Oh look! Look! Loooooooooook!
It’s Rahim Jaffer drinking and driving! And he’s doing coke! And speeding!
And look at his wife, making airport workers curl in a fetal ball on the floor. For shame!
Oh, and now Rahim Jaffer got off with a slap on the wrist. Political interference from his friends in the PMO? No doubt about it.
Ohhhhhhh! Oh look! Busty hookers! Rahim Jaffer! Helena Guergis! Conservative Party!
Does that about sum up the headlines during the past half year? I don’t think I’m too far off the mark, although if I do delve a little deeply into melodramatic hyperbole, it’s still got nothing on the rainforests felled in order to bring the daily gossip on the power couple above the fold on page one.
And that wouldn’t be such a big deal either, if the media was a little consistent in its pit bull attacks. But alas, it isn’t. While we can expect to get “sexy isotopes” and “communiongate” as to what passes for journalism in Ottawa, some stories just don’t really seem to motivate the media.
Take Montreal MP Pablo Rodriguez, for instance, who hasn’t been vilified by the media for refusing to take a breathalyzer test following what appears to be a car accident resulting from intoxication in April. Far from hearing cries of shame from political pundits, the news is positively standoffish, refusing to speculate, draw conjecture, or madly gossip about it on a 24 hour basis as they did Mr.Jaffer.
Why?
The outrage should be even more precipitous for Mr.Rodriguez, since unlike Mr.Jaffer and his wild ride through Palgrave, the Liberal is a sitting MP who actually caused a vehicular accident that could have resulted in bodily harm to other drivers. You would think that the media would be motivated to drag this story into the spotlight, if only to give shelter to the orphan children of Canadian news, “fair” and “balanced”.
Mr.Rodriguez admits he had consumed a “moderate” amount of wine before the accident, which is why a responding police officer asked him to submit to a breathalyzer test. But despite being asked to do this rather simple task, Mr.Rodriguez apparently failed to manage it. The police have charged him with refusing to take the test, under suspicions he was trying to hide his intoxication.
But far from this story beating the fold on page one, it’s pretty much buried somewhere between the sports and the obituaries. Even though the story broke on Friday, there is a grand total of 68 news articles about it on google, with only six of those being original content after duplicates are removed. Of those six, the most recent one is from Saturday.
It isn’t terribly surprising. News has long been shaped into infotainment, custom manufactured for maximum controversy.
Meanwhile, the Jaffer-Guergis war drums continue to beat. Look! Look! Oh, Loooooooooook! It’s a Conservative doing things. And they’re bad!
h/t Dean
Did you not get the memo?
If you watch Avatar, it will explain everything.
Not sure I understand? What does Avatar have to do with the Liberals? lol
I sent an e-mail to CTV tonight asking why this story wasn’t covered by them. It was right after Clown…. I mean Tom Clark asked his lefty stacked panel “TELL ME SOMETHING I DON’T KNOW” and they continued on the Jaffer-Guergis line of “discussion”. That is when I decided to stop watching CTV.
Rob C, CTV is worse than CBC even!
Wasn’t it Pablo that had a CBC reporter feeding him questions for a committee and nothing happened to him? It was barely reported. Now this. A blatant bias by all media outlets. Disgusting.
So tell me something. After it was reported he was charged, and why, what else did you expect them to say? What new angle exists now that did not exist Saturday?
How many different ways can the media report that he was charged with this offence?
Just for fun, I Googled “Jaffer” and “cocaine” and discovered that all the media stories I could find were limited to September 16, which is when the story came out, and September 17, which carried Jaffer’s statement about his arrest. The Hill Times published their article on September 21 (I believe that is not a daily publication). After that, nothing until his charges were in court and were resolved.
Now, I did not search past page 8 of the Google search, so maybe those of you who have long wanted to prove me wrong can spend some time doing additional research and come up with some obscure story somewhere.
So maybe stop your whining about this non-existant bias. It is too easy to prove you have your facts wrong.
As for your suggestion people could have been hurt in this accident, as I understand it there were no other people involved except Rodriguez.
And of course, there is that added little detail that neither the LPC in general, nor Rodriguez in particular, do that whole self-righteous act about how they are all tough on crime and stuff. Jaffer even had an ad during the last election accusing the NDP of supporting selling drugs in schools.
When you are going to get self-righteous, you gotta expect people are going to notice when you fail to live up to your own expectations.
Gayle:
So you’re saying that the reason it hasn’t garnered the same attention is because he hasn’t failed to be convicted of the crime? (Remember, Jaffer’s charges were completely dropped because of a bungled investigation)
With respect to drinking and driving, every party is ‘guilty’ of claiming the mantra of being tough on it.
As for hypocrisy… the Liberals spent weeks howling that Jaffer got special protection because of his political connections (which it turns out he didn’t have). Now, a sitting Liberal MP is charged with failing to provide a Breathalyzer test on demand. Seems open and shut to me, you fail to provide the test, you are charged, no ifs ands or buts. So anything other than a conviction will send the Liberals howling that their MPs get special protection from prosecution, right?
I know you hate the Conservatives but even you have to admit that the coverage is biased against the Conservatives.
Think about it this way… if it was a sitting Conservative MP who had been charged… how do you think the media would have covered it?
Obviously no busty hookers were injured in this accident.
What a week for the CBC to tell us that it;’s no biased.
The liberal msm are gunning to bring down the conservatives. There is not a doubt in my mind.
The cbc in particular because they are dependent on the taxpayer dollar to exist. The cbc has a very cozy relationship with the left, incestuous actually.
No pursuit of a story on Apps, the get-a-away driver, who was prepared for when Snowdy implicated him in shady shenanigans with Gillani. Zilch on Pablo, who was too drunk to blow into a breathalyser. We know it is because they are both liberals, and therefore considered the untouchables, by the liberal media.
Media bias is so obvious it raises the hair on the back of the necks of thinking people.
We have the forces of evil vs good. Internet alias Gayle defender of the Liberal Church believes redistribution of the wealth is what Gaia needs.
The Liberals believe they are the Navi defenders of truth, justice and the Quebec advertising agency way.
The socialists believe in their rightful place to rule over us is on earth.
That is why they can change the rules and standards as they see fit.
We are “too simple” to understand why their dominion over us is necessary.
Al Gore is a prophet, Groucho, Karl Marx, Stalin they understand how to educate the masses.
A socialist utopia on earth awaits us and democracy may be changed if necessary to ensure they rule again.
Gayle…you liar.
You said you googled Jaffer + Cocaine and only got a couple of stories.
Try this page – first try, dear.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=ie7&q=jaffer+%2B+cocaine&rls=com.microsoft:en-ca:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ASUS_en&redir_esc=&ei=JIHyS6TNH4a6swOf1biXDA
About 426,000 results
Conversly – try googling Pablo info – what you get is mostly Tory Blogs.
Still think there is no bias?
Right on Adrian! Very easy to see how the MSM ignored the theft of 60 million tax dollars by the Liberal Party. I have no respect for anyone that covers for criminal actions. Now they are doing the same thing for Pablo! Shame, Shame, Shame.
Eric – I am saying that when Jaffer was first charged, and the case had not reached the courts yet, it garnered 2 days attention from the media, and the only reason it had 2 days attention was because Jaffer was not the person who released it to the media (unlike Rodriguez) and thus it got another day’s coverage when he responded.
You are trying to compare the coverage Jaffer received after he got his deal to the coverage Rodriguez is getting before his case even hit the courts. It is a dishonest comparison because the two situations are entirely different.
Not to mention the fact you simply cannot ignore that Jaffer is a member of a party that holds itself out to be purer than pure on criminal justice issues, Jaffer was also charged with cocaine possession, and Jaffer ran ads during the last election claiming it was the NDP that was soft on drug crime.
If you really cannot see the difference in the two cases, it is because your CPC bias is making it impossible for you to see facts for what they really are.
Try again. Go back and find the quote when I said there were only a couple of stories. What I said was after he was charged the media coverage was mostly limited to 2 days.
See my comment to Eric above. I know it is important to you to maintain this paranoid conspiracy about media bias, but even you have to see that it is inapt to compare media coverage to a story about charges being laid, and media coverage to a story about charges being laid, and the matter going to court, and a plea bargain being arranged that resulted in the former MP walking from the most serious charges. Especially when that former MP was part of the “we are purer than pure and the rest of the parties are soft on crime” government.
What am I saying – of course you are not going to see the difference, because to do so would force you to acknowledge this is not some liberal media conspiracy, and you have already demonstrated you are not going to allow facts get in your way.
I should add that the coverage the Jaffer case received when it was at the stage the Rodriguez story is at now was pretty much the same as the coverage the Rodriguez story is receiving. That is an apt comparison, and when you do it that way it proves there is not basis for your bias conspiracy theory.
Alberta Girl,
I am curious how much the internet alias “Gayle” is paid to visit and post Liberal talking points?
She refuses to be accountable and prove she is not a liberal staffer/payroll.
I wonder if her I.P. is actually in Edmonton. Where is the Liberal war room located?
Looking at Alberta Provincial Politics Edmonton has the highest concentration of Liberals/NDP. It looks like they can only exist in the two largest cities. Why do you think they are stuck in the highest density urban centres?
There is much more to this Pablo story. I heard that after the accident and before the cops got there he tried to bribe someone to move a car so it would look as though he was parked. Then he wanted someone to drive his car.
Funny the msm don’t seem to be able to find the eye witnesses.
If he was CPC they would be revisiting every misstep he has ever taken.
Most of the MSM in Canada is just an extension of the Liberal Party.
And we all know the Liberal Party is entirely bereft of any new ideas or plans at all. The only good policies they had over the past decade were stolen from the Reform and Alliance parties.
So the only thing they have left is to try and ‘scandalize’ the Conservative Party. And the MSM and Liberals work hand in hand daily to try and accomplish this.
How many ‘scandals-of-the-day’ can you think of? Wafergate, busty hookers, ‘sexy’ isotopes… these are all empty stories that were FRONT PAGE NEWS across Canada.
Good things most people are turning to the Internet for their news, mainly thanks to wonderful writers and reporters such as yourself, Adrian.
To be fair, there are two rather significant differences.
1) Conservatives are in government. Scandals connected to government are automatically more interesting than scandals connected to mere opposition parties.
2) Jaffer had cocaine.
..
.
This case is hardly good evidence of media bias.
I think we can all agree, well those of us not bloated with koolaide, that MSM works directly to aide the Liberal Party alas how’s that working out Gayle? Gayle do you make stuff up or do you really believe the BS you spew with such conviction? You’ve been pawned by Alberta Girl, drink more koolaide, the suger free stuff you don’t want those elastic waists getting to tight buttercup.
Nope.
Plenty of Canadians (Conservative and Liberal) aren’t of the rather silly belief “that MSM works directly to aide the Liberal Party”.
Reporters themselves tend to be slightly on the left of the political spectrum than the average Canadian, but this isn’t even close to the same as working “directly to aide the Liberal Party”. Saying so makes you sound paranoid.
Furthermore, the “average” Canadian isn’t a Conservative. They’re to the left of the “conservative” outlook.
So we’ve got individual reporters who are slightly to the left of the average Canadian who is slightly to the left of the Conservative party. That doesn’t mean the media’s out to get the Conservatives or that they’re direct aides to the opposition.
Whining that “the media’s against us” is a waste of time.
Well, if you want to ignore all the facts in this case prove thre is absolutely no bias here, then you are totally right.
Issachar,
I’m struggling to remember the huge media stories regarding Paul Martin failing to hug his family members.
I still can’t place exactly when Cretien was ridiculed for failing to disclose precisely where he put his communion wafer.
And the treatment (or ignorance) of the MSM in regards to the Sponsorship Scandal compared to the Afghan Detainee Issue is simply outrageous.
I think there is a clear and decided difference in the way the MSM, and PPG especially, treats the parties regardless of their position in parliament and this is only magnified with the Conservatice Party in power.
Ha,
Hmmm… You know you might be right, I can’t recall the mainstream media ever nailing a Liberal government to the wall for a scandal.
There’s was something about advertising companies in Quebec way back when, but I’m pretty sure that can’t have been a Liberal government scandal, because we know that the media only reports on Conservative scandals.
No you are correct the amount of ink and experts involved in the 28 delay in reopening parliament by the CPC was the move of a fascist dictator.
I just can’t remember how many time Rae, Chretien did it and longer.
Okay shake the head, click the heels and deny Liberal biased media.
It is normal for the CBC to have a crew on Sunday roaming in front of Government offices to record extra bodybags being dropped off.
Pollsters should not disclose their personal politicial opinion and financial donations to their party.
Canadians are “too stupid” to understand.
Interview of Mark Sakamato Liberal staffer, ex CBC guy in H1N1 line was a fluke right?
His resignation shortly after another oops?
The 100% mortagage of an MP is national news?
The anonymous letter read repeatedly in the HOC claiming some security threat proven false after CBC watched the tape and no demand for the author from doorknob MP?
I’m not usually one to find media bias bogeymen behind every tree, but I don’t see how the Conservatives being in government makes it “fair”. Jaffer was an ex-MP, while Pablo is a sitting MP.
Besides, facts never stopped the media from speculating on things they did or didn’t know about with other cases. Speculation is what has fueled Afghan detainees for three years now and keeps Aaron Wherry gainfully employed.
True enough Adrian. But then life isn’t fair and politics possibly less so.
I’m not saying that the media doesn’t have a slight left wing bias. It might. I certainly think the CBC does. But this isn’t evidence of it. This is just what you’d expect to see.
It also helps that the Guergis/Jaffer mess has elements that would fit nicely in US magazine or whatever the celebrity gossip rag of choice is. Hookers! What can’t they add to a juicy scandal? Wait, hookers AND cocaine? Jackpot!
..
It does look like good evidence of mediocre journalism though. (Not that Guergis & Jaffer weren’t terribly unsuitable candidates for office in retrospect.)
If we’re going to talk about mediocre journalism though, how about this?
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/18/matt-gurney-untitled-ignatieff.aspx
Seriously? How is this insightful commentary? Ignatieff tried and failed to make a witty retort to the “just visiting” taunts and this somehow exposes a secret belief that he’s more Canadian than everyone else?
Pathetic. The National Post does some great reporting, (the podcast is excellent btw), but they aren’t immune to sad attempts at gotcha journalism we see everywhere. It’s everywhere. It’s not new of course, but it’s still a bad thing.
Hmmm
Did Paul Martin invite the media to come and watch him walk his kids to school? Oh no, that’s right, he never used his kids for a photo op.
And I was wondering if Paul Martin was ever filmed accepting communion.
Internet alias, paid liberal staffer
Are you referring to his adult children that ran CSL?
If memory serves me CSL may have benefitted from having millions being spent in dredging the Great lakes?
Did CSL avoid paying taxes by running flags of convenience?
I remember PM Paul Martin telling us Dingwall resigned. Later Dingwall sues for wrongful dismissal and wins.
Remember the flak for single source H1N1?
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said Friday that Wallding International, a consulting firm headed by former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall, received a contingency fee from Shire BioChem to secure a 10-year contract to be the only supplier of Canada’s pandemic flu vaccine. The terms of the contract, Ms. Ambrose said, stipulated there would be no fees paid, and if there was a breach, the minister could recover the fees from the company.
Bad father meme. PM Stephen Harper
Bad mother meme Governor Sara Palin.
The radical-leftist love to attack family.
Well, then, if you’re right then when Rodriguez gets a sweet deal to get off the charges we’ll hear a lot about it right (or has the charges dropped completely)?
Sorry if I’m cynical about our ‘justice’ system, but I can’t see a sitting MP not getting a special deal.
So if what you’re saying is correct (that the coverage is the same) then its a good test. Maybe we’ll have to wait a few months to see what happens, but since you were so completely wrong about the election call on the Afghan detainee issue we can consider this a rematch.
[...] media compared to Rahimelena. Tasha Kheiriddin posed similar questions yesterday as have had several Blogging [...]
I am quite sure if Rodriguez gets a sweetheart deal we will hear all about it. That said, I am not in the camp that says Jaffer got a sweetheart deal. It is obvious from what I have read the police violated his rights, and it would have been inevitable the charges were dismissed.
You must also factor in the self righteousness of the conservatives, because Jaffer’s charges made him look like a total hypocrite given the things he was saying and doing as an MP.
And I have no idea what you are talking about with the election call on the detainee thing. THAT was a matter of opinion. The fact that the media are not handling Rodriguez any differently than they did Jaffer so far is a matter of fact.
Nor am I convinced we will not be in an election before any detainee documents are released…
Oh come on, you can’t seriously be equating the Sponsorship Scandal to wafergate?
They recieved about the same amount of coverage.
LOL.
“About the same amount of coverage”.
Now that’s just seeing what you want to see.
I was hoping you would provide some examples of comparable scandals to wafergate and evil harper’s failure to hug his children.
Instead, you offered a scandal where the Liberals stole millions of taxpayer dollars for their own personal gain as evidence the media covers the parties the same way.
Am I missing something here? Do you really believe that the Sponsorship Scandal and Wafergate are similar stories?
Yes, you’re missing my point.
It’s entirely fruitless try to find a precisely comparable incident in this discussion. Unless the details are identical, (i.e. Ignatieff was also filmed possibly not eating a wafer), anyone can find a point to argue for them not being comparable. You can argue things like that, but it’s an entirely pointless exercise.
The point is that the media pursues “scandal” whenever it can. I believe it prefers to chew on government scandal rather than opposition scandal, because scandal involving the powerful is always more titillating than scandal involving the guys who lost power.
I’m not sure if you were originally responding to my first comment, or to my response to Rose. If it’s the later, then I’m only going to say that Rose is way off base. The media do not work as an arm of any party. The sponsorship scandal alone blows that conspiracy theory away. They’re not biased in favour of a party. Individual reporters tend to be slightly to the left of the Canadian average which is slightly to the left of conservative most of the time. That’s not the same thing as being in a party’s pocket.
But what annoys me most about this whining about bias is that it serves no purpose. Assume that the media IS biased against anything the Conservatives do. What then? Muzzle the media? Cut funding to the CBC to try to punish all media? The first is contrary to our freedoms, and the second is politically unrealistic. There are plenty of people who vote Conservative who will change their votes to Liberal if you try to cut the CBC’s funding. The hard core anti-CBC types don’t believe that, but that’s an unfortunate case of trying to bend reality to fit your wishes.
So what’s left? Complaining for the sake of complaining? That just makes conservatives sound like losers.
By all means, I think one should complain about specific errors on the part of any news organization. But generalizing it into a complaint about bias just makes conservatives look bad.
..
.
I’m also completely rejecting your ridiculous assertion that the so-called “scandal” around a communion wafer received “about the same amount of coverage” as the sponsorship scandal. That is demonstrably false.
From my perspective ‘entirely fruitless’ equates to ‘I can’t think of one either’ when discussing the outrageous ‘scandals’ that the Media has been attempting to pin on the CPC every since they formed government. There was no attempt to pin such on the media appointed ‘natural governing party’ of Canada when they were in power.
We have a story yesterday in the National Post outlining the differing treatment between MP’s.
Your attempt to define where average Canadians lie on a linear spectrum is complete conjecture and rather useless in evaluating media bias. The bottom line is that there DEFINATELY is a perception of bias at the CBC, from many Canadians, and that is unacceptable for a public broadcaster.
No, you’re right I can’t think of one right now. But a lack of attacks over minor scandals doesn’t prove bias anymore than their presence would prove a lack of bias.
This is exactly what I meant by “fruitless”. For instance, if we wanted to have this fruitless discussion I would simply reply that the reason that I can’t think of any is because while the Conservatives are arrogant and mean spirited creators of controversy, the Liberals were not. Then you’d reply something about the Liberals being more corrupt, (possibly mentioning sponsorship), then I’d reply “a few bad apples”, whereas the Conservatives are constantly dividing Canadians, then you’d reply with… well you get the idea. Pointless.
As I said though, whining about bias achieves nothing.
..
.
And my statement of the political leanings of Canadians isn’t just based on conjecture. It’s based on the fact that left wing parties have historically won more elections than right wing ones. There’s also that niggling little detail that more Canadians voted for left wing parties in the last election that right leaning ones.
Canadians typically tilt slightly to the left. That’s just a fact of life. The keyword there is typically.
The fact the media constantly attempts to pin nonexistant scandals on the Conservative Party, while doing no such thing to the Liberals, doesn’t indicate a bias? What does it indicate? Much of the MSM dislikes Harper. They dislike Conservatives. They clearly do not want the CPC to be forming government. But that’s not bias?
How exactly would one prove bias then?
Whining about the clearly evident bias certainly has achieved a level of public conscientiousness about the trustworthiness of many media sources, especially the CBC. Whining about bias has created a whole new interest in electronic media, reporting, and discussion. The fact we are searching for alternative sources of information is a clear response to the inability of the MSM to provide reliable news.
Your conjecture about an outdated linear left/right spectrum is nothing but conjecture. We can argue until the cows come home about how left/right a certain party or policy was, but it seems to me most Canadians would be classified as moderates. The Liberal Party was definitely fiscally conservative for many years, is that because of their left-leaning nature? I think Canadians are more likely to vote along regional lines than anything else
.