Did blogosphere influence vote?
Regarding the Canadian election, the answer in my latest media column is a "yes," with a big hat tip to Captain's Quarters for reporting on the biggest scandal of the century (so far) in Canada, while the mainstream media sat on the sidelines. The column also looks at the latest round of New York Times deceptions on Niger uranium, and at the media's failure to cover a major local rally about abortion.
Then there's the fact that one of three American cable news-networks is run and dominated completely by right-wing voices, spewing a non-stop stream of pro-Republican propaganda 24/7. But I'm sure nothing that has been said on Fox News has ever been as misleading or biased as the things you see in the New York Times...
Canadian restrictions on Free Speech and lack of interest by American major media gave a monopoly to Captain in coverage on the Liberal Party abuses. "Nature abhors a vacuum" cliche. The northern tier of states always have mor of an interaction with Canada.
Nevermind that the conservative revolution in Canada has asserted rights to "waters" the US doesn't want them to. I can't wait for the announcement that national healthcare is, in fact, a failure. I'll leave it to others to start the count-down.
Did you actually follow the Canadian election campaign? The Liberals started the campaign with a significant lead over the Conservatives. It was a scandal story that helped erode that lead. But that was a separate one from the Gomery Inquest that you highlighted and only came out in the last month before the election and was well-covered by all of the Canadian media outlets. Also, by giving much of the credit to the blog coverage, you short-changed the election strategy of the Conservatives which helped convince many who were unwilling to go Conservative at the beginning of the campaign to cast a vote for the Conservatives on election day.
You asked for it http://www.aucc.ca/momentum/en/research/queens1.html
8000 death annually from 200,000 infections in Canadian hospitals-most preventable with proper procedures
Did you know that blog reporting cost the government support and led to an earlier election as well as focusimg attention on liberal fraud before report was even released
In Bush's case, "technically true" simply serves to reinforce the deeper truth: Bush was deliberately deceiving the American people into believing that Saddam had an active and aggressive program aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons. It was not the New York Times, putting those 16 words into a State of the Union address. It is Bush's deceptions, which patriots will worry about.
It always amuses me how so frequently and in the same breath, Bush can be described as a manipulative mastermind and then a simpleton...
Factcheck.org shows some evidence that it wasn't deception then by Bush, but it is today by NYT. Click the link if you dare.
True enough, CQ was a safe haven for free speech, beyond the reach of Canadian law. That would explain Canadian interest in CQ, but not CQ's interest in Canada. I should add by the way, that free speech does exist in Canada, not to the same degree it does here, but to a very considerable degree nonetheless. If the US is a 10 on the free speech scale, Canada would be around 8 to China's 1, so I don't want to overstate things. Canada isn't China.