One last point on the Liberals and the media

If you were a journalist who seemed to be partial to one party and you were covering another party would you be backing the most winnable or losable contender?

Now, all you journalists and wannabes would say neither. Unbiased coverage of them all.

But then we have our friend Paul Wells who (at least on his blog which we all debated already) was unabashed in his systematic criticizing of Iggy (at least once a day on the blog) and unabashed in his support for Dion.

But my question remains. If Wells likes Harper (the book and all) would he be supporting so deliberately the candidate most like to win or lose a federal election to Harper?

Now, you will say that Wells doesn’t necessarily ‘like’ Harper. Well, I have read his blog, book and MacLeans columns for the past few years and I think, let’s say, he has a fondness for Mr. Harper.

It’s just a question anyway. It just seems to me there are layers of political spin here that are worthy of the airheaded converation of the blogosphere.

Here’s another angle. I am an Edmonton Oiler fan. Have been since the first year they joined the NHL. Last year they go down 3-1 in the finals and everyone says they are toast to Carolina. Then they win the next two games and go to game seven. In the interviews before the game the Oilers are all filled with bravado – “We’re takin’ the cup back to Edmonton” – all smiles, yelling, testosterone.

They they cut to the Carolina dressing room. Despondent. Interviewees were saying things like “we tried our best”, “we’ve gotta go out there and do the best we can”, etc. Then the CBC guy interviews Brindamour and I watch closely as he says is a despondent tone with this frown on his face something like “What ever happens happens. We will try our best”. I look very closely and then it hits me. This is a stunt. In the papers, on the TV, etc. the Hurricanes were playing losers.

Then they came out firing on all cylinders and hammered the Oil right back to Edmonton.

My point? It’s a loose one I’ll admit but me thinks still valid.

The CBC ran a big piece on who the Tories would least like to see face Stephen Harper. They ran this the day before the voting at the Convention. They quoted prominent tories such as Hugh Seagel and almost all of them said Stephane Dion! I’m not kidding.

Now, full circle back to Wells. If Seagel and the Tory braintrust really thought Dion would be the most formidable challenger to Harper, would they admit as much? Come on. That whole CBC piece stunk the high heavens.

The Tories wanted Dion to win because they want to face him in three months.

As for Wells, who knows what motivates him other than jazz. One thing’s for sure. A Dion win allows for him to ooze his savviness on his blog.

Like most high rolling pundits – Coyne, Wells, Hebert, et. al. they’ve got it all figured out – unless they don’t.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to One last point on the Liberals and the media

  1. Anonymous says:

    So the point is that people in politics may be lying and journalists and media may be biased? This is new to you?:)

    For another side, CTV ran a story that tory members, even a tory MP ‘took credit’ for getting Rae booted out because many tories said RAE was the one they most feared. The story said these tories were handing out anti Rae buttons and campaigning against Rae.

    Yet a liberal delegate says he saw no such thing and nobody wearing ‘anti Rae’ buttons, though the tories said they handed out hundreds.

    This point is not a loose one-when it comes to media and politics, you can’t beleive anything you hear.

  2. scott says:

    Hugh Segal?? Hugh Segal’s a Liberal. A red tory appointed to the senate by Dithers. He, well actually his wife donated to Bob Rae’s campaign.

    He was just playing games [outing] with Dion in hopes that his real man would ultimately go on to beat Harper. Thus, opening the door back to his red tory brigade and returning the universe back to its natural state.