May 24, 2015

"National crisis" over election debates is a Media Party invention

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

Why do "progressives" cling to the past? The media hysteria over the upcoming federal election debates is a perfect example.

The mainstream media consortium's insists on keeping control of the federal election debates.

It's understandable why broadcasters care so much, but why are their print counterparts losing their collectivist minds on this topic?

See if you agree with me...


 
JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Richmond Hill city council won’t sing O Canada because it contains the word “God.”
SIGN THE PETITION to SaveOCanada.ca

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- it's been called "the political book of the year"


Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-30 04:48:48 -0400
Hey, I watch hockey, U.S. dramas, Canadian news and reality shows, and am offended by someone using those activities as an excuse to label me as unsophisticated. I like to consume as much media as possible, but my consumption is both conscious and critical, and the media consortium certainly doesn’t cater to viewers like me.
That said, I think Harper should participate in all debates, including one organized and controlled by the CBC-led MSM consortium. Let it not be said that Harper refused or backed down from the challenge. His participation will at the very least reveal Trudeau’s unwillingness to debate outside of Liberal-friendly media territory for what it is — fear.
commented 2015-05-27 00:41:36 -0400
The Consortium reaches the broadest audience because its viewers are the unsophisticated sort who watch hockey, U.S. dramas, Canadian news and reality shows. It would not make sense for Harper to participate in a debate hosted by the Consortium because by doing so he would confirm what the majority of their viewers already know. Forget the populist malarkey; stick to the niche audiences.
commented 2015-05-26 18:50:12 -0400
Erin said: “Let’s face it, media today reports digitally 24/7 and often makes mistakes, especially in the early, unconfirmed portion of a story, which is why you don’t just rely on one source.” Exactly! Except the “Consortium” see themselves as the light to lead all of us peasants into utopia!
commented 2015-05-26 10:51:32 -0400
this is exactly correct. The issue is not freedom of the press, nor is it fair access. These media companies are free to purchase the broadcasts like they do every other type of event. They just can’t control the questions, nor can they slant the content. Disappointing of course, when you are a Liberal propaganda machine trying to please the Shiny Pony.
commented 2015-05-26 07:41:17 -0400
You know…I have often wondered where exactly the evil patriarchy convened for meetings. Our original headquarters in Stepford Connecticut got outed decades ago…and I have been wanting to attend regularly and offer for an executive position for some time now……

But reading these posts I now get the picture…..the evil patriarchy convenes by news wire service……..:-)
commented 2015-05-26 02:44:19 -0400
This is ridiculous. “There should be an outside body of elders” to decide how many debates there are and oversee all of them?
What, exactly, is the problem with having more debates, by different media outlets, all with their own claims to unbiased, objectivity and balance, as well as their own form of “hidden agenda”? One of the most important things I’ve learned is not to blindly follow only one source for new, but to read and view multiple sources to get as close as possible to gleaning the full, real story. Let’s face it, media today reports digitally 24/7 and often makes mistakes, especially in the early, unconfirmed portion of a story, which is why you don’t just rely on one source. Those who do so are, in my view, essentially guilty of wilful blindness.
Don’t these people realize that they’re actively promoting an illegal media monopoly that by its very existence is not only criminal but a very real threat to our basic, democratic principles?
Consortiums are illegal, wake up Canada.
commented 2015-05-25 23:09:05 -0400
I think there was a time when"the media " was neutral politically. Not so now as they are controlling the news and pointing the voters in the direction they see as the “best for Canada”.Unfortunately for the citizens of Canada there is no alternate point of view, only the the liberal view.. We all know that given only one side of any point of view, when repeated often enough, soon becomes truth and then sways the public in the direction shown by the media as"truth". It is really too bad that the liberalized crtc saw fit to deny SNN the chance to give an alternatate look at the news to the viewing public.
commented 2015-05-25 21:51:47 -0400
I’ve said this before and I’ll likely be saying it again – the reason the consortium’s so upset is because they don’t want to lose control, many here including Brian make that point, but what you all seem to be missing is just how far that control goes. The consortium doesn’t just want to control the decor, the moderator, the format and the questions. The most important part of any political debate isn’t all that – it’s the winner! And that winner has already been decided, the headlines already written. I’ll bet Trudeau’s already had training meetings with consortium reps to help him get over the questions he’s bound to have problems with, or at least given tips on how to avoid those questions. I’ll bet he’s already been re-assured that certain questions won’t be coming his way, while certain other ones will be directed at the other participants as per the direction of his handlers. This is why the Conservatives don’t want to participate in a consortium debate – why buy into a rigged game? There’s even a plan B, in case Justin completely steps on his tongue: “Mulcair Wins Debate!” To the consortium, it really is ABC. What would the main stream media have to say about a debate held by the Fraser Institute? Pretty easy to imagine…
commented 2015-05-25 18:32:51 -0400
The ‘Progressives’ have this weird ability to make it look ’ bad or evil’ when the opposition does it. All they really want is total Control —-of what you hear and what think.
commented 2015-05-25 18:26:45 -0400
Bill. Could be really….entertaining if Lizzie the Lush is well primed for the event!
commented 2015-05-25 16:13:23 -0400
Maybe it’s time to break up the consortium and have each of the big three make a bid to host a leader’s debate. Why not let each one have their own debates, as well as other media outlets. The more the merrier! My only wish is there are different moderators for each one and they let the participants set the tone of questioning, none of the fake “Ordinary Canadians Questions” that were introduced in the last leaders debate. It’s time to meet the real Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, And May(giggle) under fire.
commented 2015-05-25 15:03:52 -0400
Why are so many print media members having a meltdown? Why is Harper getting such BAD press from so many media outlets? Could it have anything to do with this?
Unifor 87M
Media
Employers
TORONTO STAR NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
OWEN SOUND SUN TIMES
NOW MAGAZINE
NIAGARA FALLS REVIEW
METROLAND MEDIA GROUP LTD.
MACLEANS MAGAZINE
LONDON FREE PRESS EDITORIAL
THE SPECTATOR (HAMILTON)
GUELPH MERCURY
GLOBE AND MAIL
FAIRWAY GROUP (EDITORIAL/PRODUCTION)
CHATHAM DAILY NEWS
BRANTFORD EXPOSITOR
HAMILTON COMMUNITY NEWS
THE INTELLIGENCER (BELLEVILLE)
AT LARGE
WATERLOO REGION RECORD
THE STANDARD ST. CATHERINES (EDITORIAL)
SING TAO DAILY
BEACON HERALD (STRATFORD)
KOREA TIMES DAILY
LONDON FREE PRESS GENERAL
BUS REP. (BRAD HONYWILL)
THE TORONTO SUN
THE SIMCOE REFORMER
OTTAWA SUN
METRO TORONTO DAILY
OTTAWA CITIZEN (MAILROOM)
OTTAWA CITIZEN (INSERTERS)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OSPREY MEDIA LP (THE DAILY OBERVER)
GLENGARRY NEWS
AVW TELAV
2WOMOR (WINCHESTER PRESS)
OTTAWA CITIZEN (COMPOSING)
A – TV
ELECTRONIC LANGUAGE COMMUNICATION
ADVANCE
STRATFORD BEACON HAROLD (COMP. EDIT. MAILRM.)
SARNIA OBSERVEREDITORIAL
METROLAND MEDIA GROUP LTD (OTTAWA REGION)
MING PAO NEWPAPERS (CANADA) LTD
Unifor’s “Rights at Work” campaign tour lands at 87-M
The Unifor campaign to inform workers about rights that are threatened by both the federal and provincial Conservative party agendas landed at Local 87-M on April 17.
Here is the union’s statement on the issue:
Unions exist to make conditions for workers fairer and safer, across all sectors and workplaces.
The central work of unions – collective bargaining -benefits all workers and it gives them a greater say in their working conditions.
But this isn’t possible though without the laws that make unions and bargaining feasible. Conservative politicians – in the federal government and provincial governments across Canada are trying to dismantle these laws.
The suggestion that Conservative politicians are concerned about workers and jobs couldn’t be farther from the truth. Conservative attacks on labour laws are not about choice, but removing choice for workers, in favour of business.
Unifor is standing up for your rights at work – and your right to even have and exercise these rights.
Historically and today unions are an agent of equality and fairness. Together, we need to ensure that unions are strong so that we can continue to push for greater workplace rights, living wages, retirement security and other social benefits.
The union is organizing a series of leadership meetings right across the country – workplace representatives are invited to attend. Click here for the schedule or check your regional events listing.
Unifor workplace representatives will be conducting on the job canvases of all Unifor members, making sure members know about the union, the benefits it brings and how to get involved.
commented 2015-05-25 08:19:05 -0400
More mewling from the liberal media as they see their power base eroded. BOOHOO! The Conservatives must make it clear that they are not refusing to participate in debates and in fact rather enjoy the prospects, but that they refuse to step into the liberal lion’s den, again.
commented 2015-05-25 07:56:07 -0400
Brian – of course this is just another purple snit by the most arrogant media west of Paris. They have been taking a blue oyster meltdown over Harper ever since he told these pompous skanks to get stuffed at his first PM press conference. He sees them for what they are and they resent/fear it. I have been hot and cold with Harper as a leader but I just love the way he gives the media pseudo aristocracy a titty-twist to keep them constantly agitated.

Whatever MSM are telling you his numbers are, add 10-14% and you will be in the ball park. Mein Gott, do they have an embarrassingly obvious seething hatred for Harper – I love it!
commented 2015-05-25 00:31:06 -0400
My hope is that Steven Harper ignores the advice of Glenn Craig. Lawyers are not the best debaters – philosophers and religious apologists are, in my opinion. This is because they try to use truth and logic to persuade not the deceit, misdirection and dishonesty of Schopenhauer’s stratagems which have nothing to do with truth. (“…become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.” Really? This is what he advocates?) We need politicians who will treat their constituents with respect by voicing truth with clarity and boldness. Oh, how naive I am to hope for a world where when a politician speaks he actually means what he says. Forgive me but I desire better for my country than hoping they can out-lie each other.
commented 2015-05-24 20:55:50 -0400
No one should ever underestimate Harper’s chess playing tactics. He is a master strategist.

If Harper lets the consortium host a debate between Mulcair and Trudeau, Mulcair will trounce Trudeau. More will vote NDP, possibly causing a nice balanced split of the left vote.

Then if Trudeau refuses the other debates, it’s Mulcair versus Harper. And that necomes an exercise in managing appearances. Can Tom control his pit bull aggression, his dripping sarcasm? And can Harper make reasonable replies to charges of party corruption that will satisfy voters?

Should be interesting.
commented 2015-05-24 20:35:10 -0400
Brian. We need you on the questions panel.
commented 2015-05-24 20:26:14 -0400
Peter Toth said: “I think the progressives are just like little spoiled children”. I might add to that. “Progressives” is probably not the best description for these Socialist Puppets. To keep in tune with truth in advertising, “Retrogressives” would most likely be most appropriate. I was going to suggest “Retrobates”, but that would insult retrobates everywhere!
commented 2015-05-24 19:18:04 -0400
Of all the instances I have ever heard of where eloquence won the day…the one that has always inspired me the most was the story where a lawyer named Daniel Webster won back a man’s soul in the Devil’s own court room with a stacked jury…

One of the episodes in the life of Mohandas K Gandhi that drew note was when he entered a courtroom in India accused of breaking a law he chose to defy to make a point…everybody in the courtroom …including the judge…stood when he entered.

Afterwards an astonished court clerk said to the judge…"sir…you rose to honour the “great soul” (maha atma)" ..the judge replied…“no…I rose to honour the great lawyer” (Mohandas K Gandhi was a lawyer).

Steven Harper is an economist…we have much to be thankful for that…but he is not a lawyer. Thomas Mulchair was the Dean of a law school. A completely different skill set. I have seen Peter McKay stand up to him and call his bluff….but Peter is a lawyer.

My advice to Steven Harper is to read Arthur Schopenhauer’s essay “How to win an argument wether or not you are right” and familiarize himself with the principles of sophistry and rhetoric…..the logic of an economist will not prevail or win this debate……regardless of which media venue it takes place in. Contrary to what any academic might teach….logic is NOT a tool of persuasion…..the world would be a very different place if it was ….playing on hope and fear is…no matter how illogical or unreasonable.

Trudeau’s best strategy would be to let the two who are stronger than him beat each other up…then play up the nice guy who is above such nastiness for all it’s worth….it has proven to be a winning tactic in the past.
commented 2015-05-24 18:20:57 -0400
Randy said: “is to televise the debates though Internet streaming.” One hopes that we get the full deal, and not versions the Socialist Media have edited to remove parts they don’t like. That is why the flap over the “Consortium Debates”. They want control, pure and simple. How else will they manage to manipulate things to get their “boy” elected if debates are conducted without their divine intervention? And worse, the unwashed public gets to see it! Horrors!
commented 2015-05-24 18:05:55 -0400
WELL SAID, PETER TOTH!!!
commented 2015-05-24 18:03:12 -0400
I think the leftist media are just scared! After all I can’t think of any other reason for all this hyperbole they are spouting. They can’t control the questions and or set or any of the responses. This spells trouble for their chosen candidate they want as next Prime Minister. One this I do hope they do this year, is to televise the debates though Internet streaming. There are many people that gave up their cable or satelight TV subscriptions but still have Internet.
commented 2015-05-24 18:01:16 -0400
Let them rant and rave! Only their demented followers care!
commented 2015-05-24 16:49:21 -0400
Apt analogy, Peter!
commented 2015-05-24 15:36:20 -0400
The progressives are just like little spoiled children. Just the other day, I witnessed a parent take a toy out of the hands of their child, and place it back on the shelf that the child took it from. The child cried, screamed, thrashed about, and yelled for several minutes, while the embarrassed parent held his ground and walked on while carrying the child. Immediately I though of the progressive left, and how they react when something they grab for, which by all rights isn’t theirs, is taken away by an adult government and returned to it’s rightful place. All the while the conservative government continues to carry the spoiled progressive, as it’s incapable of caring for itself, or making sound decisions.
commented 2015-05-24 14:54:56 -0400
“Confidence is fine, control is better.” – Joseph Stalin, MSM hero and role model
commented 2015-05-24 14:42:03 -0400
I remember all the merciless, hard-hearted and unseemly gloating that was offensively displayed by the left when SNN was tragically murdered by the embedded Liberal bureaucrats at the CRTC.
Well lefty/liberal MSM, it seems that our PM – with the backing of The People – is not going to let you have your way this time…so rather than gloat, I’ll inform.
The reason the so-called ‘print-media’ is upset is because of who owns ALL the media in Canada – there’s three of them I believe, corporations that is, or the tiny handful of people who sit on all the boards and control them and THEIR EDITORIAL POLICY! It’s all in the public record for those who care to know.
Of course, then there’s the CBC which is owned by 30 million or so Canadians – apparently…well it may only actually represent a small handful of sociopathic elite and their lefty/degenerate/intellectually challenged fan club, but they got a $Billion plus per year of taxpayer pelf to push their agenda – which is the same agenda as the MSM!
I can’t wait for those English language debates now that they’ll be on a more level playing field and I can’t wait even more to see our current PM Stephen Harper seriously kick some New Democratic Liberal Party Butt. Yee Haww! Ride ’em cowboy!
commented 2015-05-24 14:20:53 -0400
Frustrating for the ‘progressive’ media when they don’t have control to manage events the way they would like. As to why are the print media is losing its collectivist minds on this topic? Nothing less than the Media Party’s and its collectivist ‘progressive’ mentality.
As for Ruth Farquahr over at the Sudbury ‘Red’ Star salivating over the possibility that Mulcair would ask Harper why Nigel Wright gave Duffy $90,000. Gee, I wish that comes up. Harper could respond, ask Nigel Wright and then proceed to bring up the NDP being ordered to repay $2.75 million over the use of satellite offices that were paid for by taxpayers but used for partisan campaigning and to repay $1.17 million for improper use of MPs mailing privileges. If you do the math, that’s 3.92 million dollars.
commented 2015-05-24 14:16:12 -0400
synonyms for consortium = mob, gang, outfit, cartel and my fav plunderbund… it was interesting watching teneycke on with evan solomon and solomons head imploding…even evan …lol… asked cory if he was being paid by pkp…but more to the point is how few actually watch cbc or read their articles… but the same few love the heavily censored comments section