Here’s a little “Insite” regarding the liberal’ media and their agenda driving

Related Articles

The Article

Critics on the ideological left love to criticize the Conservative government’s disdain for the continued state-funding of the heroin injection parlor in downtown Vancouver (called “Insite”), as simply “ideological”.  Sometimes they like to pretend that conservatives are “at war with science”, or of course they simply opt to call conservatives “stupid”.  (Now that’s some kind o’ science!) 

But liberals and those in their media division routinely display their ideological arrogance and their “war on science”—and facts—when they talk or write about this Insite experiment.  They usually do this by purposely leaving out important information or under-informing the population when actually, the duty they’ve willingly assumed is to fully inform

As Fox News Channel says (and I’m so sorry liberals, but the fact is, they also actually behave this way), “we report, you decide.”  Well naturally that “you decide” part only works the way it’s supposed to when both sides of contentious stories are reported.  The news media in Canada all know that. 

When only one side is presented, as is most often the case on Canada’s liberal-left media, then it’s we report the side we’re on, using only the information we want you to see or hear, and since you then have no other knowledge (don’t worry, the fair and balanced Fox News Channel has now finally been unbanned in Canada, but we in the Canadian media will routinely diss it by innuendo and ignorance and pretend THEY’RE the ones who are biased… by their reporting of both sides… oh damn… never mind…),  why then you’re sure to see things our way and decide accordingly. 

And that sounds Iranian to me. 

CTV has actually sometimes done an OK job covering this story, but this latest story is biased. It’s this same drip-by-drip Fabian method which always crops up in the liberals’ media.  Tell me the author of this latest report at doesn’t support the Insite injection site:

The Canadian Press

…Several studies published in prestigious journals such as Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine report Insite has not only saved lives, prevented disease and improved access to drug treatment, it has also helped reduce street disorder in Vancouver’s crime-ridden Downtown Eastside. …

Vancouver safe injection site fight heads to court

Unlike most CTV articles about this story, this short article which includes that paragraph entirely leaves out all the information supporting the negatives— and the very notion of ceasing taxpayer funding and the federal legal authority for the clinic to continue and why the folks that hold that position do so.  It only speaks of “studies published in prestigious journals” which support its continuation. 

The idea here, then, is obviously to lead you in one direction only. That’s not “information”.  Or “news”.  That’s driving an agenda. 

If their objective was to be brief (the article was exceedingly brief) and neutral (and “neutral” is what you nominally expect from the news media), they could have left out that paragraph.  But when the media only tells you one side, it’s advancing an agenda.  And you can’t trust a media that is driving an agenda.  (Or perhaps they’re simply lazy; but then by logical necessity they’re also utterly useless and irresponsible and possibly harmful rather than trustworthy and reliable as a good source for news and information.)

Seems to me, the article above, as written, is supposed to impress you about the scientific value of the injection site and lead you to think about the continuation of the site in only positive terms —and of course very possibly also lead you to think of the Conservative government as a bunch of ideologues, and hopefully as stupid wankers.

At the very least, the story—all stories about this experiment—should indicate that the science behind the heroin injection site is still very dodgy, much more study needs to be done before making anything permanent (which is all the Conservatives have ever been saying); and it should indicate that the site has many critics aside from just the Conservative government and the taxpayers like me that it represents.

Here’s some information they could have included today.  It’s information they have in their own files.  It’s information included in their own previous reports (but now omitted):

… RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police remain steadfastly against injection sites.

Chief Supt. Derek Ogden, the RCMP’s director general of drugs and organized crime, said he would like further research.

“I absolutely cringe when I hear people talk of a safe injection site,” he said in an interview from Ottawa.

Ogden says the RCMP position focuses more on enforcement, prevention and treatment, which can result in harm reduction without injection sites.

Colin Mangham, the director of research for the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, wrote in his 2007 critique that other studies’ findings of a reduction in “public disorder” were “questionable and so limited in scope as to be misleading.”

“The Insite evaluations as reported in various research journals include considerable overstating of findings as well as under-reporting or omission of negative findings, and in some cases the discussion can mislead readers,” Mangham wrote.


A report released Friday by an expert panel appointed by Clement found mixed results in its review of the many studies of Insite.


Safe injection facility in Vancouver in the limelight

And another article includes this:

…Tom Stamatakis, president of Vancouver police union, said that unlike the executive of the police department, which has indicated support for Insite, the rank-and-file does not like the facility.

“We have a significant problem with drug addiction in the Downtown Eastside … and I would like to see (Insite’s operating costs) plowed into treatment programs.

“I’m concerned that some of the proponents will focus on some of the positives – and there are positives – and overstate what impact Insite has had.”

He said Insite is a “well-intended” project, but it isn’t making the difference that people envisioned “so let’s re-evaluate on focus on treatment.”

Stamatakis said front-line officers on the street “don’t support the continuation of Insite and don’t agree with the position the executive of the police department have taken.”

Experts table findings on drug-injection site

Ironically, the liberals’ media, which simply adores the liberals’ beloved United Nations division and hangs on every anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-capitalist, socialist, pro-world-government word, leaves out the information they provided, in this instance:

The Canadian Press

VICTORIA—A United Nations monitoring body wants the Canadian government to close Vancouver’s safe injection site and end the distribution of safe crack kits in Toronto, Ottawa and on Vancouver Island.

UN body urges Ottawa to close safe injection site

Of course the very next paragraphs in that article (immediately above) are these:

But while the International Narcotics Control Board is critical of Canadian drug policies in its annual report, proponents of Canada’s harm-reduction approach said Thursday the board’s policies are irrelevant.

Sen. Larry Campbell, a former mayor of Vancouver and supporter of the city’s safe injection sites, said the UN monitoring body is picking on Canada because it borders the United States, but has a more Liberal approach to drugs.

“This organization quite frankly are simply stooges for a failed U.S. war on drugs,’’ he said.

Yes of course.  In typical liberal media style, they quickly locate and interview a liberal-left apologist to counter any arguments advanced by the other side.  In this case, they locate far-left Liberal Senator Larry Campbell (who as long-time PTBC readers all know, sounds very much like a communist to me, and who once called all conservatives “Barbarians”, and was then appointed to the Senate by failed Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin). 

You’d think the idea put forward by Larry Campbell that the U.N. are “simply stooges for the U.S.”—on anything whatsoever—must at best be a bad joke.  But it isn’t.  That in and of itself exemplifies the stupidity of the left’s argument.  But don’t worry—there’s no “ideology” at play here. Just pure science. 

(And note the capital L on the word “Liberal” in the article (“a more Liberal approach to drugs”).  I’m not sure if the article’s author and editor are both stupid, or simply ignorant of politics.) 

The U.N. report goes on to say:

“The distribution of drug paraphernalia, including crack pipes, to drug users in Ottawa and Toronto, as well as the presence of drug injection sites is also in violation of the international drug control treaties, to which Canada is a party.’‘

Lefties demand that Canada comply with every single “rule” or “treaty” the U.N. ever drummed up—like the “man-made global warming” findings that they’ve infamously drummed up.  But not this one. 

Naturally there are lots of sources of information besides the web site that I could have cited to bolster facts here.  But the point is that the latest report failed to include all the information available to them in their own files, and therefore left a final impression that is totally biased.  It’s misleading.  Whether or not that was the intention, I can’t say for sure (I’m pretty sure it was, because it actually would have been easier for them to be neutral).

This sort of thing happens constantly, all day long, in all the liberal media.

This is another reason why it’s important to watch Fox News Channel, which almost uniquely presents both sides as a general matter; and why it’s important to review other sources for news and information besides the Canadian left’s state-owned and state-run media (the CBC), or CTV, or what I collectively call “liberalvision”.  If all you’re watching is CBC or CTV, I don’t think you’re getting all the facts, nor all the opinions nor all the possible analyses.  In fact it’s possible you’re being led astray. 

That’s ideological.


Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?
    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img