Lies and the Lying Right-Wing American Liars Who Tell Them

[morgan_dhu]

I think I start to understand how many Americans must feel watching their news media.

This week, the CBC newsmagazine program the fifth estate is airing a report on the state of the American media from a Canadain news perspective. The report is called Sticks and Stones, and is described thusly by the network: The United States is in the midst of a very un-civil war. It's a war of words that's pitting conservative against liberal, that's already divided the country into red and blue. The new gladiators are commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter and their forum is the television studios of networks like Fox. It's loud, it's raucous, but does it have anything to do with the truth?

Some of the material covered was familiar to me from my faithful viewing of the only U.S. "news programming" my ex-pat American partner will allow on the T.V. in his presence, Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.

What brought it all home to me was an interview with American right-wing pundit Ann Coulter. The reporter, CBC journalist Bob McKeown (who has also worked for U.S. networks CBS and NBC), initiated a discussion about her on-air comments concerning Canada spoken on an American T.V. newsmagazine program Hannity and Colmes: they need us...they are lucky we don't roll over one night and crush them....they are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

Part of Coulter's response was a lecture on how Canada had been such a stalwart ally of the U.S. until now, and that our disloyalty (in declining to join the U.S. illegal invasion of Iraq, not that she described it in those words) is fair justification for anti-Canadian sentiment. To bolster her argument, she listed all of the wars Canada had supposedly "supported" the U.S. in, beginning with WWII (how could we have supported U.S. involvement when we were there several years before the U.S., supporting Britain?), Korea (we were there as part of a U.N. action, not as support for the U.S.) and Vietnam.

McKeown politely informed Coulter that Canada had not sent military forces to Vietnam. She told him that it had. He replied that no, we really had not been involved in Vietnam. She insisted that he was wrong, and said that she would send him the proof after the interview was completed. He basically shrugged and moved on. Of course, McKeown noted following that segment of the report that neither Coulter nor her staff ever got back to the CBC with their supposed proof - and that Canada had not sent troops to Vietnam.

But it hit hard. If this woman could take part in an interview for a Canadian audience and shamelessly insist that she was right and the Canadian reporter (who is actually of an age to remember the war, having been a pro football player in the early 70s) correcting her about his own country is wrong... then she could lie to anyone about anything.

But I guess that's really not so remarkable after all. It's just a shock to see it, rather than hear or read about it.

Comments

Re: C eh N eh D eh

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

The King-Byng affair (the King involved was Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie KIng; Viscount Byng was the G-G) is sometimes seen as one of the defining moments in Canada's assumption of political independence from Great Britain. I've taken a brief summary of the events from thecanadainencyclopedia.com


The King-Byng Affair was a political crisis in 1926 involving Prime Minister Mackenzie King and Governor General Viscount Byng.

In an election in 1925, King's Liberal government won fewer seats than the Conservatives, but it was able to continue in power with the support of other parties. On June 25, 1926, King's government was about to be condemned for corrupt practices by a vote in Parliament. He asked the governor general to dissolve Parliament before that vote could be taken so that another election could take place. Viscount Byng refused, believing that the Conservatives should have a chance to govern. King angrily resigned and Conservative leader Arthur Meighen took over as prime minister. A few days later, Meighen's government was accidentally defeated in a vote, and Governor General Byng dissolved Parliament.

In the ensuing election, in which Byng's actions were an important issue, King returned to power with a majority of seats in Parliament.

Even at that time, the trend was for the G-G's role to be seen as primarily ceremonial, or at best consultative. Byng's actions were seen as going against the instructions of the elected head of government, and were roundly criticised. Since then, the G-G's role has become more and more ceremonial/surface diplomatic - very much like that of the royal family in Britain. Meet and greet, look pretty and open Parliament. G-G's may have personal causes that they support and encourage, but they don't comment personally on political matters, except in the most general of terms, and they do what the PM tells them to do in those areas where they technically have authority.

This leads many people to believe that the position is pointless. Myself, I think we need a separate head of state to do all the ceremonial stuff, because it dilutes the public presence of the PM, making him or her just another politician, albeit the most powerful one in the country - and gives the PM more time to do his/her job of governemng, without having to open supermarkets.

Re: C eh N eh D eh

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

The principle that the GG should act only on the advice of his ministers was seldom honoured in the early days under activist GGs like Munro-Fergusson. They tried to establish it later but it was cast aside by Sir John Kerr in 1975. While his actions were criticised, the fact is that the PM was sacked and, unlike King, lost the subsequent election.

The Prime Ministership is also associated with tradition. The job appears nowhere in the Constitution. In this country, the PM is appointed by a vote of caucus (ie his fellow party MPs). He may (like PM john Gorton) be a senator rather than an MHR. He may also be voted out at 8pm tonight (it's been done too). I believe that this is not the case in Canada?

Re: C eh N eh D eh

[morgan-dhu.livejournal.com]

Here, the PM is by tradition the leader of the party that holds - or controls, if there ever were a formal coalition government at the federal level, as there has occasionally been at the provincial level - the most seats in the House of Commons. And it's the entire membership of the party, either directly or through delegates from each constituency, that elects the leader. As it is for your government, it's a de facto position as head of government rather than de jure.

The PM does not have to be a member of the House - though if he or she doesn't become one very quickly, it's considered a very bad thing. Technically, the PM could be a Senator - but again, he or she would be expected to resign the Senate and get his/her ass into the House as quickly as someone could be persuaded to resign to provide for a by-election. Actually, the PM could be any adult Canadian citizen, in theory - though in practice, he/she would also have to be leader of the governing party.

For instance, in the summer of 1984, John Turner, a former cabinet minister just returning to politics, was elected leader of the then-reigning Liberals. In the fall election, he won a seat, but his governemnt was defeated. Thus, he spent his entire brief period as PM without a seat in either House or Senate.

Aside, of course, from losing House votes of confidence during minority governments, only the governing party can remove the PM, and that can only be done at a leadership convention, to the best of my knowledge.

Re: C eh N eh D eh

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

Here, the PM is by tradition the leader of the party that holds - or controls, if there ever were a formal coalition government at the federal level, as there has occasionally been at the provincial level - the most seats in the House of Commons.
This is usually the case here, although minority governments are rare at the Federal level. The ruling Liberals are part of a coalition, even though they actually have enough seats to govern in their own right. Should something sudden happen to the Prime Miniature, then John Anderson, a leader of a minor party, would, as deputy PM, become PM. This has happened twice before.

If no party has an absolute majority, then the GG will commission the leader of the largest party and there will be a minority government. The convention that a PM should control both houses shriveled and died during the 1980s.

According to the Constitution (S64), a minister has three months to get elected (or appointed) to the House or Senate.

Aside, of course, from losing House votes of confidence during minority governments, only the governing party can remove the PM, and that can only be done at a leadership convention, to the best of my knowledge.
Actually, a majority government can lose a vote of confidence too... this happened in 1941. However, we have no concept of a leadership convention. So they still have time to vote the PM out of office tonight. This last happened in 1996. I would think that the need for a leadership convention would make a PM far more secure and less at the mercy of his parliamentary colleagues.

The PM can also submit his resignation to the GG. Or, as demonstrated in 1975, the GG could sack the PM.