As many have read by now, The Globe and Mail has endorsed Stephen Harper's Conservative Party as its party of choice for the 41st general federal election. If interested you can read through the Globe and Mail editorial recommendations published since 1953.

Tortured would be one adjective I would apply to their reasoning in today's endorsement, applicable as well to the justifications offered in their 2008 nod to Stephen Harper's team.

A great many Canadians appear to share my view for reaction to the Globe editorial was overwhelmingly negative. Naturally the Globe published an article about the reaction and went so far as to host an interactive chat to explain the basis of their endorsement. One would think that the endorsement itself should be self-explanatory through the quality of the arguments presented. Apparently not.

Political endorsements are nothing new for the country's newspaper barons. Broadsheets predating Confederation were created by partisans to back their candidates. The Globe and Mail itself is the product of a 1930's era merger between publications founded by two fathers of Confederation to back their political aspirations. It would seem Sir. John A. MacDonald's - a Tory - influence has held more sway since then. Aside from acknowledging obvious faults that demand a change in government -- Diefenbaker's last term is a good example -- the Globe and Mail tends to be Tory friendly .

Here's where the Globe's editorial board has swung over the last sixty years, and what the election of the day actually returned:

Year   Endorsed                              (Prime Minister, Party)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1953 - Progressive Conservative (St-Laurent, Liberal Majority)
1957 - Progressive Conservative (Diefenbaker, P Conservative Minority)
1958 - Progressive Conservative (Diefenbaker, P Conservative Majority)
1962 - Progressive Conservative (Diefenbaker, P Conservative Minority)
1963 - Liberal (Pearson, Liberal Minority)
1965 - Progressive Conservative (Pearson, Trudeau, Liberal Minority)
1968 - Liberal (Trudeau, Liberal Majority)
1972 - Liberal (Trudeau, Liberal Minority)
1974 - Progressive Conservative (Trudeau, Liberal Majority)
1979 - Progressive Conservative (Clark, P Conservative Minority)
1980 - Progressive Conservative (Trudeau, Turner, Liberal Majority)
1984 - Progressive Conservative (Mulroney, P Conservative Majority)
1988 - Progressive Conservative (Mulroney, P Conservative Majority)
1993 - Liberal (Chretien, Liberal Majority)
1997 - Progressive Conservative (Chretien, Liberal Majority)
2000 - Liberal (Chretien, Liberal Majority)
2004 - Liberal (Martin, Liberal Minority)
2006 - Conservative (Harper, Conservative Minority)
2008 - Conservative (Harper, Conservative Minority)
2011 - Conservative (?,?)

An endorsement is clearly no guarantee their pick wins.

While the Globe and Mail has never issued a federal electoral endorsement for New Democrats, and likely never will, in 1991 the editorial board endorsed New Democrats in two provincial elections: British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Both times the NDP went on to win those contests.

In the final analysis, does the opinion of Bay Street's media organ matter? Probably not. Pollster Frank Graves of EKOS late last night said that editorial recommendations have an almost immeasurable impact on voter intentions.

If you disagree with the Globe's choice, don't waste any time complaining about it. Writing the Globe to complain about their choice might feel good, but the effort won't affect a single electoral race. Instead, invest your time in doing something concrete to achieve a different outcome. Go door knocking for a candidate, help out on election day, drive shut-ins to the polls. And don't forget to vote!

I'd prefer to title this: Some Sun Media Reporters Produce Copy Not Worthy of Ass-Wipe but that's too many words to fit across the top of the column. I don't want to suggest that every journo working for Sun Media is a nasty biased hack. There are some good journalists working for Sun Media. Really good.

Unfortunately their hiring standards are not evenly applied. The crap to cake ratio is arguably higher at Sun than at any other major media outlet in the country, and they wear that trait proudly like a badge of honour. It may be that the crap layer at Sun isn't as thick as perceived, but it blocks sunshine and perfume just the same.

An excellent example of crap reporting would be Sun Media's senior parliamentary reporter Brian Lilley. Bizarrely judging by title alone he appears to work for Parliamentary Bureau Chief David Akin and Akin is well known for accurate and balanced reporting. It'll be interesting to see how that relationship plays out. My guess is Lilley has at best a dotted line reporting relationship, if any at all, because he ought to have already been hauled out for a public whipping by his bosses if they actually gave a damn about fair and accurate reporting.

It is pretty unusual for one reporter to lambaste another but here we have Andrew Potter of Macleans calling out Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley, both of the Sun chain, as chickenshit liars over the CBC Vote Compass controversy which Sun Media largely engineered on their own. Beyond the excerpt below, Potter well summarizes the faux issue's chronology - the link is worth exploring.

Sun family values (April 6, 2011 - Andrew Potter, Macleans.ca)

It's amazing what sort of character assassination you can get away through chickenshit use of question marks (in Levant's case). Or in Lilley's case, through the deliberate withholding of facts. As Peter Loewen himself told Lilley when Lilley interviewed him for his March 31 story, Loewen did the same sort of work for Harper in 2004 that he later did for Ignatieff. Loewen was also a staffer for a Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative leadership candidate in 2005. And he once donated money to Pierre Poilievre's nomination campaign.

This information was available to Brian Lilley, his editor, and to Ezra Levant. It is thoroughly despicable that it was not included in the stories that were published. What is going on here? In yesterday's Globe and Mail, Simon Houpt suggests that Loewen just got caught up in a broader anti-CBC campaign by Sun Media, as it prepares to launch its new television station.

http://beta.nfb.ca/ - Canada's National Film Board is undergoing a major change to what it offers and how it offers it, courtesy of some Python technology (Django).

Full-length films available for your viewing pleasure. I particularly enjoy watching those from the 60's and 70's - it truly feels like walking back in time.

I'll never understand why anyone would get their news from right-wing (and auto industry) mouth piece Pierre Bourque, but it defies explanation that the progressive blogosphere would ever visit Bourque's site.

So while folks consider boycotting Bell Globemedia properties including CTV (I already ignore Duffy), an even easier first step would be to stop gracing Pierre Bourque's page with your eyeballs and clicks. If what he writes and the headlines he twists and torques isn't enough of a reason to tune him out, consider that you are helping him make a living with every page visit.

So go on, you know you want to do it - remove your favorites bookmark for bourque.com right now. Do it now.

There, don't you feel better?

mike watkins dot ca - bourque free for at least a few weeks

(If you need an alternative that at least appears to be aiming for balance, try National Newswatch)