I may be an outlier here, but I actually liked Poilievre's response (although I agree with a lot of the points you made). I am interested in rhetorical analysis and media bias, so I look at these interactions as little case studies :-).
As an aside about 20 years ago, I recall a CTV reporter interviewing a volunteer spokesperson for a rally. The reporter kept trying the gotcha angle. The spokesperson was polite and handled herself well, but I really wish she had been a bit more gutsy (a la Pierre) in her response. Reporters aren't always unbiased good guys. They often have their angle/agenda and try to steer an interview in a particular way. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Nobody wants to read stream-of-consciousness from a reporter. The angle helps them focus their story and tells them what info to cut. But they do have to be seen to be impartial. If they don't, they need to be prepared to be called out on it.
I've worked both as a freelance writer and in PR. When working PR for a kid-friendly org, it amazed me how many journalists wanted freebies to cover events. We gave freebies for certain events that we wanted to promote. But one time, a prominent journalists raked me over the coals for not giving a freebie to the venue itself. AND, get this! He wanted a free pass for his wife and kid. He couldn't attend, but he would based his "free publicity" on his family members' experience.
You'll have to forgive me for not always being on the media's side. A lot of times, they deserve the bad rap they get. There are a lot of highly unscrupulous journalists.
And that's why I pay for the Line, The Real Story, Blacklock's etc. I also pay for my local community paper, mostly so the delivery guy has a job. One thing about having my tax dollars go to the mainstream outlets is that I don't feel at all guilty about not giving them a penny of my take-home pay. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I think that the problem with the media is that they are the messenger of what has been a few years of continual bad news. The media has taken to suggesting what words we can no longer use, parroting politicians weasel words and telling us that we are phobic about one or two things, racist and; well, generally, we are the somehow the problem and the government (and branches of the government that now includes media) are here to help us.
As was mentioned in your podcast, journalists have gotten to know the politicians and generally understand the problems that the politicians have. Political scientists have pointed out that politicians live in a bubble and the longer a politician is in power the more they see less of what their constituents’ problems are and see the constituents as the problem. This view is reflected in the journalists reporting.
Reporters may see Freeland as a person they know and as a friend. Us plebes see Freeland as patronizing, condescending and completely out of touch while reaching into our pocket book. I won’t go into what many of us see Trudeau as.
We are forced to pay for the CBC ‘news’ (using the term loosely) which is only watched by 4.4% (and dropping) of the population. I prefer to pay for reporting that I feel is balanced (hence your podcast) and truthful, truthful being the important part of this sentence. If Canadians could choose, CBC would be gone and CTV and Global would have to up their game to get market share.
So, let me see if I have this right ... politicians are the reason that the general public doesn't trust the media. What planet did I just beam in from??? Politicians are small l liberals for the most part and they have sucked up to Liberals and the NDP for so many years that there is little line left especially now that I am paying their salaries!!!! He who pays the piper calls the tune BUT the media lobied for the cash and have no qualms about taking it ... and you blame the politicians?
Ms. Freeland has been a great finance minister??? The woman doesn't know the word no adn would never say it to justin in any event. Why else do we have a huge deficite and a growing deficit and debt??? If you ran your house finances like they have run the countries you'd both be in a box on the street right now. Freeland has been condescending to the general public (you know, we tax payers) since the get go. You seem to be able to see that in Polievre but not the Liberals - check your rose coloured glasses folks. Ms bobble head is the epitomie of the phrase "there is nothing more dangerous than an idiot who thinks they are a genius" and most of the rest of the Liberal cabinet is in the same boat.
Oh, Polievre pushes back agains loaded questions because, yes, the media doesn't like him or the party. Why else do we see so many "well aren't you dog whistling to the right wing?" and "peiple say you are taking a page from Donald Trump's play book" sort of questions. You are right, he pushes back because he is better prepared than the media. So how be the media start throwing some hard ball questions at Justin for a change and holding him to account to answer?
Is Polievre perfect? No. but he has a brain that he uses and seems to have policy ideas that the majority of Canadians see appeal in despite fear that he is a social conservative.
On a brighter note, I subscribe and listen just so that I can hear a different point of view on some issues and, i wil again say that swearing is not putting a professional spin on your pod casts and, no I am not a prude nor am I against swearing as such.
I find JG refreshing in both style and content. She comes across as someone I am talking with, either across the table or during a walk. Honest, open, straight up. Yup, I love listening to her.
Unlike some, sorry, many in your profession who are full on talking down to me. A.C. is the easy target regarding that. Politeness forces me to stop on this subject.
Re PP and his treatment of your admitted friends. Others here have clearly stated where it comes from and in your podcast you completely fail to address why he answers how he does, instead blaming "me" because I have a low opinion of the media. Tackle the real reason. Which you bring up in the government bailout discussion but never swing back to PP. The media is already paid to treat both sides differently and you know it. We all do. It gets worse from here. You also know that and hint at it but never swing back to the reasons PP is cautious and confrontational.
Freeland has been addressed here also but yes, she is a terrible fiscal manager, condescending in a manner I have never seen in a politician and completely at odds with how I see a leader should be. I believe you have softened her failings somewhat too much.
I know you don't like this sort of feedback. I won't/don't do it often. Cheers
I don’t mind this kind of feedback but I don’t fully agree. The media bailout is bad. It is corrosive to public trust in the media. But the collapse in the public esteem predates it. It is perhaps an accelerator. I suspect that it is! But it’s not a cause. It’s making thing worse.
Hi Matt, Love The Line! About the media: Back in the mid-80's, I did an MBA. In the Microeconomics course, the Prof would bring in articles from the G&M and ask us what economic concept that author had f'd up or had no clue about. After a few dozen of those I never looked at the G&M the same way. And I stopped subscribing. Later on I did an MSc in Environmental Management. In due course I gave up on all the media promoting hysterical flaming planet BS (including The Economist). Then one day I heard Anna Maria Trimonte (I am surely mispelling that name) call up Henry Kissinger and ask one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions. He hung up. A really informative interview that was. And I gave up on the CBC. All this was before the bailouts obviously (I am annoyingly old). The Line works for me because your thinking is pretty much out loud and your perspectives are clear and I sense no condescension. With the MSM, I feel like stupid people are trying to con me. Life is short. Money is for my kids. I won't spend either time or money (except what is extorted from me) on Trudo's MSM parasites.
I'm curious: when do you think it started? I've been scrutinizing media bias since about 2000. And I am pretty sure it was around long before I started paying attention. Yellow journalism is not new. I am not accusing all outlets getting the subsidy of yellow journalism, but am saying that they aren't all deserving of esteem either.
I’m not really sure how to answer that. I wasn’t even responding exactly to the issue of bias, so much as I was public esteem in the media. I’ll have to see if I can find any Canadian data on that but there is a ton of American data. And public confidence in the media writ large has been tanking as far back as the early 1990s. it might actually be even earlier than that, I’d have to sit down and look at some of the previous reports. But I grabbed the one from Gallup that was released just a few weeks ago, and it shows a multi-decade trend of rapidly eroding public confidence that goes back at least 30 years. I think a great many people confuse whatever they find personally irritating with the situation with what the public writ large is feeling.
Decline in media trust began with the atomization of the media market, and in tandem with decline in social trust as a whole. More options created more echo chambers, which eroded unifying cultural narratives, which led to more erosion and splintering. We are all trapped in an un-virtuous cycle now. JG
Another way to put it: disintermediation led to the collapse of the illusion of institutional authority. Media credibility was one of many casualties. JG
sure; but what we need is for media to include itself more often in the analysis of the problem. (I believe JG had this frustrating experience recently, or maybe Bari Weiss, at a conference of journalists.) Way too often looks like the same deflection politicians make and media reports with frustration. The atomization was in part a reflection of our frustration with media not taking it's responsibility seriously enough. Made a ton of white space.
As collective anxiety increases, and our critical thinking, depth of understanding is downgraded by SM, more and more rely on urgency to justify putting their thumbs on the scale. Some believe it's their obligation as journalists to insert themselves. (One editor said to me, "there are no bystanders.") In the worst cases, it's just personal ambition.
(ask me about an alt-reality interview I did w CTV in the early oughts. the producer/reporter showed up with her story intact and ignored every inconvenient fact w insouciance, lol)
I am okay with people's biases, so maybe that was the wrong word. Agenda is possibly more correct. For example, when there's a news story regarding firearms and the reporter goes for the angle they want to go with, blatantly disregarding the facts. That's the sort of thing I am referring to.
I actually like when my opinions and biases are challenged by facts. But so much of today's discourse, including that of some in the media, is random discarding of ideas with the inclusion of stupid name-calling like Pee Pee, Trudope, anti-vaxxer, etc.
I long for the days when I used to hold off forming an opinion until I got my Maclean's issue and fully read the commentary by so many different writers who didn't agree on everything. Those were the days, my friend.
Whatever politicians happen to do that's inimical to journalism is overkill anyway, given journalism's own suicidal behaviour. Any journalist who honestly believes the reasons why journalism's credibility is on life support can be traced back to politicians should himself have chosen a different career.
I suggest viewers and listeners keep track of the number of times an interviewer asks a question, doesn’t get an answer, and doesn’t challenge the interviewee to answer the question asked. Politicians are skilled at this practice but evasion isn’t limited to this group alone; business leaders, sports figures and civil servants among others frequently dodge questions with evasive or obfuscating answers. This lack of follow-up questions is more often apparent with younger newer journalists (journalism schools are you listening?).
I first observed this as a young man working for CBC TV in Vancouver in the 1960’s. B.C. Premier W.A.C Bennett was a past master of this tactic. Later, as general manager of an interior B.C. broadcast company I oversaw multiple newsrooms and worked with dozens of young journalist to correct this failing.
I have great respect for countless journalists. It’s a difficult job and Canada has many examples of journalists doing a brilliant job, but better training and management monitoring would be welcome. Public trust in the media might also be improved.
My biggest complaint with a lot of political interviews is that neither the subject nor the interviewer seem to have much of a grasp of the subject matter. How many times have you heard politicians regurgitate talking points about while obviously having a superficial understanding of their portfolio? How often have you heard an interviewer sticking to a script and unable to cross-examine their subject?
Jen, have you forgotten about all the horrible things that Chrystia Freeland has done? When Jodi Wilson-Raybould and and Jane Philpott where thrown out by Trudeau, Freeland stood by him loyally, always a Trudeau yes-woman. She was absolutely thrilled to be freezing bank accounts of truckers during the protests, which I still hear people in other countries talking about with absolute shock and horror. She has deep roots in Ukraine, which means she of all people should know that someone who fought against the Russians in WWII was fighting on the German side, but she nonetheless applauded in the House enthusiastically for Hunka. I could go on and on about her. In terms of her performance as Minister of Finance, I will go toe to toe with you on this - she has been terrible. I was not a huge fan of Bill Morneau, but in comparison he was the grownup in the room.
The cause then may be tribal. In that the journalist tribes are progressives who constantly wish to tear down society versus those of us who need to feed our families with the possible view that Max and PP are the journalists enemies because they represent the workers. From what I see that's how the scribes, at least MSM scribes, treat M and PP. Yet JT and the corrosive Jag get "what did you have for supper" questions.
I'm just wondering where you get the idea that progressives want to tear down society? By definition, progressives want to make things better....not that they aleays succeed. It's possible that the people you dislike are not progressive. Also, I would be careful about thinking that PP cares about workers. He's never been one and the "axe the tax" is more in service of the oil industry than anything else. That's something I think the media should point out but it doesn't look like they've thought of it or bothered to do any digging in that area. They fail us in so many ways. :)
You are wondering? Well that's obtuse... it's pretty obvious the progressive arm is not progressive! As for the carbon tax it is about you and me not the oil companies. The end user pays it on everything. Heat transportation groceries user fees etc as all those costs rise to recover the tax. I spend too much time reading about false renewable so am well aware the carbon tax is not progressive either. Also, because I can see the way the media treats the CPC versus the LPC that does not lead directly to me being a supporter of PP as you appear to have suggested.
You didn't explain why you think "progressives" want to tear down society. As for "axe the tax" there are many ways PM PP could reduce our tax burden. Why does he go all in on the carbon tax? A tax that most of us get back later? (the Liberals have done a terrible job of making that clear.) A few years ago some guys from Greenpeace in England pranked an Exxon lobbyist. He thought they were corporate headhunters and he was very open about Exxon's slippery activities. He said that they could advertise that Exxon supported a carbon tax in the US because it made them look good but they knew it would never happen. When the pranksters asked why, he said that "Joe Manchin is our guy in the senate. We talk to his office on a weekly basis." The oil industry really does not want a carbon tax and PP really wants to please them. Any (short term) benefit to us is a side bonus.
I don't think "progressives" around me WANT to tear down society. I think they ARE doing just that as a result of their religion, and their choices in communication, policy, and what they call "equity."
I reckon it won’t be long before the lists of which media outlets are on the take from big Gov. are compiled. Credibility of the biggest beneficiaries will implode thereafter.
I’ve got some pretty solid Trek nerd credentials (ever been president of a Star Trek club, Matt?), but I suggest the distinction between Star Trek fans and AV club members is a pretty fleeting one to outside observers. At least the AV club kids did some service by wheeling the cart with the TV and VCR from classroom to classroom and gained some useful knowledge from reading those product manuals. I’m not sure I provide a lot of cake from having studied Mike Okuda’s ST:TNG Technical Manual.
I may be an outlier here, but I actually liked Poilievre's response (although I agree with a lot of the points you made). I am interested in rhetorical analysis and media bias, so I look at these interactions as little case studies :-).
As an aside about 20 years ago, I recall a CTV reporter interviewing a volunteer spokesperson for a rally. The reporter kept trying the gotcha angle. The spokesperson was polite and handled herself well, but I really wish she had been a bit more gutsy (a la Pierre) in her response. Reporters aren't always unbiased good guys. They often have their angle/agenda and try to steer an interview in a particular way. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Nobody wants to read stream-of-consciousness from a reporter. The angle helps them focus their story and tells them what info to cut. But they do have to be seen to be impartial. If they don't, they need to be prepared to be called out on it.
I've worked both as a freelance writer and in PR. When working PR for a kid-friendly org, it amazed me how many journalists wanted freebies to cover events. We gave freebies for certain events that we wanted to promote. But one time, a prominent journalists raked me over the coals for not giving a freebie to the venue itself. AND, get this! He wanted a free pass for his wife and kid. He couldn't attend, but he would based his "free publicity" on his family members' experience.
You'll have to forgive me for not always being on the media's side. A lot of times, they deserve the bad rap they get. There are a lot of highly unscrupulous journalists.
And that's why I pay for the Line, The Real Story, Blacklock's etc. I also pay for my local community paper, mostly so the delivery guy has a job. One thing about having my tax dollars go to the mainstream outlets is that I don't feel at all guilty about not giving them a penny of my take-home pay. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Sorry for my stream-of-consciousness rant :-)
I think that the problem with the media is that they are the messenger of what has been a few years of continual bad news. The media has taken to suggesting what words we can no longer use, parroting politicians weasel words and telling us that we are phobic about one or two things, racist and; well, generally, we are the somehow the problem and the government (and branches of the government that now includes media) are here to help us.
As was mentioned in your podcast, journalists have gotten to know the politicians and generally understand the problems that the politicians have. Political scientists have pointed out that politicians live in a bubble and the longer a politician is in power the more they see less of what their constituents’ problems are and see the constituents as the problem. This view is reflected in the journalists reporting.
Reporters may see Freeland as a person they know and as a friend. Us plebes see Freeland as patronizing, condescending and completely out of touch while reaching into our pocket book. I won’t go into what many of us see Trudeau as.
We are forced to pay for the CBC ‘news’ (using the term loosely) which is only watched by 4.4% (and dropping) of the population. I prefer to pay for reporting that I feel is balanced (hence your podcast) and truthful, truthful being the important part of this sentence. If Canadians could choose, CBC would be gone and CTV and Global would have to up their game to get market share.
So, let me see if I have this right ... politicians are the reason that the general public doesn't trust the media. What planet did I just beam in from??? Politicians are small l liberals for the most part and they have sucked up to Liberals and the NDP for so many years that there is little line left especially now that I am paying their salaries!!!! He who pays the piper calls the tune BUT the media lobied for the cash and have no qualms about taking it ... and you blame the politicians?
Ms. Freeland has been a great finance minister??? The woman doesn't know the word no adn would never say it to justin in any event. Why else do we have a huge deficite and a growing deficit and debt??? If you ran your house finances like they have run the countries you'd both be in a box on the street right now. Freeland has been condescending to the general public (you know, we tax payers) since the get go. You seem to be able to see that in Polievre but not the Liberals - check your rose coloured glasses folks. Ms bobble head is the epitomie of the phrase "there is nothing more dangerous than an idiot who thinks they are a genius" and most of the rest of the Liberal cabinet is in the same boat.
Oh, Polievre pushes back agains loaded questions because, yes, the media doesn't like him or the party. Why else do we see so many "well aren't you dog whistling to the right wing?" and "peiple say you are taking a page from Donald Trump's play book" sort of questions. You are right, he pushes back because he is better prepared than the media. So how be the media start throwing some hard ball questions at Justin for a change and holding him to account to answer?
Is Polievre perfect? No. but he has a brain that he uses and seems to have policy ideas that the majority of Canadians see appeal in despite fear that he is a social conservative.
On a brighter note, I subscribe and listen just so that I can hear a different point of view on some issues and, i wil again say that swearing is not putting a professional spin on your pod casts and, no I am not a prude nor am I against swearing as such.
In MSM's defense, it really would be a waste of time to throw hard ball or any other kind of questions at evasion artist Justin, wouldn't it?
I can't watch/listen to Freehand. The head-bobbing, the condescension... it's all too much for me.
*Freeland 😂
I like the swearing. lol
Matt
Re your comment on people loving Jen.
I find JG refreshing in both style and content. She comes across as someone I am talking with, either across the table or during a walk. Honest, open, straight up. Yup, I love listening to her.
Unlike some, sorry, many in your profession who are full on talking down to me. A.C. is the easy target regarding that. Politeness forces me to stop on this subject.
Re PP and his treatment of your admitted friends. Others here have clearly stated where it comes from and in your podcast you completely fail to address why he answers how he does, instead blaming "me" because I have a low opinion of the media. Tackle the real reason. Which you bring up in the government bailout discussion but never swing back to PP. The media is already paid to treat both sides differently and you know it. We all do. It gets worse from here. You also know that and hint at it but never swing back to the reasons PP is cautious and confrontational.
Freeland has been addressed here also but yes, she is a terrible fiscal manager, condescending in a manner I have never seen in a politician and completely at odds with how I see a leader should be. I believe you have softened her failings somewhat too much.
I know you don't like this sort of feedback. I won't/don't do it often. Cheers
Geoff
I don’t mind this kind of feedback but I don’t fully agree. The media bailout is bad. It is corrosive to public trust in the media. But the collapse in the public esteem predates it. It is perhaps an accelerator. I suspect that it is! But it’s not a cause. It’s making thing worse.
Hi Matt, Love The Line! About the media: Back in the mid-80's, I did an MBA. In the Microeconomics course, the Prof would bring in articles from the G&M and ask us what economic concept that author had f'd up or had no clue about. After a few dozen of those I never looked at the G&M the same way. And I stopped subscribing. Later on I did an MSc in Environmental Management. In due course I gave up on all the media promoting hysterical flaming planet BS (including The Economist). Then one day I heard Anna Maria Trimonte (I am surely mispelling that name) call up Henry Kissinger and ask one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions. He hung up. A really informative interview that was. And I gave up on the CBC. All this was before the bailouts obviously (I am annoyingly old). The Line works for me because your thinking is pretty much out loud and your perspectives are clear and I sense no condescension. With the MSM, I feel like stupid people are trying to con me. Life is short. Money is for my kids. I won't spend either time or money (except what is extorted from me) on Trudo's MSM parasites.
I'm curious: when do you think it started? I've been scrutinizing media bias since about 2000. And I am pretty sure it was around long before I started paying attention. Yellow journalism is not new. I am not accusing all outlets getting the subsidy of yellow journalism, but am saying that they aren't all deserving of esteem either.
I’m not really sure how to answer that. I wasn’t even responding exactly to the issue of bias, so much as I was public esteem in the media. I’ll have to see if I can find any Canadian data on that but there is a ton of American data. And public confidence in the media writ large has been tanking as far back as the early 1990s. it might actually be even earlier than that, I’d have to sit down and look at some of the previous reports. But I grabbed the one from Gallup that was released just a few weeks ago, and it shows a multi-decade trend of rapidly eroding public confidence that goes back at least 30 years. I think a great many people confuse whatever they find personally irritating with the situation with what the public writ large is feeling.
Decline in media trust began with the atomization of the media market, and in tandem with decline in social trust as a whole. More options created more echo chambers, which eroded unifying cultural narratives, which led to more erosion and splintering. We are all trapped in an un-virtuous cycle now. JG
Another way to put it: disintermediation led to the collapse of the illusion of institutional authority. Media credibility was one of many casualties. JG
...in addition to some of the choices and behaviours of media that made us all wonder who was being served...
sure; but what we need is for media to include itself more often in the analysis of the problem. (I believe JG had this frustrating experience recently, or maybe Bari Weiss, at a conference of journalists.) Way too often looks like the same deflection politicians make and media reports with frustration. The atomization was in part a reflection of our frustration with media not taking it's responsibility seriously enough. Made a ton of white space.
As collective anxiety increases, and our critical thinking, depth of understanding is downgraded by SM, more and more rely on urgency to justify putting their thumbs on the scale. Some believe it's their obligation as journalists to insert themselves. (One editor said to me, "there are no bystanders.") In the worst cases, it's just personal ambition.
(ask me about an alt-reality interview I did w CTV in the early oughts. the producer/reporter showed up with her story intact and ignored every inconvenient fact w insouciance, lol)
I am okay with people's biases, so maybe that was the wrong word. Agenda is possibly more correct. For example, when there's a news story regarding firearms and the reporter goes for the angle they want to go with, blatantly disregarding the facts. That's the sort of thing I am referring to.
I actually like when my opinions and biases are challenged by facts. But so much of today's discourse, including that of some in the media, is random discarding of ideas with the inclusion of stupid name-calling like Pee Pee, Trudope, anti-vaxxer, etc.
I long for the days when I used to hold off forming an opinion until I got my Maclean's issue and fully read the commentary by so many different writers who didn't agree on everything. Those were the days, my friend.
I like the part where you said you like me. JG
I like Jen too. It was her conversation with Tara Henley that got me here.
JG is the Lennon to MG's McCartney
Whatever politicians happen to do that's inimical to journalism is overkill anyway, given journalism's own suicidal behaviour. Any journalist who honestly believes the reasons why journalism's credibility is on life support can be traced back to politicians should himself have chosen a different career.
Millei is what happens when the “serious people” consistently fuck up.
See also:
Trump, Donald
Biden, Joseph
Trudeau, Justin
Johnson, Boris
I could likely go on.
I suggest viewers and listeners keep track of the number of times an interviewer asks a question, doesn’t get an answer, and doesn’t challenge the interviewee to answer the question asked. Politicians are skilled at this practice but evasion isn’t limited to this group alone; business leaders, sports figures and civil servants among others frequently dodge questions with evasive or obfuscating answers. This lack of follow-up questions is more often apparent with younger newer journalists (journalism schools are you listening?).
I first observed this as a young man working for CBC TV in Vancouver in the 1960’s. B.C. Premier W.A.C Bennett was a past master of this tactic. Later, as general manager of an interior B.C. broadcast company I oversaw multiple newsrooms and worked with dozens of young journalist to correct this failing.
I have great respect for countless journalists. It’s a difficult job and Canada has many examples of journalists doing a brilliant job, but better training and management monitoring would be welcome. Public trust in the media might also be improved.
My biggest complaint with a lot of political interviews is that neither the subject nor the interviewer seem to have much of a grasp of the subject matter. How many times have you heard politicians regurgitate talking points about while obviously having a superficial understanding of their portfolio? How often have you heard an interviewer sticking to a script and unable to cross-examine their subject?
As an AV nerd, I am mildly offended. Sadly, I’m used to the abuse and will maintain my subscription.
I wish my high school had an AV in back in the day. Maybe I would have made some long lasting friends
Jen, have you forgotten about all the horrible things that Chrystia Freeland has done? When Jodi Wilson-Raybould and and Jane Philpott where thrown out by Trudeau, Freeland stood by him loyally, always a Trudeau yes-woman. She was absolutely thrilled to be freezing bank accounts of truckers during the protests, which I still hear people in other countries talking about with absolute shock and horror. She has deep roots in Ukraine, which means she of all people should know that someone who fought against the Russians in WWII was fighting on the German side, but she nonetheless applauded in the House enthusiastically for Hunka. I could go on and on about her. In terms of her performance as Minister of Finance, I will go toe to toe with you on this - she has been terrible. I was not a huge fan of Bill Morneau, but in comparison he was the grownup in the room.
Terrible compared to what, though? JG
James Michael Flaherty PC MSC (December 30, 1949 – April 10, 2014)
You are totally correct. She's bad news in a red dress.
Loved the episode but can’t get the testicle reference out of my head so thanks for that Jen. 😵💫🫨😬
“The wife of Caesar must be not only without guilt, but above suspicion.”
But I don’t think they spend much time on the classics in J-School nowadays.
(Yes, I was even less cool than the AV nerds in school.)
It’s pronounced mil-lay
I think more subsidies will lead to more Mansbridge-like interviews, such as the one Blatchford discusses here https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-when-a-cloying-peter-mansbridge-became-too-much-for-even-trudeau-to-take
The cause then may be tribal. In that the journalist tribes are progressives who constantly wish to tear down society versus those of us who need to feed our families with the possible view that Max and PP are the journalists enemies because they represent the workers. From what I see that's how the scribes, at least MSM scribes, treat M and PP. Yet JT and the corrosive Jag get "what did you have for supper" questions.
I'm just wondering where you get the idea that progressives want to tear down society? By definition, progressives want to make things better....not that they aleays succeed. It's possible that the people you dislike are not progressive. Also, I would be careful about thinking that PP cares about workers. He's never been one and the "axe the tax" is more in service of the oil industry than anything else. That's something I think the media should point out but it doesn't look like they've thought of it or bothered to do any digging in that area. They fail us in so many ways. :)
You are wondering? Well that's obtuse... it's pretty obvious the progressive arm is not progressive! As for the carbon tax it is about you and me not the oil companies. The end user pays it on everything. Heat transportation groceries user fees etc as all those costs rise to recover the tax. I spend too much time reading about false renewable so am well aware the carbon tax is not progressive either. Also, because I can see the way the media treats the CPC versus the LPC that does not lead directly to me being a supporter of PP as you appear to have suggested.
You didn't explain why you think "progressives" want to tear down society. As for "axe the tax" there are many ways PM PP could reduce our tax burden. Why does he go all in on the carbon tax? A tax that most of us get back later? (the Liberals have done a terrible job of making that clear.) A few years ago some guys from Greenpeace in England pranked an Exxon lobbyist. He thought they were corporate headhunters and he was very open about Exxon's slippery activities. He said that they could advertise that Exxon supported a carbon tax in the US because it made them look good but they knew it would never happen. When the pranksters asked why, he said that "Joe Manchin is our guy in the senate. We talk to his office on a weekly basis." The oil industry really does not want a carbon tax and PP really wants to please them. Any (short term) benefit to us is a side bonus.
I don't think "progressives" around me WANT to tear down society. I think they ARE doing just that as a result of their religion, and their choices in communication, policy, and what they call "equity."
I reckon it won’t be long before the lists of which media outlets are on the take from big Gov. are compiled. Credibility of the biggest beneficiaries will implode thereafter.
I’ve got some pretty solid Trek nerd credentials (ever been president of a Star Trek club, Matt?), but I suggest the distinction between Star Trek fans and AV club members is a pretty fleeting one to outside observers. At least the AV club kids did some service by wheeling the cart with the TV and VCR from classroom to classroom and gained some useful knowledge from reading those product manuals. I’m not sure I provide a lot of cake from having studied Mike Okuda’s ST:TNG Technical Manual.