Your contention that editorial endorsement of one political party or another is ineffective (Editorial, 12 November) may be right. Editors now use subtle messages embedded in their “news” reports, less so in editorials.

I have voted for four different political parties over the years; so I claim that I can criticize impartially the manner in which some media impose their views.

The “Canadian” (ie, Liberal) Broadcasting Corporation campaigned for a year before the October election to rid us of the Conservative government. They solicited the youth vote for two weeks and persuaded the populace of Toronto to “vote strategically” – meaning vote for the left-wing party candidate most likely to defeat the local Conservative incumbent. Their talking heads were quite blatant about it.

We were not told the LBC’s reason for doing so. For over two decades the LBC has benefitted from annually increased sums from federal Liberal governments, and suffered small increases from Conservative governments trying to balance budgets. As the LBC annually receives over $1.2 billion of taxpayers’ money, while their competitors receive nothing, I would think that the honest thing to do would be for the LBC to declare a conflict of interest. But no mention is ever made of that interest. The Trudeau government has now announced an annual LBC budget increase of some $800-plus million.

Three TV systems lobbied heavily for the Liberal campaign. Peter Mansbridge displayed his preference very clearly during a previous election results program. Liberal newspapers wrote disparagingly of the Conservative government and printed ugly photos of Prime Minister Harper. (You can always capture one ugly photo of someone who is speaking publicly if you operate a high-speed camera long enough.) The publisher of the Toronto Star chain is committed to left-wing party support.

It was not difficult to discern from your editorials for weeks before the election which party you preferred. The choice of words is always indicative, whether deliberately or subconsciously chosen. The LBC’s Anna Maria regularly interrupts any Conservative trying to make a point while allowing all Liberals full stretch to elucidate their explanations, and selects talking heads who are obviously biased against a Conservative regime.

The Globe and Mail used to run a “slate” of candidates they recommended for Toronto elections. As the Globe was highly respected in those days, the slate was taken seriously. They no longer do so. Nowadays, few own- ers possess only one paper or radio station; they own chains like the LBC and Torstar; so they express their political views throughout their chains.

In short, there is no longer any need for publishers and editors to comment politically in their editorials. Their “news” reporters and columnists do that for them. But I’m grateful that the Citizen carries politically opposed columns so we readers can learn from all points of view, biased or otherwise.

Charles Hooker
East Garafraxa