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.

Marcus1 (mail) (www):
For conservative biases in the media, just check out They report on the ceaseless Repulican talking points flooding the MSM every single day. Unfortunately, it is only Conservatives who feel that every instance of perceived bias is noteworthy.

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...
1.28.2006 8:45pm
Cornellian (mail):
I've been wondering why Captain's Quarters has such an interest in Canada. So few Americans do I've been speculating that maybe the guy spent a lot of vacations up there, or has Canadian relatives or something. Hard to imagine there's anything intrinsically all that interesting about Canada that would explain his fascination with the place. Granted there's a lot of political sleaze going on there right now, but not much different than you can find here.
1.28.2006 8:53pm
Paul Virkler (mail):
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.
1.28.2006 9:03pm
Fishbane (mail):
I await with eager anticipation your expose on Republican corruption. Abra-(atchew!) excuse me.

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.
1.28.2006 9:04pm
Argle (mail) (www):
Based on your comment about "New York Times deceptions on Niger uranium", I'd say you'd better stick to your guns, Dave -- to coin a phrase.
1.28.2006 9:56pm

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.
1.28.2006 11:00pm
PaulV (mail):
Fish bane,
You asked for it

8000 death annually from 200,000 infections in Canadian hospitals-most preventable with proper procedures
1.28.2006 11:02pm
PaulV (mail):
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
1.28.2006 11:07pm
Bruce Wilder (www):
President Bush's famous 16 words were "technically true" just as it is "technically true" that Abramoff clients made some campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.

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.
1.28.2006 11:51pm
A bit off topic, but I'm curious--if Bush really did actively and deliberately deceive with regards to WMDs...well, in a word why? What on earth could he have gained? If he KNEW there were no WMDs then he knew that this information would come out--and not look good. Why would he deliberately put himself in such a situation if it could be avoided at any cost?

It always amuses me how so frequently and in the same breath, Bush can be described as a manipulative mastermind and then a simpleton...
1.29.2006 5:41am
llamasex (mail) (www):
Scott, it is pretty simple really. They needed the threat of nuclear to scare people good, but they assumed they would find Chemical/Bio and they could say we found WMD. If we had found non-nuclear WMD do you think anyone would care about the yellow cake lies?
1.29.2006 7:51am
What were the 16 words? What was the evidence? Let's have some perspective here. shows some evidence that it wasn't deception then by Bush, but it is today by NYT. Click the link if you dare.
1.29.2006 8:33am
johnt (mail):
On the WMD/Nuclear materials story, I've never figured out how Africa became Niger, a neat trick and rather like North America becoming Rhode Island. Bush's statement wasn't techically true, it was true period. It would only be a deception on two counts; 1] that Britain never informed him of what he claimed he was informed, 2] Bush stated that he knew that such transactions had been consummated. Your "impressions" don't count and one ought not to hold someone else responsible for them any more than hold someone responsible for your aching bunions.
1.29.2006 10:40am
Cornellian (mail):
Ah ha! You see this completely proves my original point. Hardly any of the posters are talking about Canada and nearly all of them are talking about Bush/WMD/Niger/uranium etc.

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.
1.29.2006 11:14am
Martin Martens (mail):
The mainstreem media in Canada did not sit on the sidelines during the Gomery hearings on the Sponsorship Scandal. Both the Anglophone and Francophone mainstream media reported extensively on the sponsorship scandal and during the Gomery hearings. The hearings were mostly carried live and they were the most watched daytime program in Quebec while they were going on. The "blogosphere" had no real impact on the election in Canada.
1.29.2006 3:02pm
Relax Barcelona (mail) (www):
Unusual ideas can make enemies
1.31.2006 12:42am