Does the Canadian media have
a liberal bias?
Does the Canadian media have
a liberal bias?
Carolyn Gargaro's Liberal Media Bias Page The Media Research Center
The Media Bias Web Site Carolyn Gargaro's ILE Boycott Page
Why the Nazis were actually more like the Left Wing
Chrétien and the GST
"I am opposed to the GST, I have always been opposed to it and I will be opposed to it always."
- Jean Chrétien, October 1990
Chrétien and the Liberals, after promising to "kill" the GST, were elected in 1993. Despite their promises, the GST has not been abolished. Chrétien has even denied that he made any promise to get rid of the despised sales tax, saying that the public misunderstood him. He did not mean that they would abolish the GST, but rather, "harmonize" it with provincial sales taxes. In 1997, the Liberals distributed literature with a quotation from Jean Chrétien on it:
"Commitments are only as strong as our will to fulfill them."
Now, would this have been possible if Chrétien was a Conservative? The answer is no. Chrétien lied, it is as simple as that, and most of the Canadian media seemed to conventiently forget that Chrétien made this promise. One thing is clear: if former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had ever lied to the extent that Chrétien has, the Canadian media would have attacked him relentlessly. And the Canadian Media doesn't have a Liberal bias? Consider the statement below by John Crosbie, a former Mulroney cabinet minister:
"Let's start with the question of bias. The practice of journalism has altered significantly since I began my political journey in the 1960s. Prior to then, journalists were expected to be neutral in their treatment of public figures and public issues. Editors insisted that reporters keep their personal and political opinions out of their stories. There was no quicker way for a political reporter to find himself back on the police beat than to start mixing commentary with reportage. The right or power to express opinions was reserved for columnists and editorial writers, and their columns and editorials were clearly labelled as such. It was sort of like the health labels on today's cigarette packages - you could read that stuff at your peril. Times have changed, for the worse. A casual examination of any newspaper today will reveal stories that claim to report on events, but that are actually replete with the biases and opinions of the reporter. Stories distributed by The Canadian Press, the national news-gathering collective, are filled these days with descriptive words and phrases that clearly indicate what the writer thinks about the events, views or people he or she is describing - and what he or she thinks any right-minded person should think about them. If someone in the news examines issues from a conservative point of view, that individual is almost invariably identified in journalists' stories as "right-wing." The Fraser Institute of Vancouver is invariably described in new reports as "the right-wing Fraser Institute" whenever they issue a report or analysis. Yet organizations or individuals expressing views contrary to the Fraser Institute's are never described as being "left-wing." In the years since I entered public life, journalists have come to see themselves as advocates or as adversaries in relation to established institutions, particularly the institutions of government. With some of the younger journalists, objectivity is no longer an ideal to pursue, but rather a term of opprobrium. It is instructive to compare the national media's treatment of the Mulroney Conservative administration with their treatment of the Chrétien Liberal administration. The ferocity of the attacks by journalists on possible mistakes made by the Mulroney government is burned into the memory of everyone who was active in federal politics in the 1980s and 1990s. The media were in pitbull mode throughout the Mulroney years; when Chrétien came to office, they turned into poodles."
- John Crosbie
Click here to hit the Prime Minister in the face with your mouse.
The American media also have a liberal bias
"I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs."
- President Clinton
President Clinton was elected in 1992 largely because he promised not to raise taxes. Once in office, he gave Americans the largest tax increase in history. The American media, with some exceptions, remained silent on the issue. They too seemed to conveniently forget that a liberal made a promise, got elected, and then broke it. Clinton was re-elected in 1996. Could this have been possible if Clinton was a Republican? Probably not.