Shaking up the news world - Macleans.ca
 

Shaking up the news world

WELLS: With the PM’s former press czar at the top, will “Canada’s Fox News” be conservative? or Conservative?


 

Photograph by Blair Gable

The evidence of your eyes deceives you, Kory Teneycke was saying the other day.

It’s true that only a year ago the boyish, flint-eyed 35-year-old spent his days trying to push news out of the Prime Minister’s Office—where until July he was Stephen Harper’s communications director—into the nation’s newspapers and broadcasts. And it’s true that now, suddenly, he is in charge of finding news to fill the political pages of Sun Media’s newspapers and that he plans within months to have the same role at a new news-and-talk cable TV channel. What does his old job have to do with his new one? “I think it’s neither here nor there.”

It’s true he was with Harper when the Prime Minister met Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, respectively the owner and the programming brain behind U.S. cable juggernaut Fox News, for lunch in early 2009. But “that was, like, months before I left the PMO,” Teneycke says. So does the lunch have anything to do with his frequent statements around Ottawa since last autumn that he’d like to launch a Canadian equivalent of Fox News? “No. No.”

Will the new channel be conservative? Or Conservative? “Well, I’m not even sure I know what that means,” Teneycke told Maclean’s.

“Do I think that the market space for political commentary is more oriented toward conservatism for the most part? Yeah, I think it probably is. But I think that’s for the same reason that talk radio in Canada tends to orient itself more toward conservative opinion than not: because it’s a jumping-off vote for a brasher, less politically correct discussion of issues.
“Do I think that there will only be conservative views represented? Absolutely not. It’d be bad television, it would be uninteresting for anyone to watch.”

And if there’s anything Teneycke is actually eager to admit, it’s that he wants to make interesting television. That’s the dream that has made him the new “vice-president of development” at Quebecor, the Montreal-based media conglomerate that Pierre Karl Péladeau has built from a sleepy, family-owned tabloid newspaper chain. And that’s what took the two men to Toronto on Tuesday to announce they will rebrand Sun TV, an underperforming Toronto cable station, as “The Sun TV News Channel,” a Canada-wide network offering “hard news and straight talk” in a package that, if the CRTC consents, will be offered to every cable subscriber beginning Jan. 1, 2011.

“We’re taking on the mainstream media,” Teneycke said at the launch event. “We’re taking on smug, condescending, often irrelevant journalism. We’re taking on political correctness. We will not be a state broadcaster offering boring news by bureaucrats, for elites, and paid for by taxpayers. We’ll be unapologetically patriotic.”

What he’ll be doing is injecting about $20 million per year from Péladeau, cable subscribers and, he hopes, advertisers—plus a sizable dose of his own pugnacious personality—into a troubled Canadian media landscape that has seen more retreat and decline than new ventures in recent years.

His first moves have not been particularly revolutionary. He swiped David Akin, a veteran of Canwest News Service and CTV, to run the day-to-day operations at the Sun Media Ottawa bureau. Akin is fearsomely well-organized, effortlessly multimedia—he has done print and broadcast and seems to live on Twitter—and politically hard to pin down. Teneycke’s second new hire, radio reporter Brian Lilley, is more identifiably conservative. Neither is the kind of firebrand Teneycke will almost certainly turn to before long. (Calgary polemicist Ezra Levant is generally assumed to have a bright future at Sun TV News, perhaps in a dinner-hour show that would compete against the more staid offerings of CTV’s Tom Clark and CBC’s Evan Solomon. Teneycke wouldn’t comment on new hires, which he plans to announce one by one in the months ahead.)

This will be Teneycke’s first job in the news industry. He has been a political operator for half his life. Fresh out of university he worked for Reform party leader Preston Manning in the late 1990s, then for the Saskatchewan Party and the Ontario Conservatives. At Harper’s PMO in 2008 and 2009 he put an end to the culture of defensiveness that had prevailed under his predecessor, Sandra Buckler. Teneycke was quicker with a quote, more likely to push bashful cabinet ministers in front of a scrum microphone, eager to organize off-the-record briefings for reporters to spin something big the government was about to do. He was accessible, but what he offered access to was a highly distilled version of the Conservative party line.

Through it all, Teneycke maintained a bashful, aw-shucks tone that did nothing to mask a combative personality. His office featured laminated old Preston Manning and Ronald Reagan campaign posters, but it was a Second World War morale poster on the same walls that best summed up his political philosophy: “Attack on Every Front!”

At Quebecor he will be assisted by Luc Lavoie, a company executive vice-president who used to be Brian Mulroney’s communications director and who continued to act as Mulroney’s unofficial spokesman until three years ago. Lavoie knows Quebecor like the back of his hand and will cheerfully saw off the head of anyone at the company who tries to cross the new kid. (“I’ve mellowed a bit as I age,” he told Teneycke, “but I’m still the toughest son of a bitch in the whole goddamn company.”)

In a sense, Quebecor already has a 24-hour right-of-centre conglomerate of print, broadcast and Internet media. Until now, it has resided mostly in Quebec, defying the clichéd perception that Quebec is the most leftist province in the country. Quebecor’s many holdings include TVA, the most popular television station in the province, as well as LCN, a 24-hour news network, and Canoe.ca, a French and English Internet portal. Anchoring its media properties is Le Journal de Montréal, a hardscrabble tabloid and blue-collar bible that has veered considerably to the right as of late.

Pierre Karl Péladeau’s legendary father, a diminutive and scrappy man named Pierre Péladeau, launched the paper in the wake of a typographers’ strike at La Presse in 1964. Its cops-and-crime formula, blaring headlines and soft spot for Quebec sovereignty—René Lévesque was once a columnist—distinguished it from its staid, relentlessly federalist crosstown rival. Its journalists also benefited from the best collective agreement in the business; the most recent included a 32-hour workweek and an average salary of $88,000 including overtime.

But for the last 18 months, those 253 unionized workers have been locked out of the newspaper in an acrimonious labour dispute with Quebecor brass. The paper has continued to publish, thanks to roughly 25 managers and a news wire service that aggregates content from Quebecor and Sun Media papers across the country, which boast a daily readership of 2.6 million.

The Journal, observers say, has largely abandoned its left-leaning roots and adopted the populist conservative voice typical of the Sun papers—a voice echoed on Quebecor’s television assets. With a few notable exceptions, its stable of columnists is on the right side of the spectrum, and its exposés tend to focus on what one of its blogs deems “harebrained spending, waste and bad budgetary choices,” as well as the perceived spendthrifts at Radio-Canada, its publicly funded rival. Quebecor’s television and Internet properties then promote, broadcast and opine on the Journal’s content throughout the day—using, in many cases, the very journalists and columnists who produced the Journal copy.

“It’s become a recipe to prove that the social democratic system doesn’t work, that it must be overhauled, and that the private sector has to be involved in everything,” says Valérie Dufour, a locked-out Journal political reporter.

Whatever it is, it seems to be working. The Journal’s circulation hasn’t dipped despite the lockout. For Quebecor, the lockout has an upside: an estimated $83 million saved in labour costs over the past 18 months. Several observers say Pierre Karl Péladeau is prolonging the lockout in order to deplete the union’s strike fund and score an ideological win against the province’s powerful labour movement. (Quebecor officials declined to comment for this story.)

Quebecor’s television assets dominate the province. TVA’s supper hour news program has three times the viewership of the comparable Radio-Canada broadcast, while the 24-hour LCN network, launched in 1997, is decidedly more opinionated and more successful than its Rad-Can rival. LCN’s two main talking heads, Richard Martineau and Jean-Luc Mongrain, are the network’s popular sources of canned outrage, often decrying government excess and so-called “reasonable accommodations” for immigrants in Quebec.

On Tuesday, Teneycke said the new cable channel is requesting a “must offer,” not a “must carry” licence from the CRTC, suggesting there is a difference. In fact there isn’t, according to CRTC spokesperson Peggy Nebout. “Must carry and must offer are the same,” Nebout told Maclean’s. If Teneycke gets his licence amendment and you have cable TV, you’ll see Sun TV News when you channel surf.

And what will you be seeing? A mix of political viewpoints, Teneycke swears, and often what you see won’t be political at all. “My guess is that the opening of the first Victoria’s Secret stores in Canada is more important to a lot of Canadians than the latest happenings at an Ottawa committee.”

When Sun TV News does turn to politics, Teneycke hopes to slay herds of sacred cows. That includes his new colleagues at other news organizations. “There’s a very clubby mentality within the media where they don’t report on mistakes one another make. Somebody will get a story wrong and it just sort of disappears from the scene. I think when that happens we’ll talk about it.”

He insists he won’t carry water for Harper or crusade for any cause. But if conservatives like what they see on Sun TV News, so be it. “My objective is to have the debate be more real, more raw, and more reflective of the issues that people are actually talking about. Whether it’s the lack of debate around certain environmental issues—where by and large, one perspective is taken as the holy gospel—I think there’s other points of view. And I think they should be given equal voice.

“I don’t think that’s crusading or campaigning. It’s simply bringing debate to the fore that’s largely happening anyway.”


 

Shaking up the news world

  1. Interesting column, Wells. Thanks for this. This is the first article I have read that was not trying to scare me about Fox News coming to Canada while claiming there is no bias in Canadian msm. I find it curious that little to no comment was made in the msm about the introduction of Al Jazeera (terrorist tv) to Canada but conservative news with Canadian slant is beyond the pale, apparently.

    “My guess is that the opening of the first Victoria's Secret stores in Canada is more important to a lot of Canadians than the latest happenings at an Ottawa committee.”

    I am not sure about this. I agree that Canadians in general might think VS is more important but I have my doubts that Canadians who watch tv news think VS is more significant than committee work. It already sounds like Sun TV is trying to attract people who don't actually watch news and this will make the shows dire for those of us who do pay attention.

    "I think there's other points of view. And I think they should be given equal voice. I don't think that's crusading or campaigning. It's simply bringing debate to the fore that's largely happening anyway.”

    I agree with this. It makes me laugh when people claim Canadian msm is not overwhelmingly liberal. If liberals and progressives took a moment and watched Fox News or read Wall St Journal and National Review and then compared it to what we read/watch in Canada, they would quickly see how witless they are when claiming Canadian msm is already right wing or there is no liberal slant.

    • Enjoy another laugh, Quebecor's holdings dominate the Canadian newspaper sector. Anyone who looks at those papers and does not identify them as right-wing is truly witless. It is certainly true, we have nothing like the Wall St. Journal or the National Review. I thought the National Post started off trying to go that route (or at least as far as a daily could) but they have clearly made the decision that the gutter is more comfortable. The issue is not we lack a right-focused view in the Canadian press…. it is that we lack an intelligently presented right-focused newspaper.

      • The Post is still quite good as far as newspapers go. Certainly not what it was in its heyday when Conrad Black was spending a fortune on it. But still not bad. And it still gives a more conservative perspective that is absent in the other papers. The Sun papers might be somewhat right wing, but they are so typically "tabloidy" and light on content that they can't possibly be taken seriously.

        • I think we all agree on the Sun papers… they are truly the Fox News of newspapers.

    • It makes me laugh when people claim Canadian msm is overwhelmingly liberal. Not promoting conservative talking points is not the equivalent of being liberal. If conservatives took a moment and watched CTV, Global or read the Sun newschains or the National Post, they would quickly see how witless they are when claiming Canadian msm is already left wing or there is a liberal slant.

      Just ask Chretien or Martin when they were in office and the coverage of the sponsorship scandal (broken by the "msm" by the way) or the APEC summit (CBC's Terry Milewsky was relentless), etc.. Just consider the coverage Dion got and now Ignatieff is now getting. Just consider the coverage Martin and Dion got when they were leaders but especially during the last two elections. Just consider how many editorials actually concluded and said we should vote for Harper; answer: almost all of them. You can't be "overwhelmingly liberal" if all of them are promoting the Conservatives in an election! Just consider how many former journalists are now key Conservatives.

      Bergkamp, your tinfoil hat on is on way too tight.

      • Almost all of the editorials endorsed the Conservatives in the last election because the only person not seeing how hapless Dion was…was Dion himself. Had they endorsed the Liberals, they would have been the laughing stock.

        Ignatieff is currently being treated poorly in the media because his performance is poor. There is simply no way to cover that up.

        David Akin is not a conservative.

        • So when "the media" support the Conservatives it is because the Liberals are performing poorly, but when "they" are not supportive of the Conservatives, it's because they are biased. Right. And the fact that "they" are not supportive of Ignatieff, were not supportive of Dion, were not supportive of Martin and were not supportive of Chretien, were not supportive of Turner, i.e. every Liberal leader, just means "they" were rendering good judgement but cannot be used as evidence of a lack of bias.

          That's just nuts. Especially when the specific claim is that "they" are "overwhelmingly liberal". If "they" were "overwhelmingly liberal" you'd think that there would, at the very least, be some little bit of evidence of it, wouldn't you?

          {P.S. Who is claiming Akin is conservative?}

          • You misunderstood me…I wasn't claiming that there is a liberal bias, I was just stating that you can't use the fact that the editorials in the last election are proof that they are not. Martin – remember when he played air guitar towards the end of his campaign? I bet he wakes up in the middle of the night with cold sweats remembering how embarassing that was.

            For the longest time, Chretien was called the teflon man because nothing stuck to him. And the media wouldn't push the issues…why was that?

          • Didn't mean to imply you were saying there was bias, though the argument you make is often used to do just that. But again, the point is, even if Ignatieff and Dion and Martin and Chretien and Turner were performing poorly, if "the media" was biased, you would think that that would not matter to a leftwing "media".

            The teflon man was a calculated image and it was probably true for a little while, largely because of a seriously ineffective opposition. Harper is the teflon don in the same way. Chretien, like Martin for a little little while and Harper for a longer while, was liked by "the media" for a while but it was "the media" turning on Chretien (Shawinigate, Billion Dollar Boondoggle, APEC, Adscam, etc.) and seeking out and promoting a replacement and saviour (Martin) and then seeking out and promoting that saviour's replacement and saviour (Harper) that belies the impression that "the media" was enamoured with Chretien or is liberal biased.

          • The media turned on Chretien because of the sum of his "gates" and "scams" could no longer be ignored. And let's not forget that the Martin people were only too happy to smear their leader. Martin was liked by the media for a long time, not a little time like you would suggest.

            Harper has never been liked and has done a good job of ensuring the media will never like him by shutting them out. Remember wafergate and the rabid attacks the Prime Minister was forced to endure. Robert Fife announced that it was a liberal insider that brought the story to the telegraph journal but refused to say anymore when the story was proven to be untrue. And why was Fife never held to account?

          • Actually, it isn't necessary to have any scandals for the media to turn on you. The media had it in for John Turner from the day he took the Liberal leadership in 1984. Sometimes they just don't like yah much, and there's nothing you can do about it. I don't think the media ever really turned on Jean Chretien. Certainly the Post did, but other than that, their scandal coverage was more or less typical of what you'd expect regardless of who was PM. Martin, on the other hand, was the author of his own demise. He flip-flopped so much; and his behaviour became so erratic, that no serious journalist could possibly give him favourable coverage.

          • The way I see it the Parliamentary Media are playing games with our country. They have a tightly knit group who obediently follows the narrative. They have long since stopped reporting. One of them said of Harper in 2005: "We built him up and we can tear him down". Their narrative seems to correspond to the polls. If the Conservatives get up near 38%, then we see a "wafer-gate" type false story. Or heavy rotation promotion of an anti-conservative author (Marci Macdonald). It works the other way also for now. If Ignatief's Liberals rise in the polls, we get reports on splits in the Liberal party. Their narrative seems to be to dump Ignatief.

            This SunTVNews could be just the ticket to breaking up their quaint little powerful arrangement and they seem terrified. I don't necessarily see this as a right / left issue. The issue is the press think they run our country and we need to show them their proper roll is to report.

          • @tedbetts – wrong interpretation of Kat's comment Ted! When KAT says Akins is not conservative – KAT means Akins maintains some sense of proportion and is not over the top rabidly neocon!
            If I were Akins- I'd probably take that as a compliment!

          • Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was surprised to hear the news that Akin was hired. It didn't fit with the "fox north" headline.

        • His fans are apparently confused, perhaps you could break the news to dear Paulie. http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2010

          Actually, it is good to finally have a definitive voice to identify the true conservatives for those of us unable to attend the weekly meetings. We know of course that Helena is out. Stephen is in, especially cause he spent a gazzilion dollars of taxpayer's money to keep the wicked colalition at bay which would no doubt have spent a gazzilion dollars of taxpayer's money once they got in. (Whew, Canada dodged a bullet on that one!) In terms of strategies: in & out is in, R&D is fixed, gays in leather shorts out (unless our Transport Minister decides to liven things up Kitchener this October), sponsoring anything at all is way out (except around Bracebridge in which case it makes perfect sense.)

          Most of all we now know thats to the mispelled feline:

          All media criticism of Harper is an unjustified attack on his noble pursuit of truth, justice and that other thing,

          All media criticism of his opponents is completely justified, but mostly motivated by the sly and devious media trying to hide their leftward looking views (if not their lederhosen).

          • sponsoring anything at all is way out (except around Bracebridge in which case it makes perfect sense.)

            Not quite. The profitable Pride parade that brings in millions and millions of dollars for local Toronto businesses is certainly out; but the profitable Calgary Stampede that brings in millions and millions of dollars for local Toronto businesses is decidedly in. I think they get $1.5M this year.

          • the profitable Calgary Stampede that brings in millions and millions of dollars for local Toronto businesses

            This made me chuckle. ;-)

            I think they get $1.5M this year.

            Edit: I just looked it up. They're getting a million this year through the 2010 MTEP. This annoys me, because I don't think the Stampede should be getting a single dime in federal funds.
            http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/dsib-tour.nsf/eng/qq

          • My mistake. I stand corrected on two counts.

            Last year they got "nearly $2 million", though I suppose that could mean $1.5 million and that was definitely the number I was thinking of for 2010. My apologies.

            This year they are not getting $1.5 million. My apologies again. It appears they are getting $5 million for the Exhibition and Stampede. I do recall specifically a press release announcing the Stampede was going to get nearly a million this year; it was announced as evidence of the Conservatives' cost cutting measures because they were getting less than half what they got the year before. I'll try to find the link.

          • UPDATE: Looks like we're typing (and updating at the same time). I see you corrected your mistake. (And here I thought, based on what you have said about yourself, you were always right.) Please read a smiley into that statement.

          • It appears they are getting $5 million for the Exhibition and Stampede.

            Nope. The $5M isn't event funding; it's infrastructure funding for the park itself, which is used year-round.

          • I'm sorry, but where did I say it was for anything other than "The Exhibition and Stampede"? Where did I say it was just "event funding"? As in "It appears they are getting $5 million for the Exhibition and Stampede". How is that an incorrect statement, CR?

            It certainly is more flip floppery from a PM who decried this kind of regional welfare funds and interference in provincial matters, though. Of course, Stephen Harper not being consistent with or not even pretending to try to be consistent with, or outright reversing the policy/principle views of, pre-2006 Stephen Harper on any issue is hardly news.

          • It's incorrect because you were comparing apples to oranges (comparing event funding from last year to infrastructure funding this year).

            You linked to a press release about infrastructure spending for the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Park, but you left out the word "Park" and compared it to event funding from last year, which could be misinterpreted.

            It certainly is more flip floppery from a PM who decried this kind of regional welfare funds and interference in provincial matters, though.

            As you know, billions of dollars in federal funds have been spent on infrastructure projects across Canada as economic stimulus. It's not "regional welfare" because all regions have benefited from such funding. Nor is it "interference in provincial matters". I completely agree, however, that massive stimulus spending is inconsistent with the fiscal conservativism that Harper used to espouse.

          • It's not incorrect. But it was a side issue that I did not know about and found out in tracking down the links to show your initial response was, to quote you from another post, "Wrong. Wrong. Wrong." I happened upon this and was surprised – though I guess I should not be – about how far away Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are from pre-2006. I do wonder sometimes if there is a single policy or principle from before 2006 that they still hold.

            Anyway, the point of this thread was clear: Toronto Pride – profitable, huge money maker for others, but no federal money; Calgary Stampede – profitable, huge money maker for others, and lots of federal money. Toronto's Canadian National Exhibition – unprofitable, a money maker for others (but not clear how huge), and lots of federal money.

            So what's the difference between these events? Hmmmm.

          • It's not incorrect.

            You specifically compared infrastructure funding this year to event funding last year. That's not a proper comparison.

            to show your initial response was, to quote you from another post, "Wrong. Wrong. Wrong."

            Wow, Ted, you almost got me there. Good thing I edited my own comment with the correct number three minutes after I originally posted it.

            So what's the difference between these events?

            I agree with your larger point. The Stampede shouldn't get federal funding either. If an event doesn't need federal funding, it shouldn't get it.

          • Ted, when you quibble with Crit… you be quibbling with a master.

          • I know. You have to be careful to read all implied meanings of the words you use and don't use as well in order to anticipate any and every miniscule gap. It's not a blog comment thread, after all, it's a global treaty we're drafting here.

            And because he's not on the extreme rabble rousing or blinders on all the time side of his party, I sometimes forget the Conservative mantra "our principles don't apply to us" is still used by him.

          • You have to be careful to read all implied meanings of the words you use and don't use as well in order to anticipate any and every miniscule gap.

            Good news, Ted! It's actually a lot simpler than that. All you have to do is tone down the BS. If you stop using bogus arguments, bogus evidence, and bogus comparisons to support your partisan rhetoric, I'll stop "quibbling" with what you say.

          • Example?

            Or is this just a bogus argument, with bogus evidence making bogus comparisons to support your partisan rhetoric?

          • Since you actually referred to this one a few comments up ("wrong, wrong, wrong"), how about the bogus "massive G8 clearcutting" claim supported by bogus evidence "picture of a rock quarry".

          • So my asking if this was a sign of massive clearcutting and then reaching the conclusion on my own, upon further research into it by me, and publicly stating I was not correct and it was not massive clearcutting but only a lot of clearcutting… that is your best sign of bogus partisan rhetoric. I see. Gotcha. Well done, CR.

            No wonder the right wing is suppose antagonistic to science and scientific inquiry, if asking questions, doing research and then coming to conclusions is the clearest sign of partisanship.

          • Um, that's not how it went down, Ted. On the off chance that anyone besides the two of us is actually reading this sorry little exchange, I'll link to the relevant discussion so that people can make up their own minds about what you said:
            http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/10/the-commons-la

            You started off by making goofy partisan allegations about "environmental damage" and "massive amounts of clearcutting". You attempted to substantiate these allegations by linking to a photo of a rock quarry. You only started to backpedal after your evidence was demolished.

            No wonder the right wing is suppose antagonistic to science and scientific inquiry, if asking questions, doing research and then coming to conclusions is the clearest sign of partisanship.

            Cute. You mixed up the order, though. First, you posed the question, then you came to an obviously partisan conclusion, and only when challenged did you do the research. That's not "scientific inquiry".

            I'm not really interested in continuing this pissing match. You asked me for an example, so I gave you one. There are many more. Please don't make me list them all, because that would be a waste of time for both of us.

            I'm really quite fond of you, Ted, though I realize the feeling may not be mutual. When I criticize "bogus" partisan claims, please understand that I'm not criticizing you personally.

          • Nor am I interested in this silliness. I wouldn't say I'm "fond" of you only because that is a bit of a personal thing and I only know your opinions and don't know a thing about you. Respect is a word I would certainly use, though you in defending and attacking you tend to get very quibbly and thin skinned which leads to accusations that you later retract or apologize for.

            Still, respect is definitely a word I'd use.

          • Thanks. I respect you, too.

          • SNIFF! I just love happy endings!

          • HA – that is rich :)

          • As for the thread itself, I wrote a comment about the fence and part of that was about the clearcutting for the fence. I had read about large patches of trees coming down for this security fence and in one article the quarry photo was attached without a caption. Not a stretch to wonder from that if there was some massive clearcutting going on. I was consistent in using language like “appears that” and “looks like”. As one with a keen eye on nitty-gritty language detail, that should count for something with you.
            While digging further, I found a description of the photo as being from the old quarry and immediately posted that clarification, noting explicitly that it was the quarry and also that the fence was not just going through forest as I thought. There was clearcutting or – if that word is too difficult to swallow on its own – lots of deforestation for the fence. But I certainly clarified the point about the quarry. [cont…]

          • […cont] Clearly, had that photo been as it was first made out to be, that would have been another ghastly waste for an already wasteful event, and saying so would not have been partisan and certainly not "bogus partisan".

            Anyway, this G8/G20 boondoggle has gotten me perhaps too infuriated with Harper to be commenting on it clearly. There was a time when I liked him and could even see myself voting for him under certain circumstances.

            But he keeps doing things that I think are severely damaging to the country and this is the latest. In this, I know I am not being partisan as some of the most conservative Canadians I know are furious with him in a way I haven't seen before. It is a real eye opener and turning point for many, so maybe something good will come out of this giant photo op afterall. ;-)

          • But they are also getting $1 million from the Marquee Tourism Fund

          • I totally agree with you. They would survive no matter what so why make them more flush.

          • And if they are so hopeless that they could not survive without the federal funds, then why are we taxpayers throwing cash at them at all?

            If they need the $ desperately they should go away and find some other way to earn a living. If they don't need the $, they don't need the $. There, I guess, is why I will never be in government…

          • They will survive without fed funds, which was my point. But now that we know how much taxpayers dollars they are receiving, the next question is…how can they dare charge admission to the same taxpayer? Double dipping anyone?

          • You think that's bad, you should see what they charge (and the conditions they place upon) other events that use the grounds. Its absolutely asinine.

          • "All media criticism of his opponents is completely justified, but mostly motivated by the sly and devious media trying to hide their leftward looking views (if not their lederhosen)."

            Made me think of the Usual Suspects:

            "Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for Soze. You never knew. That was his power. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

          • There was a comment here that disappeared from one of the usual suspects.

            "Yeesh. You should volunteer for the Liberal War Room. You'll make "soldiers in our streets" look like child's play. I look forward to the "Harper/Satan" press releases."

            Which obviously completely not only misses my point but reverses it. Take your blinders off before reading, and then put them on (if you want to) when typing.

      • I'm the one who laughs at those who try and suggest there is no bias in the media. Ask the public what they think and you get a different picture…

        94% say the media tends to sensationalize stories
        80% think that media outlets favour a specific party over others
        56% say reporters have been biased during the 2008 federal campaign
        51% say the media rarely reports on issues important to them
        50% say the media has properly explained the platforms for each contending party

        (Angus-Reid, Oct 12, 2008, 1006 polled, +/-3.1% MOE)

        Yeah, keep on spinning the non-biased media stuff, the rest of us will be looking to this new channel to see if they can deliver on their promise to provide the 'straight goods'.

        • What do you think those numbers prove Savant?

          The only thing I see is that Canadians think that we are poorly served by "the media".

          80% think "the media" is biased, eh? To prove your point, you would have to show that they all think "the media" is biased in favour of the same party. But Liberals acted like Conservatives and whined and whined about media favourtism in the 2008 election. Certainly they had more factual support for that claim than the Conservatives in the last election.

          But I don't buy the "overwhelmingly biased" claim.

          As for the new spokeschannel for the Conservative Party, we'll see. But when you call yourself a conservative media right out of the gate, it's hard to even claim that they'll be neutral or unbiased.

    • I too was looking forward to Wells's take on this.

      I found the article a little less substantive than I was expecting, but as you say, it had Wells's trademark objectivity that most of the other reporting on the subject seems to lack.

      Perhaps Sun Media should hire Wells.

    • Conservative news or conservative news . .. . . .does it really matter?

      No matter how one slices it, the moment news takes on a bias it stops being news and enters the realm of propaganda.

      I like reading opinion pieces, but, I like to know what the REAL news is first. I jumped off the turnip truck and wash the crap off of my boots a long time ago. I don't need anyone to explain or manipulate my news for me.

      As for a "Fox" styled station? I don't watch the real thing now. Why would I watch a "Fox Wanabe"

      • All news has bias. I could care less, because I don't watch televised news. Ever. But if I did, I'd prefer the bias to be declared up front. At least these guys are doing that.

    • @bergkamp
      It makes me laugh when you equate Al Jazeera English with terrorism. Have you watched their reporting? I suggest you do. TV reporting in NA looks so immature compared to the programs AJE offers. You will however have to be unbiased and brave to be willing to watch both sides of the story – any story (which the viewers in NA are not used to unfortunately).

    • @bergkamp
      It makes me laugh when you equate Al Jazeera English with terrorism. Have you watched their reporting? I suggest you do. TV reporting in NA looks so immature compared to the programs AJE offers. You will however have to be unbiased and brave to be willing to watch both sides of the story – any story (which the viewers in NA are not used to unfortunately).

    • "I think there's other points of view. And I think they should be given equal voice. I don't think that's crusading or campaigning. It's simply bringing debate to the fore that's largely happening anyway.”

      I agree with this. It makes me laugh when people claim Canadian msm is not overwhelmingly liberal. If liberals and progressives took a moment and watched Fox News or read Wall St Journal and National Review and then compared it to what we read/watch in Canada, they would quickly see how witless they are when claiming Canadian msm is already right wing or there is no liberal slant.

      There are lots of points of view to be sure, but to give them _equal voice_ it utterly stupid.

      The way to level the playing field for all POVs is to take them apart as much as you can based on factual evidence rather than injecting personal opinion or hearsay, and is something which is not done simply by giving them "equal voice".

    • "I find it curious that little to no comment was made in the msm about the introduction of Al Jazeera (terrorist tv) to Canada but conservative news with Canadian slant is beyond the pale, apparently"

      The English Channel is not the same as the Arabic one(which is unavailable). Its manager is actually a Canadian who until recently worked for the CBC. The Canadian Jewish Congress removed their objections to it after becoming familiar with it's programming and having a mechanism for them to bring up objections to it's programming if the need arises. You have bought into fear.

      What people are worried about with Kory TV may well be unfounded, but debate on it is what it needs if it will seek to be credible.

  2. I don't watch TV – and I have a 20 year old who says that nobody her age does. Getting an audience is going to be a problem. Don't think we have the population for it. Al Jazeera is here – and they are excellent — why aren't they getting this much media attention, media people?

    • Al Jazeera is 'excellent' as long as you do not watch television!

  3. “We're taking on the mainstream media,” Teneycke said at the launch event. “We're taking on smug, condescending, often irrelevant journalism. We're taking on political correctness. We will not be a state broadcaster offering boring news by bureaucrats, for elites, and paid for by taxpayers. We'll be unapologetically patriotic.”

    ~ rolleyes ~ Here we go. Obviously Kory has no clue about the function of CBC media – no clue about the size of Canada and the importance of CBC. He's off to a great start with that statement. Personally, I don't think he's as wonderful as he obviously thinks he is – he'll have a long way to go to come close to Peter Mansbridge's charm, personality, intelligence, and ability to read the scene.

    • "I don't watch TV – and I have a 20 year old who says that nobody her age does …. no clue about the size of Canada and the importance of CBC …. "

      How important can cbc to Canada be if no one watches tv anymore, according to you and your daughter?

      • More than you obviously know.

        • Certain groups have had the CBC in their crosshairs for a long time. I used to work with a guy who was a former member of the Canadian navy. He was an organizer for the Alliance during the run up to the leadership election where they selected Stockwell Day as their leader. He was obsessed with dismantling the CBC or turning it into a 24/7 HNIC broadcast. Funny how CBC haters are happy to have the programs they watch or listen to, but want the rest cut.

          I think gunning for the CBC is partly what ensured another victory for Chretien (although I would admit it's a very small part.) The CBC has been a big part of my life since I first went to college. (No, I don't work there or in media at all.) I would never want to be a single-issue voter, but if there was a single issue that might cause me to oppose a party, it would be threats to the CBC.

          • We'd all be quite happy to see HNIC go with the CBC. There are plenty of channels in Canada that would kill for the opportunity to show games on Saturday nights.

          • You mean like TSN?

          • Sure. I hear they've even got a pretty good theme song for it :)

          • Are Canadians that dumb that they watch any programs produced by the cbc ? What is the connection with a former member of the Canadian navy , the former Alliance Party and the cbc ? Maybe they should have a Royal Commission to investigate – could be another conspiracy !

          • Old fogey, you might want to ask your physician to adjust your meds. You can no longer follow a basic anecdote without seeing commies in your fever dreams.

            It's OK though. You live in Canada and we take good care of our infirm.

          • Hey Darren, not too many people watch or listen to CBC anymore, crappy programming. What were the numbers they published, they were pathetic percentages. If this was any other company they would have been cut lose a long time ago. It should be privatized.

            900,000 out of 30 million watch CBC lousie numbers AY!!

          • If CBC TV was off the air, there are about three shows I would miss: Dragon's Den, Leafs Night in Canada, and the National. I honestly wouldn't be too upset because another network would pick them all up. CBC-TV runs commercials and dusty old re-runs of US-produced shows just like every other network, so I sometimes forget they are even public. If they were forced to sink or swim on their own, I honestly wouldn't care.

            I would miss the radio though. If I can't get CBC on the radio, I fire up my iPod — unless there's a Jays game in range (I'm kinda rural over here).

    • What, pray tell, is the importance of the CBC? I am 37 and have yet to figure that out. (Other than to burn taxpayer money.)

      If people are willing to watch it – they should pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it – then I shouldn't have to (through taxes) pay for them.

  4. Seems to me a Conservative station in Canada has the same problem as a Conservative party: they have to act Conservative to capture the true-believing wing-nuts; they can't act Conservative or they'll scare off anyone else. Hence Kory on the one hand denying SunTV will be a Conservative station, and on the other hand promising it.

    Doomed.

    • It'll be a spot on the media dial where some people will gravitate to for no other reason than having some confidence that the people running the place don't think of them as "wingnuts". I might watch the CBC more if I thought the people running it merely disagreed with me. But I don't think that's the case. I think they despise me and mock me. I think they wish I didn't exist, except to pay taxes to pay for their salaries. Am I paranoid? No. Thanks to bigcitylib and people like him, who can't simply say "I disagree" but are compelled to say "I disagree, you crazy loser", I know that's what they're thinking at the CBC. So I'll watch SunTV, which is run by adults who will treat *everyone* with equal measures of courtesy.

      I would log in to post this, but I'm doing it anonymously. Why? Because I'm tired today, and I don't want to have people like bigcitylib calling me names. But then that's why they do it, isn't it. To chase away anyone who disagrees. To make certain there's no chance the "wingnuts" ever, for even a brief moment, feel welcome in the community of ideas.

      That's why we need a new community. That's why we need SunTV.

      • Well stated Tired. You have nailed it. They call us "right-wing extremists", "Ultra Right", even "Knuckle draggers". All we are is hard-working, taxpaying people who play by the rules. This new station does not even need to be conservative. It just needs to be fair and balanced (which I suspect it will be) and the Left will label it with every vile moniker they can think of (as they have on this and other blogs).

        • Yeesh, grow a pair, boys. If you want to comment in a space where every person who doesn't march to the right wing drum beat gets branded a leftie commie socialist etc etc, head over to Mark Steyn's column. I guess it's fun on the internet to pick a "team" and just let the vitriol fly.

          It will be the same on TV: SunTV will get a market share of rabid true-believers and the rest of us will happily ignore it — especially if it's a subscription service. I don't subscribe to any news channel and I never will. I just hope there's a free preview so I can experience Ezra Levant filling an hour with his pals even just once.

          OK, now it's your turn to call me a bunch of names. Have a nice weekend.

          • Darren, You confirm my point better than I could. You disagree with me so you call me "rabid", lacking a "Pair", and you told me to leave if I disagree with you. In my comments and in Tired's we branded no one. We are reasonable and respectful. Perhaps you should look inward to try to understand why reasonable comments incite you to spew such hatred.

            Regarding your invitation, I decline to call you a bunch of names, but I do plan to have a nice weekend.

          • You know, Rick, your score would be better if you posted under Steyn's column.

            Heh, yeah I hate you Rick. I hate your lack of a sense of humour and, yeah, you should definitely grow a pair. You're a sad little rabid right-winger. I think I will call you Rick Winger from now on.

            In the words of Justin Bieber, "Baby baby baby, oh, baby baby baby!"

            Meaningful discourse was had: 18/06/2010.

          • Darren, You've shown your lack of character twice. I expect you will bless us all a third time?

          • Rick, you've shown yourself to be even-tempered gentleman. Why is your score so low? You must not post under Steyn's column much.

            Sorry if my silliness on these boards has you deciding I am of poor character. Would you believe my dog got hold of my laptop while I was logged in? He's the Bieber fan, not me.

          • Darren, Thanks for you comment. I was hasty in my comment on your character. You seem like a good guy that I disagree with and that is OK. I commend your dog on his spelling and punctuation, but I think you should expose him to other musical influences … perhaps 70's rock.:)

            About my score, I really don't know why or how I got a score. I assume it is bad since it is red and a negative number. Your dog keeps commenting on it. Does he know anything about it?

          • He's a purebred Lhasa Apso. I think he thinks he's descended from the divine. He's very judgmental that way.

        • Please quit whining. When Teneycke was on CBC he threw around slanders and insults against anyone to the left of Attila the Hun like they were going out of style. And Ezra Levant is a defamation machine aimed at anyone even slightly progressive.

          PLEASE…QUIT…WHINING.

          • And if I don't stop calling you out as the puerile name-calling twit that you are (what you call "whining"), then what? Yeah, I thought as much. Nothing. You're as powerless to do anything about me as you are to do anything about SunTV that you're so frightened of. The name-calling is a manifestation of your impotence.

            It's the same impotence that is behind the name calling from all the media "pundits" wringing their hands at the thought of SunTV going live.

            And there's a difference, by the way, between Ezra and you. When Ezra called Cotler a "porch Jew", his name-calling was aimed at a particular person in reaction to a particular thing that the person had said or done. You fling "wingnut" at that great mass of people who don't *think* like you, but not at someone in particular for something that person *said* or *did*. Actually taking the effort to direct your name-calling at someone specific for a specific reason seems like work, doesn't it?

            And we all know how the Left is allergic to work. Work is for "wingnuts".

          • I doubt the pundits are wringing their hands and much as rubbing them together with glee. SunTV is going to be a boon to punditry. Supposedly, they wanted Mercer, but he's already found a teat. If I were a left wing or right wing commentator with a reputation, I would already be planning an addition to the house.

            It's hard to say if you are to the right or left of me and it really doesn't matter. All we can do is try to be informed before we had to the polls and, in the meantime, try not to sweat the small stuff. Internet trolls (including me) are definitely the small stuff.

      • You are definitely the type of audience that Sun TV likes -those who don't think and enjoy hating anything and everything. Yes, HATE TV is for you.

    • I disagree, although I would expect the Kory-TV will have a "liberal" dose of rightous nutties. (Personally I get the impression their will be plenty of "Victoria Secret" specials as well to keep their numbers up.)

      There is certainly an increased space for thoughtful conservative commentary on TV (and in print). The two-fold challenges are: 1) the absolute viewership numbers will never be large although the influence could be significant and
      2) conservative political operatives both north and south of the border have largely given up on conversion through conversation and have instead adopted a more "modern" marketing approach.

      • You're right about that "modern" marketing approach. As in extensive polling, focus-group testing and "brand imaging" consultants, coupled with carefully controlled propaganda and smear campaigns. Thoughtul policy went out the door years ago.

    • The new station just has to be fair and balanced to thrive. They can occupy the center of the political spectrum and gain a huge following because the existing CBC and CTV stations have abandoned reasonable Canadians. The CBC, with our $1.3B per year subsidy has dragged the rest of the MSM ever leftward to the point of daily insults of reasonable Canadians. I would say the CBC will never change as they have much institutional inertia, however the CBC's budget is 65x that of the new SunTV which allows them to do whatever they want. Either way, SunTV will make for some interesting media developments in 2011 and beyond.

        • What the CBC does to this country is the "Crime of the Century".

          It won't be easy to fix, but finally SunTV can help Canada take "The Long Way Home"

      • "CBC's budget is 65x that of the new SunTV which allows them to do whatever they want."

        The annual revenue for Quebecor was $3.73 billion
        The same year, CBC revenue was roughly $1.8 billion

        Revenue for CBC Newsworld was almost $79 million that year. If SunTV news gets $20m from Quebecor + $65m from a tier 1 license + ad revenue they are already ahead of the CBC's similar offering.

        All talk of BiaS aside, Quebecor has much deeper pockets than the CBC.

        • "Quebecor has much deeper pockets than the CBC". -Wrong

          The CBC has deeper pockets … My taxpayer cash (and yours too).

          • And I am happy to hand it over, Rick.

          • Great. Then we can stop subsidizing it and it can sink or swim on its own.

          • Darren, I support you in your wish to hand over your cash to the CBC. However, I am compelled to pay against my wishes. Would not the fair and balanced solution be that you pay for your viewing pleasure and I pay for mine?

            Are you ready to join with me in a call to let the CBC receive donations only from those who want to pay?

          • That's not a bad idea. They could be more like NPR or PBS in the US. Programming could be brought to us through the generous support of Suncor and viewers/listeners like me. I actually do this already for NPR's The American Life. I donate to keep the podcast going because I like it a lot.

            The worst effect that would have on me is CBC radio would have to run ads all the time, so my drive to work would be inundated with annoying ads for the Brick and the local car dealerships.

            Now, are you talking about diverting your taxes to something you support or more like checking a box on your T-4 so you can opt out of supporting the CBC and that being a deduction on your taxable income? The reason I ask is once this genie is out of the bottle, other taxpayers are going to want to opt out of other things. I've seen posters on here who hate public schooling, some who want massive cuts to military spending, some that wouldn't want public money to go into building sports complexes or arenas etc etc. I'm no Rand Paul, but this could get messy.

            Philosophically, though, I agree with you. The only reason I wouldn't join you in that call is I would want to see the brush applied evenly. Why should I lose my CBC while some ballet company or concert promoter is getting public funds for events in which I have no interest?

          • An argument, I would say, for the government getting out of the culture business all together.

            Would free up money for health care infrastructure too.

          • I support you in your wish to hand over your cash to the Military. However, I am compelled to pay against my wishes. Would not the fair and balanced solution be that you pay for your peace of mind and I for mine?

            I support you in your wish to hand over your cash to religious organizations. However, I am compelled to pay against my wishes. Would not the fair and balanced soclution be that you pay for your spiritual pleasure, and I pay for mine?

            Here's the hint: All taxes are a compromise, where we each pay in for some things we support and some things we don't, and thus get the benefit of economies of scale on all of them.

          • "I support you in your wish to hand over your cash to the Military. However, I am compelled to pay against my wishes. "

            That's because you benefit from the military whether you want to or not. If you were able to opt out without endangering the rest of us, then yes you should not be forced to pay.

            "I support you in your wish to hand over your cash to religious organizations. However, I am compelled to pay against my wishes."

            Bullsh!t. It is possible that your tax dollars are paying for community work done by religious orgs, but no one is forcing you to pay to support the orgs themselves or their religious work.

            "All taxes are a compromise, where we each pay in for some things we support and some things we don't, and thus get the benefit of economies of scale on all of them."

            That would be true if we all benefited from the things we are forced to finance. I do not benefit from the CBC. At all.

          • In most tax theory a deduction or exemption is the same as a payment or subsidy, since it's money that otherwise would have been at the disposal of the common fisc. Since religious organizations can give out charitable deductions, their sum total is the amount that we can said to pay/subsidize religion in Canada. The terminology might seem loaded, but viewed dispassionately it isn't improper.

          • Daren I wonder if you pay taxes or living off my and other taxpayers money like your beloved CBC.

          • I'm a policy analyst for a group that seeks to support Muslim homosexuals find jobs in the public sector. In my spare time, I am a choreographer for an all male ballet company and I also publish books of poetry by young First Nations writers. Most of the poems are about the evils of working for a living.

            Now if you'll excuse me, I am late for a funding meeting.

          • Darren

            I, too, am glad CBC is funded by Canadians for Canadians. That's why it wins awards like no other. That's why Mike Duffy of the CTV's formerly biased programming was rewarded with a Senatorial job by our govenrment leaders. When Joan Donaldson formed Newsworld CBS's revenues started rising.
            Anyway, why even argue this? The BBC is another success story. I'd rather watch BBC and European News than FOX and MSNBC Paris Hilton drivel any day!
            Ontario Hydro and other successful local and federal corporations are doing fine and produce better results than privatized corporations. Americans learned the hard way that the Iraq war benefitted the outside contractors HALIBURTON who made billions from the inability of Bush Jr. to use his government and make civil servants part of the profit-making–instead we have Haliburton putting its billions in offshore and Swiss accounts while being also hired as "private soldiers" to fight the new Obama's Vietnam (AfPak) war that has created 3.5 million refugees in less than a year while Bush created 6 million refugees in Iraq with a million widowed mothers working as "entertainment club hostesses" for fat arab princes in Jordan and Syria. That's privatization at its most productive. We whine about it.

            Yest, there are exceptions, but guess which system is producing more for our taxpayers bucks? Single-Payer Healthcare in Canada. And if you read the N>Y. Times you'd see that 65% Americans envy the Canadian system where our GPD portion is only 10% while the Americans are at 18%. There's your argument for "efficiency" for Canada's "sad state of privatization"….Let's be fair and less partisan. Look to the facts.

          • And please don't forget that 64% of all personal AMERICAN BANKRUPTCIES are caused by "inability to pay medical bills"….Guess our "socialist" single-payer (envied by our cousins down south) state is paying dividends for ALL Canadians. And, also, don't forget that we have a much better educated public in the True North Strong and Free–and thanks to the CBC programming and TVO. (Frankly, the only American channel worth watching is PBS, the rest if political propagandazing and .mindless Paris Hilton/Tiger/Jackson drivel….We must avoid Americanization of our media at all costs if we want to survive intact as a nation–before all our national assets are auctioned off like Nortel and Avro Arrow…

      • Fair and balance is not something you get from the far right views.

  5. Teneycke said the new cable channel is requesting a “must offer,” not a “must carry” licence from the CRTC, suggesting there is a difference.

    ***

    And they might be hiring Levant? Quite frankly, this station is unlikely to be offering anything useful to the Canadian public.

    We don't need more journalism with polarized opinions. We need more in depth, more knowledgable reporting and less senationalism.

    • Actually, we probably need less journalism, period. Nothing I've seen on the news in the past 20 years has enhanced my understanding of the world. Quite the opposite in fact, which is why I quit watching. When I happen to be inadvertantly exposed to TV news now, I can't help but notice just how facile, how contrived, and how commoditized it is. it isn't news, it's infotainment. Nasseem Nicolas Taleb argues that one can realize an immediate net increase in one's understanding of the world simply by turning off the teleivion news. He's not exagerating. Turn off the noise, you have time to actually think for yourself.

    • Have you not noticed that everyone who 'covers the news' has an opinion? You think that people who have started a profession with the intent to persuade people can, at the flip of a switch, suddenly turn off their brain. There is no problem with journalists having a slant – the problem is when they pretend to be objective.

  6. "This will be Teneycke's first job in the news industry."

    His time at the PMO was 100% oriented towards the news industry – and didn't he just quit a 6-month stint at CBC news?

    • Thumbs down to a QUESTION of accuracy?

      Maclean's comments are getting tiresome.

      • Don't sweat it. It's not the the thumbs-up/down has any real meaning. Styen posted a story about a graveyard and they used a picture of a different graveyard. Someone pointed that out and he's -10 last I checked.

        The choir files in and they start clicking thumbs down if anyone appears to disconnect from the Borg collective. It happens to voices on all sides of the issue. What you want is big numbers either way; that's when you know you've put a bee in someone's bonnet.

  7. “My guess is that the opening of the first Victoria's Secret stores in Canada is more important to a lot of Canadians than the latest happenings at an Ottawa committee.”

    Christ almighty, if this is Boy Wonder's view of Sun TV, Canadian journalism will soon be sinking even deeper.

    • He needs to recruit Ben Mulroney if this is the direction he's going. News Lite.

      • But seriously folks, I forget which media expert was being interviewed, but some talking head in a Globe & Mail article about a week ago pointed out that people tend to overlook the fact that Fox News' success in the US is based at least as much on its commitment to entertainment values as its conservative slant. And I think that's what Kory and Peladeau understand as well. If you parse what they're saying, they're seeing an opening in the fact that CBC Newsworld and CTV Newsnet are rather staid and lacking in sheer entertainment value. If you think about some of the talking head regulars on Fox News, yes, they're right-wing, but they're also oversized personalities who clearly are encouraged to say outrageous things in order to be entertaining.

  8. They're going to kick the shit out of the competition and make money hand over fist. The only downside I see is that this will be good for national unity. How's that, you ask?

    Notice how this article needs to explain to its readers, presumably educated adults, that there was once "a diminutive and scrappy man named Pierre Péladeau", and that Montreal has "Le Journal de Montréal, a hardscrabble tabloid and blue-collar bible that has veered considerably to the right as of late."

    Unless you recently arrived in this country, or are 12 years old, neither will come as news (I'm not blaming the writers of this article, directly, they didn't create this situation by themselves). Pierre Peladeau was one of the best known businessmen in this country (yes, even in English Canada) and only recently passed away. Le Journal de Montreal…it would be like an American newspaper explaining to its readers that there is a newspaper in New York called the New York Post. C'mon, most people who read know that.

    This really is an unknown country. Or maybe a forgotten country. In either case it leads to this, a media which assumes, often correctly, that Canadians know squat about Canada. It was said by National Posties that "We started this paper to save Canada, the only problem is that we discovered it isn't worth saving". Kory might have the same problem. (cont.)

  9. OK, well looks like the Political Correctness Narc is deleting my somewhat more detailed comment on this. Hey, the Liberal trollfest at this joint and getting my comments deleted randomly is starting to tick me off; if you only want a circle jerk of Liberal commenters here just say so.

  10. Kady is definitely going to be working at the new network. She's in lurve with Teneycke. You heard it here first!

    The promotional video was terrible and Sun newspapers generally suck.

    • kd + 10eek 4EVR LOLLERSKATES!!!!!1111ONEONEONE

  11. With any luck, coming out of Quebec, it'll all be in French anyway and it'll only dumb down the Quebecois… Not that they need any help… Love to hear Glenn Beck do an interview…LOL

    • If you want to get good news in this country, you pretty much need to speak French. The english-language stuff really doesn't compare.

  12. Just how far right or into the ditch do you have to go before you can no longer be considered conservative or called a Conservative.

    It seems there is no fence line to the right , should there not be one, otherwise wouldn't we be running the risk of having near facists masquerading as being conservative or Conservatives?

    I think we need a new label for those extreme right wing folks 1,234 miles to the right of the center line, who insist they are conservative and are of course, members of Harper's Conservative Party.

    • Conservatives aren't blurring the lines, you are. So anyone who supports Harper is a far right wing nut? And you wonder why some folks might want a more conservative news channel.

      • Agreed. Some of these posters need to take a trip down to Texas or Alabama, to see what far-right really is. Most conservatives in Csnada would be Democrats in the US. I recall that there was a poll (largely ignored by Canadian liberals, of course) around the time of the 2008 US Presidential election which had it that over 70% of Canadian conservatives supported Obama's being elected.

        • Are you saying that 30% of those calling themselves Conservatives are extreme right wing nuts?

          • It depends what you consider as being an extreme right wing nut is.

            For example, I'd be torn between the Republicans and the Democrats in the States, because one supports capital punishment and the other supports abortion. Am I a right wing nut for opposing abortion? Am I a left wing nut for opposing capital punishment?

        • That's just it. Texas -style or Alabama-style is not Canadian-style.

          This 'news'tea-bagging adventure is the thin edge of the wedge.

      • I'm sorry if I left the impression I thought all members of the Conservative party were extreme right wing nuts, that was not my intention at all. I guess the best way I could make myself clear is by stating…

        Not all Conservatives or those who support Harper are extreme right wing nuts but all extreme right wing nuts like to call themselves Conservatives and support Harper and there are plenty.The only question left is what does this say about Harper.

        • Then don't worry about Sun TV, Incredible, as you seem to be wetting yourself over. The Sun hasn't been conservative since Barbara Amiel was editor; and today it swings from Red Tory at best to 'the Toronto Star with more colour photos' at worst.

        • Actually, most of the extreme right wing nuts either a) don't vote right now or b) vote for the Christian Heritage party. They don't support Harper.

          Harper could barely be considered right wing these days.

        • It says the same thing about Harper as terrorists say about Islam. I'm guessing you'd think that's not much, because generalizing about Islam from its more extreme proponents is about as 'far right nut' as it gets in Canada. But I'm not stupid enough to assume I know everything about who I'm arguing with.
          There are MUCH better grounds on which to criticize Stephen Harper – for instance, the fact that he's introducing a news channel headed by one of his own staffers. I don't think it's too paranoid to say, that's called propaganda.

    • Fascists are leftists whether they be national socialists staging violent rallies in the streets infusing the blue-collared and unemployed with an anarchist flavor, then once in government, insisting on rigid politically-correct conformity enforced by their youth wing. Or if they be capital-F Fascists led a formerly prominent Marxist. Either way fascists are somewhere to the left of Jack Layton.

      Conservatives, on the other hand: they are those scary folks determined to take over the government's levers of power so they can use it to Leave. You. Alone.

  13. “There's a very clubby mentality within the media where they don't report on mistakes one another make."

    Isn't that refreshing. Maybe now the journalists will check their sources before printing rumours. Maybe now they'll stop using anonymous sources.

    • You mean anonymous sources like Teneycke was so fond of being?

  14. Based on the latest revelations on how Beck gets his tears – rubs his eyes with VICK Vaporub before the show – I guess the pharmacies around the TV Station will do a boo-hoo-ming business – and inside the studio will be a little ripe…
    Could be dusty too if he insists on a blackboard!

    • Is it so hard to believe that the man actually believes what he is saying and that it is heartfelt? Why is it always a joke or a lie when someone from his perspective speaks or even pleads for sanity? Rubbing his eyes with Vicks? Now that is a real stretch…..

  15. Evan Solomon's comment just epitomized the CBC attitude when he told Kory – that the CBC hires journalists – Kory propogandists. The height of self-absorbtion I'd call it. What a self important bunch of twits they are at the ceeb, not to mention blind to their own faults. At least Kory TV is not asking for government grants from my tax dollar to survive unlike the CBC's billion plus.

    • Right. He just works for a corporation that made its billions from a state-enforced cable-tv monopoly and tens of millions in government grants and loans. Who do you think paid for that?

      At least the CBC is accountable for its actions before Parliament. Can't say as much for Quebecor.

    • If there were no CBC, there wouldn't be much of Canadian culture left on TV. Unless your view of Canadian culture is similar to that of the Alberta's minister of culture.

    • … or you could try watching the broadcast to challenge your paradigm.

      An objective man considers all the options, not just the ones he likes.

      • You mean this right? "The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." -Bertrand Russell

        Just kidding, I know you didn't mean that.

        • That is exactly what I mean. The classical liberal outlook, not the modern leftist outlook.

          • Maybe it isn't. I would contend it is also not the neo-con outlook either. Actually, very few people could honestly say they meet that definition. I try, but it's hard sometimes.

          • I don't claim to succeed at it either, but that doesn't take away from the fact that this ideal is worth striving for.

            It's also clear that changing the channel whenever an opposing view is aired is a case of not even bothering to strive for this ideal, which was the point.

            As to the right vs. the left, you are correct that neither side is exemplary. It's noteworthy, though, that only the Left is currently trying to shut its opponents up (see Hate Speech laws, the opposition to this new network while the CBC is not only permitted but forcibly funded by taxpayers, etc.)

    • "Closed Democracy" would be a better handle for you.

      • Thanks for reminding me. I also should have added that:

        4.) I could hit the mute button.

        Please note that I already use these options for all channels representing all viewpoints at various times. As a social liberal and fiscal conservative I find that it is rare that the media meets my beliefs/paradigm in a neat and tidy little package.

        • "I could hit the mute button. …I find that it is rare that the media meets my beliefs/paradigm in a neat and tidy little package."

          What a shame that you are forced to dodge beliefs with which you don't agree. Good thing there is that mute button available so you don't have to be exposed to them.

  16. "We're taking on the mainstream media,” Teneycke said at the launch event. “We're taking on smug, condescending, often irrelevant journalism. "

    Funny… I would have used those adjectives to describe Kory.

    In any case, using this kind of language towards his competition is kind of raising the ante for Kory TV, does it not? There better be substance behind the bravado.

    Sun TV better be an all out success or he will be the laughing stock for years to come. It's not like we haven't seen this movie before (Western Standard, National Post, etc.). Talk about putting one's a$$ on the line…

    • There's no ante or repercussions, because there's no accountability for liability.

    • "In any case, using this kind of language towards his competition is kind of raising the ante…"

      Have you not seen the kind of language coming from his competition? Head on over to Steyn's latest column for a roundup. You'll see that Teneycke is not raising the ante, but rather making the call.

      • From where I'm sitting, Steyn isn't competition for Kory but a strong ally. Kory named CBC, not maclean's.

        Honestly, why would Kory T. have an issue with Steyn?

        • Good grief.

          Steyn's column is about the kind of language being used by Teneycke's competition.
          You'll understand the point if you read the column. I think.

          • Ah well that's the problem, isn't it? I don't read Steyn's "columns."

          • Yes, that is part of the problem. It is sometimes a good idea to see what other views are out there before drawing conclusions based only on an echo chamber. That is exactly why Canadian media needs to be expanded.

          • Yeah well… What I should have said is "I don't read Steyn anymore." I read three of his columns and found them ridiculous and offensive.

            If I want a right wing point of view on a subject, I'll read Marcus Gee, Norm Spector, Terence Cochrane, Tom Flanagan or John Ivison. I'll even read your posts and that of other rightwing posters here.

            But Mark Steyn? Please….

          • Gaunilon, you might want to slither back to the Steyn comments section. There are more American Tea Baggers there to cheer you on and vote you up. I thought your Avatar was "the thinker" but now I see it's actually Gollum.

            Precious right wing ideology…must not question the precious…

  17. 'We will not be a state broadcaster offering boring news by bureaucrats, for elites, and paid for by taxpayers. We'll be unapologetically patriotic.”'

    How about just giving us the news…facts and events? What's going on in the world today?

    I fail to see what 'patriotism' would have to do with such a break-through.

    • News media can't report every fact and event. How should they select which ones to report?
      The answer is in Teneycke's final quote.

      • Re patriotism, I think what Teneycke is referring to is this sort of mindset: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pre

        That Jennings/Wallace exchange — with Peter Jennings apologizing (apologizing!) for wanting to save American soldiers' lives — exemplifies the American media mindset that left a wide gap for Fox News to fill.

        Teneycke thinks he sees a similar one in Canada.

        We'll see.

  18. "Quebecor's many holdings include TVA, the most popular television station in the province…"

    Huh? Since when?

    • Since Péladeau says so and he owns a propaganda empire that stretched from Décarie to Pie IX. :-)

  19. Here's a hint, geniuses. Kory's target market doesn't waste their days perusing the comments on political news stories, looking for opportunities to flame LIEberals or CONServatives.

    Anyone who is actually involved in politics knows that the vast majority (90%+) pay no attention to politics between elections. Therefore, Kory's contention of Victoria's Secret vis a vis Rahim Jaffer at committee is 100% correct.

    Keep whining about Sun TV, because Kory is talking right over your heads and he could care less if you ever tune in. He isn't looking to convert CBC apologists, he's looking to bring in the reality TV crowd. And guess what? You're no better than they are, and they get to vote, just like you do.

    • "…he's looking to bring in the reality TV crowd. And guess what? You're no better than they are, and they get to vote, just like you do. "

      But in Canada there just aren't very many of them.

      • Yeah, nobody in Canada watches reality TV . . .

    • "Keep whining about Sun TV" and providing Kory with all the free advertising he could not afford to buy.

    • How many viewers are going to switch over from So You Think You Can Dance to watch Ezra Levant?

      You're right though, most Canadians couldn't care less about stuff. They long ago abandoned the comings and goings of Ottawa. Even election turn-out indicates they don't care. Your point couldn't be more damaging to the fledgling station though. Are they going to have The Bachelor starring Mark Steyn?

      What Not to Wear the Niqab Edition? I can hear the advertisers stampeding to buy time now.

    • Here's another hint, genius.

      By your reasoning, the people Kory is trying to reach cannot be reached through the news, because they're watching reality shows. So Kory is talking over the heads of people who follow the news… by being in the news?????

      Yeah, sure, that's it. Brilliant.

      • Sounds like Kory will be buying old Jerry Springer shows to fill up the 24 hours. He doesn't seem to think too highly of his target audience.

    • bigcitylib – are you saying that more people watch the current political/news programming than watch reality TV? And I think Canadians are kidding themselves if they thing the viewer demographics are vastly different than those in the U.S.

      NoNameCS – if "non-news" viewers come across a station that is speaking their language, they are more likely to watch. While they will never stop to listen to watch the At Issue Panel, they may stop and watch a show with a bombastic host and guests talking about issues the same way they do.

      • This is totally off-topic, but I wonder if there are any numbers on the viewership of Hockey Night in Canada in Punjabi.

        Can you imagine trying to sell that to advertisers?

        • I don't think it's too hard to sell to advertisers. They're selling to advertisers who want to put up ads in Punjabi.

          • Yeah, true. I have to admit, I live in a small town. People of Indian decent are pretty rare around here. I never see them unless I need to visit the doctor or if I pass the advanced calculus class on my way to the media lab. ;)

      • "While they will never stop to listen to watch the At Issue Panel, they may stop and watch a show with a bombastic host and guests talking about issues the same way they do."

        Bingo. This is a big part of what Fox News discovered, and a big component of its success.

  20. Doesn't this make a farce of the Federal Accountability Act? You'll recall that the FedAA bans former political staff from lobbying, because of an inherent conflict of interest: it would be the equivalent of offering privileged access to the corridors of power for money. So it's not ok to lobby, but it's perfectly ok to run a news organization — a business more dependent than any other on privileged access to the corridors of power?? A business, moreover, that can potentially influence the outcome of elections? A business, by the way, whose profitability will largely depend on a "must carry" license that is up for decision… by the very government Kory worked for?

    I'm sorry, this smells.

    • Please look up the Canadian Fixed Election Dates Act for clarification on the applicability of Canadian laws to this situation.
      ps it only smells because you are not breathing in a correct (i.e. conservative fashion), try using your mouth.

  21. What we will get from this is a set of news channels for the 20-30 per cent of Canadians who are right wing, and another set of channels for the remainder of us.

    Contrary to what the right-wing Sun people claim, this won't result in a robust debate. It will result in two ongoing soliloquys from which to choose, each with its separate set of facts and issues, which will contribute to greater polarization and greater degradation of political discourse, as has happened in the U.S.

    Just what we don't need.

    • The polarization is already there. Its just that at the moment anyone on the Right is essentially shut down.

  22. Mr. Amazing, in his own mind, Kory….hmmm. So, if being brazen enough to fling insults like a teenager with an attitude and snitch on collegues (classmates) is considered smart, there's a lot of very smart teenagers out there going through growing pains.

    And, why does everything have to be like a war?

    Fair and balanced would require mature and fair and balanced people – Kory doesn't make the grade.

    • Everything has to be like a war because that's the approach taken by American right-wing bloggers and political activists, and Harper and Kory are part of a movement that has little to do with any Canadian traditions. They are completely derivative of US hard-right Republicanism.

  23. Is it not a bit fraudulent for Mr. Tarayacki and many in Harper's caucus and party to call themselves conservative or Conservatives?

    I for one would think they should come up with a new more accurate label for themselves, I have a suggestion or two, but out of courtesy I will leave it up to them.

    • They are the Republican Party of Canada

    • Don't worry; they've probably been called worse on these pages.

      You do bring up a good point, though: there are a lot of different flavours of conservatism. Unlike the extremists on the left side of the spectrum, who like to nit-pick over exactly what their personal philosophy is and how it is different from everyone else's, most conservatives seem to think there is only one kind of True Conservatism and everything else is heresy.

      • Different flavours of conservatism? Please define conservatism for me, or are you saying there isn't one?

  24. "He insists he won't carry water for Harper or crusade for any cause. But if conservatives like what they see on Sun TV News, so be it. “My objective is to have the debate be more real, more raw, and more reflective of the issues that people are actually talking about. Whether it's the lack of debate around certain environmental issues—where by and large, one perspective is taken as the holy gospel—I think there's other points of view. And I think they should be given equal voice.
    “I don't think that's crusading or campaigning. It's simply bringing debate to the fore that's largely happening anyway.”

    If he lives up to that standard, this will be awesome in itself and for Canada as a whole.
    Good luck, Teneycke!

  25. Thank you for clarifying the detail that these free-booters want a bootstrap subsidy … a TV tax … from all cable viewers.

    Lindsay Blackett has probably seen more of this style of political debate than those of us in post-Harris Ontario. I'm sure we'll soon be more sympathetic to his statements.

    • In post-Rae Ontario, and hopefully soon to be post-McGuinty Ontario, we will soon be witnesses to the fact that there really was room for improvement in Canadian TV!

    • Don't talk about TV tax unless you want to discuss the CBC. And we pay that even if we don't watch TV, never mind cable.

  26. Too bad Harper didn't appoint Cory to head up CBC. As I am a conservative taxpayer that funds the CBC I would like to see some balance in their programing. Why is a liberal or NDP never challenged on the outrageous statements they say. If a Saskatchewan Conservative had said what Libby Davis ranted about Israel it would have been on CBC for weeks. Never heard a thing on their political commentary. It's not biased is it. Why is it never heard on CBC any counter arguments to global warming. If CBC represented all political stripes equally there would not be a market for another news channel. As CBC only captures about 12% of the viewing public it won't be hard for Sun to get a bigger audience.

    • Because the opposition doens't usually say anything stupid, it's the government that does.
      You seem to have a short memory, the CBC wasn't that nice with the Liberals while they were in power in the 1990's. It's always good press to complain about the people in power.
      Besides, it's much easier to be in the opposition than in government.

      • Brilliant reply, Oliver: the CBC is not biased because Conservatives are stupid and say stupid things, and Liberals and Dippers are not stupid and never say stupid things. So by portraying Conservatives in a negative light, the CBC is merely being factual. Got it.

        I can't see why anyone would ever want an alternative to the CBC. They have a monopoly on Truth.

        • You have a Bean for a brain.

      • Perhaps you think the Opposition doesn't say stupid because you're insufferably parochial.

        For example, when Martin said that Opus Dei gives him the creeps, and Duceppe said that people with socially conservative religious sensibilities should be barred from political life you probably thought that sounded perfectly sensible.

        • Opus Dei doesn't give you the creeps? Somewhere, Dan Brown is crying into a big pile of money.

          • Meh, Dan Brown's success is just an example of what happens to people when they are uneducated about their own history and culture.

    • The current chairman of the Board of CBC, Tim Casgrain, was appointed by the Harper government. The President and CEO, Hubert Lacroix, was also appointed by Stephen Harper.

      Kinda kills the whole fun, doesn't it?

  27. On Tuesday, Teneycke said the new cable channel is requesting a “must offer,” not a “must carry” licence from the CRTC, suggesting there is a difference. In fact there isn't, according to CRTC spokesperson Peggy Nebout. “Must carry and must offer are the same,” Nebout told Maclean's.

    OK, usually Wells is good at asking the right questions, but there is a question just begging to be asked here:

    If there is no difference, then why the heck are there two categories?!!

    • According to Quebecor, must offer means the cable/sat providers must offer the channel for an extra fee at minimum. That way the channel would be available to the entire country to those who want it.

      Must carry means the cable/sat companies have to carry the channel and charge their consumers whether they want it or not.

      Quebecor has applied for a must offer license

      • Well then, those sound like two different things to me.

  28. I will look forward to any kind of decent new reporting in this country. I never watch the current fare, as it is not worth my time. Go Sun news!

  29. PW,

    I'm a ludite when it comes to cable. Never subscribed. Skipped the revolution and went directly to free offerings on the web.

    We, my wife and three children and myself, live in a two channel universe of CBC and CTV main channel broadcast. We watch very little T.V. We sometimes watch sports (me — hockey and Olympics) and local news plus a very small sampling of some good U.S. entertainment. We have tried, and even more rarely succeed, watching a whole episode of Canadian Content entertainment. We usually shut it off in disgust at the political correctness. I resent the CBC TV taking our tax money and see no benefit to Canadian society as a whole. I don't see myself or my community reflected in it's broadcasting and therefore very skeptical that it could accurately reflect others or their communities. I usually only watch their news to see what the enemy is cooking up.

    I welcome Kory TV. Probably no surprise to you or to Kory. I won't subscribe though. I'll be left to pick up the freebie content that will be widely shared over the internet.

    Let me make a prediction. Kory TV will likely bring us the story that will bring down the Conservatives. It is the just the way politics work. It was the "mole" in the Liberal party that finally finished them off.

    I take KT at his word when he says he'll bring alternate points of view. Isn't that the way the CBC works: Bring on a Conservative straw man to represent a caricature of the point of view you want to discredit? It's just that the CBC can't make it interesting. Political Correctness is like our current banking system — all the customers interest has been removed. Fox, from what I've gleaned on the net, works because it gets at a grain of truth every now and then and it beats up on easy targets: political correctness and big government.

    I add my name to any others that are nominating you for an argument — counter argument segment on the channel. You against, say… Anne Coulter.

    Cheers!

  30. It looks like the regular Liberal trolls are scared of actually hearing a different position on politics. Canadians are getting sick and tired of watching panelists on Solomon's show on CBC, all agreeing, no matter what the subject, as long as it's used to bash the Conservatives. Kory's comment on patriotism is right on. Remember the Winter Olympics? The MSM tried with all their might to denigrade the Olympics at every turn, turning up little picky things. Then, low and behold, Canadians began to show more and more patriotism, until the media had to jump on the band wagon, or start looking like worse fools than they already were. Canadians need the patriotism Sun News can bring forth. The patriotism of Canadians is bubbling just below the surface, waiting to get out. Go Kory!!!

    • I am not afraid of diverse opinions.

      But I have little time for stupid opinions.

      • Are there any opinions that differ from yours that aren't stupid?

        • A good number, but they tend to not show up in heated political discourse with right wing extremists!

      • Ah yes, let's only hear what Don Newman has to say. All other opinion will be "stupid".

    • How does Victoria's Secret fit in with Canadian patriotism?

      • Just the thought of Victoria's Secret has my flag at half-staff. Is that patriotic?

        • Maybe that's what Kory means by' hard and straight' news. Could he be more fun than he seems?

  31. I'm all in favour of this new channel but I'll remain skeptical until I see it in action. I have nothing against conservative-minded people, what I can't stand is people who talk with authority about things they don't understand.

    I just love it when people talk about how they are oppressed and how it isn't fair and that this kind of channel will fight for their rights. It can't be helped, the weak will alwys be weak and will aways complain about it and talk about "rights" and how they are being "kept down" by the majority. That's the other thing I despise: weaklings who can't assume their position and people who talk about things they don't understand.

  32. This is so typical Republican brainwashing. And where exactly are they getting the ' moola ' to engage this wonderful, refreshing TV station? I suppose they have the paper trail attended to on this one. Kory should go to the US of A and get a job with Fox. I don't think the Canadian people are ready for him and his extreme right wing ideology yet. Goes to show what is in Mr. Harper's back pocket.

    • Are you not familiar with Quebecor?
      Again, someone talks about something they no know nothing of.
      WHY CAN'T PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THINGS THEY DO UNDERSTAND?!

    • Last i checked, we do not have a Republican party here, most people agree that our Conservatives are approximately equivelant in ideolology tp America's Democrats

      • This is a conservative talking point. Trying to put themselves on the same playing field with Obama. Strictly B.S. Cons are so far right of dems as to be allmost invisible to the centre.

        • I usually consider it a liberal talking point; used to demean Canadian conservatives, because there's "no way" Canadians could be so "evil," as liberals like to put it.

    • Ignorance is a handy currency for reactionary liberals.

  33. They won't be politically correct, but they will be "unapologetically patriotic." Isn't that like trading one stupid-filter for another? Do people really need patriotism from their TV? We'd be a pretty weak nation if we need a TV channel to reassure us about how awesome we were. Patriotic TV seems like the sort of thing North Korea needs, not Canada.

    • Are you ashamed of your country or do you just lack the guts to stand up for it?

  34. Mostly everyone believes this new TV News Show will be an administrative Arm of the Harper Govt. and do all in its power to have a Harper Govt. re-elected.

    • That would be a good thing.

      • Can't wait until Steve calls another election…he's holding on by his fingernails now. Peter MacKay got my vote last time in my riding, but I should have known whose agenda I was supporting in Ottawa. I won't get fooled again.

  35. Re "unabashedly patriotic" — I'll put this out in a main post, instead of in a reply to a thread.

    The establishment media mindset is exemplified in this exchange between Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pre

    Jennings, who had the natural, human reaction to the hypothetical (to warn American soldiers of an impending attack), apologizes to Wallace for breaching journalistic ethics.

    That's the stuff that left a huge opening in the market for Fox News.

    Teneycke apparently sees a similar opening in the Canadian news market.

    Is he right? Well, we'll see.

    • Incidentally, I think he's being a bit unfair to Canadian journalists.

      I don't think they're as far gone as those guys were in the '80s.

      But what say you — should the journalist embedded with the "North Kosanese" try to warn their own country's platoon on patrol of an impending attack?

      Or should he, as a journalist, stay resolutely neutral and report the story?

      • I think there is a certain point where your professionalism should halt and your own ethics and morals need to kick in. If you are reporting behind enemy lines and are aware of an attack you need to consider the fact that some of you fellow countrymen’s lives are at stake, from the country you are reporting and serving

  36. Thanks for an excellent background article guys.

    I still have a hard time taking seriously a guy who was responsible for "Corn Cob Bob". And any News channel VP (who has no journalism experience) who says things like: “My guess is that the opening of the first Victoria's Secret stores in Canada is more important to a lot of Canadians than the latest happenings at an Ottawa committee.”, is pretty much doomed to crash and burn.

    Will Sun TV News (if they get a license) get some viewers? Probably, but not many. Will it be worth watching? With Akin, probably. With Levant, very unlikely. Will it be another National Post debacle? You betcha! Mr. Peladeau get ready to set fire to large wads of your own cash….

    • >doomed to crash and burn.

      You don't get it do you. A Victoria's Secret opening with pictures would attract a repeat, money flush, attractive to advertiser audience.

      Is it news? Yes. Are people interested? Yes.

      This is a business. It is quite amusing. The CBC is ashamed of the programming that attracts it's largest audiences. This network won't be. As Mr. Wells said so clearly, these guys know how to attract an audience, run a media group.

      Derek

  37. Getting news from TV is like learning philosophy by reading bumper stickers.

    • I agree Ionerstoner.

      My first book on Philosophy was Will Durant's "the Story of Philosophy". He was a wonderful writer/historian who believed that knowledge that was deemed esoteric and the privilege of a few should be "popularized" and his book in the 1920s sold millions…and is still selling. But not to universities. Well, I feel it should be sold to Philosophy 101 classes. It helped me get an A. Popularization of Knowledge is what TV journalism tries to do, but lately it's more like watching the Jerry Springer Show of Shock and Awe. No wonder Boy Wonder Kory feels that Canadians should be more concerned with Victoria Secrets store openings. Why can't we send him to work for Goldman Sachs and create Victoria's Derivatives! He's too precious and knowledgeable to be another Glenn Beck. The P.M. could give him excellent references!

      • Add a second book to your library.

  38. So Memi_S, what kind of donuts are they serving in the Liberal Party war room today?

    • Well, Orson, the last time I looked on my TV set the donuts were actually Chinese beancakes!

      I like your reply, however, and you will NEVER guess whom I voted for in the last Election. I'll give you a hint. The best debater. But I can tell you you are wrong about me visiting ANY Liberal party war room! I wouldn't know what they look like. But I do admit that a decade a half ago, a friend of mine reluctantly dragged me to a a Liberal riding association fund raiser and I heard a very boring speech for which I was well compensated with…..DONUTS and stale coffee. Guess you win this one! But maybe I can apply to work with Kory to cover one of the stories on the forthcoming Victoria Secrets store openings….free donuts and beer!

  39. You forgot one "patriotic" means sponsorship.

    • Old fogey

      Thanks for response, which I think is quite good! But can I add another one?

      "Patriotic" means "prorogation".

  40. The opening of a “conservative” news channel will only open up Canadian politics to the self-destructive politics we see south of the border. The divisiveness and polarizing which are destroying what was once the leading democracy in the world is being imported to Canada and will continue the slow erosion of one of the leading parliamentary democracies in the world. Contrary to many comments already made, we do have alternatives for those who don’t like CBC. They can turn to CTV or Global and hear different points of view. I don’t accept the argument that our 3 existing networks are “liberal” or “conservative”. They tend to be much more objective in reporting and commenting on issues. Isn’t it interesting that the party in power tends to blame the media for biased reporting simply because the play the intended role of of the Fifth Estate. The Liberals blamed the media for its reporting during their years in power and now the Conservatives are doing the same thing. Maybe the media has it right after all. Try spending a few months in the USA and you will find out how well informed we as Canadians are as opposed to the sanitized views presenting on television in the USA.

    • What patronizing blather from this fellow. If you regard debate and dispute as divisive then you should embrace the absolutism of some other place, Moscow for example.

  41. "Shaking up the news world"

    If what you mean by that is "garbage in, garbage out", sure. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is NOT a brilliant strategy, it's a desperate one.

  42. Frankly, as long as they don't want any of my tax dollars or a subsidy that's added to my satellite bill, let them have their fun. Those who lean to the right will watch and those who lean to the left won't. It's highly unlikely they'll convert anyone just as it's highly unlikely the Globe and Mail, Maclean's or the CBC will convert anyone to their viewpoint.
    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

  43. Touting Al Jazeera but sneering at the nascent SunTV News is an act of profound ignorance. The Toronto Sun is part of my regular daily reading along with the National Post. Breathing seems to be normal though I have yet to encounter a resolute critic of my newspaper habits when hanging around the news kiosk.

    • Remind me which of Al Jazeera and SunTV News will likely have Sunshine Girls involved?

      • Tabloid fatwa?

  44. 'Sall good, we need choices, can't say the Sun is my style of news media but as long as they are'nt asking for matching subsidies with CBC, i'm ok with them being on the dial. I can't see why everyone seems so uptight about this, its the way freedom of speech is supposed to work….competition makes almost everything better. The main cause of ultra right and ultra left is the stiffleing of the message of the centre

  45. Sun Newspapers – bleeding. Sun TV – bleeding. Now Sun TV News etc. I guess some people have more money than common sense. It promises to be entertaining nonetheless. For as long as it lasts.

  46. Still finding it weird that a guy who was literally next to the PM last year and a billionaire with a cable monopoly in Quebec and newspaper chain inherited from his dad can call OTHER people "elites".

    As for being "unapologetically patriotic" … who exactly is apologetically patriotic?

    This doublespeak is really weird. What's next, two guys from the heart of the "establishment" claiming to be anti-establishment?

    • One of the orthodoxies of partisanship is that you're always the David against the other guy's Goliath. And they really believe it.

  47. Most Canadians are progressive thinking people. This is why most Canadians vote and support progressive center left policies and parties. They can spin this all they want but in the end it will have the opposite effect. This type of propaganda worked in some areas of the USA where the Social Conservatives, Religious Right , Libertarians, Red Necks ,Fiscal Conservatives, Wall Street and Teaparty types teamed up with Right Wing Republicans to promote Laissez Faire , Tricle Down , Less Government, Deregulation and Militarism.

    We saw the results! These policies and philosophies resulted in some of the biggest economic,social, and environmental crisis in American history.

    Government is for the people. Right wing policies seem to be for private interests. You can fool the people some of the time. But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

    The Right Wing policies create poverty, inequality, and injustices. This damages the social fabric of a nation and weakens it. The injustices result in increase in crime, decrease in education, and tensions that build up in population. Eventually these tensions explode , people come out in the streets demanding change and society is distabilized.

    • Denis5358

      I could not agree with more! Yes, indeed! I'd like to think that "Canadians are progressive thinking people"

      But for the last few years, I've witnessed some frightening deterioration of values that I had considered truly Canadian. And I don't mean to be classified as a wimpy "liberal from Toronto" for that would be inaccurate. But I've seen our "democratic institutions gradually being eroded" (a direct quote from the Economist) and our Prime Minister being shown to the world as a mere "ruthless tactician who diminishes democracy in Canada" (again from the January editorial in that socialist rag, The Economist!).

      I hope and pray (yes, some of us are progressive thinking Canadians and do believe in God as well as any one hanging around the PMO) that this great country of ours that I'm so proud of will not sink into the seductively simplistic arms of the American FOX News-type anchors whose credo is "ignorance is bliss and homophobia, sexism and racism are patriotic sentiments"!

      Canada has lost its shine in the last 4 years and its international reputation is being slowly unraveled by decisions that seem to be coming from the desk of George W. Bush Jr. The toxicity of the messages of the Kory Regressive Channel will soon be infecting the living rooms of those progressive thinking Canadians.

      If Kory wants to bring Canada to the level of the Jerry Springer Show of Political Commentary, God save Canada!

  48. 'News' stations that espouse political leanings from strictly one side of the political landscape utilizing a constant barrage of editorializing rants is NOT news. It's propaganda.

    News was, is, and always will be simply the Who, What, Where, When and the Why of an occurrence. Furthermore, a proper and intelligent issue accompanying political discourse editorializing on any issue is one that MUST, to be academically responsible, include all 360 degree angles of an issue (left, middle and right views) when and as its goal is to inform and impart deserved gravitas to sound decision making; and as such, only those kinds of properly considered decisions will in turn assist a country to function as optimally as is possible.

    One sided, omissive, polarizing and thus divisive political editorializing that sounds more like partisan lobbying serving special interests has no place in my Canadian sensibility. I think we've all borne witness to what that can bring into a political landscape, where eventually unbridgeable divisiveness and uninformed tunnel visioned anger gravely affect a nation's decision making ability and process; but more than that, gravely affects national unity and citizen morale. It creates a two sided abyss.

    There shouldn't be two separate stations that represent two sides. There should be two separate stations where all sides are examined and considered; where each station tries to raise the information bar on the other, creating those crucial checks and balances that inherently hold our country's citizens and elected representatives accountable to the highest standard.

  49. Try living in the US like I have and being inundated by a relentless and superficial media like CNN and having Fox News as an alternative and you will soon avoid all newscasts like a disease. If you like rant and rave opinions instead of actual news coverage you will love this new gang.

    • Canadians have been getting all said major U.S. news stations along with our own and the BBC among others for a few decades now, so I know what you're saying. What troubles me about this 24/7 style of editorializing-on-air is the resulting younger viewership who no longer seem to really know or differentiate between actual news or mere opinion pieces. News that came on, stated the facts, and then went away for regular programming seemed to be a more rational dose that allowed people to think and discuss amongst themselves. The odd political program that existed with discussion for those who chose to tune in was also good, and many did; and those older shows mostly hired responsibly trained true journalists who appeared professionally impelled to cover and weigh ALL facets and ethics of an issue. Today people are so hammered with minutae and drummed up what-ifs and even faux and baiting scenarios by talking heads wanting to fill air time that it's almost disturbing overkill, imo. People get fed up with it all, and particularly when all that talk doesn't seem to result in satisfactory decision making and outcomes for the voters.

    • Great and most accurate comment, Robert!

      We no longer subscribe to cable companies that feature FOX or CNN…At least, CBC, Global and even CTV now that they got rid of Senator Mike Duffy and Tom Clark's on board, are far more professional in one hour than in a full year of FOX/CNN pablum….

      • Memi: My oldest son and his wife still live in the US . I am ashamed about the degree to which they have become so closed-minded and intolerant when it comes to social issues. To a very great degree I blame it on the endless diatribe of hate and fear mongering that spews from the Fox News extremists. It is the last thing we need in Canada.

    • We also had Fox U.S., free with cable, for years, along with the flipside and also sometimes polarizing commentary of MSNBC of recent. Fox was shuffled to the pay channels a handful of years ago, so most are no longer subjec…er, I mean, watch it anymore. Funnily enough, Fox swung back to the middle a bit after B. O. was elected.

    • Pravda can be your salvation.

  50. When Kory Teneycke was undertaking his pre-meditated attack on Frank Graves, he looked straight into the camera and said something to the effect that "I am a conservative commentator" , or words to that effect. He was berating Graves for having ulterior motives in the nature of his polling and analysis – he was a shill for thje Liberals, in other words.

    So, now we know that Tenyycke has been working behind the scenes for Quebecor for quite some time – approaching individuals such as Rick Mercer in the past.

    So, in the interest of full disclosure, Tenycke fell short of his own standard. He was, in effect, a mole or a plant for Quebecor, and testing out the new format on Power and Politics.

    Not surprising. I myself wondered about his motives at the time.

    • How true, Dot!

      Kory is on the payroll of the PMO and he looks less and less "objective" in his professed route to a new journalism career, for which he is supremely unqualified, and as you so wisely stated, he 'falls short of his own standard"! His motives are not as pure as he'd have us believe! I'm sure Harper and his gang of Christian nationalists (thank God for Marci McDonald's new book that awakens up the most lethargic Canadians among us..) have something evil up their sleeves and Kory is just the messenger of things to come.

      God Save Canada from the Americanization (Jerry Springer-time) of our Canadian news. I don't want to be forced to pay a darn penny of my wages for these Republican prayer sessions! I think Canadians are….."a cut above" the unthinking American propagandizing of the news….hope i' m not proven wrong with this Kory playboy backed by big money! And please don't think that I am a Liberal card-carrying member. I am not!

  51. I find it very perplexing that David Akin has been selected to be an anchor on what 'people' are saying will be a more right-wing, non PC channel.
    David Akin, from what I have gleaned of him via his submissions, spends every waking editorial moment attacking and smearing Prime Minister Harper in particular and the Conservative Party of Canada in general.

    David Akin is VERY odd choice for a new channel with a 'so-called' right of center perspective.

    It makes one wonder if it's maybe a bit of 'false advertising' and if a counter balance to the unending leftard diatribe spewing 24/7 from biased Trudeau-pian luddite contributors in the major media in Canada (CBC, the Star etc) will EVER be in the cards for Canadian voters and consumers.

  52. Felicity and the rest of the nay-sayers re the new network want (of course) the government (CRTC) to deny the must carry/must offer status of the new network, while seeing nothing wrong whatsoever in the tax-funded CBC (we are ALL forced to pay with our taxes for its social engineering drivel AND its cable status) or in offering the network of our battlefield combatants and terrorist apologists in Al Jazeerah. No surprise. They also have 57 reasons why it won't succeed.

    And that's the beauty of the free market. If they are correct, the network will die a slow death due to lack of advertising revenues. I'm betting a lot that it will succeed spectacularly, and in the process, cause the same angst and outrage on the left that those of us on the right are forced to endure every time we have to listen to, or watch, the CBC and other MSM spin world events to mould the future in their own image. My children, who are very motivated and high achievers, will have a very, very dim future in a world shaped in the image of CBC apologists. I want them to have a future based on choice, personal freedoms, personal reward for hard work and innovation, and freedom from the machinations of social engineers who will do everything possible to punish those very qualities.

    So bring it on, and we will all see who is correct. As Maggy Thatcher said, "The facts of life are conservative". I have seen nothing in my increasingly long life to refute that statement. It will be so refreshing to have a net work available (if you don't like it, don't watch) that reflects that reality. It's a shame we have to wait until January 1st to start watching.

    • For those who watched, the best exchange at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was between (Thatcherite) Greenspan and Ms Brooksley E. Born, the former CFTC commodities Regulator chief who tried to stop Greenspan/Rubin/Summers/Geithner gang from deregulating derivatives, but ultimately failed. Born lost the battle and eventually her job. (Now she's the winner of the JFK Profile in Public Courage Award!)

      Geenspan's financially myopic support for the lethal financial DERIVATIVES instruments which triggered the crisis was inexcusable and due to his Thatcherite/Reaganite inability to conceive the damage as result of his Failure to Regulate Derivatives in 1998 when Born started her (failed) campaign to educate the "ideologically wrong" (as he admitted to Congress himself!) Greenspan.
      Didn't Greenspan, being grilled at the Public Inquiry by the formidable and unlistened to Derivatives expert Brooksley Born.

      It is this Thatcherite refusal to accept or foresee the absolute necessity for the Markets to be regulated that brought us in the current world-wide financial mess. So, please, let's look to the facts and not praise unwisely, as Greenspan recently admitted at the Congressional hearings, a "Failed Ideology"….

    • slgam

      While the "Markets are beautiful", as you say, their 'beauty' can turn ugly as a result of the lack of proper Regulatory mechanisms put in place by a responsible, prescient and unbiased Fed Reserve, Treasury and a government dedicated to protecting the taxpayers' investments!

      When Brooksley Born asked Greenspan in '98 to immediately "regulate the Derivatives Casino that was brewing toxic credit default swaps" and proliferating precariously so as to threaten the integrity of financial institutions in the U.S. and infecting the world, she also said "Fraud in the Market must be stopped".

      Greenspan's response was "Fraud? What fraud? The free Markets can take care of fraud by themselves…no need to regulate"!!!

      Would you say that this irresponsible Reaganite/Thatcherite was right or wrong? And who is now paying for his lack of wisdom and, as he put it to Congress, "I was wrong…..yes, I espoused a failed Ideology"!!!!

      Sovereign nations are now attacked by the same "free markets" (Goldman Sachs and Hedge Funds speculative attacked euro's weakest link to prop up their failing U.S. dollar according to the Wall St. Journal's report of a secret meeting by GS and usual suspects hedge funds!!) that failed to protect U.S. citizens and now are threatening the financial stability of our world!

      Just a little "ideological fallacy" by Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and Geithner, eh? Give me Brooksley Born's "Canadian regulatory perspective" any day. And watch PBS's phenomenal doc. "The Warning"! And count your blessings as Canadian citizens….

  53. Fox News has a successful package in the U. S. through respect for the intelligence of its non-elite viewers. When high school dropouts were in the majority in both countries, most media ( newpapers,magazines, radio and television) had that kind of attitude. Now, the condescension of the under-educated elite is palpable and thoroughly engrained in the productions coming from the rivals of Fox News.

    • Barry Stagg

      I gave you a plus 'cause…you're RIGHT! (although I don't agree with your ideological perspective)…..

    • When you don't think, you will always feel insulted when alternate views are presented. Let's just hate everything we don't like or further our interests.

  54. the most hilariuous thing i've ever seen was Jim Travers saying (and i paraphrase), "advocacy journalism is bad". Jim Travers said that.

    right. lol. what a tool.

    do lefties even hear themselves speak?

  55. Sad days for the reactionary thinkers worried about the end of the self-censoring Pravda universe.

    • Gosh, I only thought I'd register my objections to an importation of Bush-style "patriotic" fever news from our southern cousins. I just don't want MY taxpayers dollars spent on advancing the Rush Limbaugh/GlennBeck/Palin agenda of economic and social myopia that brought their land to the edge of bankruptcy!
      Now, if Chretien had gone along with Bush Jr. and spent $55 billion on the Iraq War he'd have joined, and if Tommy Douglas back in the 60s did not enlighten our P.M. Lester (winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in the middle east time bomb clicking at the time!) so Canada would be spending only half (10"%) of its GDP on Healthcare rather than the Yankee's current 18%…..and if ….

      if 64% of all Canadians filing for Bankruptcy did so as result of their "inability to pay their medical bills" (as the current situation stands in America)…..

      You're darn lucky me man you got a multi-partite system of Govenrment here in our Great True North Strong and Free, and not a shortsighted elitist pseudo-conservative CRAP (conservative/Reform/alliance/party) party that "erodes democratic institutions and has a ruthless tactician as its leader" (accoridng to that great socialist rag THE ECONOMIST in its Jan. 10 editorial!)….

      Praise Canada and where its leaders have taken us, together with foresight from Chief Dief (who shunned Yanks after they falsified CIA reports to convince Canada to scrap our great Avro Arrow!), great diplomat Lester Pearson, great preachy Tommy Douglas (whom you can thank for not attributing any Canadian bankrutpcy to "medical bills"), Trudeau who, thru his Multicultural Policy rushed Canada into the global sphere that we live in now….

      You got a lot to thank the Libs and the NDP and the Bloc (who have acted with more grace and civilized chutzpah than the whole partisan, screaming Baird-bunch of neoCon neanderthals on the Hill…History be your guide, friend.

      • Lester Pearson picked up his Nobel Prize in 1957 for being a UN man-servant in a deal between the Americans and the British to save face over their awkward and ill-advised disagreements on Israel. Pearson's legacy was 'peacekeeping', a demoralizing emasculation of our storied Canadian military from which we continue to recover.

  56. We also had Fox U.S., free with cable, for years, along with the flipside and also sometimes polarizing commentary of MSNBC of recent. Fox was shuffled to the pay channels a handful of years ago, so most are no longer subjec…er, I mean, watch it anymore. Funnily enough, Fox swung back to the middle a bit after B. O. was elected.

  57. Kory Teneycke is aptly described as "smug" and "condescending". He used Twitter to suggest my husband, political activist Marc Emery, should enjoy being subjected to sexual humiliation in US prison.

    The first post, made on May 11th (the day after Justice Minister Rob Nicholson ordered Emery extradited to the US) reads: “Bon Voyage, Marc Emery. May your vacation at Club Fed be a lengthy one.”

    The next one, which was published in the June 14th Canadian Press article "Tory insiders and behind-scenes lobbying pave path to new 'Fox North' launch", was posted on May 14th and reads: “To the pot heads who keep sending me crazy, profane emails: I hope Marc Emery enjoys group showers as much as he enjoys pot. Three cheers for the DEA.”

    My husband has never hurt another human being, yet our Prime Minister's ex-communications director openly hopes for Marc to be physically harmed while in US prison. It's a common perception that prison rape happens in ‘group showers', so this suggestion that Marc should enjoy being subjected to sexual abuse and humiliation is absolutely disgusting and offensive, and should be condemned by any decent, civilized person. Teneycke should apologize for this horrendously cruel comment.

    It's shocking that he's going to be responsible for a TV channel. Shame on Teneycke.

    • Start a pot channel; it is a free country, honey. I can call your husband anything I want

      • Really, that's your response? First of all you're wrong, i can't call you anything i want, though i will call you a sad, small human being. She ain't your honey either, tony.
        Funny how you call it a free country. Where's the freedom to enjoy some pot? I know you mean free speech, but i couldn't miss the opportunity to point out a pretty pathetic piece of legislation.

        • Sad, small, human being? – sure, so are you, no offense.

          I meant "honey" in a perfectly good way – (you don't like honey?). In terms of martyrdom, I would almost suggest that her husband wished to be such, but he isn't even close – he is just desperate or stupid.

    • Kory T and his likes (eg. Stephen Harper) just hate people who do not share his views. That's his philosophy in life – either you are with us or against us.

    • I agree that 10eeeks post was unprofessional and uncalled for. While your husband did break the law, he is hardly dangerous, and there are far worse criminals in Canada.

  58. What I hope for this media outlet is the same thing Maclean's (Coyne, Cosh, Potter, Wherry, and Wells(not a conservative but an excellent journalist) and the National Post (Selley, Kay (not Jonathan), Black, and Gunter) give to me in print – challenge, question, and evolve the notion of distinct Canadian Conservatism ( in its many forms) in Canada. Win on ideas.

    I hate Fox News

    • All the names I mention are largely opinion (which says something), I would hope (maybe naively) more investigative, researched journalism from individuals of any ideological stripe as long as it is good work.

    • But why not just try to find more Paul Wellsesess rather than trying to find people whose ideas will be more outlandish but not as nuanced or deep?

  59. I am glad that there will be an alternative to the left slanted journalism of CBC and CTV. To prevent my blood pressure from rising to dangerous levels I have to press often the off button when I hear the biased reporting of CBC knowing that these parasites using my Tax dollars push their leftist garbage on the public while claiming patriotically "CANADA LIVES HERE"

    • Don't worry, you have a tax funded health care system to save you if your blood pressure becomes a health threat.

  60. Rather than the media ad noseum the soap opera of a former MP and his MP wife as if it was Entertainment TV, perhaps some real stories would be debated, like Bill 232.

    There are 2 sports analogies that I think make sense to illustrate what is wrong with CTV & CBC..
    1. On the daily radio program Prime Time Sports, they make a point of not having athletes as guests, but focusing on the issues of the day. Would it not add value to stop having politicians interviewed? Most recite the same drivel no matter the question.
    2. Sports highlight shows like to focus on the obnoxious and put that on TV. Athletes learn that is how to get attention. CBC and CTV do the same with Question Period. Let's analyse the issues not the nonsense.

    In that way the current media are underservicing Canadians, leaving an opportunity for a new station.

  61. How pretentious some posters are when whining about how they find it difficult to avoid the leading American news channels on their cable television packages. Are they suffering due to the unwanted and evidently intolerable attacks on their sense of certitude?

    Perhaps they can get a bulk subscription to the stacks of weekly newspapers the Toronto Star publishes all over the country. Their thirst for parochialism can be slaked and Torstar can prosper as well.

  62. To The "Thatcherite" commenter

    You say that the "markets are beautiful……"

    While the "Markets are beautiful", as you say, their 'beauty' can turn ugly as a result of the lack of proper Regulatory mechanisms put in place by a responsible, prescient and unbiased Fed Reserve, Treasury and a government dedicated to protecting the taxpayers' investments!

    When Brooksley Born asked Greenspan in '98 to immediately "regulate the Derivatives Casino that was brewing toxic credit default swaps" and proliferating precariously so as to threaten the integrity of financial institutions in the U.S. and infecting the world, she also said "Fraud in the Market must be stopped".

    Greenspan's response was "Fraud? What fraud? The free Markets can take care of fraud by themselves…no need to regulate"!!!

    Would you say that this irresponsible Reaganite/Thatcherite was right or wrong? And who is now paying for his lack of wisdom and, as he put it to Congress, "I was wrong…..yes, I espoused a failed Ideology"!!!!

    Sovereign nations are now attacked by the same "free markets" (Goldman Sachs and Hedge Funds speculative attacked euro's weakest link to prop up their failing U.S. dollar according to the Wall St. Journal's report of a secret meeting by GS and usual suspects hedge funds!!) that failed to protect U.S. citizens and now are threatening the financial stability of our world!

    Just a little "ideological fallacy" by Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and Geithner, eh? Give me Brooksley Born's "Canadian regulatory perspective" any day. One of the reasons we as Canadians enjoy financial stability and prosperity (!) which is applauded by the world's economic gurus is that we have had governments in power that respected regulatory imperatives. Thank god, our biggest bank in '98 was not allowed that huge merger and expansion in its markets, and our fiscal prudence is continuing…

    Please watch PBS's phenomenal doc. "The Warning"! It will really make you start counting your blessings as Canadian citizens….

    • Using sneer quotes does not repudiate the free market system. Imperfection is inherent in any market system but regulation is no panacea. If it were so, Vladimir Putin would still be part of the ambitious KGB nomenklatura while the Kremlin pondered replacing a now centenarian Brezhnev.

      • I never have advocated AGAINST our free market system and never will! But that "imperfection is inherent" in the system is exactly when Mr. Greenspan said in response to Brooksley Born's legitimately expressed concern with credit default obligations and OVT derivates that had been climbing uncontrollably. The head of the CFTC knew fully well that regulation and oversight were absolutely necessary if the market were not to collapse as result of such lack of regulation. She was proven right, and Greenspan wrong. That's why the Americans are conducting the Financial Crisis Inquiry. Fraud will go on in the markets and Goldman Sachs will still be sued criminally and civilly. No one can stop fraud in the markets. They are not perfect. But surely regulatory oversight will act so as to protect the taxpayers' investments–not to mention sovereign countries attacked by speculators' need to prop up the U.S. dollar and make sure it remains the reserve currency.
        I often think of lack of regulatory oversight in the markets is similar to having kids with whose "rights" you hesitate to mess around! I believe in being a disciplinarian. A little discipline at home will go a long way. And in the markets it may save us from disaster. I refuse to see, and as Greenspan belatedly agrees, "inherent imperfections" in our markets with an excuse to let them get away with fraud and destroying our financial foundation. Like children, they do need SOME discipline, or they'll get away with 'murder' …. as they've already proven it!

  63. Sun News will restore some elevated status to the entrepreneur classes in Canada. The debate now going on hourly on Canadian television news shows is between competing sets of corporate and government consultants. Business and industry are looked upon as if they are uneradicated pathogens.

    Using sneer quotes does not repudiate the free market system. Imperfection is inherent in any market system but regulation is no panacea. If it were so, Vladimir Putin would still be part of the ambitious KGB nomenklatura while the Kremlin pondered replacing a now centenarian Brezhnev.

  64. Thank God for the Empire Loyalist refugees…..We live, up to the time of this posting, in one of the most peaceful, progressive and pre-G20 fiscally responsible (thanks to decades of good management) countries in the world. We must never forget that our more privileged (?) cousins south of the border who have spent a $Trillion Dollars for the combined wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are filing for personal bankruptcies at an alarming rate.
    Let's not forget that 64% (U.S. stats) of these bankruptcies arise as the result of….inability of Americans to pay their Medical Bills"!
    Oh Canada! You are worth fighting for….

  65. Must carry? Not if I cancel my CDN sat service for a US based one! I say no to #KoryTV!!

  66. This new station is going to sow seeds of division in this country. It's sole goal to fuel hatred for anything that is not conservatives. Hate the all other political parties. Hate progressives. Hate social programs. Hate any programs that are not market-oriented. I don't want to have to pay to support for this TV station. The CRTC should grant a category 1 license only to a network that has stations in every province of the country.
    If you want to help this yet to start TV station spend money, just click on its sponsored ad 1000 times a day when you google SUN TV.

  67. If your not interested in Fox News North, there is one simple solution: don't watch.

  68. The biggest problem with any of this is the fact that "Fox News" is considered news at all! It is opinionated reporting, and should not be masqueraded as anything more. I live out of Canada and consume a lot of American media. If we ever get a Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly in Canada I think I'm moving to Denmark.

    For me, preservation of Canadian culture is important, as is the CBC. While I support a new channel of "conservative news" I think it would quickly become a xenophobic orgy of Americanism as opposed to providing valid and insightful criticism of leftist thinking. A leftist channel to do the same would be wonderful as well. The CBC's role should be unbiased, non-sensationalist NEWS.

    I don't want to look for the part where it says that 'more privatization' is good, but I will point out that doing ANYTHING the same way as the US is just asking for trouble. Canada has the best banks in the world, I would not follow in the US's economic footsteps regardless of my political alignment.

  69. Kiss Canadian sovereignty GOOD BYE:

    the **foxes** have taken over the chicken coop.

    Watch as the Conservative Party, their off-shore lobbyists & corporate thugs turn Canada into Saipan or Honduras

    Don't say that Canadians weren't warned: we saw what Ailes & Murdoch enabled the Republicans to do in the USA.

    if we're that stupid, we deserve the toxic cesspool environment, ruined social & economic justice, vassal statehood & crumbling infrastructure that their 'privatization & deregulation' TeaParty nutjobs brought on to the USA…

    [youtube w39FnpuMRfo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39FnpuMRfo youtube]