Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The "Media Party"


Recommended Posts

some months back I started to see a smattering of MLW posts (from Harper Conservative supporters), making reference to the "Media Party". Say what? Additional like MLW post references continued to pop-up every once in a while. Huh? Apparently, perceived unfairness in media coverage of Harper Conservatives had peaked to the point that, in the perception of some, the "liberal media" had taken on some type of formal party association; one actively working to project negative accounts of Harper Conservatives. Just where was this coming from? Where did this "Media Party" originate? Well, surprise, surprise... Ezrant had another baby... more raw meat to throw out to his audience!


I haven't noticed the reference too much lately; well, at least not until this past week when coverage of the, "Ladies Night for the Ladies Man", raised the ire of so many on the right. Recent days reference to the "Media Party" was fueled by the obvious efforts of the PMO... itself working feverishly to attempt to shift media coverage away from Harper Conservative scandals. Most obvious in this regard were the actions taken by Michelle Rempel, the junior Minister for Western Economic Diversification. Michelle who, you say? That would be one of the latest bobble-heads to appear prominently in the House of Commons (HOC) camera view, directly over the shoulder of Stephen Harper. Harper Conservatives are most blatant in bobble-head positioning, notably emphasizing diversity, particularly one of a female gender emphasis... I believe Rempel has taken the place of Rona Ambrose... something about Ambrose's hair getting too big for the cameras.


up until this past week I had little knowledge of just who Michelle Rempel was... although I had noted that she has a slight twist to the bobble. She shakes up the incessant head-nodding by occasionally ignoring events in the House... actually ignoring Harper's speaking... while she reads her smartphone and texts away! Oh my! In this latest flurry of "Media Party" coverage, some wag actually timed a Rempel text spree, in full HOC camera view, to Rempel "fighting back" against a not-so-flattering Tumblr page criticizing her. In any case, Rempel was, to me, still a relative unknown until she came blasting out against the recent Ladies Night event. "Sexism", she railed!; "all issues are women's issues", she exclaimed! "Mansplaining", she implied! Well, what's a "Media Party" to do when the PMO throws out such a tempting offer? There was such a resulting flurry of "Media Party" activity, that one of its lieutenants, CBC's Evan Solomon, had Rempel on Power & Politics. Unfortunately for Rempel, one of the event organizers also appeared, explained the event, and emphasized it as one sponsored by (20) women, put on by women, for women. An event with proceeds intended for a fund that aims to help engage/encourage women to enter politics! Unfortunately, apparently Rempel couldn't stand up to the puff-ball questioning from Solomon and she started to tear up! Damn that PMO sending a mouse into the "Media Party" lair!


of course, now the knives were drawn, and the "Media Party" pounced with a teaser... on a teaser... bringing forward, as follows, Rempel's own Twitter profile photo while using it to ridicule her sexist labeling/charges against the 20 women organizers of the Ladies Night. Those brutes in the "Media Party"... how could they? How could anyone make light of the following image in a serious discussion of sexism in politics?


2cbxw2.jpg





Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

a rouges gallery listing of many of those within the "Media Party"... including one 'Li, Xue Jiang'... you know, the Canadian bureau chief for the People's Daily of China; the Chinese reporter who had a first-hand exposure to Canadian democracy, Harper Conservative PMO style. The Chinese Reporter who wasn't allowed, by the PMO, to ask a question of Stephen Harper. Certainly, this type of interaction... or Harper's steadfast refusal to answer "more than 3 media questions at a time"... or Harper Conservatives denying the media free/timely access to scientists... surely none of that would help a "Media Party" membership recruitment drive, would it? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

CBC continuing to defend Trudeau. Can you even imagine in your wildest dream that the CBC would defend ANYTHING a Conservative might say? Doesn't really matter though - the thin veneer comes off all by itself.

:lol: yes! Simple gets it. That wascally "Media Party"... as Ezrant questions, "Media Party" = Liberal War Room?

as Ezrant tells it, the "Media Party" is an objective, empirical, description, an observation... they are a clique of friends in Ottawa, in Toronto... culturally similar to each other, aesthetically similar, similar in background, similar in their political taste, they're left of center, and they're friends with the people they cover who are just like them...

oig9js.jpg

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
of course, now the knives were drawn, and the "Media Party" pounced with a teaser... on a teaser... bringing forward, as follows, Rempel's own Twitter profile photo while using it to ridicule her sexist labeling/charges against the 20 women organizers of the Ladies Night. Those brutes in the "Media Party"... how could they? How could anyone make light of the following image in a serious discussion of sexism in politics?

Uhm, do you really think her sitting down in a long, shapeless beige sweater is all that sexy? What do you want her to wear, a burka?

Trudeau's ladies night thing was sexist and crass and stupid. Did he do his strip tease for them? Did they thrust twenties into his G-string?

I also don't believe Rempel 'teared up' under Solomon's stern questioning. You got some video of that?

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, do you really think her sitting down in a long, shapeless beige sweater is all that sexy? What do you want her to wear, a burka?

She has her hair down. HUSSIE!!!!

BTW the fact that women organized the event doesn't make it NOT sexist and/or patronizing. There are women who believe advocate for Anti-Abortion laws. Women can disagree on issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, do you really think her sitting down in a long, shapeless beige sweater is all that sexy? What do you want her to wear, a burka?

Trudeau's ladies night thing was sexist and crass and stupid. Did he do his strip tease for them? Did they thrust twenties into his G-string?

I also don't believe Rempel 'teared up' under Solomon's stern questioning. You got some video of that?

I labeled it Solomon's puff-ball questioning... the guy is, typically, anything but stern. Since you want to press the point, you'll have to bear with a couple of commercials... about the 6 minute mark in... shortly after Solomon highlights her twitter profile pic and the tweet someone hit her with about "sitting like a hooker" in the HOC.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2416566737/

make sure you stick with the video and hear the remarks from one of the event organizers (~ 8:50 mark)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau's ladies night thing was sexist and crass and stupid. Did he do his strip tease for them? Did they thrust twenties into his G-string?

You mean because women would never gather together and invite a guest speaker to discuss political issues of importance to women?

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My only beefs are with The Star and the CBC - the rest of the media shows various flavours of "balanced bias" - which is their right. The Star though, is fervently Liberal with absolutely no allowances for counterpoints - nothing but shills. At least the Sun has Warren Kinsella, a regular columnist who is staunchly Liberal. The Sun open declares itself to be a Conservative-leaning paper - but will take swipes, if not punches at Conservative figures as issues arise. The Star editorializes it's news. Reading most articles, they do not just report the news - their writers inject pro-Liberal or anti-Conservative opinions in almost every news article. News should be news, opinions should be opinions and confided to the editorial pages.

The CBC.....well, I don't think I really have to say that they hate anything Conservative. It's just so blatantly obvious through their Power & Politics show. Solomon lobs the softballs to the critics and the bashing begins.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this "Media Party" is true.... but it could be just a case of a "woman once scorned....."

Here is a list of Major newspapers supporting Harper vs those supporting the Liberals in 2006....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006

22 to 1 for Harper.

WHAT liberal media?

I wonder what could possibly have changed?

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this "Media Party" is true.... but it could be just a case of a "woman once scorned....."

Here is a list of Major newspapers supporting Harper vs those supporting the Liberals in 2006....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006

22 to 1 for Harper.

WHAT liberal media?

Just so. The "liberal" (or even, we often hear, "leftist") media theme is such a cherished belief, that things like what you've posted here are ignored...or seen as slight irritants to "common sense," so best not discussed.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this "Media Party" is true.... but it could be just a case of a "woman once scorned....."

Here is a list of Major newspapers supporting Harper vs those supporting the Liberals in 2006....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006

22 to 1 for Harper.

WHAT liberal media?

I wonder what could possibly have changed?

...

That score allows me to "rest my case" in calling the Toronto Star shills for the Liberal party. The Star was the only one in that 22- 1 count. And they did it again in 2008. In 2011, even The Star had to abstain - but true to their anti-Conservative bent - they suggested voting NDP in close ridings.

In reality, the media had little choice but to support the Conservatives. In 2006 Paul Martin carried the baggage of Adscam, a tired Liberal party, and a dithering personality with 100 priorities. In 2008 Stphane Dion and the Green Shift could barely be understood - at least in English. In 2011, Michael Ignatieff was...well, Michael Ignatieff. But the Toronto Star did what the Toronto Star does - unbashedly rooting for anything Liberal, God bless 'em.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

That score allows me to "rest my case" in calling the Toronto Star shills for the Liberal party.

rest your case? What party does the SUN shill for? The Kinsella addition to the SUN you highlighted was simply tokenism; at times he now even reads like a whipped shadow of his former self... "KinsellaLight"! Other than Coyne, the same can be said for the National Post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I labeled it Solomon's puff-ball questioning... the guy is, typically, anything but stern. Since you want to press the point, you'll have to bear with a couple of commercials... about the 6 minute mark in... shortly after Solomon highlights her twitter profile pic and the tweet someone hit her with about "sitting like a hooker" in the HOC.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2416566737/

make sure you stick with the video and hear the remarks from one of the event organizers (~ 8:50 mark)

Okay, so I did watch it. As I suspected, you were less than honest. Rempel was completely unemotional in response to Solomon's questions, and in regard to the blatantly sexist tweet, and Solomon was not 'making light' of sexism (though you are) but when she spoke about women not wanting to go into politics because of putting up with the kind of sexist attitudes shown by the twit who tweeted - and you - she did get a little emotional.

Btw, your attitude in writing about Rempel is every bit as sexist as that person who tweeted. You would never have written in the same fashion about a man or men. A hard right wing Republican fundie Christian could not have done a better job of showing how little he thought of women, especially those who look attractive, or, what was it you mockingly said of Rona Ambrose - had big hair? I notice you went back and deleted your hooker remark, but your attitude shines through regardless.

Hell, you've even taken that picture as your avatar, I guess because you're delighted that somehow this displays her hypocrisy in complaining about sexism while wearing something that doesn't cover all that blonde hair. The slut!

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean because women would never gather together and invite a guest speaker to discuss political issues of importance to women?

:rolleyes:

Well let's see, maybe that rabid right wing rag ... the Toronto Star, can explain it for you.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/11/11/justin_trudeaus_tonedeaf_ladies_night_sign_of_larger_problem.html

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites

rest your case? What party does the SUN shill for? The Kinsella addition to the SUN you highlighted was simply tokenism; at times he now even reads like a whipped shadow of his former self... "KinsellaLight"! Other than Coyne, the same can be said for the National Post.

Tarek Fattah is no Conservative.

They used to allow Sid Ryan write a column.

But yeah it's a Conservative paper. I doubt the people that read it want to hear from too many Liberal voice. I have to refrain from fits of rage reading Kinsella trying to defend the McGuinty government.

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you can no demonstrate this.

From the Wikipedia entry on the paper:

Shortly before his death in 1948, Atkinson transferred ownership of the paper to a charitable organization given the mandate of continuing the paper's liberal tradition.[13] In 1949, the Province of Ontario passed a law (which was repealed in 2009)[14] barring charitable organizations from owning large parts of profit-making businesses[15] that effectively required the Star to be sold. The five trustees of the charitable organization circumvented the law by buying the paper themselves and swearing before the Supreme Court of Ontario to continue the Atkinson Principles:[16]

  • A strong, united and independent Canada
  • Social justice
  • Individual and civil liberties
  • Community and civic engagement
  • The rights of working people
  • The necessary role of government

Descendants of the original owners, known as "the five families", still control the voting shares of Torstar,[17] and the Atkinson Principles continue to guide the paper to this day. In February 2006, Star media columnist Antonia Zerbisias wrote on her blog:

Besides, we are the Star which means we all have the Atkinson Principles — and its multi-culti values — tattooed on our butts. Fine with me. At least we are upfront about our values, and they almost always work in favour of building a better Canada.[18]

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Wikipedia entry on the paper:

Shortly before his death in 1948, Atkinson transferred ownership of the paper to a charitable organization given the mandate of continuing the paper's liberal tradition.[13] In 1949, the Province of Ontario passed a law (which was repealed in 2009)[14] barring charitable organizations from owning large parts of profit-making businesses[15] that effectively required the Star to be sold. The five trustees of the charitable organization circumvented the law by buying the paper themselves and swearing before the Supreme Court of Ontario to continue the Atkinson Principles:[16]

  • A strong, united and independent Canada
  • Social justice
  • Individual and civil liberties
  • Community and civic engagement
  • The rights of working people
  • The necessary role of government

Descendants of the original owners, known as "the five families", still control the voting shares of Torstar,[17] and the Atkinson Principles continue to guide the paper to this day. In February 2006, Star media columnist Antonia Zerbisias wrote on her blog:

Besides, we are the Star which means we all have the Atkinson Principles — and its multi-culti values — tattooed on our butts. Fine with me. At least we are upfront about our values, and they almost always work in favour of building a better Canada.[18]

And none of this even begins to answer the claim for which I asked for evidence:

they do not just report the news - their writers inject pro-Liberal or anti-Conservative opinions in almost every news article.

That is a declarative sentence (meaning it's reasonable for us to ask if it is true); and "almost every news article" denotes a majority of news articles...and connotes an overwhelming majority of them.

It's a preposterous claim....and for some reason you wish to defend it.

The wiki article doesn't even touch on it...what would touch on it would be a sampling (a completely random sampling) of, oh, let's say 50 articles....and we'll see if more than, let's say 70% of them "inject pro-Liberal or anti-Conservative opinions."

But I'll settle for 50%, being a generous-minded fellow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I did watch it. - she did get a little emotional.

yes - I responded to your taunt doubting the tear up... thanks for acknowledging that, yes, she did tear up... in fact, she began to choke up along with it. Other than highlighting she can't check/hold her emotions, it simply emphasizes the lengths the PMO 'short pants kids' will go in pushing/prodding a quite, "not ready for prime time" Rempel, forward. Solomon asked/made a couple of legitimate points; points that reflected on her HOC seat position and her twitter profile photo... points that questioned the basis for her sitting prominently in HOC camera view (over the shoulder of Harper) and her somewhat contradictory sexist labeling given the criticism directed towards that photo.

.

Btw, your attitude in writing about Rempel is every bit as sexist as that person who tweeted. You would never have written in the same fashion about a man or men. A hard right wing Republican fundie Christian could not have done a better job of showing how little he thought of women, especially those who look attractive, or, what was it you mockingly said of Rona Ambrose - had big hair? I notice you went back and deleted your hooker remark, but your attitude shines through regardless.

I didn't delete anything... read it again. I didn't write anything sexist... my comments were strictly in regards to the HOC seating assignments. You really should direct your tude towards Harper Conservatives for blatantly showcasing just how far they'll go to manipulate the prime HOC camera view seat assignments. The Ambrose hair comment? She was probably the worst nodding-head, seal-clapping offender I can recall... and yes, she has (really) big hair! Sexist? Well then... what should we call the many past Trudeau hair references made by an assortment of MLW Harper Conservative supporters... equally sexist? I don't seem to recall you ever calling those comments out, hey?

.

Hell, you've even taken that picture as your avatar, I guess because you're delighted that somehow this displays her hypocrisy in complaining about sexism while wearing something that doesn't cover all that blonde hair. The slut!

no - I needed to change up the old news Duffy avatar... this new one reflects on my earlier comment; that Rempel is the 'bobble-head mouse that roared'. Call it her (failed) coming out. Actually, it appears the sexist critical eye, ala twitter, seems to be all about the coy smile and body language. And yes, it does highlight Rempel's faux outrage in trumping up a sexist charge against the Ladies Man's Ladies Night event.

in any case, you wear the white knight armor well in coming to the rescue of the fair maiden! Perhaps you can also take a stab at why that event was sexist. As I said, mansplain it, hey?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Waldo for posting the Power & Politics showing Micelle Rempel being "interviewed" by Evan Solomon. I showed it to my wife and she thought Rempel's very genuine responses to Solomon's rabid defense of Trudeau was inspiring. My wife had a tear in her eye as she clearly related to Rempel's fight for acceptance and equality in politics. Solomon was nothing short of shameful in trying to "break" her. Great video. Don't be fooled into skipping the first 6 minutes as Waldo cleverly suggested.....Solomon was relentless, Rempel was determined. Excellent political/personal clip. I regret that I'm having trouble adding links to posts or I would have reposted the link.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Waldo for posting the Power & Politics showing Micelle Rempel being "interviewed" by Evan Solomon. I showed it to my wife and she thought Rempel's very genuine responses to Solomon's rabid defense of Trudeau was inspiring.

:lol: rapid defense of Trudeau??? Was Trudeau's name even mentioned? Essentially, what Solomon setup was a clear-cut comparison between Rempel's faux outrage (PMO pimped) and one of the event organizers challenging the false Rempel sexist premise. One key illuminating point was made when the event organizer highlighted Rempel refused to appear on the program with her... clearly, the PMO script wasn't enough to prepare the neophyte!

.

My wife had a tear in her eye as she clearly related to Rempel's fight for acceptance and equality in politics. Solomon was nothing short of shameful in trying to "break" her. Great video. Don't be fooled into skipping the first 6 minutes as Waldo cleverly suggested.....Solomon was relentless, Rempel was determined. Excellent political/personal clip. I regret that I'm having trouble adding links to posts or I would have reposted the link.

a tear in your wife's eye!!! What fight? Rempel certainly didn't describe "her fight"... about all I recall is her claiming (I paraphrase), "she fought damn hard" to get where she is"..... saying that just before her tear-up, choke-up, semi-meltdown! As for the timing, I pointed out where in the video to find Rempel losing it... cause, like... uhhh... that was the challenge put to me by MLW member Argus. I most certainly didn't attempt to, as you state/imply, "fool anyone into skipping the first 6 minutes". By the by, did you/your wife watch the video to the end... watch the organizers rebuttal? Apparently not, since you haven't anything to say about it, hey?

"Solomon relentless"... "Rempel determined" :lol:

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a present for a few of you, just to show I'm a good sport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0zhZfhDGjE#t=26

Watch Ayaan Hirsi Ali teach Avi Lewis what freedom means.

Start watching at 4:55 and one minute in she starts telling him:

"You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom because you don't know what it is not to have freedom"

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes - I responded to your taunt doubting the tear up... thanks for acknowledging that, yes, she did tear up... in fact, she began to choke up along with it. Other than highlighting she can't check/hold her emotions,

Ah, those chicks, eh, Waldo, we never shoulda let them out of the kitchen, right?

it simply emphasizes the lengths the PMO 'short pants kids' will go in pushing/prodding a quite, "not ready for prime time" Rempel, forward. Solomon asked/made a couple of legitimate points; points that reflected on her HOC seat position and her twitter profile photo... points that questioned the basis for her sitting prominently

I suppose you figure nobody will actually look at the cite so you can fantasize all you want, right? To repeat, it wasn't his questioning which made her emotional. He showed the twitter item you seem to be so excited by, as, he said, an example of the kind of pathetic sexism women face in public life, focusing on and judging their looks, and she acknowledged it and started talking about women she had spoken to who won't go into public life for fear of attacks like that. That's when she got emotional. They were agreeing with each other, not with you and your twitter friend.

in HOC camera view (over the shoulder of Harper) and her somewhat contradictory sexist labeling given the criticism directed towards that photo.

Somewhat contradictory? Given the 'criticism directed towards the photo" by a moron? Because some moron twits that a picture of her sitting on a desk is "sitting like a hooker" you take this as delegitimizing her view on sexism!?

And even though the Toronto Star acknowledges the tastelessness and stupidity of Trudeau's poster you again feel that her comments in that regard are contradictory because she's not wearing a burka and sitting like a good girl?

no - I needed to change up the old news Duffy avatar... this new one reflects on my earlier comment; that Rempel is the 'bobble-head mouse that roared'. Call it her (failed) coming out.

Rempel has been 'out' for quite some time on a wide variety of issues. You probably ignored them because she's just a 'dumb blonde chick'.

Actually, it appears the sexist critical eye, ala twitter, seems to be all about the coy smile and body language.

Coy smile? Body language? You really need to give your head a shake. You sound more sexist than my grandfather.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...