The liberal mainstream media misreads, and it misleads. But now for some news:
Demonstrating the mainstream media’s amazing ability to misread public sentiment, notwithstanding their recent gigantic misses, I think the National Post thinks it is slamming Kellie Leitch today. But I suspect it’s actually going to help her. And that’s because readers are tired of being misled like this:
There is a lot of rational anti-radical-Islamist sentiment in Canada, and in fact it’s a now long-held official government policy in Canada and around the world. So it’s not insane for a politician to play to that precinct. Lots of Canadians gravitate toward Leitch for that very reason — she is the most outspoken Conservative leadership candidate on protecting Canadians and Canadian values against that real threat. Or are we still arguing about whether or not radical Islamists have shown themselves to be a real threat to Canada and Canadians — and globally? If so, you need to read a lot more than just the National Post and the state-owned CBC. You’re in the right place now, for example.
Still, those who delve into the article will be alarmed by the extreme message the group in question is sending, to wit:
The Rise Canada Twitter account has called Islam “a barbaric ideology of hate that must be banned,” and proposed “a permanent ban on all Muslim immigrants PLUS mass deportation of existing Muslims.”
Ouch. Further reading suggests to me that they sound like a bunch of racist idiots. But does that mean Leitch agrees with them? No. In fact she has emphatically said the opposite. And after all, Justin Trudeau and other Liberals have attended lots of questionable meetings, and mosques widely believed to be possible centers of Islamist radicalization without Trudeau or any Liberals even remotely challenging their teachings — nor the media challenging those yummy liberals. Nobody in the media posits that Justin Trudeau or Liberals associate with radical Islamists on purpose. The media actually just swoons over Justin Trudeau and all liberals no matter what or who they meet with. Swoons.
Oh but also, by the way, if you’ve got the time, there’s this tidbit: this meeting wasn’t what the media just tried to make you think it was. Later in the article, after the extended quotes of predictable righteous outrage from a National Council of Canadian Muslims spokesman, the reporter allows this small detail thusly: it wasn’t that awful group’s meeting. At all. That tiny group of loons were merely in attendance — as demonstrators — without Leitch’s foreknowledge.
In a statement to the National Post on Wednesday, Leitch’s spokesman said the meeting was organized by a group that wants to keep religion out of public schools and that the Tory leadership hopeful was not sent a guest list in advance.
“This meeting was about the place of religion in public schools. That meeting was attended by a number of people from a number of different groups, including people from Rise Canada,” Michael Diamond said.
But Leitch was unaware the Rise Canada adviser would be there, he said. “Had she known she would not have attended. She wants to be very clear that this guy and his opinions are repugnant and do not reflect her own views.”
And further down, toward the end:
She said the event with Leitch was organized by another group called Concerned Parents of Canada, which said it was opposed to religious practices in Canadian public schools and was not associated with Rise Canada.
“We don’t support or promote activities/dialogue against any religion or faith. We respect all. This was a free event and everyone was free to ask questions. That should not be interpreted or projected as any one individual playing a prominent role,” Concerned Parents of Canada said in an email.
The headline obliquely promised a “troubling” link between racists and Leitch. The only thing that is “troubling” is the bullshit headline.
This reminds me of Donald Trump’s campaign coverage. Any time a radical person or group of people were caught attending a rally (and the media spent all their time searching for them, as they’re all but inevitable in all campaigns — including even at the sacred Hillary Clinton’s rallies), the news media would get apoplectic and write all about that group and Trump’s “troubling” association with them (but would write about none of the good stuff Donald Trump actually said at the rally). When Marxists and communists and radical atheists and extreme left-wing groups and extremist feminists and the many various left-wing haters attended Hillary Clinton rallies — and they surely did — nary a word was ever written. Just the incessant swooning.
So: poor choice for Leitch to attend this? Sure, maybe. So call it that — in an editorial: Suggested word choice: “A poor choice, maybe, but whatever, next.” (Also go ahead and call so many of Justin Trudeau’s and Katherine Wynn’s choices to attend various places and meetings “a very, very, poor choice.” And then do the NDP if space permits.)
But to imply — in a news article — that Leitch was cavorting with these idiots, and that she in any way agrees with them — is itself radical. Extremist. A leap way too far. Even for a media which has given up all pretence of fairness or objectivity toward conservatives.
And to plaster the story on the front page of the “news”paper the way they did is hideously unobjective, biased, and an extremely poor editorial choice — especially for a newspaper that still fancies itself a purveyor of truth and honesty and which still wishes to be taken seriously.