Do we need Michael Chong to reform the At Issue panel?

On Thursday evening I was on a United flight somewhere over south-western Ontario, so I couldn't watch the week's At Issue panel on CBC's The National. I could read the transcript though, which is often more amusing than the live video anyways.

It seems on Thursday Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne really went at it over the Maclean's Quebec corruption issue. And understandably so, given where each of them is coming from.

As I read the transcript though, I was reminded of a bit they used to do on the Daily Show: great moments in punditry as read by children. They would take a particularly ridiculous segment from Crossfire or one of those shows, give the transcripts to children, and have them read it out. It really seemed to add a certain perspective.

I think this exchange between Coyne and Hebert would be a really good fit for a punditry as read by children segment:

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

... But to suggest this is some sort of beyond the pale and an assault on Quebecers' dignity or that it has no foundation, as Chantal said, I just think does not itself have any foundation.

CHANTAL HÉBERT ("TORONTO STAR"):

Well, you… then I guess the onus…

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

Hang on, let me finish, please. Let me finish, please. Let me finish, please.

CHANTAL HÉBERT ("TORONTO STAR"):

No, no, but the onus is…

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

I'm sorry, I'm going to finish.

PETER MANSBRIDGE (HOST):

One at a time, one at a time.

CHANTAL HÉBERT ("TORONTO STAR"):

No, no, no, no. You've had the stage all week.

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

I'm going to finish. I'm going to finish, Chantal, I'm going to finish...

Somehow I think reading this exchange in transcript-form really underlines the absurdity. And where's Michael Chong when you need him? Clearly we need comprehensive reforms to bringing civility back to the at issue panel!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'll be back...just not quite yet...first, to Israel

Apologies for this corner having gone dark recently.

It's been a busy stretch at work, including spending most of the last week in Las Vegas for HP's Americas Partner conference. It's an event that always generates lots to cover for us, but then throw in HP deciding to drop $1.2 billion to buy Palm while I was there, and it got even busier. Was a fun trip though. Stayed at one of the newer Vegas properties, Aria, and I quite liked it. Unlike most cavernous Vegas properties where they don't want you to be reminded of the world outside, Aria has lots of glass and natural light. And there's also a route from your room to the conference centre that doesn't involve going through the casino , a first in my Vegas experience and surely a design flaw... And speaking of the casino, I'm not a big gambler but did finish in the green, including a win in the sports book from taking the Habs in game six. Didn't bet on game seven; they surprised me there.

After less than three days back home though, on Sunday afternoon I'm on the road again, but this time for pleasure. I've been invited on a week-long trip to Israel, organized by the CIC and funded by a private donor. Steve at Far and Wide will also be coming, along with some NDP/left-wing bloggers I look forward to meeting. Steve has a good run-down in the itinerary so I won't re-hash it, suffice to say it's busy, diverse and interesting. A good mix of sight-seeing and meetings with an interesting group of local politicians, journalists and bloggers, and even our ambassador to Israel. I shall try to approach it all with an open, but slightly skeptical mind. (If you're interested, here is the current Coles Notes of my opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.)

I'm not sure the schedule will allow for much time for blogging during the trip, but I shall try, and certainly I'll have lots to say and share upon my return. All I ask are for two things while I'm gone: my Canucks to still be playing hockey, and my country not to have bumbled its way into an election.

Since my hiatus is to continue a little longer, a few brief thoughts on recent developments in Canadian political land:

* While we've all been distracted with either Jaffer/Guergis nonsense or the detainee docudrama, the Liberals have actually been talking and releasing policy. And much of it is aimed at rural Canada. First was some very sensible ideas around getting more doctors and nurses into rural areas by, among other things, forgiving part of their student loans if they make that commitment. This was followed by a "Canada First Good Policy" to support and promote local farmers and access to safe, healthy food, and a commitment to rural postal service.

Of course, policy isn't sexy enough for media coverage these days so you may not have heard about any of this, and the punditry that scolded the Liberals for not talking policy are, when they talk about it at all, scolding them for talking policy. Outside the Ottawa bubble, however, Canadians are much more concerned about finding a family doctor than they are about who Rahim Jaffer e-mailed. So I hope we keep pushing the policy.

* That's not to say the Jaffer/Guergis stuff isn't important. The investigations should proceed, and if serving ministers acting inappropriately or in contravention of the rules, that should be exposed and they should face the consequences. The e-mails and other documents that came out this week certainly seem to show that the Conservatives have been far from honest about Jaffer's access and influence in his seemingly not overly successful non-lobbying career. And it's often more the lack of honesty than the actual deeds that seems to hurt more in these stories, in my experience.

* On the docu-drama, the speaker's ruling this week was certainly very significant, as was the reaction of Conservative partisans. I think what some of them fail to recognize is that this isn't really about detainee torture anymore. It's about democracy, and it's about the right and responsibility of the legislative branch to be a check on the activities of the executive branch. Harper was elected by a little over 38,000 people in Calgary Southwest; he has no right to thumb his nose at the Parliament of Canada.

One has to think saner heads will prevail here. Ignore the testosterone-fueled rantings of the likes of Kory Teneycke. The Conservatives don't want an election over this. They won't be able to make it about coddling the Taliban, it's an asinine argument. It would be about a dictatorial leader refusing to respect the will of the people's elected democratic representatives. And the Cons didn't exactly fare well during the prorogation drama, now did they?

There will be a compromise reached that allows the opposition access to the uncensored documents, likely in a secret or confidential manner that respects national security concerns. We've seen signals along those lines already from Conservaland. Ironically, always concerned about political posturing and positioning, they're already trying to paint such a compromise as an opposition back-down. Truth is though, the opposition has been proposing such a scenario for months; the government has continually rebuffed it. So, as much as it matters, it would be them backing down. Let's just hope saner heads prevail all around though.

* Speaking of saner heads, the head of our military, General Walter Natynczyk, is cool with giving all of the un-redacted documents to parliament, saying the military has nothing to hide. Which raises two questions for me. One: must it be the Harper government with something to hide then? And two, if we employ standard Conservative logic here and respond as the government would in question period, I have to ask, why does our Chief of Defence Staff not support our troops, and why is he a Taliban sympathizer?

* Speaking of interlopers in our midst, turns out that pollster Frank Graves, who the Conservatives are portraying as some kind of undercover Liberal mole polluting the public airwaves of the CBC pretending to be unbiased, has actually been getting millions of dollars of polling contracts from the Conservative government. Including $131,440 from Harper's own Privy Council Office.

I'm sure Dean Del Mastro will join me in demanding that a Parliamentary Committee immediately investigate how this government could give millions of dollars in polling work to a know Liberal stooge. Or maybe they could just, you know, admit this whole manufactured drama is stupid and move on to serious issues. Either one would be fine.

* And on Graves and this culture war nonesense the Cons are hyper-ventilating about, I could go on at length but let me just say this: the Cons have been fighting a culture-war for years in this country. Urban vs. rural, Tim Horton's vs. academic elites and fancy gala goers, support the troops vs you're all taliban lovers, tough on crime vs hug-a-thug. They've been fighting a culture war, we just haven't been fighting back. All Graves "advised" was for the Liberals to start employing some wedges of their own, to fight back, to basically use some of the same tactics Harper et. al. have to some success. And this is news, somehow? For the Cons to be all bitchy about someone suggesting their own tactics be used against them, tactics which have been part of politics, by the way, forever, is just stupid.

* Lastly, I have a great deal of respect for Ujjal Dosanjh, for what he has consistently and resolutely stood for throughout his career, the principled approach he takes to public life, and the energy and commitment with which he approaches it. And I join those who have condemned the threats and attacks against him and others who have dared to stand up to extremism in any of its guises. I'm no sure I agree completely with his take on the impact multiculturalism is having on Canadian society. But it's an important issue we should be debating, and it should be a debate free of threat and intimidation, in the best of Canadian traditions.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The demographics around the anti-prorogation anger

In an interview with Kathleen Petty yesterday on CBC Radio's The House, pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research made some interesting points about what his research is showing him about the growing discontent with the Stephen Harper Conservatives around the decision to shutter parliament for two months. The short of it: it's not just the usual suspects that are annoyed, and it goes deeper that the prorogation.

Here's a transcript. Emphasis is mine:

KATHLEEN PETTY (HOST):
Well apparently, Michael Ignatieff is not alone; In a national poll released by the firm EKOS, two thirds of respondents didn't think the move was crazy, necessarily, but they did know the Prime Minister shut down Parliament, and of those, nearly 60 percent were opposed to the prorogation. Frank Graves is the president of EKOS; he joins me in the studio. Good morning, welcome to "The House."

FRANK GRAVES (PRESIDENT, EKOS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES):
Good to be here.

PETTY:
So, is it the number or is it the demographic behind that number that really tells the story, here?

GRAVES:
Well, I think they're both interesting, but perhaps a more interesting thing, which hasn't really been discussed at this point, is the demographic. There's another very interesting feature to the demographic, but I think the most striking one is the... how much this issue has caught the attention of the most educated portions of the electorate and the "baby boom" cohort, which as we know, has been an extremely influential and large portion of the electorate, ones that all show up to vote, ones who have an inordinate level of influence. You could argue that this particular group has exerted almost a stranglehold over the political system for a long time. This group has been pretty solidly onside with Mr. Harper for some time, now. They came onside in the last election and were one of the keys to this success which almost propelled him to a majority victory. So, the fact that they're now having second thoughts about this particular issue... I think this particular issue has become a bit of lightning rod which is capturing a broader sense of disaffection on a number of other issues which have occurred previous to it, but it is something that probably signals greater importance as time goes on, or it could potentially do that.

PETTY:
It also speaks to whether it can be sustained, it seems to me. Because if you're talking about people who are influential and who are opinion leaders, then the ability to sustain a dissatisfaction or unhappiness with prorogation... it seems to me that the likelihood is higher in that case.

GRAVES:
Absolutely, and I think just to add further credibility to that thesis, it's my sense that we've seen a bit of a turnaround in some of the elite intelligentsia coverage of Mr. Harper, which has moved from this very fawning applause that we saw concurrent with the NAC performance - which also, coincidentally, coincided with him moving into majority territory, he was around 42 points, then. Today, he's around 33 points, but it does seem that there's now... We have front page editorials from the Globe and Mail, we have him pilloried by The Economist -

PETTY:
And we've got a trend, and that's the other interesting part. You talk about the NAC performance, but as you take a look at your polling over a period of time, the gap between the Tories and the Liberals used to be wide.

GRAVES:
Almost insurmountable; You had a daunting 15-point lead which was understating the Conservative edge, because the Conservatives have a much more committed voter base, so in fact, when they were running 41-42 points, our calculations are that they would have produced a very decisive majority in the neighbourhood of 180 seats at that point. Today, these numbers would suggest that they're at least as close, probably... no they are closer to actually sitting on the wrong side of the House than they are to that goal of forming a majority.

PETTY:
But these numbers aren't just because of prorogation; it's a cumulative effect to which prorogation has sort of added an extra push, in your view.

GRAVES:
Yeah, but it seems to me that now, this latest issue shouldn't be judged just in terms of, "are people really that upset about prorogation?", or has it become something which captures a broader critical mass of concerns about -

PETTY:
Emblematic.

GRAVES:
Yes, and you're quite right. The decline that we'd seen in sort of... "propeller head" terminology was a monotonic progressive straight-line decline. It was up here or... it wasn't oscillating up and down, it was on a very well- behaved statistical pattern. It seemed to have stopped when Parliament recessed, and this newest episode... remember, over the Christmas period, there's really. .. nothing else happened that would explain why we saw a further three-point drop, which in our samples, which are very large, was highly statistically and substantially significant. So, the only thing that plausibly explains it, and when you link it back as well to concerns about this and look where the attrition occurred, it was this same group that we were talking about before, the "boomers", the educated, and so forth, who seemed to have had some serious second thoughts. That may not be permanent, but it's something which is perhaps more important than the usual sort of three-point fluctuations that you might see on a day-to-day basis.

PETTY:
Okay, well you've given us stuff to watch for, and we will watch for it. Frank, thanks very much.

GRAVES:
Okay, my pleasure.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: On CBC's Power and Politics

Every Friday, CBC's Power & Politics show has a bloggers panel. This week, I was invited to participate in the panel along with conservative blogger Adrian MacNair, CBC resident blogger extraordinaire Kady O'Malley, and of course host Evan Solomon.

I've done some radio stuff before, and I did one taped interview for CTV Newsnet during the Liberal convention in Montreal, but this was my first time with live tv and I was rather nervous. I always like to joke I have a face for radio and a voice for print.

It was an interesting experience. It was done by satellite with Adrian in Vancouver, and Evan and Kady in Ottawa. So I rushed home to shave and change (decided against a tie because, after all, I'm a blogger) and headed downtown to the Mother Corp. HQ on Front Street. A producer brought me in through the halls I recognized from Ken Finkleman's The Newsroom, and into the non-fictional CBC newsroom, where the shoot the satellite pieces.

It's an interesting set-up. At one end of the large, open-concept room there's a little raised platform with a camera and two chairs, that's where they shoot the pieces. And around us, the producers and journalists were at work. I had some time to kill so I took a seat in the newsroom and had a look around. I think they were working on that night's The National beside me, they were watching a live closed-circuit feed of the Montreal/Boston game, and Wendy Mesley came by to check in with them.

When the time for my segment approached I sat in the large chair and they wired me up with an ear piece and mic. It was a little weird because you're told to look directly into the camera and pretend the person you're talking to is there, but you can't see anything there, it' a blank screen. So it's hard to feel like you're really talking to someone. There's a monitor off to the left, but if you look at it you're looking off camera and appear shifty. The camera guy actually tilted the monitor away from me to I guess help me resist temptation, but I still looked over when I was off camera to try to feel a little more comfortable. I think it would be a lot more fun to do it with the other guests in studio.

Content-wise, the segment felt like it went pretty fast, and I think it went alright. I was rather nervous and felt I didn't remember to make all the points I wanted, and I feel I didn't do a good job of what they primarily wanted: talk about how the blogs have shaped the two issues we were discussing, the climate change e-mails and the Afghan torture documents.

On the e-mails, the point I tried to make was that, first of all, I doubt any of the bloggers going crazy on both sides have actually read all 3000 pages of e-mails. Those I've read that have, and considered them in context, conclude there isn't much at all to this story. But by and large, this is red meat for the deniers and a few bad pr days for supporters. But at the end of the day, climate change denial is no longer a mainstream position. There is broad societal acceptance that climate change is real, and we need to act. There is disagreement on what the action should be, for sure. But even the Conservative government agrees climate change is real. Denial is an increasingly fringe position, and no coordinated campaign to hack climate scientists around the world to steal e-mails is likely to change that. But the blogs do give these groups the opportunity to spread their theories and find like-minded supporters, and spread their views with or without the MSM.

On the torture e-mails, on this one I don't think the blogs have been necessarily active in shaping the story. There have been cases where the media have ignored a story for whatever reason, and after much publicity on the blogs they were forced to cover it. In this case though, the media and the blogs have both been all over it from the start. The blogs have been doing some good watchdog work though -- they were all over Christie Blatchford -- and have been helpful tracking the shifting changes in Conservative positions from day to day and keeping things in context. That's perhaps the best difference blogs can make: they can be more analytical and big picture. The MSM tend to focus on spot news without considering the wider context.

Things seemed to veer off there when Adrian took what seemed to me a shot at Kady's journalistic ethics, which naturally Kady and Evan took exception to and led to a spirited back and forth while I watched a little incredulous from Toronto, pondering if I should have prepared an attack line against my hosts (maybe something like "Evan Solomon, Don Newman was a way snappier dresser!").

I thought Adrian was off-base. The climate gate nonsense has gotten plenty of media play, certainly more than it deserves. To compare it to the torture e-mails is a false comparison. The torture story speaks directly to the behavior of the Canadian government, and has wide-ranging consequences for both the government and our mission in Afghanistan. The climate story may impact support for stronger action on climate change going into Copenhagen, but that's debatable. And while the people pushing the e-mail story insist it's the scandal of the millennium or something, they're unable to prove their case definitively. So instead, they play that favourite tool of the right: blame the media.

Finally, we ended with the sites of the week. I picked The Pundit's Guide, great non-partisan site for tracking party nominations, and for analysis and data on party fund raising and spending. Adrian went with the Canadian Blog Awards (where I'm nominated for Best Political Blog, btw, if you'd like to go vote early and often) and Kady went with Wikileaks.

Without further ado, the video:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Thanks for all the broooadcasts, Don

Even as a fairly nerdy politico, at times I just tune-out some of the political coverage we have on television in Canada. The MPs talking over each other with their talking-points, the screeching party strategists putting out spin that defies all logic, it could become like nails on a chalkboard. The reduction of what should be a serious and weighty thing, the debate over the best governance of our country, to something akin to professional wresting.

But the rare beacon of sanity, the rare bastion of journalism, in that sea of mediocrity was always CBC's Politics, and its venerable host Don Newman. While he'd still have the mandatory panels, he'd keep them in line and he'd make sure that, as the tag line went, the spin stops here.

But it went beyond that. While many hosts would just let the hacks or flacks spout their often ridiculous talking-points unchallenged, Newman always remembered it was the role of the journalist not to give a platform for propaganda, but to challenge, to question, so as to inform Canadians. And that he did, a velvet-glove concealing a steal fist as he challenged countless guests on their spin. Liberal, Conservative, NDP, it didn't matter, Don would call you on it if you tried to sneak one by him. That's all too rare in journalism these days.

And it wasn't just about the day-to-day melodrama of Parliament Hill on Politics. He'd tackle substantive issues, bringing-in experts to discuss an upcoming NATO conference, or trade policy, bringing substance to the often overlooked but very important stories that can impact our lives in a much greater way than who's hot and who's not this week, or what Laureen Harper's cat got up to last week.

Don Newman was a journalist, and I think that's the highest compliment that can be paid him. Thanks for all the broadcasts Don, and so long for now. You'll be missed.

(Here's some highlights from Don's last show:)



(And here's one of my favourite Newman clips, where he relentlessly grills a hapless John Baird during last winter's coalition/prorogation drama. The spin really did stop there that day:)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) CBC's The National on isotope crisis

For those of you looking for a bit of background and more substantive reporting on the whole isotope issue, CBC's The National ran a very informative feature report last night:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why I'll miss Don Newman ...

... and why I suspect John Baird won't: Kick-ass journalism like this:



CBC will have a tough time finding a journalist as tough, fair, and willing to cut through the political BS as Don. He was all too rare a talent in the sea of mediocrity that is political news shows on both sides of the border.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Will Steve Harper bail-out the National Post?

With all the National Post has done for the Conservative movement since 'ol Conrad Black set up shop in Don Mills, a government bail-out would be the least Stephen Harper's Conservatives could do:

The Harper government is considering help for Canada's troubled private TV broadcasters, including looser regulations and tax changes.

In an interview today with The Canadian Press, Heritage Minister James Moore says the government is looking at how to assist CanWest Global, which is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

He suggests the help could come in the form of loosened regulations and changes to the tax system, which would also help other private networks.

CanWest, CTVglobemedia and Quebecor have all been lobbying Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet for assistance.

And wait! What's this?

CanWest hired a former senior adviser to Harper to help with its lobbying efforts.

Quick, to the lobbyist registry! And I'm sure they've waited-out the mandatory cooling off period, right?

So, public assistance for the private media, courtesy Steve Harper's Conservatives. How do you like them apples, CBC?

UPDATE: According to the lobbyist registry, CanWest has no currently registered external lobbyists, but does have a number of internal staff registered to lobby on its behalf. Among them is Charlotte Bell, the vice-president of regulatory affairs, television and radio for CanWest Media Works, whom you may recall caused a little kerfuffle when she was involved in organizing a fundraiser for then Conservative heritage minister Bev Oda:

Heritage Minister Bev Oda has cancelled a fundraising event after critics attacked the fact that it was organized by a woman who lobbies her department.

Charlotte Bell, the vice-president of regulatory affairs, television and radio for CanWest Media Works, had been helping organize the fundraiser to re-elect Ms. Oda, bringing about opposition claims that the Conservatives were not acting as ethically as promised when it comes to corporate influence in politics.

Ms. Oda's spokesman, Chisolm Pothier, said she and Ms. Bell are old friends and the fundraiser was an annual event dating back to Ms. Oda's days in opposition.

"The minister was not aware Charlotte Bell was registered to lobby Canadian Heritage," he said. "To avoid any negative perception, she decided to cancel the event."

However, I don't think she was ever a "senior Harper adviser" though. And none of the other listed internal registered lobbyists appear to have held a "public office."

So the question remains, just who is this former "senior Harper adviser" that CanWest hired to lobby the government to help it stave off bankruptcy, and why aren't they listed in the registry?

Not to mention, of course, why help private broadcasters but tell the CBC to sink or swim?

UPDATE 2.0: More from impolitical.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Kidnappings and the media

I’ve been reading a lot of criticism on the blogs for the Canadian media’s decision to keep quiet, at the request of the government, on the kidnapping of CBC journalist Melissa Fung until her safe release could be secure, for fear publicity could endanger her life. I must say, I tend to side with the media on this one, with one large caveat.

Much is being made of this happening late in the election campaign. I feel that’s largely a red herring. Are we really suggesting news late in the campaign that a journalist from the CBC had been kidnapped in Afghanistan would really have impacted people’s votes? It seems unlikely. It may have called more attention to Afghanistan, which was largely a non-issue in the campaign, but I don’t think it would have changed anyone’s minds on the war, or caused someone to shift their votes.

No, the election timing is irrelevant. Campaign or no, the issue is was the media right to stay silent?

My inclination is to say yes. The public’s right to know does not routinely trump all. Embargos for security reasons are commonplace: for example, during ministerial or Prime Ministerial trips to war zones, details are commonly known to the media but embargoed until after the trip for security reasons. That’s perfectly legitimate.

If the government makes a legitimate request that a kidnapping not be publicized for fear if jeopardizing the person’s safe release, that request should be honoured. The life of a person in danger should, at least temporarily, outweigh the public’s right to know. And they will know eventually, once the danger has passed. If we’re to err, I’d rather err on the side of saving a life.

Now, here’s the caveat. Would the media have made the same right to know vs. safety and security had the kidnapped Canadian not been one of their own, a journalist? What if it was a Canadian aid worker? Or a soldier? If they can answer yes, then I support their decision in the Fung case. If they answer no, then I have a problem.

Obviously it’s harder for them to take a tough line when it’s a colleague’s life on the line, and easier to be dispassionate and hold to journalistic moralities when it’s a stranger. That’s why there needs to be a consistent policy agreed to BEFORE such cases occur.

Either all kidnappings are embargoed for security reasons if requested by the government, or none are. I favour such blackouts, but only if they are consistently applied, and later held up to public scrutiny.

UPDATE: This article summarizes some of the media commentary on the issue.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How about Conrad?

While I think that Dr. Henry Morgentaler is more than deserving of joining the Order of Canada, I wasn’t planning on commenting until I read this silly editorial in the National Post today where they express their opposition:

Conferring this award on Dr. Morgentaler was a mistake -- one we expect will be greeted by many long-standing Orderholders returning their medals and pins. One wonders whether the Order of Canada will ever reclaim its former prestige.

I think we should all watch for what, I’m sure, will be the coming deluge of Order of Canada holders turning in their pins in protest. I bet there are hordes running to Rideau Hall right now. Hopefully the good folks at the Post will keep us regularly up to date on all the names.

And the first one, I hope, should be the guy that founded the National Post, Conrad Black. Or does the Post not think that having a guy in the order that has been convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice, serving 6 ½ years in prison, does a little to hamper its prestige? Perhaps not, since they've defended him every step of the way.

Really though, I think the Morgentaler appointment was just cover for this guy:

The CBC's Peter Mansbridge is to become an officer of the Order of Canada, according to a list of 75 appointees released on Canada Day by Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean.

Mansbridge, the chief correspondent of CBC News, anchors the flagship nightly news program The National and also hosts Newsworld's Mansbridge One on One.

The dreaded CBC! Where are the howls of protest? Thank goodness the right-wing hordes are busy elsewhere. But good for Peter.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Where's your Liberal media bias now?

It's just nice to see not all Conservatives hate the CBC:

Indian Affairs and Northern Development Minister Chuck Strahl has hired a new communications aide in his ministerial political office.

Josée Bellemare, former CBC Radio reporter, started her new job as press secretary to Minister Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon, B.C.) who also is the federal interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians, on Friday, Jan. 25.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dear CBC Sports,

When it's time for the Stanley Cup Finals in a few weeks (with, God willing, the Senators competing) could you please send Bob Cole to the golf course and let young Jimmy Hughson call the play by play?

And if Bob needs Harry Neale to caddy I'd be totally cool with that too.

See you at the next Liberal media conspiracy meeting.

Thanks,

Jeff

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers