Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy and her longtime supporter Gerrie van Ieperen appear to have been involved with an initiative to counter the media's perceived left-wing bias via the blogosphere, according to a collection of emails leaked to Public Eye. The emails, which date back to early last year and have not yet been verified as authentic, discuss a document entitled "Exposing the left-wing media filter." The document, written by then Victoria constituency association director-at-large Eugene Parks, proposes organizing a team of writers and analysts who would "point out instances of unbalanced or biased news reporting" via a "respected and credible blog site."
According to Ms. van Ieperen's emails, Ms. Ablonczy received, reviewed and distributed the document, as well as attempting to "round up support" for the initiative. And, in a message sent to Mr. Parks via her husband Ron Sauer's email address, Ms. Ablonczy writes she is "still waiting for feedback" concerning the blogging plan. "Has been quite positive so far in verbal discussions. Have asked for email feedback and will forward what I receive." It is unclear whether Mr. Parks, who resigned his position and left the Conservatives in July, ever received that feedback.
Madams van Ieperen and Ablonczy also appear to have approached Maurice Murphy, a prominent former party activist in Ontario, about participating in the initiative. But he refused, noting the Conservatives problems did not "relate to the Star or the Globe and Mail, after all they are balanced by the National Post and the Sun media. So, for me, an Anti-left media blog would be a lot of effort for very little return."
Ms. Ablonczy has not yet responded to an interview request placed through her campaign manager earlier yesterday morning. Nor has she authenticated the emails, which have been forwarded to her campaign office for review. Attempts to contact Ms. van Ieperen at her home haven't been successful.
***
-----Original Message-----
From: ron [mailto:ronsauer@shaw.ca]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 12:37 PM
To: elparks@shaw.ca
Subject: RE: Blogs
Have asked Gerrie to forward two relevant articles. Will call you this week to brainstorm. Cheers, D.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene Parks [mailto:elparks@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:05 PM
To: Ablonczy Sauer
Subject: Blogs
Hi Diane,
Where do we stand on getting a blog team going?
Eugene
***
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerrie van Ieperen [mailto:gvanieperen@shaw.ca]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 12:10 PM
To: Eugene Parks
Subject: Fw: Are blogs journalism's new wave -- or just public forums for the bored?
Eugene, Diane asked me to send this to you (the attachment is the Time Magazine article she talked to you about).
Gerrie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerrie van Ieperen"
To: "Diane"
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: Are blogs journalism's new wave -- or just public forums for the bored?
Byline: Chris Cobb
Outlet: The Ottawa Citizen
Title: Dear Diary: Are blogs journalism's new wave -- or just public forums for the bored?
Page: C5
Date: 2005-01-30
Source: The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depending on the day, a search for the word "blogs" on Google or Yahoo will net you about 37 million sites -- give or take two or three million.
Blog is Internetspeak for weblogs, as in World Wide Web (www) and log, a journal of ongoing events. A random poll would reveal that most people have little idea what a weblog is, but that is rapidly changing. As bloggers edge into mainstream journalism, either by chance or deliberately, they are influencing events and having to deal with issues of accuracy, trust and ethics.
Last year, the word "blog" was the most searched on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and according to a new study by the U.S. Pew Internet and American Life Project, blog readership increased more than 58 per cent last year with seven per cent of the 120 million American adults who use the Internet saying they have created a blog or web-based diary.
In the U.S. alone, that's eight million people. (There are no equivalent Canadian studies but patterns of Internet use in Canada are not usually dissimilar to those of the U.S.).
So weblog growth is significant, but the Pew study confirms that only 38 per cent of Internet users know what a weblog is.
Without visiting all 37 million sites coughed up by Internet search engines, it is safe to assume that most blogs are not worth the cyberspace they occupy. The bulk are boring or offensive self-indulgences produced by those with axes to grind, prejudice to spew, porn to peddle or without the ability to get past the gatekeepers at newspapers, magazines, book publishers and edited online publications.
Some, however, are proving influential in political and media circles, an influence emphasized during the 2004 election season in Canada and the U.S.
It was the blogging community that first raised doubts about documents used by CBS news in its story of President George W. Bush's questionable military service record and, in Canada, bloggers who hastened the spread of Conservative veteran MP Randy White's ill-timed comments on the Constitution that many pundits say helped his party snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Political bloggers are also becoming popular on mainstream TV where they are introduced by the more gravitas-tinged title "online political commentators."
During the federal election campaign last June, several Canadian politicians had their own weblogs but according to Jim Elve, publisher of blog directory and resource site BlogsCanada, they were half-hearted, ineffective and guilty of one of the most common ailments that kills blogs: lack of frequent updates.
Ontario-based Elve created a temporary election component on BlogsCanada, which itself is a growing directory of more than 9,000 blogs. He began soliciting political bloggers of all shades of opinion last January and once the election campaign got rolling, his Group Election Blog site was getting 2,000 visitors a day.
On election day, 3,500 readers visited the site.
"BlogsCanada E-group gave Canadian voters what they wanted," Elve told the online Blog Herald. "In-depth, well-researched articles from the grass roots, links to countless other sources and the ability to interact without restriction."
Of the thousands of messages processed through the group, Elve said he only had to delete two contributions, one of which was a plagiarized verbatim magazine article.
Elves says his BlogsCanada directory, which this week passed the millionth visitor mark, is getting between 150 to 200 new submissions each week, from Canadians in this country or living abroad.
Elve's election site is now an ongoing political discussion group he loosely manages but doesn't edit.
"Some bloggers could use editing," he said in an interview, "but cream rises to the top. Skilful writers who write informatively and interestingly and credibly will garner an audience, whereas poor writers don't."
Of the 37 million or more blog sites Google.com or .ca unearths, BlogsCanada usually ranks number six.
"When the Google robot looks at the various factors that decide ranking,"
says Elve, "one of the big factors is how many others link to the site. And a lot of people link to BlogsCanada, which suggests that it has some value.
A lot of my traffic comes from generic searches for blogs."
As with many website endeavours, bloggers with their own sites make little or no money and according to Elve, even BlogsCanada's limited advertising content buys just "one week's groceries a month."
"Maybe there is money to be made in the future," he says. "In Canada right now, nobody is making a living off blogs. I may be the closest to it and I make about $200 a month."
But some are making decent money.
Dailykos.com, an leftish American political commentator, gets about 150,000 visitors a day and the site carries half a dozen or more ads at $1,800
(U.S.) a month.
Blogs are giving mainstream commentators some significant competition but Elve is skeptical they will be competitive news gatherers.
"There is no budget," he says. "I would have loved to cover the Conservative policy conference (in Victoria) but who's going to send me? If bloggers want to cover an event they have to finance it themselves. On the other hand, maybe a blogger would be more trusted because he or she can be totally independent."
Political weblogs get most attention but at least one study shows that the majority of blog readers prefer other diversions, such as Bacon and Eh's ("A Canadian perspective sunny side up") moderated as a hobby by 39-year-old Ontario mother of three Kim Gott and her husband Darin, 41. The site, which gets up to 500 visitors a day, is a mix of light-hearted miscellany where anything goes so long as it isn't too serious.
"People come to us because it isn't about politics or a mom having a rough day with her kids," says Kim Gott, who works in the decidedly serious credit and collections business. "It is a general site where people can come and have a chuckle, talk about nothing and forget about everything."
The Gotts are not in it for the money and even found the attention of a recent nomination in the humour category of the Canadian Blog Awards too much pressure.
"I felt like there was real pressure on me to be funny after that," she says. "I just like to be myself, leave people smiling. Sometimes I get requests from people wanting to put ads on the site but I don't respond to them."
Bloggers with more serious intent, including a few with mainstream journalistic credentials, are convinced that blogging is the new horizon for journalism, either through reader-sponsored assignments to cover stories in places where mainstream media have no presence, or simply through those who happen to be in the right place at the right time with a computer and camera. The recent tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia is a prime example of so-called "citizen journalists" being first on the scene.
At a conference at Harvard University last weekend, blog editors and journalists debated the implications of bloggers covering breaking news stories. One of the main issues, still unresolved, is whether bloggers should be subject to the same ethical standards as newspaper, TV or edited Internet journalists. Is the person writing a blog report being paid by a political party or lobby group, for instance?
University of Ottawa communications professor Daniel Pare, a specialist in Internet governance, says it's user beware because the lack of standards means bloggers set their own, individual ethical limits.
"The onus is on the readers," he says. "Blog users have to become more media literate and learn to spot who's putting out dodgy information."
Chris Cobb writes for the Weekly.
- - -
BLOGISTICS:
A weblog is created every 5.8 seconds.
- 27 per cent of U.S. Internet users say they read blogs in 2004, up from 17 per cent in 2003.
- Nine per cent of blog users say they read political blogs at least sometimes.
- Twelve per cent of Internet users say they have posted comments on blog pages.
- Blog creators are likely to be: Male (57 per cent); Young (48 per cent under 30); Relatively affluent, from households earning more than $50,000; Well educated (39 per cent have college or university degrees); Internet vets, with at least six years or more under their belts.
- Blog users are generally in the same demographic as bloggers but since 2003, there has been a disproportionate growth in readership among women, minorities and older Internet users.
- Six million Americans are now using RSS aggregators which can be downloaded to PCs and programmed to subscribe to feeds from blogs, news sites and other websites, providing instant news and information.
- Voting is currently underway for the 2005 international Weblog of the Year Awards and will close at 10 p.m., Thursday. Finalists have been chosen and can be viewed at 2005.bloggies.com. Only the overall winner will get a
prize: 2,005 U.S. cents.
Source: Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2005
***
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerrie van Ieperen [mailto:gvanieperen@shaw.ca]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:50 PM
To: elparks@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: draft II
Hi Eugene,
Haven't had a chance to talk to Diane yet - she's incommunicado right now.
As you have probably realized, like you I wasn't 100% sure of where exactly she saw this going. This sounds much closer to what she seemed to have in mind, but I'll wait till I hear from her before you and I spend more effort on this.
I did notice that you had my name on there as one of the Lead writers / Coordinators, but I'm not going to have time to get involved to that extent!
Just wish I were retired!
I did have a quick look at the blog sites you sent. Off the cuff comments as
follows:
http://www.gastonl.com/dblog/ too many different countries /languages will dilute the effort http://www.pogge.ca/ looks ok - no full names http://noncogent.blogspot.com/ looks ok http://www.blogscanada.com/egroup/ <- may be particularly useful (I agree) http://www.baconandehs.blogspot.com/ not quite up to the standard of the three above http://www.japnaamsingh.com/ Just a huge grabbag of topics, people seem to not identify themselves fully (forgot to check that on the other sites) http://www.polspy.ca/ looks ok
Question that came to my mind though: these blogs seem to be mostly Conservatives talking to Conservatives. Is that the best way to get the message out?
Will get back to you later. I know it's frustrating - you probably want to move on this. Thanks for taking this on and being willing to work with Diane on this.
Gerrie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Parks"
To: "Gerrie van Ieperen"
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: draft II
How does draft II look?
Eugene
***
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerrie van Ieperen [mailto:gvanieperen@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 3:29 PM
To: elparks@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: Private
Hi Eugene,
Sorry about all the delays but Diane has computer problems. She had asked me to e-mail your second draft to her office yesterday, but then her assistant forgot to pass it on to her. So she phoned me this morning to fax it to her home. The reason why the wording of this is so important to her, is because she wants to send this out to people like Preston etc. and wants it to reflect what they talked about. So what ended up happening is that she used your #2 draft to crystalize her own thoughts and she then rewrote it in wording she feels comfortable with. I'm sure you have experienced yourself how much easier it is to change something that's already there than to start from scratch! So although the original words are not there, the thoughts are and that's what matters.
Anyway, I just got off the phone with her and I now have to apply a bunch of changes to her rewrite and then I'll send it off to you! Aren't you glad you got yourself into this!! :-)
Something coming your way within the hour!
Gerrie
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Parks
To: Gerrie van Ieperen
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: Private
How did Diane feel about the second Blogs Draft?
***
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerrie van Ieperen [mailto:gvanieperen@shaw.ca]
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 5:24 PM
To: Eugene Parks
Subject: Fw: BLOG STUFF
Spoke to Diane VERY briefly this morning - she's happy with the final with your edits, and will start trying to round up support tomorrow. As you can see below, I flamed out on my first attempt.
Gerrie
----- Original Message -----
From: Maurice Murphy
To: Gerrie van Ieperen ; ablond8@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:22 PM
Subject: BLOG STUFF
Dear Gerrie and Diane,
When I receive a request from two dear friends, it is particularly difficult to have to say "No".
My "No" is based on a number of facts. First, although I'm greatly honoured to be considered a writer, I simply do not have the time to take on another task. My Unitarian House seniors' home obligations keep me more than fully occupied!
Second, I very much doubt that CPC's problems relate to the Star or the Globe and Mail, after all they are balanced by the National Post and the Sun media. So, for me, an Anti-left media blog would be a lot of effort for very little return.
Third, I strongly believe that CPC's problems are of its own making. The current leadership has successfully disenfranchised some of its most loyal members, yours truly included, by virtue of its dictatorial constitutional "amendment" processes, its weak policy "resource" development procedures and its inability to recognize conflict of interest with paid employees filling volunteer presidential positions. And now, an effort to muffle the results of a leadership vote at the upcoming Convention is apparently being considered. This has not gone unnoticed by many non-members who are of the opinion that if the CPC cannot listen to the views of its own members, how will it be able to listen to the views of Canadians?
Fourth, the CPC appears to have only one agenda item, power at any cost, even it means trampling on any principles that it might have had. That the party appears willing do anything to appease Quebec is a case in point.
What we need is real vision ... a vision based on principles ... not on buying votes by promised cash dole outs, by appeasement or by doing the politically correct thing. The Liberals are past-masters at that! The CPC will never win that way.
I sincerely apologize for being so outspoken, it's certainly nothing personal, but I get the feeling that my efforts over the last ten years have been for nought. And at age eighty, I cannot start to fight all over again!
Take care and stay in touch,
With hugs,
Maurice
***
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerrie van Ieperen [mailto:gvanieperen@shaw.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 9:17 PM
To: Eugene Parks
Subject: Finally
Hi Eugene,
Am slowly getting caught up. Have you made any progress on the blog? Managed to ask Diane about it on the weekend. She's hardly been home - all sorts of immigration consultations and other events. She'd been away for three full weeks. She said that to the best of her knowledge (she hadn't had a chance to check her e-mails yet) she had had no further response from the people she has been talking to, except from Maurice who said no. She is intending to follow up, but just hasn't had the time.
Blog sites are sure in the news this week! I assume you've been on the captains site with all the Gomery gossip? All the talk about an election scares me: I better get on with my taxes and a whole bunch of other activities as fast as I can, before it all has to go on hold again for 6 weeks. How is the situation in Victoria regarding a candidate? Has a nomination process started, and will you give it another go?
I'm hearing mixed reviews of the Convention. Most seem to feel it went quite well, but some oldtimers are upset about loosing more ground for the grassroots. We have a Board meeting on Thursday and it will be interesting to hear the reports.
Regards,
Gerrie
***
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Sauer [mailto:rsauer@shaw.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 6:21 AM
To: elparks@shaw.ca; 'Ablonczy Sauer'; 'Gerrie van Ieperen'
Subject: RE: Blogging
Still waiting for feedback. Has been quite positive so far in verbal discussions. Have asked for email feedback and will forward what I receive.
Cheers,
D.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene Parks [mailto:elparks@shaw.ca]
Sent: March 4, 2005 11:45 AM
To: Ablonczy Sauer; Gerrie van Ieperen
Subject: Blogging
How is the plan going?
Eugene Parks
***
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerrie van Ieperen [mailto:gvanieperen@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 4:25 PM
To: Eugene Parks
Subject: Exposing the left-wing media filter
Hi Eugene,
Here goes. It's getting longer and longer, but hopefully that will help clarify what it is all about - a process we all needed to go through so we are on the same page! Please send me back any edits you would like to make (plus fill in the blanks where we need more information on your background). Also, I picked four out of your seven blog sites, but you may not agree that I picked the best! Diane felt we should limit that number even more, maybe even go with just one. Since you have more experience with these sites, please make another proposal if you wish!
Once I've received your comments, I'll fax another copy to Diane and she can then start sending it out to some of her contacts. Diane suggests that we be rather selective about who we tell about this for the time being, so we can first "test the waters."
Thank you for your patience and good natured responses, and above all for your willingness to take this on!
Look forward to hearing from you,
Gerrie
Exposing the left-wing media filter
There is growing concern with a perceived left-wing bias in how news is reported in Canada. Many believe a healthy democracy requires the return to a better balance and greater objectivity in the institutions that shape public opinion.
For example, a recent news report (Globe and Mail: "Anti-racism groups denounce Harper's tactics",) implied that the Conservative leader had said or done something racist, although the article failed to provide any evidence to support that. The strong Liberal Party connections of, and Liberal government funding for, the group behind the 'denunciation' were nowhere mentioned. In addition, the headline was placed side by side with one showing the Prime Minister under fire for his "ironic statement" that Syria is in Lebanon to 'keep the peace.' The subliminal message was that the two situations were on a par, thus serving to diminish the magnitude of the PM's shocking endorsement of Syria's incursions into a neighbouring country.
A new initiative to help address the problem is under consideration: regular contributions to a respected and credible blog site exposing clear instances of this type of unfair representation of the facts. The contributions would be posted by Mr. Eugene Parks of Victoria, B.C. Parks is a frequent contributor to political chat lines and an excellent writer. Parks is president of Objectives Management Group Inc. and Investors' Development Corporation (anything relevant you want to add here, Eugene?). He is very interested in fronting this initiative, which is being proposed in consultation with respected conservative-minded leaders.
Parks would be assisted in this endeavour by a core group of people, some of whom would be writers and some, analysts. The analysts would point out instances of unbalanced or biased news reporting. A writer would then make the case succinctly and logically, for posting.
The objective would not be to replace liberal bias with a corresponding conservative bias, but to hold news disseminators to account for lack of balance and objectivity where this can be clearly demonstrated. At the same time, citizens would become more aware of the need to be discriminating in the use of news reports to form their own opinions of events, and to look behind the information offered.
When Dan Rather reported that George Bush had a questionable military service record, it was a blog site that quickly pointed out the flaws in the documents. Without this prompt reality check, the voting public could have received a clear and lasting impression that the President was not trustworthy, something that may well have been difficult to repair even with later factual corrections. Dan Rather was held accountable and forced to make a public apology. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml).
Blog sites and the internet offer a powerful tool to communicate directly with citizens. Tens of thousands log into these sites, including news reporters and columnists. Some existing, credible blogs with established audiences present an excellent opportunity to get started with this initiative. The following Blogs are under consideration:
http://www.pogge.ca/
http://noncogent.blogspot.com/
http://www.blogscanada.com/egroup/
http://www.polspy.ca/
In time, this may lead to a new blog dedicated to exposing unfair and distorted reporting.
Your advice and input on this proposal would be very helpful.
Do you think this is a worthwhile initiative?
Do you have suggestions on how to make this work?
Do you know of another reputable blog site that would be more suitable than the ones mentioned above?
Would you be interested in participating as a writer or analyst?
Do you know of other people with writing and analytical skills who might be interested in participating?
Your help on this 'Exposing the left-wing media filter' initiative is sincerely appreciated. Please forward your thoughts to Eugene Parks at elparks@shaw.ca or directly to the person who sent you this information.
***
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerrie van Ieperen [mailto:gvanieperen@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 8:07 PM
To: elparks@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: Exposing the left-wing media filter (Draft III)
Hi Eugene,
Great edits - all of them! I'll fax them off to Diane. She is not at home tonight, but as far as I'm concerned this is now done and I'll actually be sending it out to Maurice Murphy in Ottawa. I spoke to Maurice earlier this afternoon to talk about the concept - he is one of our old time activists, he and I were co-chairs of the Grassroots for UA campaign. He is in his early eighties and has just retired as president of his EDA and from politics, not because it was becoming too much, but because he has had some run-ins with people from the Leader's Office and he finally had enough. But he always was a great initiator of ideas and did piles of work to bring those ideas to fruition. If he wanted to participate he would have lots to offer, but he wants to think about it, since he has undertaken all sorts of other volunteer activities and feels he may not have the time.
We'll be in touch again tomorrow I am sure. Thanks,
Gerrie
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Parks
To: Gerrie van Ieperen
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 8:10 PM
Subject: Exposing the left-wing media filter (Draft III)
I think as time progresses I'll get a lot closer to what Diane is thinking a lot faster. Regardless, she has done an excellent rewrite. Changes have been made (in red).
---------------------
Exposing the left-wing media filter
There is growing concern with a perceived left-wing bias in how news is reported in Canada. Many believe a healthy democracy requires the return to both a better balance and greater objectivity in the institutions that shape public opinion.
For example, a recent news report (Globe and Mail: "Anti-racism groups denounce Harper's tactics") implied that the Conservative leader had said or done something racist, although the article failed to provide any evidence to support that. Also missing from the report was any indication of either the groups' known Liberal Party connections or the Liberal government's financial support of the groups. Furthermore, the headline was placed beside another caption showing the Prime Minister under fire for his "ironic statement" that Syria is in Lebanon to 'keep the peace.' The subliminal message was that the two situations were on a par, thus serving to diminish the magnitude of the PM's shocking endorsement of Syria's incursions into a neighbouring country.
A new initiative to help address the problem is under consideration. Regular political media analysis will be submitted to a respected blog site, exposing clear instances of unfair representation of the facts. Mr. Eugene Parks of Victoria B.C. would post the contributions; He is a frequent contributor to political chat lines and an excellent writer. Parks is president of Objectives Management Group Inc. (where he has been highly instrumental in developing mass media technologies such as DirecTV and Netscape). He is very interested in fronting this initiative, which is being proposed in consultation with respected conservative-minded leaders.
Parks would be assisted in this endeavour by a core group of people, some of whom would be either writers or analysts. The analysts would point out instances of unbalanced or biased news reporting. A writer would then prepare a succinct and logical case for posting.
The objective would not be to replace liberal bias with a corresponding conservative bias, but to hold news disseminators to account for lack of balance and objectivity where this can be clearly demonstrated. At the same time, citizens would become more aware of the need to be discriminating in the use of news reports to form their own opinions of events, and to look behind the information offered.
When Dan Rather reported that George Bush had a questionable military service record, a blog site quickly pointed out the flaws in the documents. Without this prompt reality check, the voting public could have received a clear and lasting impression that the President was not trustworthy, something that may well have been difficult to repair even with later factual corrections. Dan Rather was held accountable and forced to make a public apology. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml).
Blog sites and the Internet offer a powerful tool to communicate directly with citizens. Tens of thousands log into these sites, including news reporters and columnists. Some existing credible blogs with established audiences present an excellent opportunity to get started with this initiative. The following Blogs are under consideration:
http://www.pogge.ca/
http://noncogent.blogspot.com/
http://www.blogscanada.com/egroup/
http://www.polspy.ca/
In time, this may lead to a new blog dedicated to exposing unfair and distorted reporting.
Your advice and input on this proposal would be very helpful.
Do you think this is a worthwhile initiative?
Do you have suggestions on how to make this work?
Do you know of another reputable blog site that would be more suitable than the ones mentioned above?
Would you be interested in participating as a writer or analyst?
Do you know of other people with writing and analytical skills who might be interested in participating?
Your help on this 'Exposing the left-wing media filter' initiative is sincerely appreciated. Please forward your thoughts to Eugene Parks at elparks@shaw.ca or directly to the person who sent you this information.
There has been no left wing media bent this election. Stephen Harper received a free pass. We had three leaders with the following professional qualifications
A. NDP Leader: PHD, 20 years of municipal leadership (most people live in cities)
B. Liberal Leader: Build a multi-national company, balanced the national budget, saved the dollar, ran a minority government
C. Conservative Leader: Spent adult life bashing Canada and complaining... no credits to his name.
go figure.
This story actually made it into today's Montreal Gazette. Good show Eugene! For everyone's information (ie. for the 2% of you who don't already know) Eugene's complaints are now the subject of an Elections Canada inquiry. Hopefully this gets some play, and the CPC gets some bad press... because I can think of at least one guy who's going to be on the outside looking in for a good period of time.
Finally any remaining shred of credibility in the wild-eyed ramblings of Mr. Eugene Parks has been stripped away.
It's just too bad that Diane Ablonczy, a great lady and a fabulous MP I have a great deal of respect for, got her name dragged into this.
Just to assist Eugene Parks with Paul Martin's bio:
B: Liberal Leader: Was given a multi-national company courtesy of Paul Demerais and friends, balanced the national budget by severely off-loading committments to the provinces, saw the dollar strengthen as international demand for our raw materials skyrocketed, kept a minority government alive on life-support during adscam only to see that minority government eventually die seven months later on the same issue of adscam.
There, that's better. Full disclosure is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately for the Liberals, Canadians are beginning to discover this.
Diane Ablonczy is one of the few good MPs that the CPC has... most are not qualified to be an opposition as evidence by the fact that they could not stop Chretien, who was the real problem. And now they have to resort to under handed politicing to get at a better man. Reported in the TC on Monday, the Victoria CPC is writing their own praise letters and then getting others to send in, where is the integrity in that?
Eugene raises a good point. There has been absolutely no discussion in this campaign of that fact thet Stephen Harper has never actually DONE anything in his entire life outside of partisan hackery. He was a one-term MP, he ran the ultra-right wing National Citizen's Coalition, he was Presto's right hand policy wonk during the genesis of the reform party.
For someone who spends a headache-inducing amount of time talking about the "average Canadian", what the hell would Stephen Harper know about that? It doesn't look like he's ever had any kind of job or career at all outside of politics. If he has, let's hear about it.
Interesting. I doubt it will go anywhere since I don't think it costs anything above the third party advertising limits to create a blogging Tories webpage, still hopefully this helps close the gap and maybe pull off a weak liberal minority. The gap is tightening slightly, but I still give the Tories a strong edge, however I feel a Liberal minority is now more likely than a Conservative majority.
"Eugene raises a good point. There has been absolutely no discussion in this campaign of that fact thet Stephen Harper has never actually DONE anything in his entire life outside of partisan hackery. He was a one-term MP, he ran the ultra-right wing National Citizen's Coalition, he was Presto's right hand policy wonk during the genesis of the reform party."
Yup... he has been practicing the complain, grumble, and grip skill for nearly 20 years... that's it.
"Interesting. I doubt it will go anywhere since I don't think it costs anything above the third party advertising limits to create a blogging Tories webpage, still hopefully this helps close the gap and maybe pull off a weak liberal minority. The gap is tightening slightly, but I still give the Tories a strong edge, however I feel a Liberal minority is now more likely than a Conservative majority."
The limit is $3,000...
The costs that probably could declared:
Volunteer time in kind: about $50/hour over eight weeks might be 50*40*8*2= 6,400 (just guess as there are might a few hundred in the blogging circle)
Phones, feeds, computer, office, paper, papers, work of those providing info, CPC press time feeding site, RSS feed etc.
Rent from office/room where blogging is done
etc etc etc.
One could only guess until all the gift in kind numbers are added and the CPC contribution from the press office added... etc etc etc
I dunno.
Would Steven Taylor like to account for the full expenses... not just the fee for the website?
The issue is a dead one: http://www.politicswatch.com/blogs-dec2-2005.htm
LOL
""If a political party or a candidate were to have a blog then that would fall under the financing regime. But if it's the supporters, there are going to be supporters all over for various parties and it's a form of self expression."
Exactly... if a political party or candiate... daaaa
that is the point
As you know... Steve Taylor was at the CPC convention in March and what was he promoting and what were MPs endorsing while there?
hmmmm, when will the CBC check their archives for Steve Taylor at the convention flogging blogging tories and the CPC talking about their party's internet campaign... hmmmm
I wonder what the Chief Electorial officer was saying when he was referring to "if a party or candidate were to..."
As I read this there are 13 comment entries (this one marking the 14th)
Of those, no less than 7 are the wild-eyed foam-mouthed rants of Eugene Parks, who then proceeded to reply to his own postings no less than two times.
Eugene, I can't thank you enough for making yourself such a great laughing stock, you provide enless hours of amusement.
Actually the limit is over $150,000 nationally. The $3,000 limit is for any given riding so since blogging Tories is national it would be under the national limit as opposed to a riding limit.
"Actually the limit is over $150,000 nationally. The $3,000 limit is for any given riding so since blogging Tories is national it would be under the national limit as opposed to a riding limit. "
Are you claiming that the blogging tories and their web ring is a third party?
Global warming! Abortion! Blogging Tories! Corporations! Iraq! Alito! 9/11! Rumseld! Hidden Agenda!
AAAAAHHHH! My tinfoil hat makes my head hurt!
"Global warming! Abortion! Blogging Tories! Corporations! Iraq! Alito! 9/11! Rumseld! Hidden Agenda! AAAAAHHHH! My tinfoil hat makes my head hurt! "
LOL...
Stephen Harper in all his adult career as a lobbyist/complainer has never had an open agenda... ever... except for complaining about the vast left wing conspiracy like the vast left wing conspiracy that he is so worried about should he get a majority… you know the one that will not let him accomplish anything even if he gets a majority... like how the government stopped him from accomplishing anything in the last twenty years of his adult life.
I am not sure whether Blogging Tories is considered a third party or not. I am only pointing out I find it highly improbable they went above the third party spending limits. Anyways Jason Cherniak at www.jasoncherniak.blogspot.com explains the issue pretty well. I voted Liberal in the advanced poll this week, but I would rather see the Tories defeated on their bad ideas than through dirty tricks. There are enough extremists in the party and bad ideas, that they can be defeated on this.
There is substantially more to the question than what you and Steven Taylor site. A statement is forecoming.
Not having a blog, a reply is available at:
Blogging Tories
Try the url with this post for a link to my reply
Blogging Tories is the result of the teamwork of members of the CPC party.
Stephen Taylor is its Webmaster and Editor. As Taylor self states, the Blogging Tories is his volunteer effort for the CPC. His volunteer Internet efforts went live on January 4th 2005. Later, he openly promoted his site at the first Conservative Party of Canada convention in March 2005 and was endorsed by its MPs, party officials, and members.
Previously, the CPC stated its plain intent to find a content channel to spin news in the coming election mimicking George Bush's campaign war room's use of web logs. After some months of technical frustration, Taylor's site was directly linked electronically to the CPC.
He began receiving unique "news" tips from the CPC pressroom and staff.
His site moved from being a mere box on an American Service Provider to being a truly CPC team effort. Scores of CPC members, including
MPs, Association President, National Council Members, joined the effort. His site became a conscious group effort for the CPC with forethought and intent by both himself and the CPC. Make no mistake about it, this was a CPC team effort - not that of just individuals as Taylor would have us believe.
Now of note recently, the Canada Election Act allows one to contribute to an election in one of three ways. A) as an individual, B.) as a registered third party, or C.) as part of a political party).
As a party of a political party your professional contribution, such as a website, needs to be expensed and declared and the material you distribute on behalf of the party must be identified as coming from the party.
As a registered third party, well, you have to register and work within spending limits. And as an individual, you have to work as an individual and live within personal spending limits.
In the case of blogging Tories, it was not an individual effort and it was done in conscious coordinated effort with the CPC.
Stephen Taylor has stated that is was his volunteer effort for the CPC and the CPC was feeding him. Further, MPs were endorsing him and scores, even hundreds, of CPC members were engaged.
The Blogging Tories was not a legal third party as it was not legally registered.
Lastly, the Blogging Tories did not label its literature's source nor declare itself openly as an agent of the CPC despite the direct connection.
So, the question - where is the integrity here in regards to the Canada Elections Act? Only the Chief Electoral Officer or a judge are qualified to make a judgment.
Most certainly there is enough documentation that the question be answered.
Except when it would cause significant harm, laws should not prevent one from speaking any truth that you are willing to put your name to as your own material nor should you be prosecuted for doing so. Additionally, the law must also protect the integrity of free speech by requiring that authors identify their source, particularly if one is not truly the full source of that speech. Freedom of speech includes the responsibility of authors to own the words they use. Otherwise, free speech can be reduced to propaganda - even reduced to being a lie. When our free speech is part of democratic decision-making, equal weight to each citizen's voice should be given. During elections when sources of partisan information is not disclosed and monetary limits are not evenly respected by all debating parties, then the integrity of our free speech and debate is compromised.