The Globe and Mail's pro Harper bias: it's everywhere

If one thing has become evident in the last few days it is the following: Canada's capitalist media has a clear pro-Conservative bias. And I'm not just talking about the National Post.

Take the Globe and Mail.
Example #1: Andrew Steele's “Harper's Options”. Anyone who has read it will have to conclude that Andrew did not include all options available, on the contrary.

How about the option of letting democracy prevail by doing “non of the above”? Did Andrew really forget the most decent option of all or has his (anticipated?) bias in favour of the Conservatives tainted his ability to proper reasoning?

Why it is bias: it is pro-Harper bias because Andrew seems to have intentionally left out the most obvious and descent thing to do: after the government falls (on Monday), let the majority backed coalition rule.

Example #2: Jeffrey Simpson's “Harper bulldozes his way to the brink”. His opening puts right away on the wrong foot:

What an unpalatable choice now beckons Canadians: a government led by a Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, whose approach has disappointed so many; or a government led by Stéphane Dion, the Liberal Leader Canadians resoundingly rejected six weeks ago.

Does anyone see a problem with this kind of reasoning? Well, I do! First off, Jeffrey implies that Canadians need to make a choice. Wrong! Canadians have already resoundingly spoken in the last election, only six weeks ago. Suffering from temporary Alzheimers, Jeffrey?

Why it is bias: Jeffrey Simpsons suggests that Canadians need to go to the polls (something favoured by the Conservatives, if you haven't noticed). But our democracy is designed in such a way that a majority of MPs make the choice of who gets to govern; no other intervention is needed to let the majority-backed coalition govern.

The rest of the article is more of the same bias, combined with some more of the same (blah blah blah - national paper lost in provincialism); I will leave that for what it is.

Example #3 Adam Radwanski's “From the kitchen table to the cabinet table”. Lets not dwell on the title for now, but jump right to the end of the article:

Oh, and if Pat Martin is poised to take a cabinet seat, Stephen Harper is entirely justified in proroguing Parliament, barring the doors to the House of Commons, and doing whatever else it takes to prevent this thing from ever happening.

Why this is bias: It is a majority-backed coalition's full right to elect a government of their choosing. Where's the logic that a failed Prime Minister of Canada (a.k.a. Steve) is “entirely justified” to prorogue Parliament on the basis of a disliked MP? Where does Adam Radwanski's disdain for democracy stem from? Are all writers at the Globe and Mail that biased?

Keep reading

Example #4: Front page presents four links, three of them link to overly (or should I say overtly?) biased articles justifying the Conservative's "we-are-sooo-outraged" propaganda crap forward by the Conservatives:
Let me explain.

1. Audio: New Conservative Radio ad (!)
2. Can the PM sack the Governor-General (discussed above, #1)
3. Who would the NDP put in cabinet (discussed above, #2)
(4. Globe Politics)

Here's what a progressive would have enjoyed to see in a national paper:

1. Audio: Listen to the latest Conservative and Coalition backing ads.
2. Can Harper regain the confidence of the house?
3. Is Harper going to spend his Christmas in Ottawa?
(4. Globe Politics)

Why it bias:

(1) Publishing exact copies of Conservative ads but not once mention the latest ad in support of the coalition goes against one of the general rules of journalism: bring balance by finding and reporting on every side of a story. Why not at least present both ads?

I've already discussed Radwanski's (3) lack of logic and disdain for parliamentary democracy. Suggesting that the GG (2) is subordinate to the PM (when the opposite is closer to the truth) is favouring the all-over-the-capitalist-media-bias that what has been done to the PM is outrageous when in fact there's only one person to blame for his own misery: Stephen Harper himself. Had Harper presented a more agreeable budget and not provoked the majority opposition with his mean-spirited cuts to political financing then I would not have been writing this post.

Our Prime Minister has lost all confidence from the newly elected MPs (the house), yet he continues his campaign of misinformation and slander (and even lies that seem to have been "missed" by this wonderful paper) in order to organize as much "outrage" possible in order to influence an upcoming decision by Michaele Jean.

His disrespect for the house and the majority of people who did NOT elect this Bush backing Conservative is far more outragious to people than anything else. I would like to see a goverment that works.

Lastly, I do realize that this posting is far from conclusive. Nevertheless I hope I have been able to show my readers how highly biased (in this case in favour of the Conservative Party) Canadian corporate media is.