Thursday, April 13, 2006

MSM Can't Get Story Straight

Ok, has anyone else noticed that the website has totally gone downhill lately? Or was it always this bad? The headlines and content are usually full of factual inaccuracies, whether deliberate or accidental, but this one I think is by far the worst I have seen to date.

They contradict the headline within the... headline? Which is it? Did WTO support Canada's position or didn't they? Seems like the folks who do CTV's website just can't handle the fact that the Yanks might have a leg to stand on after all in the softwood lumber dispute. We need a resolution to this dispute, but we also have to recognize that we are partly to blame and come up with a compromise both countries can live with. I'm guessing this doesn't fit the 'anti-American' slant that the media seems to be in love with these days.


Blogger alsocanadian said...

Guess now that Emerson is evil, they wanta show him failing...

6:41 PM  
Blogger Robert McClelland said...

If you think that's something, get a load of this. Last week CTV had a headline that read, "The Glass Is Half Empty." But further down in the story they claimed the glass was half full. So which is it. Was the glass half empty or was it half full? Make up your mind CTV.

7:30 PM  
Blogger "Expert" Tom said...

I thought the one story said the glass was empty and the other said it was sorta fullish kinda. TO be honest, I just like drawing red lines and circles onto media websites.

8:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just when you think McLa-La-Land couldn't possibly show how much more of a moron he is, he outdoes himself.

Hey Bobbie... you never answered my question about whether you even bothered reading the article you linked to when you accused "right whingers" of protesting Burger King over that ice cream treat with a symbol that looked like the Muslim symbol for Allah? You remember... after I pointed out that the article that you linked to even stated that it was Muslims who were protesting it?

Ya tool.

8:16 PM  
Blogger Steve Stinson said...

I saw the same thing on Yahoo today. There were two stories from different wires with a different spin. The one that said Canada lost essentially repeated a press release from the American lumber lobby.

It is important to keep in mind that despite the appearance of news diversity, most news outlets get their copy from the same 2 or 3 sources. That's why we need bloggers to parse the stories.

12:54 AM  
Blogger Saskboy said...

That leg Americans are standing on is a peg leg, because they are softwood tariff pirates. Since when did NAFTA allow for import tariffs? How many appeals can the Americans lose before people will admit they are cheating us?

3:39 AM  
Blogger "Expert" Tom said...

Saskboy, I agree the tarrifs are wrong and go against NAFTA, but I also agree that low stumpage fees are wrong and go against the spirit of NAFTA. We need to find a solution that solves both these problems.

I won't even get into corn or other farm subsidies that the US farmers get.

Peg leg, softwood pirates. Thanks for a morning chuckle. :-D

9:21 AM  
Blogger Steve Stinson said...

I also agree that low stumpage fees are wrong and go against the spirit of NAFTA.

If you look at the abysmal profitability of the Canadian forest industry, it is hard to make the case that stumpage is too low. Most of the timber is in remote areas and costs a lot to bring to the mills. Similarly, commercial rents are a lot cheaper on Main Street in North Bay than on Bay Street in Toronto.

That said, the provincial stumpage systems are far from transparent. Governments typically use their control of the fibre to prevent uneconomic mills from closing and to support employment in downturns. It is basically use or lose it, which severely depresses prices in downturns.

The system is broken and yet we are too sanctimonious to fix because we don't want it to look like the Americans are telling us what to do.

4:46 PM  
Blogger "Expert" Tom said...

If the crown did not own all the land, then I would have no problem because it would be up to the private owner to set and recoup costs, but since its all owned by the government, its hard to figure out market value for stumpage.

Its kinda like the power in Ontario (which just went up 15%). I'm sure most people wouldn't mind paying the true cost if it wasn't the Ontario government who is responsible for the lack of energy production in Ontario. They refused to ramp up their production to match consumption, probably to avoid conflicts with environmentalists, now Ontarians have to pay for shortsightedness of government. In Quebec the rates are resonable, and reflect the value of production (well at least to Quebec, I'm sure Labrador would argue with that).

6:32 PM  
Blogger OMMAG said...

The Americans have high fees beacuse the public lands have been virtually stripped and the government had to raise fees to inhibit deforestation.

Private landowners in the US can and do charge whatever the hell they can get away with.

Individual provinces set the the fees according to their needs and it is nobody's ( as in other countries ) business what those fees are.
The US has depleted its resources and the crybaby lumber cutters want big brother to save them. They could have invested in Canadian companies or Canadian resources but chose instead seek protection through their legal system. The result is completely illegal and unjustified tarrifs imposed by self serving knucklehead representatives who need the political support and cash from those same lumber cutters.

The irony is that US consumers are getting screwed because of the interference in the supply chain.

8:25 PM  
Blogger Candace said...

I know I'm late to the party, but pgp: "They could have invested in Canadian companies or Canadian resources but chose instead seek protection through their legal system."

Who bought MacBlo? and countless other Cdn outfits? (well, "countless" is probably pushing it & I'm too lazy to look it up, but it wasn't China)

3:45 AM  
Blogger "Expert" Tom said...

"Individual provinces set the the fees according to their needs and it is nobody's ( as in other countries ) business what those fees are."

Actually, thats the problem, they set them to their needs, not market price. It is another countries business if we have trade agreements with them, or would you say its none of our business if a state imposes tariffs on our goods?

I agree they mismanaged some of their natural resources and stumpage fees in Canada should be a lot lower than in the states and do not have to be uniform across the country, but they should not be arbitrary.

Sorry for the late reply.

1:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home