Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | liberal media

Good evening. Here’s your totally useless news report from your crackerjack journalists, for Friday.


So… what the heck are “encounters” with police? And how many “encounters” with police by one or two thugs does it take to wake up a reporter… 12? 97? How about 120? Still asleep? 300? OK how about 460-odd? Does that wake you up?

Apparently the magic number of police encounters is well over 700.

Vancouver bus driver brazenly assaulted, three women arrested

By Cheryl Chan, The Province March 14, 2014 9:12 AM

Two sisters and a teenager have been charged with attacking a female bus driver after she asked a group of unruly passengers to leave the bus. …

…The women allegedly grabbed the driver, threw her to the ground, repeatedly punched her, and tried to drag her off the bus by her hair. …

…The three women and their companions fled on foot, but were found by police several blocks away at a park near Spruce and 6th Avenue. Police also found nine bottles of liquor with them. They believe the liquor was stolen from a liquor store earlier in the day. Dolores Pearl Robinson, 22 of Vancouver, has been charged with assault. She is well-known to police with more than 450 previous encounters. …

That’s pretty much the reporting. Read the rest yourself. Is it even possible to be more lazy and report fewer of the things that are important to readers, than in this story?

Three girls were arrested, one of whom has 462 “previous encounters” with police in her past, the other with over 267, and a third who is “well-known to police.” But no elaboration on that startling fact is provided. They just state that wildly intriguing fact, and then move on as if we, the readers, aren’t even remotely curious about that. Or like they don’t care if we are curious.

This reporter is not alone. All of the sources I checked were nonplussed about the fact that between two of the alleged attackers, there were over 700 “encounters” with police, and yet they were freely stalking the streets and not in jail or reform school.800px-Vancouver_trolley(403)

Were they ever arrested by police? Don’t know. Or were there just over 700 chit-chats? Don’t know. Any jail time? Who knows.

Are we so jaded now that thugs get over 700 encounters with police and it doesn’t faze us? Or is this the new brave world of liberal molly-coddling of our youth, and symptomatic of the full-on welfare state that the liberal-left has been edging us toward, all these years? (Answer: yes)

It’s like it’s not even acceptable to question why these thugs aren’t currently being reformed, instead of, well, not being reformed. It’s not PC. To which I say BS.

Liberals in the media are always on about and constantly asking us to “start a conversation,” but apparently this isn’t a chatty enough story. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s traffic cones makes for a juicy “national conversation” with endless implications and conjecture. But 700 encounters with police culminating in a violent attack against an innocent, defenseless (don’t even get me started about gun rights) female bus driver who was just doing her job: dullsville. Maybe it the thugs were the daughters of a Conservative MP, alarm bells would ring.

Here’s an angle — feel free to use this, news media: I complain all day long in these pages about the liberal media incessantly inserting a political — always liberal — angle to every story. How about just for once — for a bit of balance — you ask a conservative. That’s right. Instead of appealing, as you always do, to reliably left-wing professor or politician or pundit for talking points to color a story — any story — how about just this once, find just one conservative law-and-order type to interview. Ask them about whether or not this is just another example of the usual bullcrap that we’ve come to expect from our liberal criminal justice system and society. I dare you. (Here’s a clue: according to another article about this story, “All three women have been released with conditions, and are expected to appear in court within the next two weeks.”)

March 19 is their court date. I won’t hold my breath waiting for them to appear, and if they do, for anything but the lightest possible sentence. I’m thinking a big bloody murder, or maybe a bomb blast, is the magic wake-up pill.


Article page |

*UPDATE: “NEVER MIND!”* – Corporate Welfare Demanded for “Successful” Chrysler.

Originally posted January 13, 2014, 2:04 PM PST 
UPDATED BELOW – March 4, 2014

Chrysler or GM should come out with a new model called the “Abomination.” The Chevy Abomination, or the new Dodge Abomination coupe. How about a zippy new sports car (a hybrid, natch!) called the Dodge Rip-Off ? Better yet, a new wind-powered government_carminivan called the “Welfare”. The 2014 Chrysler Welfare — and a model with an extra large rear end, called the Corporate Welfare.

Chrysler is in the news today teasing a new billion-dollar minivan plant upgrade in Ontario, but what is the very first thing they are demanding? Corporate welfare from the government. Again. Subsidies, tax favors, and so on. Or what the Chrysler CEO risibly calls “a partnership.”

…But the size of the investment means governments need to step up to the plate with what he called “a partnership” or financial assistance.

A “partnership” my round white trunk. This story doesn’t belong in the “Report On Business” pages of the Globe and Mail, which is where you’ll find it, it belongs in the “Government Intrusions into the Free Market” section. Or the “Corporate Cronyism” or the “Corp/Gov Corruption” pages. Or the “Progressivism-R-Us” section.

This is not business as business should be. Or government as it should be. This is just an horrible political/economic ideology called progressivism. And it’s a lemon.

Will the progressives in Ottawa (they incorrectly call themselves the “Conservatives”) “step up to the plate” (as the reporter suggests in his actual words), and dole out hundreds of millions more of our hard-earned income to a U.S. auto company? And will the even more progressive Liberals of Ontario?  My guess is yes. Both governments recently did this exact same thing for Ford, again (see my “Ford: taxpayers being played is job one? from September 20, 2013).

But I’m the only one concerned about this perfidy. The Globe and Mail covered the story, but has absolutely no Globe_and_Mail_Report_On_Business2questions about the ginormous SUV in the room — the corporate welfare. Nothing. Yet the “Report on Business” section of the Globe and Mail touts itself as being “Canada’s source” for “in-depth analysis.”

Instead, the Globe and Mail “business” (yup, scare quotes) section is so obsequious  —  or perhaps now so jaded or oblivious  —  to government handouts, they follow up the buried facts with this factoid, which even then, they summarily ignore:

The Windsor plant has been one of the most successful and profitable plants in the Chrysler empire for more than three decades under several different ownership groups.

So, “most successful and profitable,” yet that statement didn’t make a small explosion go off in their collective noggins?

Apparently if you’re doing OK, that means you get government welfare. Guess I should be getting mine soon. Since I don’t need it.

I’d love to see the state-owned CBC questioning Chrysler’s demands for corporate welfare, but of course that would be ludicrous, since they’re also taxpayer-funded. Oh wait  —  how embarrassing for the Globe and Mail  —  the CBC actually did do a more laudable job than the Globe and Mail in this story (which wouldn’t be hard to do). Ironically, the CBC did question the coporate welfare, by asking for feedback from Ontario’s Progressive Conservative critic for economic development, MPP Jane McKenna. I’m sure the CBC is utterly clueless as to the obvious irony, but their reporting went like this:

CBC_News_Windsor… McKenna said she doesn’t believe in “corporate welfare.”

“We need to create the right conditions for all businesses to succeed,” she said. “You should have a broad-based tax relief. If you just do constant Band-Aids, every time you jump in the water the Band-Aid falls off.

“We are not put in a position to pick winners and losers.”

Then again, the CBC never questions their own corporate welfare  —  their annual bailouts  —  or their state-ownership, or the laws which have unfairly protected them from competition  —  from citizen-owned media. So the irony, and hypocrisy, abound.

What PC MPP Jane McKenna said sounds right, by which I mean correct and conservative. But then again federal “Conservative” MPs and ministers all said good-sounding stuff like that too, before they were elected and started being progressive. And the Ontario wing is literally called the Progressive Conservative Party to start with.

So I’m not enjoying the ride, today.

My guess is that like all progressives, liberals, and socialists alike, government “investment” in the means of production, as we see or will see here, is viewed by the Globe and Mail, and all the other liberal media that said nothing about this in their reporting, as just another welcome opportunity to expand state ownership and its control over industry and the free market generally. It seems it’s not even worth their mentioning it anymore. You know, because this model has worked out ever so well, so far, in places like Greece. And in the quality programing at and popularity of the state-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC.

So this will proceed. Unquestioned by almost everybody. “Scare quotes” aside, here’s a scary quote from the Chrysler CEO, in the Globe and Mail:

“The dialogue has started,” he said.

For shame. Only the most myopic, the weakest possible politicians who have no spine and no leadership abilities, will continually fall for these corporate welfare/taxpayer rip-off schemes. And/or they’re simply corrupt.

Have you driven a government lately? You really should.

 UPDATE – March 4, 2014

Seems I shamed them into now withdrawing their demand for taxpayer cash.  Yup.
Globe & Mail today:

Chrysler withdraws request for government funding

Published Last updated

Chrysler Group LLC is withdrawing its request for funding from the federal and Ontario governments.

The auto giant had asked for some $700-million in public funds to expand its operations in the province, most crucially at a minivan plant in Windsor. Chrysler had been willing to sink $3.6-billion into Windsor and Brampton, Ont.

But the company has now walked away from that request, The Globe and Mail has learned.

“It is clear to us that our projects were being used as a political football, a process that, in our view apart from being unnecessary and ill-advised, will ultimately not benefit Chrysler,” the company said in a statement.

In other words, they found out that their anti-free-market corporate welfare demands totally ticked Canadians off, so they’re going to call it a “political football” now, betraying the fact that their corporate model is based more on politics and government than on quality products being sold like a normal business in the free market on a level playing field with other Canadians.


Article page |

CBC: Equal Time for Mocking Liberals? No No, I Wasn’t Being Satrical.

Yesterday, as I mentioned on Twitter, the state-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC tweeted out a snark-filled biased political cartoon. Because Canada needs a state-sponsored snarky cartoon drawer. And a political one at that. Because there aren’t any in the private sector. Nope.

Yeah let’s get that through our heads: the state-owned news media  —  in Canada  —  draws-up a snarky, biased, political cartoon, not unlike what they might do in socialist banana republics like, say, Venezuela, on their state media. And like at other state-owned media, the idea at the systemically left-wing, state-owned CBC, is to mock political opponents. To bring ’em down. And to prop-up their own: socialists, liberals, progressives generally.

It’s how they sustain themselves, and they’re all about being “sustainable” as you know only too well. They’re socialism-reliant, so they hate conservatives.

My reply was too tame:

So they slammed Rob Ford with a snark-filled cartoon. But they weren’t done.

CBC-22-minutes_mocks_Tories-2013-11-07_074411I’ve tweeted and posted about Rob Ford, I’m no fan of his now. And Mike Duffy too. Never was a fan.

But I’ve been following how the media’s mindset is clearly to pile on, and just either “get Harper,” or “get Duffy.” Either way, they’re both supposed “Conservatives,” so they don’t care who wins or loses  —  in fact they hope they both lose.

I tweeted some time ago:

Well yesterday the CBC, in their continuing effort to slam conservatives but not leftists, also tweeted about Duffy. It was to promote an upcoming segment on their un-funny show “22 Minutes,” which mocks Mike Duffy and Conservatives generally. Which we paid for. A supposedly funny song called “Get Duffy” by the fake band the “Daft Tories” is what’s that one is about. It includes lines like “You gotta fight to ‘get Duffy'” and “Everybody gotta fight to ‘get Duffy’.”

I can say that. State-owned news should not.

Again my way too tepid reply:

As long as the state-owned, taxpayer-funded news media exists  —  and it’s waaaayy past its best-before date  —  and it is going to wade into the forum of ideas and specifically politics, and therefore manipulating how Canadians think about particular politicians and particular parties, then they should be forced by Canadians do it evenly. Why let them get away with mocking conservatives, and promoting socialists and liberals or any other progressives? Are we stupid? They are the enemy.

The state-owned news media should really question their Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau’s sexism and extend the “conversation” (they usually just love that left-wing buzzword) to question his vacuousness over the sexist, idiotic poster put out yesterday by him, advertising a ladies night of cocktails with the self-esteemed one  —  at $250 a pop. I posted about that earlier today.

Will they mock Trudeau for his “ladies night” idiocy with films and cartoons and spend tons of taxpayer cash making an idiot of of him on their TV and radio and internet programming, as they did Ford and Duffy and countless others?

My guess is no, they will not.


Article page |

Irony: the Province newspaper misleads readers on senate scandal with fake photo

The irony of this terrible reporting obviously flies right over their heads, at the Postmedia-owned Province newspaper in Vancouver.

Even while reporting about the senate scandal, in which we normal citizens and all responsible media lament the fact that nobody knows who to believe (Harper or Duffy…), on account of there being so many underhanded shenanigans, the Province doubles-down and commits what some might call a worse perfidy and its own underhanded shenanigans. The Province Misleads on Purpose

Look at the picture the Province searched for and then chose to attach to their story on the senate scandal today. It is obviously an official-looking police “evidence bag,” full of cash.

Trouble is, that “evidence bag” of money has utterly nothing to do with the senate story. It even has utterly nothing to do with the many ginned-up fantasy versions of the story. There simply is no “evidence bag” full of cash in this case. No cash was even alleged to have been passed, and what money was passed is not alleged to be illegal.

You’ve been duped. The photo is a fake, of sorts. It’s actually misappropriated  —  a word which speaks perfectly to the delicious irony, which I’ll expand on in a bit.

So what’s up here? Is the Province mendaciously advancing a political message to its readers?  An anti-Conservative narrative? An underhanded meme, of sorts?

Ya think?

The Province, in an exercise of slimy, deceitful innuendo, put that photo there to make a quick visual insinuation of criminal activity. They presented for its readers visual “evidence” of such. They did it to tendentiously stink the story up with the illusions of mafia-like bags of cash being passed between Conservatives.

It’s a lie.

Hang on  —  maybe it was just an innocent, albeit ignorant blunder of mammoth proportions insofar as journalistic standards are concerned.

Yeah…no, it was just on purpose. And that, believe it or not, is worse.

The purpose is to lead some readers   —  as many as possible (they even tweeted about it to get more attention)  —  to think even more negatively than they already might about the story, and about the Harper Conservatives. The bar is already set low, to be sure, so it takes quite the limbo. But low-information readers, who became that way thanks largely to deceptive media stories like this one, will surely take that bait and run –err vote– with it.  With ginned-up stories like this, lots of other voters will switch their vote to the media-supported NDP, or to their Liberal Party division, next time around. The media knows that after seeing evidence bags of cash connected to the Liberal Party’s sponsorship scandal, voters did switch their votes to the Conservatives. The media has never forgiven themselves. So here, since none exist, they simply created a fake “evidence bag” of cash. Lots of neat anti-conservative water-cooler banter will ensue.  And there will be high-fives among reporters and editors.

The Province Misleads on PurposeHere’s how the Province misappropriated that “evidence bag” of cash. And how the Province knows darn well it did. Postmedia used that photo  —  correctly  —  before.

The Montreal Gazette (also Postmedia-owned) had that exact same evidence bag of money photo attached to a story a little more than a year ago (October 22, 2012) — a completely different story.

In that story, that same photo (as seen again at left) is the correct photo  —  it’s the actual RCMP evidence bag full of cash, which the police secured in their criminal investigation of the infamous mafia-linked construction industry corruption in Montreal  —  a real, truly criminal corruption story, which included that real evidence bag of cash.

The caption under that photo reads:

A bag containing $123,000 returned by ex-city engineer Gilles Surprenant, on display at the Charbonneau Commission.

Photograph by: HO , THE CANADIAN PRESS

The caption under the Province story’s photo?


So the Province knew the photo was unrelated to their senate story. But they chose to attach that same photo depicting actual evidence and that photo’s deep, nefarious, criminal implications, on the completely unrelated senate story.

I’m not sure how Canadian Press will feel about their photo being used that way, but I’d personally be pissed if the the news media were wrongly using my photos like that, implicating me in their devious deception of readers. Oh who am I kidding? Postmedia is one of the owners of CANADIAN PRESS. But don’t worry  —  there is no corruption there.

Irony abounds. But that’s not what’s important. It’s far more important to set the media narrative right. I’ve done my best. Before writing this, I called them out with a couple of tweets including this:

I got no reply from them. They don’t care because despite their egregious deceit, I was the only one complaining. That’s some more bitter irony for me.


Article page |

CBC: Failure Night In Canada

You thought Barack Obama and his regime’s Obamacare roll-out was his scandal-ridden government’s disaster du jour? Well perhaps. But it only cost around $500 million of taxpayer cash borrowed from the Chinese for that predictably failed rollout. The Canadian state-owned CBC sucks up $1.2 BILLION every year. And after decades, it is apparently continuing to do so mostly for the purpose of failing.

This is about the 500th time I’ve exposed the CBC’s dismal viewer numbers, and the charts have never shown anything but utter failure. CBC_Fascist_logoThis one for the latest week, Oct 7-13, 2013.

The only show that the state-owned, socialism-reliant CBC has in the top-20 is a hockey game, the broadcast rights for which were bought by the state-owned behemoth, using taxpayer funds, in competition against private citizen-owned broadcasters (taxpayers). That’s right, through the state-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC, the government competes against its own citizens. This little game of non-free-market idiocy (some would say liberal fascism, and they’d be spot on) is automatically won by the state-owned CBC, because they’re the player with the most cash.

4 NCIS – Global
6 C.S.I. – CTV
14 BONES – Global
19 HAWAII FIVE-O – Global

Information from BBM, representing Canadian audience aged two and up.

I also like to point out, in case you didn’t notice, that almost none of the shows on any of the networks on this list are actually purely Canadian shows  —  they’re American shows originating from American networks. A rare exception is CTV National News, which comes in at number 17. Hey Joel, where is the state-owned CBC’s “the National?” It’s not in the top-20 chart as you can see. It’s not even in the top-30, which is as far down as the BBM ratings bother to go. It’s so unpopular that it’s literally an “off the charts” failure.

But I point out this dearth of Canadian shows on Canadian networks because aside from progressives in government wasting billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars on the failed CBC, and continuing to do so like insane people, year after year, Canadians are also robbed of their money to pay for Canadian productions, through myriad government-run social engineering agencies like the Canadian Media Fund and Telefilm Canada. In fact as if to double-down on the socialist inanity, the state-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC actually buys those programs to broadcast on their failed networks, to no viewers.

It’s all obviously an abject and extremely expensive failure. But like with the CBC, progressives in government insist on blowing wads of taxpayer cash on this failed experiment in socialism, and on its ugly offspring, social engineering.

Progressives  —  whether socialists, liberals, or the many that are obviously even in the Conservative Party ranks  —  are the problem. A conservative  — or any normal, sane, freedom-loving government — would immediately eliminate the CBC and the various related social engineering agencies, and reduce taxes by an amount equal to the billions saved. It would not simply be a good fiscal move, it would be a sound social and economic policy advancing freedom in Canada and moving Canada forward. Or to put it another way, “a nice change.”

I always like to sign off of these posts asking this: what kind of government does this? What kind of government competes against its own citizens in business for profit, for business, for advertisers, for attention, for discussion  —  especially in the forum of ideas and moreover, in politics?  … and demanding an answer.


Article page |

“News” radio station CKWX 1130 misinforms re politics; no correction despite my honest efforts.


This is how it happens. Drip by drip.

Vancouver’s biggest all-news radio station, CKWX News 1130, blurted out a big fat lie this morning, on Twitter:

It was re-tweeted by @News1130radio and their 22,000 + followers. Is there no checking of facts there? No editors? Without even researching this information I knew it to be false, simply because I know the news facts. Huh.

Thinking they made an honest error, I first re-tweeted it with the word “WRONG” in front, so they could correct it with the right information:

But that didn’t move them. So I replied with the question:

Still no write-thru or acknowledgement regarding their misinformation.

One last try:

Nothing. So now I have no choice but to assume they want that wrong information to be out there, in order to fit a false, tendentious narrative of the Republican Party that they are trying to advance to Vancouverites and Canadians. I can then extend the logic to conclude that they want to denigrate conservatives, in any way they think they can get away with, hoping it will serve their political interests here at home. In their news reporting. In their news reporting! 

As most people who are even semi-clued-in on the news of the day, the 5% figure only ever came up in any news reporting with regard to the CONGRESS, not the “GOP.” For the benefit of the smart set at CKWX News 1130, Congress is made up of a Senate, currently dominated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democratic party; and a House, currently dominated by the Republicans under Speaker John Boehner.

On top of that, it wasn’t Gallup who arrived at the 5% result, it was an AP/GfK poll. Gallup came in at 11%. America’s favorability of the GOP is even or nearly even with the Democrats, but even according to Gallup, it’s nearly 500% higher than what the CKWX News 1130 reporters reported. So that’s quite a muddling and misstatement of the facts.

Also doing historically badly is Barack Hussein Obama. He’s at or near his lowest favorability on record  —  down around 37% according to the latest poll from AP/Gfk (which I’m using to be consistent). Even their beloved Gallup has him at an approval of only 44%, and a DISAPPROVAL rate of 50% today.  George W. Bush currently has higher favorability numbers (according to Gallup!) than Obama, and did have higher numbers than Obama at this point in his presidency  —  and he’s the one liberals love to paint as horribly unpopular.

I wonder why they don’t tweet about all that.

In any case, the damage is now done. So, heckuvajob, CKWX News 1130. And I suppose they could use the idiotic excuse one of their idols, the progressive Democrat Hillary Clinton, infamously yelled at the top of her lungs with arms flailing about, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!!”


Article page |

Blogger whacked in head by big huge rule

I’d actually read an article about the freshly parachuted-in from New York federal Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland and thought  —  wow  —  she’s gonna be tough to beat, since she’s oh-so impressive.  Of course I’d forgotten my own rule about the mainstream liberal media being chock full of sh*t (I said the full word in my own head just now).

What reminded me of my li’l rule was when I saw Ezra Levant’s report on her and Justin Trudeau yesterday on Sun News Network, channel 506 on my dial. Ezra yanked my own rule out of, um, someplace and whacked me over the head with it (in a good way, if there’s such a thing as a good way to whack me over the head. With my own rule.)

Here’s the report from Sun News Network:

But of course that report on Sun News Network by Ezra Levant only sets the liberals and their media’s hair on fire. Which means Ezra’s doing it right.

Ezra tweeted out this remark this morning:

That good-natured tweet was in response to this lousy sideswipe from one of the liberal media bigmouths, Paul Wells of Maclean’s. Question: can a person possibly tweet this without a sneer on their face?

Nice gratuitous and useless sneer. (By the way, why the subtweet?)

No, it’s not like Wells’ stupid tweet is “epic” like the rabid anti-conservative garbage tweets from that Hollywood “star” Alec Baldwin. But I can’t help point out that it was a particularly ironic tweet, since, at 39,000 tweets so far, the non-stop yip-yapping Paul Wells has apparently never avoided writing out his thoughts for public consumption.

Additionally, notwithstanding his own criticism of Ezra’s supposed loquaciousness, Wells couldn’t even see fit to get right to the point without that useless, time-wasting, no-information, sneering preamble. Wells actually used more of his 140-character limit sneering at Ezra Levant, than in begrudgingly pointing to Ezra’s video clip.

I’m glad Wells brought attention to the clip in the way he did, because it gave me another good reason to bring the churlish attitude of liberal media to the fore, and bring that Sun News clip to more people’s attention. I’m surprised Wells did, though, given what I think are his political proclivities. But in my next post, I explain why I think he did, and how Wells’ sneer is indicative of what is the bigger liberal media problem, which is the light of the Sun.

Read about that in my next post.


(And Please follow me on Twitter @JoelJohannesen)


Article page |

Protect freedom; call-out the mainstream media

As posted at

Here’s a double dose of grassroots: a reader comment made by a grassroots citizen after reading Michelle Malkin’s latest column at, called Colorado’s Grassroots Revolt Against Gun-Grabbers.

Malkin’s readers are like Malkin and the Coloradans she writes about: they’re revolted by the Award-grassrootsmindless excesses and extremism of today’s liberals, socialists, left-wing fascists — progressives generally — including those within the mainstream media. This reader comment gets the award:

Moonbat Exterminator wrote:
The media tailors its coverage to match the ever changing agenda of the progs. Actually, I think they must have a scorecard that lists facts vs how to cover them. To wit

Black victim, white or hispanic perp = Racism!!!!
White victim, black perp, gun = Gun violence
White victim, any perp, no gun = no coverage
White blonde little girl kidnapped and or murdered = 24/7 coverage wall to wall, but only if the victim is cute.

That pretty much covers it.

Call it a scorecard, or call it a manual. The liberal-left mainstream media use a kind of style guide or code, whether it’s in the form of a written manual or the code is simply wafting around in their media clubhouse’s ether. This code determines their level of coverage, tone of coverage, and even the words used in their coverage of events.

Usually, the determination of how, when, or whether to cover any story, just glibly goes without saying in mainstream media newsrooms and editorial offices. The rules are usually unwritten simply because they need not be written. How and when or if to cover a story, and the words used, is all obvious to them. The newsroom is of like minds. No manual is required.

And that’d be great if their agenda was to fully, truthfully, and without bias, inform citizens. The problem is that mainstream media is not an objective place anymore. They’re now more like campaign offices for the progressive movement.

The mainstream media is now systemically infected by liberals, or even further leftists, and so a sort of automated, reflexive liberal-left group-think takes place in media bullpens and offices in response to events. They all reflexively follow — sometimes unconsciously, sometimes not — the kind of code spelled-out more succinctly than me, by Moonbat Exterminator.

Like all liberals, no matter where they are — somebody’s house, a restaurant or bar, anywhere — when they say something, they think everybody in the room agrees with them. But in the case of the media, it’s actually true.

The brutal reality is this: the mainstream media generally cast aspersions, scandalize, hammer, smear, castigate, and mock the Right, whatever the truth; but they aggrandize, iconize, coddle and featherbed the Left, and whitewash their scandals (i.e., calling them “phony scandals”), in order to advance their progressive agenda. They are progressives.

Because they’re so stuck in that liberal-left mindset, or they’re peer-pressured by their co-workers, they also habitually, robotically, reprint — like they’re Obama’s own steno pool — the talking points of the Obama administration, or any left-wing organization, for that matter. And speaking of “matter”, the far-left and rabidly anti-conservative organization Media Matters is a favorite source of info and quotes for the mainstream media steno pool. Mainstream media also refer to the reliably pro-Obama, progressive mouthpieces like the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC,, Barack Obama’s cult-like Organizing for Action, or any number of other systemically infected liberal-left-advocating outfits.

And they’ll do it without question. Gone are the intrepid investigative, prodding, or even the mildly curious journalists — unless of course the story concerns, as Moonbat Exterminator said, a white-on-black crime, any gun crime, any conservative — a Republican, or worse, a tea party patriot.

For example, virtually no (non-Fox News Channel) mainstream media dare question Obama on any of his radical left-wing policies, his obvious hypocrisy, his blatant, outright lies, or the many stupid things he says or does, least of all the biggest and stupidest thing of them all, Obamacare; or about the stagnant economy, post the economy-wrecking trillion-dollar “stimulus” that we were assured would cure it. Yet Associated Press relied on a team of 11 reporters to try to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin and her best-selling book. Mark Steyn explained at the time:

Rogue’s Eleven

By Mark Steyn
November 14, 2009 7:19 AM

If you wonder why American newspapering is dying, consider this sign-off:

AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.

Wow. That’s ten “AP writers” plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That’s eleven writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

No, the Associated Press assigned eleven writers to “fact-check” Sarah Palin’s new book, and in return the eleven fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. …

…and the “errors” were hideously inconsequential.

With few exceptions, the only people who “fact-check” Obama or the Democrats or any in their mob of sycophantic media, are grassroots, non-mainstream media folks. Or at least that’s all who actually commit their findings to words or print. So keep doing it, people.

Everybody knows all of this, which, if you’re keeping score at home, makes this article pretty redundant. But redundancy works well for the Left who shout “RACIST!” all day long at any Obama or left-wing opponent, to the point where the liberal media has now become emboldened by the phony mantra, and glibly, routinely, call conservative groups like the tea party “racist.” So more people need to write the truth about the corrupt media, and say it out loud, and turn the tide.

As Michelle Malkin points out in her column, it’s freedom which is at stake, and it’s the grassroots that need to rise up to protect it. Forget the mainstream media. They’re against you.


Article page |

BC Nurses Union leader, in all seriousness: “Nurses are non-partisan.”

The Vancouver Sun story included this line, as declared by the union boss: nurses_are_non-partisan“Nurses are non-partisan.”

I just thought that was laugh-out-loud funny.

That is all.

Well maybe just this one extra thing  —  oh my gosh.

Well OK that, and this BC government election contribution chart — which seems to indicate that the BC Nurses Union has a long history of donating union membership dues to the NDP  —  a party which is “all-in” insofar as their chosen base of support. For the rest of us, “duh” would probably suffice.


As the data indicates, the BC Nurses Union is only nonpartisan inasmuch as it is an NDP partisan, and a nonpartisan of any other party. The union may not openly declare their partisanship, or they may even try to hide it  —  as laughably seems to be the case here with the boss’s “Nurses are non-partisan” hilarity. But as the owners of the massive labor union industrial complex know, declarations help, but big union money  —  not just declarations of partisanship  —  talks. Talks, that is, to the NDP.

Also, I think it might be worth asking why the reporter doesn’t bite their ever so nonpartisan lip and ask the labor union boss for clarification with regard to what could very credibly be called a really outlandish, if not funny remark.  Particularly in light of the facts, and in light of the upcoming provincial election in BC, and in light of the fact that it is exactly that  —  political party support  —  to which the union boss was referring when she said “Nurses are non-partisan”. I would have asked that.

Or, say, ask the question to do the job journalists and the journals they write for have taken on as their duty, and help ensure the public understands the actual truth, instead of just feeding them or allowing them to be fed more total BS as told by the likes of public-sector labor unions, and the political party they own  —  a party which appear set to assume government power in May.

Maybe the newspaper has become a funny-paper, sees the irony in the union boss’s remark  —  as left unmarked upon and unquestioned  —  and is just trying to accommodate our collective funny bone with some sort of quiet sophistication. That could be it. What would actually be funny is to do as I would have done, and have the union boss fumble through an answer to the questions about that remark.  That’d be some good reading.

I remain skeptical about the motives of the left-wing labor union bosses, their party, and their brethren in the media division, and their partisanship.  Believe it or not, they’re not trying to be funny.


Article page |

Is America an Idiocracy?

In 1951, Ray Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451, a futuristic novel in which books are burned, and the citizenry occupies itself by watching hours of TV on wall-to-wall sets. Contrary to popular belief, Bradbury says Fahrenheit 451 wasn’t about censorship or McCarthyism. It was about how TV undermines interest in reading and learning.

In 2006, Mike Judge released the film Idiocracy, in which the main character, Joe Bauers, undergoes a suspended-animation experiment and wakes up in the year 2505. He’s unable to communicate, because “the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner-city slang and various grunts.” The degenerate morons who occupy this brave new world amuse themselves with vapid, vulgar reality shows like “Ow, My Balls!” (Which, by the way, is exactly what it sounds like.)

Are you laughing? You probably shouldn’t. Fahrenheit 451 and Idiocracy aren’t dystopian fantasies—we’re already there.

In case you’re not convinced, Oxygen just announced* a new reality show featuring rapper “Shawty Lo,” his eleven children, and his ten “baby mamas.” According to ABC News, he “refer[s] to his children’s mothers with nicknames like Jealous Baby Mama, Baby Mama from Hell, and Shady Baby Mama. The show also introduces viewers to Lo’s 19-year-old girlfriend.”

Thankfully, some groups on the left and right protested, with the Parents Television Council deeming it “grotesquely irresponsible and exploitative.” Still, the fact that Oxygen believed there was an audience for a show with such a tawdry premise (and a star who calls himself “Shawty Lo”) is depressing enough.

The main consumers of this garbage? My generation, the 18-to-29 set. We have more opportunities for cultural and intellectual enrichment than any previous generation, but we don’t take them. As Mark Bauerlein revealed in his aptly named book The Dumbest Generation, less than 10 percent of young people attend plays, ballets, or musical performances, only 23 percent visited a museum in the last year, and a record low number of us read for fun.

So where are America’s teens and twenty-somethings? Parked in front of the TV, watching Jersey Shore.

You know, the reality show that added “smushing” and “gorillas” to our vocabulary. (Shockingly, the latter is not a reference to the cast members’ IQs.) In the 90s, the casts on early reality shows like The Real World had candid, intelligent discussions about everything from racism to gay rights to AIDS. They look like Rhodes scholars compared to the cast of Jersey Shore, who talk about…well, I’m not sure what, because the only episode I watched was a series of bleeps. The show doesn’t address any current events or any ideas—it’s a steady stream of drinking, fighting, and cussing.

And if you wonder where the increase in girl-on-girl aggression is coming from, tune into any of the Real Housewives series. The entire show revolves around materialistic, shallow women with bad plastic surgery cat-fighting and back-stabbing. As Ann Coulter put it, “Real Housewives is white trash pretending to be jetsetters.” And yet millions of viewers still tune in every week, admiring them, emulating them, and imagining this is how the wealthy and fashionable really live.

In August, more people tuned into TLC’s abomination Here Comes Honey Boo Boo than the Republican National Convention. In case you’ve somehow missed it, the show follows the adventures of “redneck” mom June and her four daughters (allegedly sired by four different men). This show is especially exploitative. In a recent episode, June’s teen daughter gave birth to a baby with six fingers. Instead of feeling sympathy for this poor child, the audience was supposed to snicker—all that was missing was the laugh track in the background. Laughing and leering at other people’s pain and misfortune is par for the course in this genre.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that researchers at the University of Michigan found today’s college students shockingly lacking in empathy, especially compared to their 1970s counterparts. They partially blamed the rise of reality TV for this trend.

“These shows may be profitable, but the primary basis for many of them seems to be to put people in painful, embarrassing or humiliating situations for the rest of us to watch — and, presumably, be entertained,” James Key wrote in USA Today. “This assault on our intelligence is not healthy for the soul.”

Not to mention it’s taking the place of activities that engage the mind, rather than rotting it.

If you don’t want America to become the country we saw in Idiocracy, turn it off.


* Editor’s note: On January 15, 2013, as a result of public pressure, Oxygen Network decided not to broadcast “All My Babies’ Mamas.” Read about it here.


Article page |

Liberal news mag slams liberal academia, brainwashing; pretends it has nothing to do with it.

I love it when media pretend to give a crap about things which it’s clear to me they don’t; or which they in fact actually endorse and embrace. They’re so cute.

This week, a generally pretty liberal-friendly and pretty reliably anti-conservative news magazine (save for its token conservative columnists), Maclean’s, is at it again. Their cover shouts “STOP BRAINWASHING OUR KIDS!” And they’re not even being satirical or ironic or sardonic.

Latest Maclean’s magazine cover – Oct 26 2012:
Sure enough, inside, they feign alarm at the left-wing’s “social justice”
crap (it is socialism) being taught by the left-wing teachers over the past 30 years.

Yes this week, the (news!) magazine suddenly acknowledges the now several decades old, possibly well past the tipping point, overtly liberal-left academia, what with its newly discovered liberal-leftist “social justice” and other hackneyed politically progressive brainwashing of at least the last generation. This process of Fabian Socialism started, oh, before I was born. Reminder: it is now the year 2012.

So, wow! That’s some timely news reporting right there!

I wonder when the liberal media, including Maclean’s, which, as if to prove its liberal-left bona fides and its reliance on the liberal-left mindset, is itself subsidized by the Canadian government and its taxpayers’ millions, will grow up. We’ll know they have reached puberty when they own-up to their own responsibility in helping nurture this all-encompassing “brainwashing” shocker that has ever so amazingly become rampant in this country over the past several decades. I suggest they never will, and they will continue to advocate themselves into oblivion. But in the meantime, I admit this week’s effort is another good fake-out for the stupids!

This warning about liberal-left brainwashing of our kids can mean only one thing: Another pro-left-wing Maclean’s cover on the horizon!  Let’s take a trip down memory lane. Here are just some of the many Maclean’s magazine covers I’ve brought to your attention over the years at As you can see, there’s no brainwashing going on over here, folks. Just move along. Better yet, just MoveOn(.org). And please pay your taxes on the way out.

Macleans   image

image  image  image

image image



image   God is poison, um, QUESTION MARK. and readers know our columnist, Professor Mike Adams, who has brought real-life examples from the inside  —  of just some of the overt leftist and anti-conservative academia in America’s post-secondary colleges and universities. We’re not a news magazine, but we’ve carried Mike Adams’ column for many years now. Do try to keep up with our unsubsidized publications, Maclean’s. For example, in order to “enlighten” (your own description of yourselves) your readers, ask to carry his column. Or would that work against you and what you’re advocating, somehow?


Article page |

Joel Johannesen’s memo to lib media: No need for gov to be involved in any business, whatsoever


I found an otherwise reasonably good Vancouver Sun editorial that seemed to have forgotten some vital information for its readers, so I corrected it for them.



I do like the way the editorial opens and closes, though. Much like a blog entry by the famous and brilliant thinker, Joel Johannesen. Do you think they’ve been reading Joel Johannesen blog entries over the years? You do? Are you currently high on the crack cocaine?

“The provincial government should heed the union campaign to open more of the publicly owned liquor stores on Sunday. Then it should sell them all.”

Oof! Pow! Take that, unions! But… well yes. You’re finally right, Vancouver Sun. I’ve been telling you that for at least 20 years. Next thing you know you’ll be reading (my former columnist) Ann Coulter’s books and getting really smart.

So where the hell have you been? I mean aside from demonstrably sipping the socialist Kool-Aid served up by your friends in the liberal-left/progressive/useful idiot set.

Don’t even answer! You’re on a roll! This penultimate government wrongly meddling in retail idea sounds even more Joel-esque, if you’ll excuse my self-satisfying banality:

“As with the wholesale business, there is no longer any reason for the government to be operating liquor stores. Now that politicians no longer believe that public morality is at stake, there is no more reason to have state-owned liquor stores than there is for government getting into the grocery business or selling suits or screwdrivers.”

Well, yeah! And welcome to our enlightened world! And here’s some more places where there’s no need for state-owned anything: car insurance, basic health care, ferry boat cruises, choo-choo trains, slutty gambling and lotteries, TV and radio and internet news and entertainment and porn and discussion forums, movie-making, art galleries, and myriad other such businesses the state is involved in and has been lo these many years without you having said a disparaging word, thereby enabling and encouraging the progressives to the virtual tipping point into abject socialism.

I wonder why the Vancouver Sun has suddenly and shockingly seen even this modicum of light with regard to freedom and smaller government, and capitalism, and conservative thinking, in this one, lone industry. Maybe they’re high on crack! I suspect it will only last a day, so soak it in, readers! Tomorrow, they’ll be back to demanding more social housing, welfare entitlements, free grants and welfare and supports of various kinds from government, more state involvement in everything from the arts to science and yes, more meddling in business and building that reliance on the state.

Alas, the last paragraph disappoints, as expected. Here, again as expected, they wrongly open the giant red socialist or progressive or liberal-fascist door a crack, to allow for more yummy government to, indeed, meddle in business. Which is wrong. Shut the damn door. Lock it. Throw the key away.

“Governments should only be in businesses in which there is a unique public benefit that cannot be achieved in any other way. With rare exceptions, the government should avoid using its extraordinary powers to compete with the private sector. Liquor stores do not meet that test.”

No government-in-business meets that test. Not the government’s ridiculous monopoly auto insurance scheme, not their mammoth state-owned, state-run power-generating idiocy, not the ferry boat and cruise ship business that they’re in, not meddling in real estate and “providing” more “affordable housing,” not mortgage insurance, and no, not the healthcare industry either. Government never needs to be in any business. Ever. It impedes citizens from entering the marketplace and doing it better and cheaper in every way, it creates big, expensive, nanny-state governments; it increases personal and family reliance on the state, while reducing self-reliance and personal responsibility. And ultimately if creates serfs out of free people. And doing that is, well, that’s progressive. Thanks Flo.

And God knows a government run by me would instantly get out of any business that competes against its own citizens, the way that most of them like the federal state-owned CBC (and most others) do. And then I’d ban such government activity. As I’ve also been asking for years in one of my cooler epithets, what kind of government competes against its own citizens in business for profits? Indeed, using its “extraordinary powers to compete with the private sector,” as you awakened ones at the Sun put it. No no, please answer that question. Honestly.

I think it should be unconstitutional for the state to be involved in any business at all.

But I’ll refrain from holding my breath and waiting for the Vancouver Sun to pick up on that Joelism.

Article page |

Like Canada’s state-owned CBC? In America, the Stupid Liberals Network is failing in ratings

This past week in irony:
is the super-smart and ever so hip American liberal media news network which, much like Canada’s state-owned CBC and others, is so systemically engorged with mentally immature liberals, and so lacking in adult supervision, that it found it quite acceptable to play the Pink song “Stupid Girls” (lyrics: “Aha, aha. Stupid girl, stupid girls, stupid girls…”) in its bumper lead-in to story about Sarah Palin; and then think that it can get away with that without even being called out on it.


CNN going down logoAnd then when they are called on it, as any half intelligent person would know they would be, they make the incredibly dumb-ass calculation that its audience is so utterly gullible that they would accept, as CNN’s mia culpa, insultingly stupid excuses.

This is their actual excuse: “The music selection was a poor choice and was not intended to be linked to any news story. We regret any perception that they were planned together.”  The only thing that could have made their excuse funnier, or dumber, is if they added their catch-phrase “the most trusted name in news,” here.

God they’re smart.

This week:
Once again, it’s a great wonder why CNN’s ratings are sliding, and Fox News Channel totally dominates the cable news ratings, doubling, more or less, all the others including CNN, in its total audience numbers. All the top prime time news and news analysis shows are on Fox News Channel. Yet the liberal hipsters like to call Fox News Channel and its viewers “dumb”.

We are not the least bit surprised to find that super-smart CNN continues its ratings slide even further, this past month.

July 2012 Ratings: CNN Continues to Struggle

By Merrill Knox on July 31, 2012 3:31 PM
CNN was down double digits across the board in July. Compared to July 2011, the network is 20% in Total Viewers and 23% in Aged 25-54 in Total Day. In primetime, CNN is down -23% in Total Viewers and -26% in the demographic.

All CNN has to do, and all CNN is supposed to be about, and all CNN holds itself out to be, is “trust us, we’re grownups, and we’ve deployed all manner of resources to do our jobs right.” Well actually, it seems as though they’ve given it up. They’re just joking around now. They literally (still) call themselves “most trusted name in news.”  Clearly even that is a lie. But whatever the case, implied therein is the sentence “we’re serious people, and serious about our jobs reporting the news in a trustworthy and reliable way, so watch us.” But that ship has sailed.

CNN is intelligent. Even at the precipice of disaster they find it quite normal and natural to play cheap, juvenile politics with whatever little goodwill is left in their already depressed inventory, and make the supposedly conscious editorial decision to do an idiotic, disrespectful thing like smearing Sarah Palin, a huge big-name favorite of conservatives  –  a groupp representing twice as many Americans ass liberals. But of course we know Palin’s a political figure who just doesn’t happen to be among the pop-favorites of the idiot liberal kids who work at CNN (and apparently in most ever other news organization, and actually, everywhere).

This is actually how liberals think. No it really is. Think about it. This is how they’re running America right now.

Article page |

Liberal media puts article about 100% state-owned state-run monopoly in “BUSINESS” section

A “Corporation?” It’s a plain old business story about a “corporation” expanding its trade, huh? So there’s no difference between privately-owned businesses and the state  —  or it makes no difference to you folks in the BUSINESS section of the privately owned media, huh?

Grow up, media. And tell the truth. Stop aiding and abetting the progressives and their socialist or fascist agenda. You’re supposed to question this kind of crap, not help them blur the lines of demarcation between the state and the private sector; between government and private enterprise; between free market capitalism on the one hand (the right hand) and socialism, fascism, or any other flavor of progressive politics like that in BC and much of Canada, on the left. Or indeed, the far left.

A newspaper  —  a private-sector business, thank God, unlike in Cuba and the former Soviet Union, and other socialist pits of despair — which casts itself as a watchdog for the people, should be very suspect of a government’s meddling in the marketplace, especially when the government is posing as if it were a regular business. Instead, in this example, they’re aiding and abetting the government.

How does the “Business” section editor not see this distinction? Or maybe they do, and are just playing along.

British Columbia Lottery Corporation is a 100% state-owned, state-run, monopoly, meddling in the marketplace as if it were a regular business — complete with all the usual business verbiage and titles like “CEO and President,” attending Board of Trade meetings, meeting “revenue targets,” and so on.

The media never once mentions it’s 100% state-owned and state-run, referring to it only as a “corporation.”

What a crock.

BCLC looks to export online systems

By Michael V’inkin Lee, Vancouver Sun June 29, 2012

The British Columbia Lottery Corporation is looking to export its PlayNow online betting system in an attempt to develop additional revenue streams beyond B.C.’s borders, its president and CEO says.

“We have expertise that would be valuable to other regulated gambling jurisdictions,” Michael Graydon said at a Vancouver Board of Trade luncheon Tuesday. “Launching online gaming is a major capital investment, not to mention the level of expertise that it takes to operate and manage the customer base.”

BCLC plans to take advantage of developing trends in mobile gambling on smartphones and tablets, he said, as well as assume the role of online gambling system vendor to other provinces’ gambling authorities.

Graydon said the corporation is taking a page out of Vantage Air-port Group’s playbook by turning its online regulated gambling model and know-how into products. That group’s handling of YVR operations and sub-sequent drive to market its airport management techniques served as an inspiration, he said.

This is a story that belongs in a different section — not the “BUSINESS” section. I suggest possibly starting a new section for stories about the myriad state-owned, state-run “corporations”, since there are so many, and given their monopoly powers, they sometimes totally dominate the news. Call it the SOCIALIST section or possibly the FASCIST section. That nomenclature would be exponentially more accurate than BUSINESS.


Oh and also:
The notion of the government thinking gambling is a core function of government, and it being involved in something as crass and with something so morally problematic as gambling, is another topic worthy of the severe questioning by all of us, not the least of which, the media.

The state should not be engaged in any business at all, whatsoever. What kind of government competes against its own citizens in business for profits? I think it should be banned, and that notion enshrined in our constitution.

Article page |

It's a question.