Liberal Media Bias or Poor Conservative Communications?

Consider this article. It would be hard for the Liberals to get better coverage if they wrote the article themselves. But does this happen? Is it liberal media bias or poor communications on the part of the CPC communications staff?

Let us look at the article in detail.

The first six paragraphs are filled with quotes from Paul Martin which demonize Stephen Harper and the conservatives, all of them in areas which are thought to be ones Canadians are most sensitive to.

"Stephen Harper's policies are different than mine, they're different than yours”

"I'm beginning to understand, however, why you never hear Stephen Harper talking about the issues of our day," Martin said. "It's because he and the Conservatives are on the wrong side of every national issue."

And this one:

He then suggested Harper would move Canada backwards and create a health care system that would require a "credit card" among other things.

So it would be reasonable to assume that the next six paragraphs would be Stephen Harper saying nasty things about the Liberals, or some Conservative representative refuting Paul Martin’s assertions.

Not so. The article then goes on to speak about how the Conservatives believe the Liberals “crossed a line” when the questioned Harper’s patriotism and to detail that event.

Any rebuttal of Martin’s characterizations are not in the piece.

The question is quoted in its entirety

"The Prime Minister outside of Rideau Hall spoke of his values, beliefs, a future for the country, promises. You speak of accountability, taxpayers' change and scandal. I wonder, do you love this country?"

Notice the juxtaposition of values, beliefs and scandal and the blunt, “Do you love this country?

The absurdity of the question is without bounds. Even if a politician hated the country, is there any other answer than yes. No one would spend the long hours and media scrutiny to be a politician if they hated the country. Unless they were evil and had some hidden agenda worthy of a Hollywood movie. For someone such as me, an Albertan, such characterizations are absurd. However, voters all over the country have been told numerous times about the “scary” Stephen Harper and his “hidden agenda”. Although most people in Ontario are not likely to believe these characterizations, they plant small seeds of doubt that slowly grow.

Unfortunately, the response by Stephen Harper quoted in the article is “I said Canada is a great country”. Anyone who has dealt with children knows this is a non-response. It is an indirect response to a direct question and appears to be evasive. Again, the hidden agenda.

The article goes on to talk about the Conservative response to the questioning of Stephen Harper’s patriotism. This takes the form of a demand for an apology as an “unacceptable personal attack”.

Firstly, this appears weak. Strong, tough leaders don’t demand apologies, they take action. And why is this an unacceptable attack? American Republicans are always questioning the patriotism of Democrats, so it’s not like we haven’t heard these types of attacks before. With the suggestion that Stephen Harper is scary and has a hidden agenda to destroy Canada (or at least our way of life), the Liberals would be remiss not to question Harper’s patriotism. The Alberta firewall comments serve to reinforce this perception.

The next quote is Jason Kenney’s response:

Paul Martin may disagree with Stephen Harper on many issues, including the Liberal Party's record of scandal and waste," said Kenney said in a statement. "But he would never question Paul Martin's love for Canada."

First sentence, excellent. It reminds voters of the scandal and waste. However, the second is wrong. The Conservatives should hit back. Based on the stealing of taxpayers’ money, and the damage that Adscam has done to the cause of federalism in Quebec, Conservatives should turn the tables on the Liberals and suggest that perhaps that, due to their actions, they want to break up Canada.

This next statement is also very damaging.

A Conservative source told Politics Watch they were stunned when they heard the Liberal war room was spinning that Harper doesn't love Canada.

No one in a war room should ever be “stunned”. Their job is to anticipate what the other side will do and be prepared to respond. We all know the campaign was going to get dirty. Is the war room not prepared for this? If they are not, they should keep it to themselves. The correct response to this would be: “We knew the Liberals planned to fight dirty, and I am not surprised. They will state any lie to maintain their corrupt hold on power” followed by a strong counterattack. This feeling in Canadian society that we do not like negative campaigns is incorrect. The Liberals did very well last election with their scary Stephen Harper TV adds. There is a line that Canadians feel should not be crossed, and the Conservatives crossed it last campaign by suggesting Paul Martin supports child molesters. If Conservatives are unsure of the line, they should be safe countering any Liberal attack. Canadians know politics is a dirty business and any attempt to suggest you are above that, just makes people think you are better at hiding it.

Bias or not getting the message out?

There is no doubt that the above article is slanted towards the Liberals. The first six paragraphs have Paul Martin questioning the values of the Conservatives with no rebuttal. When the Conservatives side is finally presented, it is not a counter to the Liberal message, but a discussion of another issue.

However, this type of media reporting should not be a surprise. The pro Liberal bias of the press is well known. This means that Conservative Communications has to be at the top of their game at all times. They must make no mistakes.

Knowing the circumstances, success or failure lies in the hands of Conservative communicators.

Sometimes it can be an advantage to play as the underdog.