"Democracy and Parliament not side-stepped, only suspended"

with a little help from their friends ....

We would like to thank Con MP Brent Rathgeber for that lovely explanation of Steve's contempt for parliament - first ignoring its will and then proroguing it - and move on to how the media props up that contempt by ignoring it.

As pointed out by POGGE here and here, CBC and CTV/CanWest both blew their year-end interviews with Steve.
.
Mansbridge took a stab at getting some explanation from Steve on why he prorogued parliament but then allows Steve to blow him off with bafflegab about how Canadians don't care about it anyway. The question Mansbridge should have asked is why Steve is ignoring a parliamentary motion to hand over unredacted documents on the Afghan detainees and did he shut down parliament to avoid doing so?
.
At least Mansbridge gave it a shot. In their year end interview, the CTV/CanWest tagteam of John Ivison and David Akin don't even mention proroguing or detainees, never mind ignoring the will of parliament. They just skip the whole friggin thing.

Here's the opening question from their interview which ran in the National Post, :

IVISON: "Prime Minister, it seems there is not going to be much for us to write about, unless there are Senate appointments in our near future."

Yup, year end review, not much goin' on in Canada right now. What ever will they write about?
.
In his blog entry : Interviewing Harper: What to ask? Why not ask about prorogation? David Akin explains that Mansbidge already covered that issue - no, David, clearly he did not - and that they did not have much time to ask questions that could be rewritten up by their affiliate papers :

"[T]he goal for Canwest, at least, is to leave the interview with a story that the local editors of the Vancouver Sun, Montreal Gazette, Ottawa Citizen and other Canwest papers would find interesting enough that they would make (valuable) space for in their papers."

Yet within that admittedly short 13 minutes there was apparently ample time for questions like this :

AKIN: Do (you) see yourself in a decade -- you may not be prime minister -- do you see a career for yourself after this? I don't sense you're the board of directors type but I don't know, maybe you are -- an academic? What do you want to do? Where are you in a decade?"

Steve in a decade? Who gives a rat's ass? We want to know where our parliament is right now. Akin responds in comments at Pogge's.

Happily the conservative US UK mag The Economist, in two separate articles, goes straight to the heart of what the Canadian media mostly ignores :
.
Harper goes prorogue

Parliamentary scrutiny may be tedious, but democracies cannot afford to dispense with it
Never mind what his spin doctors say: Mr Harper’s move looks like naked self-interest. His officials faced grilling by parliamentary committees over whether they misled the House of Commons in denying knowledge that detainees handed over to the local authorities by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were being tortured.

A legislature matters more than the luge.

Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn’t.

and

Canada without Parliament - Halted in mid-debate

Stephen Harper is counting on Canadians’ complacency as he rewrites the rules of his country’s politics to weaken legislative scrutiny.
The danger in allowing the prime minister to end discussion any time he chooses is that it makes Parliament accountable to him rather than the other way around.

It is now up to [the opposition] to show that Canada cannot afford a part-time Parliament that sits only at the prime minister’s pleasure.

One would think it would also be a matter of some concern to the Fourth Estate.

Meanwhile, CANADIANS AGAINST PROROGUING PARLIAMENT - 92,000 and counting

On Facebook .
.

Harper : My tar sands trumps your planet

Harper Says Global Recovery Must Precede Environment
"Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he will use Canada’s co-chairmanship of next year’s Group of 20 countries meeting to urge members to put economic recovery before efforts to protect the environment.

"Without the wealth that comes from growth, the environmental threats, the developmental challenges and the peace and security issues facing the world will be exponentially more difficult to deal with," Harper said in an address to South Korea’s National Assembly."

... the day before the opening of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

This must be what CannedWest Ian MacDonald meant yesterday when he referred to Harper as "magisterial" and described how he "has assumed the mantle as well as the office."

Canwest, Natty Post, CBC ... and Goldman Sachs

Canada's largest media company, Canwest Global Communications, aka AsperMedia, filed for bankruptcy protection on Tuesday in a deal that essentially would hand control to its US creditors :

"Canwest reached a deal with a key group of lenders - mainly U.S. and foreign distressed funds that own most of the company's bonds - which will give them control of most of the restructured media company. Current shareholders would own just 2.3 per cent of the shares of the new Canwest, effectively wiping out most of their value."

The filing covers Global TV and the National Post but thus far not Canwest LP - Canwest's major daily newspapers across Canada - or its 15 money-making tv specialty channels whose profit rose 41% to $53-million in the most recent quarter over last year.

In January 2007, Goldman Sachs - this Goldman Sachs - bankrolled 64% of Leonard Asper's purchase of of 13 Alliance Atlantis specialty TV channels :

"a level far above Canadian foreign media ownership limits. However the CRTC approved the deal after the partners persuaded it that Canwest - not its giant Wall Street financial partner - would have effective operating control of the TV channels."

On the other hand, as the G&M Investor blog Streetwise reported yesterday (italics mine):

"Financiers working with Goldman said that over the past year, the investment bank put forward programming ideas for the TV networks, and offered strategic advice on restructuring, but was ignored by CanWest management and its creditors.

One concept that’s been tossed around, but couldn’t move forward until CanWest recapitalization was set, would see Goldman Sachs provide programming and financial support to the conventional television network as part of a larger deal that reworks the entire ownership structure to more closely align all the TV holdings.

There are three hedge funds driving the CanWest restructuring, and two of them are U.S. money managers: GoldenTree Asset Management, Beach Point Capital Management, along with Toronto-based West Face Capital Inc. ... These funds are also Goldman Sachs clients."

So, CRTC, you still good with this?
Goldman Sachs was not supposed to interfere with the programming of the Food Network but now expects to "provide programming and financial support" to local TV news stations?

More complications : The National Post - which never misses a chance to slag the CBC - and the CBC are now sharing content :

"The Post [will] republish CBC sports stories in the online National Post and sometimes in the newspaper. The CBC will run daily financial stories and podcasts from the Financial Post in cbc.ca’s Money section."

Translation : the publicly funded CBC will move further right as promised to run corporate news daily, while the privately owned Natty Post will now be partly funded by our tax dollars.

And those remaining 12 national and 26 community Canwest papers?
Paul Godfrey, CEO of the National Post, says he has found backers for a buyout of them.

Who will own what we think now?

Cross-posted at Creekside

Squid TV Coming to Your Tube ? ? ? ?

Are there no depths Goldman Sachs - or as Matt Taibbi refers to them: "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money" - will not go in the pursuit of power and $$$?

Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge has the story of GS' involvement in CanWest via financial and programming decisions. Amazing, but true:

Why Is Goldman Advising CanWest On Its Programming Line Up?

_______________

(Quoting from a Globe and Mail article):

Goldman Sachs sees no reason to revisit its arrangement with CanWest, which has been blessed by Canadian regulators, according to several sources close to the investment dealer.

To date, Goldman executives have not been invited into restructuring talks, a subject of considerable frustration at the investment bank, sources say. Financiers working with Goldman said that over the past year, the investment bank put forward programming ideas for the TV networks, and offered strategic advice on restructuring, but was ignored by CanWest management and its creditors.

One concept that’s been tossed around, but couldn’t move forward until CanWest recapitalization was set, would see Goldman Sachs provide programming and financial support to the conventional television network as part of a larger deal that reworks the entire ownership structure to more closely align all the TV holdings.

_______________


Earmuff time: why the fuck is Goldman even considered to provide "programming ideas and support?" Granted this is a case where the firm obviously has extensive and deep tentacle reach, however it is the biggest Canadian media company. And if Goldman can act with impunity to determine what the channel line up and who can and who can't be on TV, does this not raise a huge ethical problem straight out of modern version of "1984"? Although CNBC anchors can rest assured that if the Comcast deal does work out and they all end up jobless, there will be a willing home for them to spin their propaganda.

Also if this is true for CanWest, just where else does Goldman Sachs provide "programming idea" advice? Granted, the gullible audience does not care as it is brainwashed into the next massive paradigm, be it securitization part 2, or "buy, buy, buy any stock on the dips," in fact max out your credit cards just so you can own the next pets.com for the short period of time before even that is worth zero. After all, those fine TV people said so, compliments of Goldman's TV station content line up brigade.

My hope is that the Canadian public will pay attention to this chilling development in broadcasting. A friend of mine here whom I respect greatly in "all things Canadian" (and you know who you are) told me: "Unfortunately, Canadians have lived with media concentration for so long we take it for granted."

I hope that's not the case . . . .

H/T Joylene

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

If it looks like CanWest bought their way in the door...

We have the right to believe they bought their way in the door until they prove they didn't.

And that is going to be pretty tough to do after CanWest Media Inc. pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the BC Liberal Party for the 2005 election, at the exclusion of all others.

Then we get the Vancouver Sun endorsing Campbell and his "Liberals". The problem is that the endorsement is accompanied by the worst kind of biased bullshit. And by bullshit I mean fabrications, misrepresentations, statistical manipulation and outright falsehoods.

When challenged by the Georgia Straight's Charlie Smith on CanWest Media's 2005 $50,000 donation to the BC Liberals, Campbell insults every thinking British Columbian by suggesting that it has no influence... at all. Then he really screws the pooch by making the suggestion that government advertising revenue is spread around... "... the fact of the matter is that we have two major daily newspapers."

Huh?!

Let's assume for a minute that he's talking about the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province. Just for good measure, let's throw in the Victoria Times-Colonist. They are all owned by CanWest Media Inc.!!!

The Gazetteer has the video.

About that endorsement by the Vancouver Sun. My gawd, don't step in it! It'll stick to your shoe.

Now, go read Kootcoot, who tears the VSun's endorsement to shreds faster than a white-tip shark with mackerel in its gape.

Canada-US Project : A Blueprint for SPP on Steroids

But first : a quiz !
Can you spot the main difference between the two pictures below?
Take your time ... don't rush it ...






[The answer is in comments.]

In the top picture, Harper is holding the latest Canadian foray into deep integration : From Correct to Inspired : A Blueprint for Canada-US Engagement from the Canada-US Project.

Appearing with him are Canada-US Project luminaries (L to R) Colin Robertson, on loan from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to Carleton University to direct the project; Fen Osler Hampson, Canada-US Project co-chair and director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University; and Derek Burney, former Canadian ambassador to the US and co-chair of the Canada-US Project at Carleton. Burney and Robertson are also SPP and NAFTA alumni.

Contributors to the "blueprint" include Thomas D'Aquino of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; Perrin Beatty of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; three former American ambassadors to Canada : David Wilkins, James Blanchard, and Gordon Giffin; and serial Canada-basher Michael "Canada blew it!" Hart.

"Blueprint" authors Fen Hampson and Michael "Canada blew it!" Hart appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on Feb 23 to complain that the Canada - US relationship has :

"an awful lot of informal, below-the-radar relationships," Mr. Hart said.
"I mean hundreds of relationships among officials and so on, but none of that is provided with a kind of from-the-top political guidance as to what the objectives are."
The two professors went on to say Canada must redefine its relationship with the U.S. in a way that will strengthen security but also enhance trade.
Ideally, they recommended broadening, among other things, NORAD to create a secure land, sea and air perimeter around North America, while dropping the national border to create a Schengen-type arrangement.

The Schengen Area is a group of twenty-five European countries which have abolished all border controls between each other.

Two days later Thomas d'Aquino of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives told the Commons' Foreign Affairs committee on Feb. 25 that the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership "is probably dead." However something else will inevitably replace it, he said.

The Canada-US Project is certainly making a good run at it.

Here's some not altogether random quotes from their above-mentioned "Blueprint for Canada-US Engagement" :

• The two governments should re-examine the benefits of a perimeter approach to the border.
• The two governments should also take a blowtorch to regulatory differentiation and overlap that serve no useful purpose other than to preserve some government jobs and to perpetuate a preference for differentiation for its own sake.
  
• On Afghanistan : Canada certainly has earned the right in blood and treasure to influence stronger US leadership and to spur a more substantive, more cohesive international effort.
• Domestically, the enthusiasm that greeted the election of Obama will fade in the face of the persistent unease of Canadians about getting too close to Canada’s giant neighbour.
  Crisis, a convergence of national interests, and the need for economic recovery should help to bring us together. Canadians are ready ... They accept that the border has become dysfunctional and that minor regulatory differences make little sense.
  Obstacles to achieving this agenda are chronic indifference in Washington and wariness or narcissism in Canada.
• Redefining the way the two governments manage the interoperability of Canadian and US forces is an important next step. Putting NORAD on a permanent footing was a start, but there is a need for appropriate institutions for land and maritime forces as well.
• Canada’s role in Afghanistan is proving critical to re-establishing its credentials as a credible security partner. The government will need to be prepared to offer help in other trouble spots.
• As Obama takes office, he will pursue a faster drawdown in Iraq with compensatory emphasis on Afghanistan. This may put pressure on the prime minister’s vow to take Canadian combat troops out of Afghanistan by 2011. Cutting Canada’s losses on a costly and unpopular mission may prove popular at home but will at the same time reduce Canadian influence and visibility with a new administration.
• The most pressing bilateral issue is the need to re-think the architecture for managing North America’s common economic space.
  Re-imagining the border. ... the border has become an instrument to address yesterday’s problems. It may be time to resurrect the “perimeter” concept and find a better balance between security and economics. Integrating national regulatory regimes into one that applies on both sides of the border. But to make this work, the two governments must also develop joint rules and procedures to coordinate regulatory policy on an ongoing basis.
• Building an enhanced capacity for joint rule making. The two governments may need to establish a few institutions that are capable of providing political leadership as well as political oversight.
• Part of the solution may lie in making better use of the “hidden wiring” in the relationship. Over many years, relations have grown and deepened at many levels – from the state-provincial and business-to-business to nongovernmental, and legislative levels.
• [I]t is not in Canada’s best interests to restrict energy exports to the United States at this time – a situation that will remain unchanged for quite a number of years.
• The third major challenge is to bring the rules governing the cross-border movement of goods and services into line with the reality of deep integration. Border security has become economic protectionism in a new guise.
  Additionally, it is critical that the two governments find a joint approach to border management in the event of a major terrorist attack in either the United States or Canada. There is no agreed contingency plan to deal with such a crisis.
• Finally, the smooth operation of the integrated Canada-US economy requires that the two countries come to grips with what some have called the narcissism of small differences in the regulatory structures of the two countries. Health Canada spends an enormous amount of time and money testing drugs that have already been tested and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.
  North American economic integration has grown and an enhanced Canada-US trading relationship needs to reflect that reality. Canada can speed the process of convergence by making a concerted effort to align a wide range of regulatory requirements with those in place in the United States.
• [O]nly Canada’s inveterate anti-Americans can take satisfaction in seeing their neighbours in such trouble. The over-hyped talk among the pundits about the death of the American market economy model is nonsense.

Apparently their polls that show that "Canadians are close to unanimous (95 per cent) in their desire to see the federal government strengthen the relationship with the United States", hindered only by "the chattering classes" - a rather odd reference given that co-author Derek Burney is Chairman of the Board of Canwest Global Communications Corp. - but doesn't all this sound like a blueprint for SPP on steroids to you?

OK, on to the exciting quiz answer in comments ...

Cross-posted at Creekside

Don't cheer. It's not good news.

Now that The New Republic, a US right-wing publication group, has been sold to CanWest, that paragon of international media concentration, some US commentators believe there may be a shift in focus.

Don't count on it.

I agree with John and Chet that any optimism expressed by Americans that the Asper family will, in any way, tone down the rhetoric of TNR editor-in-chief Marty Peretz or Franklin Foer is sadly misplaced.

I like how some Americans are under the (woefully-mistaken) assumption that The New Republic will somehow improve now that it's being bought whole by the Aspers.

The logic seems to be: Aspers = Canadians, therefore less crazy neocon garbage.

Sadly, the truth is Aspers = batshit crazy Canadians, therefore the wingnuttiness is likely to increase, if anything.

Afraid so. I'd only add the following: Aspers = Elite Canadian media barons who can't stop complaining about the "Canadian media elite," and never seem to realize that they're it.

Canadian ownership could turn out to be worse. To illustrate, I give you the example of Conrad Black, (who gave up his Canadian citizenship to feed his ego). And, it must never be forgotten that Canadian ownership of US media groups and personal patronage produced this piece of work.