faced is due to the last 13 years of Liberal rule... not a word. Move that half mark to the Negative column.

Negative - 6
Positive/Netural - 2

Until next time...


  • At Tue. Nov. 07, 11:05:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Danté said…

    :) You're quite welcome!

  • At Thu. Nov. 09, 09:25:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Dirk said…

    You're reaching, man.

    Have you ever considered that you're examining the Galloway columns with your own strong conservative biases? An objective evaluation is impossible if you're so strongly entrenched in a particular camp.

    Also, what you haven't factored into your bias arithmetic are the mentions of Harper in the first third of the article. They all portray Harper positively, with his evocation of In Flanders Fields, and plea to remember and appreciate our troops.

    As I've mentioned in this place before, I don't understand the point of this exercise. A reason for its silliness that I haven't pointed out before is this question:
    Is criticism of the Harper government equal to portraying it in a negative light? You've given criticism yourself (income trusts), yet I'm sure you'd say that you have never portrayed it in a negative light.

  • At Thu. Nov. 09, 09:48:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    That's why I'm asking for help... I'd rather have four or so people looking at the articles, and then coming up with a consensus.

    I agree with your thoughts on the first portion of the article... it starts off quite positive. However, don't you think that the last half, to put it your way, is "a bit of a strech", as it seems to be rather reaching in her method of switching from positive to negative in a rather awkward way?

    Your absolutely correct in your evaluation of my own bias... I am a partisan, of that, there is no doubt.

    However, I also read other authors work, such as Paul Wells, Warren, etc., and watch various political segments on CTV, CBC, Global, TVO, etc. Of all the political commentators, Gloria Galloway seems, to me, to write more consistantly in the negative about Mr. Harper than all the rest of them. Even the CBC's (my favorite network to bash as biased, as you're well aware) program "The House" has been more balanced than she has!

    By the way, have you seen TVO's new show "The Agenda"? Of the two or three shows I've seen, it's been great! I can't vouch 100% for it yet, as I've only seen a couple of episodes, but it looks to be a really good and balanced show, bringing out all the views in a fair fashion, and asking tough questions of ALL guests, regardless of political stripe.

    I've signed up for the podcast for that show, so you'll be hearing more from me about it as the weeks go on.

  • At Thu. Nov. 09, 09:48:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Dirk said…

    I haven't seen The Agenda yet, but I've been meaning to catch it. I'll have to check out the podcasts. I used to watch Studio 2 fairly regularly before we had our baby. Awesome show -- Steve Paikin is a fantastic journalist. He's got some loose ties to the conservatives -- his wife was (maybe still is) in Tony Clement's staff. But you'll never hear a hint of bias in his work.

  • At Thu. Nov. 09, 10:28:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Yea... I had no clue whatsoever of his leanings.


Post a Comment

<< Home