Gilles Duceppe of course, shat a brick. Some of the more fetishistically federalist Liberal MPs expressed reservations, but Jack Layton and Bill Graham both expressed support for the motion and Graham even crossed the floor to shake Harper's hand.
But on the cover of today's Globe and Mail, above the fold, Graham's reaction is portrayed very differently. His quoted reaction, explicitly to Harper's motion is:
"How could we ever support a motion on Quebec by a party that has zero commitment to Canada, which is blind to the greatness available for Quebckers within Canada?"Wow. Harsh words about the motion and about Harper's Conservatives. Only one problem.
That quote was about the Bloc's motion not the Conservatives - which referred to Quebec rather than the Québécois and didn't include within a united Canada.
As to Harper's motion, Graham's actual reaction was:
"This is a matter that transcends all party politics,This is a matter on which the Liberal Party of Canada, which has had a great role in building this country, will be voting in favour of...We will not be voting for a concept dictated by the Bloc Québécois."I'm having real trouble believing a mischaracterization that massive, front page above the fold could possibly be an accident.
3 comments:
No kidding, that's a huge mistake. It will be interesting to see if the Globe has the conscience to admit what they have done, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Me, I'm still waiting for that apology for the front page, above the fold, StratCon poll that extolled the non-existent BigMo for the Harperites the week before the election in January.
______
Not to mention an apology for a similar kind of 'push' by the same newspaper and the same polling firm five days before the last BC provincial election.
.
The federal one in January migt have been enough to drop Tory support down to minority levels again - like I've said before this is the most deliberate minority government in history, so I will cheerfully forgive them for convincing a few Canadians that their vote matters.
They're better than the Post of course, not that that's saying much at all.
I always laugh when people talk about the 'liberal bias' in the media - of course the real conservative definition of a liberal bias is simply a lack of conservative bias.
Ultimately no matter what the political sympathies of any individual reporter, editor, columnist or other newsroom staff - ultimately it comes down to the publisher, who being a rich businesman is going to ultimately be on the rich businessman side of any ideological divide.
This graham thing bugs me - if only because I seem to be the only one talking about it.
Post a Comment