by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
February 16, 2004
Two weeks ago I wrote about Citytv’s Gord Martineau and anne Mroczkowski. Outtakes of the two had surfaced on the internet and showed Martineau referring to Quebec singer Roch Voisine as a "homo" while the aging anchor did a swishy little dance. Mroczkowski was heard off camera asking about Voisine by saying "He’s a Pepsi?" Martineau kept up his alleged comedy routine when Mroczkowski mentioned a story that they were going to do on pancreatic cancer. Martin said it was not interesting, pointed to his groin and said, "That’s interesting". Martineau and news director Stephen Hurlbut made perfunctory apologies and the matter was forgotten.
as everyone must know by now, Hockey Night in Canada’s Don Cherry is in hot water for criticizing the use of visors in the NHL by saying that they were worn mainly by "Europeans and French guys". The CBC reprimanded Cherry and announced that they would put a seven second delay on the colour commentator’s Coach’s Corner segment.
Not only did the network react but officials of Canada’s corrupt government got into the act. Dyane adam, Canada’s top language cop, assigned two investigators to look into Cherry’s comments (now you know how many federal government employees it takes to watch a videotape), even though she admitted that nothing might ever come of it. and, of course the usual accusations of racism surfaced, with the expected "What if he had said that about Jews and Natives?" It’s nice to know that the Israeli-hating, elite liberal left still have some use for Jews, but I digress.
What happened to Don Cherry proved the point that I made in the Gord Martineau column. If you are a committed small left liberal and spend hours every day preaching tolerance and diversity as Citytv does, you can get away with calling gays "homos" and the French "Pepsis". The severe criticism that Cherry has faced for his comments were not because of what he said but because of who he is, what he believes and the fact that he refuses to bow down to political correctness.
Van Dusen continues defense of Liberals
The CBC’s Julie Van Dusen put up a strong defense of the Paul Martin Liberal’s in her February 11 report from Parliament Hill on the aftermath of the auditor-General’s report that revealed the high level of corruption regarding advertising contracts. Rather than report the news, Van Dusen made the case that Flat Paul was innocent of any wrongdoing in the matter.
While showing clips of opposition members Grant Hill, Peter Mackay and Bill Blaikie, allowing them to speak for themselves, Van Dusen made Paul Martin’s defense for him before showing his statement, presumably because she comes across as more credible than the PM. Van Dusen said that the sponsorship scandal was caused by a very small group of people and everything would become clear through an inquiry. This "small group of people" term was in the aG’s report but Van Dusen never mentioned that, allowing viewers to think that it was something that Martin had discovered. She then opined that this scandal couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Liberals--an election is looming and the scandal won’t help the Liberals make a pitch that they are good money managers.
Of course, when you decide to avidly defend someone, it helps to call witnesses and that’s what Van Dusen did. She showed clips of various MPs including former cabinet minister Herb Dhaliwal saying that he didn’t know anything either. a clip of Stan Keyes allowed the Liberals to put their spin on the scandal by saying that this is a "new administration", thereby distancing the former Finance Minister from having any responsibility in the fiasco. Finally the piece showed clips of MPs like Marlene Jennings saying that they were "mad, mad, mad" and if she had only known what was going on she would have stopped it.
If the Liberals were really good money managers, as Van Dusen wishes that they were, they would fire all their spin doctors. Why pay for propaganda when the CBC’s Van Dusen will provide it at the taxpayers’ expense?