Liberal media narrative pushing alternate reality on western society

An example of a conservative commentator trashed by the liberal media.

Like a lot of people who like to think for themselves, I am sick and tired of the 24/7 narrative coming from the liberal mainstream media and like-minded politicians that anyone who holds traditional conservative views is hateful in every respect, or in the case of Sean Hannity above, bad for America.

Yes, that is biased and narrow-minded thinking but what is especially problematic about it is that it is pushing an alternate reality onto Western society. I mean, when I turn on the CBC (which isn’t often) it is like the journalists and commentators are living in a different country than I am. Which is probably why I watch a lot of Fox News these days. At least there, for the most part, you get a balanced presentation. I mean, they always have both Republican and Democratic pundits on to debate the issues.

Anyway, this week the American media published an old quote from U.S. Vice- President Mike Pence — that he didn’t have lunch with women other than his wife . You would have thought he was some kind of monster given the hysterical response. The assumption was that he had to be anti-woman. Nonsense. All of it. From what I have read, Pence is surrounded by competent women.

Then, there is Brexit across the pond. In the UK, the “leavers” are called every negative name that can be said publicly on the BBC. It is as though the 52% who voted for Brexit are from another planet. Never mind that those 52% were simply tired of having no borders or their laws overridden by Brussels.

Similarly in the US, nearly half the country voted for Donald Trump and yet, those pockets of Democratic blue feel because they represented the popular vote, they should run the country regardless of Electoral College rules and the U.S.Constitution. In fact, Democratic outrage is off the charts. Yet, just imagine if the vote had been the reverse and Hillary Clinton had won the College vote and Trump the popular vote. Who do you think would be president right now? Right. Clinton.

Years ago, I experienced this kind of social and media bias first hand. I had helped an Ontario PC (Progressive Conservative) candidate win the 1995 provincial election. He was a member of the Mike Harris Conservative caucus. I accompanied him, his wife and their family to the swearing-in ceremony two weeks after the vote. What greeted us were thousands of protesters and a bomb scare — and the Conservatives hadn’t even done anything yet. Nevertheless, for the entire four years of Harris’ first mandate, the protests and the media were hysterical about everything in spite of the fact that Ontario boomed — with 100,000 people able to get off welfare and nearly one million good paying full time jobs being created.

Speaking of protests, in the U.S. when you watch the tape of the Berkeley fiasco, it is the professor who is screaming profanities. Same at Middlebury College where even a professor was injured. Sure, I don’t agree with much of what Milo Yiannopoulos or Charles Murray say, but so what? They should be able to talk freely and students and faculty should be able to debate why they disagree with them. Causing and allowing mayhem, on the other hand, is simply teaching young adults that temper tantrums work.

Which brings me to Canada and its liberal media snowflakes. For ten years we read and heard that the Stephen Harper Conservatives were bad and Harper was a dictator. Why? Because one of his staffers had the gall to pay $90,000 back to the public treasury to help a Senator that the media didn’t like because he had been one of them and, in their opinion, didn’t know his place.  As with Mike Harris twenty years ago, there was little mention in the media about how much the Conservative Government was accomplishing.

Yet, now that we have the Justin Trudeau Liberals in power, as with Obama in the U.S. when he was in power, the media fawning never stops.  There are scandals every single day and the media reports on them. However, given the image to the left, the venom they saved for Harper just isn’t there for Trudeau.

The crux of the matter is that the media and liberal narrative that anything we say that disagrees with a liberal worldview should be considered “hate speech” or “bad” for our country is a view that we have to fight 24/7. How? By debating ideas with family, neighbours and friends or by volunteering for a conservative oriented politician.

Toronto Star’s Rick Salutin doesn’t believe parents teach

School busesI know I was supposed to get an early start on the Labour Day weekend but after I read Rick Salutin’s column in the Toronto Star entitled “Parents are not their kids primary educators,” I just had to write something.

Wow! Truly, in the 40+ years I have been involved in both public education and teacher education, I have never read anything so subjective and simplistic, particularly from someone who is as esteemed and well-educated as Salutin.

And, I don’t believe it is just a difference of opinion. It is as though Salutin completely overlooks developmental and learning theory. Here, for example, are three quotes from his column:

(1) “You don’t ‘teach’ your kids what to do or how to be, but you play back to them the best in their own impulses and responses to the world and you do it appreciatively and enthusiastically.”

(2) “Yet being directive can work too, in fact almost anything can, depending on the parent. In that way it’s exactly like teaching. In either case there’s no one right way, since both are about relationships, which depend on the unique individuals involved.”

(3) “Let parents parent and teachers teach.”

I mean, Salutin says:”playing back to them” is something parents do. Well, that is what teachers do too. They call it brainstorming and decision-making. They also call it the”ah ha” moment — when a child or youth suddenly understands something.

Yes, I agree when Salutin says no one teaching approach is best. In fact, there is a lot of research on the role of teacher beliefs and attitudes about teaching, often referred to as “curriculum orientations,” in addition to the theories about development and learning I mentioned earlier.

However, Salutin seems to have forgotten that, under the Ontario Education Act, teachers are acting in loco parentis — in place of parents. Not the other way around.

Anyway, in my opinion, the crux of the matter is that it makes no sense at all to say that parents are not their child’s primary educator. Yes, children and youth spend many hours a day at school with their teachers but they spend much longer over their pre-adulthood with their parents and it is the latter, for good or bad, that influence them the most. To me, why anyone would think the opposite is certainly a puzzle.

Chantal Hébert on alleged Conservative threats to PM Justin Trudeau’s person

Republican ConventionChantal Hébert writes in her latest Toronto Star column that: “While scores of Canadians were spending the summer smugly lamenting the ugly tone of the American presidential campaign, Canada’s Conservative party was allowing calls for the assassination of Justin Trudeau to be posted on its Facebook page.”

Canada’s Conservative Party (CPC) allowed threats to PM Trudeau’s person?  The clear allegation in that sentence is that the CPC was to blame. Which, in a sense, it was because the Facebook page was theirs.

Which brings us to the problem with social media in general. Any institution or individual who opens a Twitter, Facebook or Blog account is suddenly responsible for whatever a tweeter or commenter writes. Of course, you can block or delete such comments but you have to see them first.

What I found most interesting, however, is how Hébert minimizes the venom and similar threats Stephen Harper experienced on social media over his decade in power. On that, she admits: “One could fill a library shelf with a collection of the derogatory comments Stephen Harper inspired over his decade in power. But to openly call for the death of a prime minister goes way beyond venting.”

However, while Hébert is acknowledging that people wrote nasty comments about Stephen Harper, she seems to think that they did not call for his death.

Wrong! There were many such threats against Stephen Harper and in fact, many of them I got on this blog — from progressives and liberal supporters. If they were unpublished, I simply deleted them or sent them to the blog`s comment trash. Or, if they did get published, I removed them as soon as I saw them.

And, while not a direct threat to Mr. Harper’s person, there is a current example of the mainstream media`s double standard between Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau.

On the announcement of Harper`s stepping down from politics on Friday, August 26, 2016, for example, Mark Critch of CBC`s “This hour has 22 Minutes,” mocks Mr. Harper for hiding in a so-called closet.

The implication of Critch’s mocking is, of course, that Mr Harper hid like a coward.  Which wasn’t true at all. Conservative colleagues have said Mr. Harper was heading for the main door to find out what was going on, when the RCMP stopped him and literally shoved him into the utility area.

Which begs the question: What would Critch have had Mr. Harper do? Run out into the hall so he could get shot? Can you even imagine Critch mocking Trudeau in such a fashion?

The crux of the matter is that partisans of “all” political stripes, including liberal media, have to stop the ugly rhetoric if open debate and discussion is going to be possible. And, as we saw with what Critch thought was satire or comedy, Hébert has to understand that such an ugly tone was not just caused by partisan conservatives.

Judith Miller on left-leaning media as liberal propaganda machines

Judith Miller 1030Western democracy is at risk because mainstream journalism has become nothing more than a propaganda machine for all things progressive and liberal. And, it has happened so slowly that those in their 20’s and 30’s today don’t even realize the extent they are being brainwashed.

They are being brainwashed into thinking that everything progressive-liberal is correct and everything conservative is wrong. End of story. Well, it should not be the end of the story because true democracy requires debate and discussion.

The good news is that some current mainstream journalists are attempting to wake us up regarding this one-sided philosophical reality. One of them is former New York Times writer and Pulitzer Prize winner, Judith Miller.

Like Margaret Wente in Canada, progressives who disagree with what she has written, look for ways to vilify her.  Regarding Wente, for example, check out Terence Corcoran’s column about the latest pile-on (H/T NewsWatchCanada).

In Miller’s case, she learned about truth in media the hard way. Both before and after the 2003 Iraqi invasion, she wrote in the Times that Iraq had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s). Of course, when no WMD were subsequently found, she was severely blamed for the misinformation, even though she was using the same intelligence sources as U.S. government analysts at the time.

So, it comes as no surprise to me that she has just released a book about the lack of truth in today’s journalism.

While I haven’t read Miller’s book yet, I have no doubt what she says is true given the current progressive-left-liberal bias that I have personally experienced as a conservative leaning blogger for a decade.

For example, during an interview at Newsmax, Miller says: (H/T Jack’s Newswatch):

“‘Be very skeptical of everything we in the press say. That even the most respected, reputable organizations do things that are often times contrary to the truth and that they ought to question everything they hear from everyone … I wanted to take people inside journalism and to make them understand what a really shabby shape the profession is in today.'”

Thankfully, yes, there are some journalists in Canada today who are true professionals and I have linked to one of them in this post. However, he and others like him are the exceptions (like Rex Murphy and Christie Blatchford).

Yet, the reality is that today most mainstream journalists are left-leaning liberal propaganda messaging machines, rather than representatives of a respected fourth estate and free press.

The crux of the matter is, then, that professors of journalism and journalists need to understand that democratic societies require dialectic between opposing political sides in order to function as they should. And to do that they need to be able to write or talk about various political world views without displaying their progressive liberal bias.

Page separator

Update 3:30pm EDT:

An excellent example of what I mean by progressive liberal bias is displayed in this tweet. Anti-Semitic protestors at San Fransisco State University scream at the Mayor of Jerusalem — “Get the f— off our campus.” Meaning, they not only want to protest, which is their democratic right, they want to shut him down completely. Why? Because they don’t like what he represents or what he might say. Which means, they are absolutely clueless about what their demands means to democracy and free speech.

How the media use pollsters as propagandists for Canada’s Liberals

Read this Canadian Press article dated December 1st, 2013 with the misleading title: “Liberal lead solidifies as pollsters predict significant voter shift underway.” Wow! Talk about media and Harris Decima propaganda. The Justin Trudeau Liberals are not solidifying their lead.

In fact, one of the first sentences in the article, regarding the pollster, the writer admits that the Liberals have dropped from a high of 37% support prior to the recent by-elections to 34% now. So, how does a drop of 3% voter support show a voter shift towards the Liberals is underway — regardless of the 3% being within Decima’s claimed margin of error.

Plus, in the recent by-elections, the Liberals won only the two seats they have held for decades. Sure, they came second in Brandon Souris (Manitoba). But, sorry, second doesn’t count, particularly when the Liberal candidate (Rolf Dinsdale) had a very popular, beloved name. His father Walter served 11 terms as a Conservative MP.  Meaning, the only thing the increase in Liberal vote in that riding indicates, is that many of the voters supported the Dinsdale family.

So, no, there is absolutely no evidence that Liberal support is solidifying — particularly west of the Ontario border!

Then, there is the ridiculous claim in the article that the Harris Decima poll shows that the Conservative base are deserting the Conservative Party of Canada and the Conservative Government in Ottawa. Specifically: “He [Gregg] says traditional Liberals — the so-called professional class and women — are returning to the fold, while stalwart Conservatives — men and rural voters — appear to be wavering and expressing disappointment with the Harper government.”


As a former researcher myself, I have to say that there is no way any pollster can extrapolate the personal intentions they claim to have done from a few questions. So, it seems to me that this article and the Harris Decima poll are something else entirely.

Merriam Webster defines propaganda as “ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, or a government.”

Does this poll truly indicate what the pollster claims? Or, is the media simply using its questionable generalizations to develop a positive Liberal and Justin Trudeau narrative in an attempt to influence voter intentions for 2015?

Obviously the answer is yes, it is pure pro-Liberal propaganda, since, as I said at the start of this post,  a decline of 3% Liberal support is not an improvement. In fact, even if we were to accept the 3% margin of error, it still leaves Liberal support static, not shifting upwards.

C/P Jack’s Newswatch. Welcome readers.