More false expertise

When the coalition to make Parliament work first formed, CTV was quick to provide "expert" analysis consisting solely of Con partisans. And it looks like other media outlets are continuing the same pattern of allowing Harper mouthpieces to present opinions and talking points as neutral commentary.

First, there's the inexplicable decision by CanWest to give Garry Chipeur's opinion any credence as a declaration of constitutional convention - notwithstanding both Chipeur's obvious partisan bias, and the fact that his opinion rests on the assumption that the only actual precedents on the powers of the Governor-General should be ignored.

Then, there's the Hill Times' piece on lobbying, which features Tim Powers - yes, the same one who already delivers a steady stream of Con talking points to a Globe and Mail blog - singing the praises of prorogation and bashing the coalition while adding nothing of substance on the topic at hand.

And most glaringly of all, there's Macleans' apparent decision to offer a prime blog spot to the Cons' propagandist-in-chief - apparently out of concern that the informative blogging of Kady O'Malley, Aaron Wherry and others needed to be counterbalanced by unadulterated Con spin.

Needless to say, the Cons couldn't ask for much more generous treatment than to have their talking heads presented as the equal of people who actually offer original points of view and informed commentary rather than merely reading off a Harper cheat sheet. But those of us who would prefer not to see the media turned into a subsidiary arm of the Harper communications department have ample reason for concern.