Toronto Star attempts a smear-job on Jack and Olivia

MPs lap up free trips courtesy of groups, foreign governments - thestar.com
Towards the end of the election campaign, the Toronto Star very grudgingly endorsed the NDP. Before that they usually directly or subtly attacked the NDP. Now, we see they are back to their old tricks. Being one of the big corporate mainstream media, it is in their best interest that only the corporate-backing parties (Conservatives and Liberals) should get their support. Any other party they see as a threat. So, day by day they do what they can to make those parties look like what they are not. Today the Star took an issue which is not an issue, something that is totally legal and above-board, and tried to make it look bad. And, even though their favourite parties are the ones who took the most sponsored trips, they put the spotlight on the the federal party that took, by far, the least sponsored trips (over a 5 year period, the Conservatives took 132 trips, the Liberals took 142 trips, while the NDP only took 36 trips).

And "free trips" is misleading too. The Star is trying to make it look like these politicians were bribed. But, if that was the case, this would have been an issue a long time ago. The key here is that the Star wants you to think of these as bribes, although these trips were/are not . These trips are legitimate and totally above board. Many of these MPs were sponsored to
travel to have meetings, give talks, or to investigate/learn.

Yes, the article talks about the other parties at fair length. But, many people don't read the whole article, but just look at the picture and read the first few lines. With the placement of the picture and the choice of wording, the picture and the first few lines intend to make people who glance at this article think "Jack, Olivia and unions are bad".

This is the kind of slimy biased reporting that the NDP has always been up against. And now that they are the official opposition with a record 103 seats, there will be much more slimy biased reporting from the mainstream media.


Update:
The National Post also got in on the smear-where-there-is-no-issue game.

Right-Wing Political Violence: More Terror, Less Coverage

Right-Wing Political Violence: More Terror, Less Coverage | Common Dreams
Excerpt:
On the morning of January 17 in Spokane, Washington, city workers found a backpack with a bomb that was set to go off along the route of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade. An FBI official (Spokane Spokesman Review, 1/19/11) called the bomb “a viable device that was very lethal and had the potential to inflict multiple casualties.” Another official told the Associated Press (1/19/11), “They haven’t seen anything like this in this country.… This was the worst device, and most intentional device, I’ve ever seen.”

On March 9, Kevin Harpham, a white supremacist with past links to the neo-Nazi National Alliance, was arrested and charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and possessing an improvised explosive device. The device contained shrapnel dipped in rat poison, which can enhance bleeding (Hate Watch blog, 3/10/11), and was set on a park bench where its impact would be directed toward marchers.

The Spokane bomb plot received sparse coverage compared to that lavished on a far less dangerous plot attempted in Manhattan’s Times Square just a few months earlier. On May 1, 2010, a poorly made bomb incorporating Fourth of July firecrackers and nonexplosive fertilizer (Washington Post, 5/4/10) was allegedly set by Muslim-American Faisal Shahzad, who was reportedly outraged by civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes (New York Times, 6/23/10). The device smoked, drawing the attention of a man who alerted police, but failed to go off.

However, network news shows considered the Times Square dud 14 times more newsworthy than the far more sophisticated Spokane bomb. According to the Nexis news media database, in the 10 weeks following the respective acts of terrorism, the Times Square story received 49 mentions on network evening news programs to the Spokane story’s three. (ABC World News didn’t mention the Spokane bomb a single time.)

Likewise, as Salon blogger Justin Elliott pointed out (2/19/11), the very real Spokane bomb plot received one-third the coverage given a November 2010 FBI sting operation in Portland, Oregon, that used a fake bomb, provided by an undercover agent, to ensnare a Somali-born Muslim teenager. On the scant coverage of the Spokane story, Elliot concluded, “The incident does not fit into the reigning narrative of Muslim terrorism.”

That narrative is fundamental to understanding the skewed coverage of domestic terrorism. For instance, on the eve of congressional hearings on domestic Muslim extremism, chaired by Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.), a Wall Street Journal editorial (3/11/11) attempted to justify the bigoted proceedings by misrepresenting a RAND Corporation study as finding that Muslims are responsible for virtually all U.S. domestic terrorism. What the 2010 RAND study actually found (FAIR Blog, 3/16/11) was that the vast majority of “homegrown” terrorist attackers—those of all ideologies who successfully carry out an attack—were not Muslims: Of the “83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three…were clearly connected with the jihadist cause.”

Running his own interference for King’s hearings, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly (O’Reilly Factor, 3/8/11) responded to domestic terrorism expert Mark Potok’s statement that “our biggest domestic terror threat…pretty clearly comes from the radical right in this country,” by exclaiming: “Are you kidding me? The radical right? The last terror act assigned to them was the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.”

To make his claim, O’Reilly had to overlook many right-wing domestic terrorist attacks that have happened since Oklahoma City, including two that appear to have been partly inspired by his Fox News colleague Glenn Beck, and one in which O’Reilly himself has been accused of whipping up hatred.

In reality, there have been dozens of violent domestic attacks perpetrated by right-wing extremists in the U.S. in recent years. On the Crooks and Liars blog (1/21/11), right-watcher David Neiwert keeps a running list of domestic terror attacks by rightist and anti-government extremists. Since August 2008 alone, Niewert’s list includes two dozen such attacks.

Media bias and the steady drop in the TSX before and after the election

Random Ranting, Raving and Ratings: TSX tanks after Conservatives win a Majority
Worth re-posting:
I just thought it would be interesting to note that the Toronto Stock
Exchange has been down all week.  And continues to slide even after a
Conservative majority victory in the House of Commons.  I notice that no
one in the main stream media is blaming Prime Minister Harper for this
slide but I can't help but wonder if they would be blaming a Prime
Minister Jack Layton if the NDP had won the election.  The press
were correlating the drop in the TSX with the rise in popularity of the
NDP prior to election day.


It looks that Stephen Harper does not have a magic wand that protects us from the Global Economy after all.


I'm just saying...

CTV Conservative bias plain to see

Buckdog: CTV And Jane Taber's Anti-NDP Bias Caught On Film

Read the link.

Canadian Media Bias - definitely leaning Right.

Far and Wide: The Conservative-Centric Media

A further point for my NDP friends, how is that Layton runs a flawless campaign, and yet the coverage wanes to almost meaningless mention?

As I've mentioned before in other posts (relative posts here, here and here), the mainstream media sways a lot of people in each election and between elections. Imagine what would happen if the media gave each party equal and fair reporting? I bet we would begin to see results at the polls that would start to show how people would vote if we had proportional representation.

Unfortunately, it seems that our progress toward true democratic proportional representation will depend significantly on the say so of the mainstream media. And they like the status quo.

Something's gotta give. Most older people still read actual papers. A lot of young people get their news on-line. But more older people vote and less young people vote. So, progress is very slow.

We need a revolution in the press.