So the media is complaining (and doing and publishing polls about) the belief that they don't get to pester Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative) as much as they'd like to.
Fine.
But why do they make a big deal out of PM Harper's "control" of "access" whereas I didn't see them making a big deal out of former Liberal PM Chretien (and Martin after him, briefly) being able to enjoy softball questions only and ignore the rare tough, inconvenient ones?
And why is it that the media in both Canada and America let US "President" Barack Hussein Obama off the hook for, amongst many things, not being accessible for media questions, particularly tough, inconvenient ones?
It's a little hypocritical of the media to make a big stink over a conservative leader being "inaccessible" to them, whereas they don't mind the tight control exercised by those leaders who are closer to their own ideological orientation.
Fine.
But why do they make a big deal out of PM Harper's "control" of "access" whereas I didn't see them making a big deal out of former Liberal PM Chretien (and Martin after him, briefly) being able to enjoy softball questions only and ignore the rare tough, inconvenient ones?
And why is it that the media in both Canada and America let US "President" Barack Hussein Obama off the hook for, amongst many things, not being accessible for media questions, particularly tough, inconvenient ones?
It's a little hypocritical of the media to make a big stink over a conservative leader being "inaccessible" to them, whereas they don't mind the tight control exercised by those leaders who are closer to their own ideological orientation.
No comments:
Post a Comment