Robert Fife - Ottawa Bureau Chief - CTV | The Biased Media

Streaming Radio

Streaming Video

LFR Login

Sponsors

Administrator

Robert Fife - Ottawa Bureau Chief - CTV

Written by Richard Evans

Friday, 04 April 2008

From the CTV website :

Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief

Based in Ottawa, Robert Fife is CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief. Before joining CTV News in February of 2005, Fife was the Ottawa Bureau Chief for CanWest News Service and the National Post.

Covering national politics since 1978, Fife beginning his career in the parliamentary bureau of NewsRadio and later United Press International (Canada). He then went on to work as a senior political reporter for Canadian Press and spent a decade as Ottawa Bureau Chief and political columnist for the Sun Media chain.

He is also the author of several books: A Capital Scandal: Politics, Patronage and Payoff; Why Parliament Must Be Reformed; and Kim Campbell: The Making of Prime Minister. An award-winning journalist, he has appeared regularly on various television and radio programs.

Now watch toward the end of this video clip where Fife gives his opinion of the Conservative government.

The last time we checked, reporters were supposed to report, not opine. Here's a question; If Fife, the top of the food chain with Ottawa reporters, can so freely express such derogatory feelings toward conservatives on a national television broadcast, how much has his bias affected his day to day reporting?

UPDATE: Put a YouTube version together for SDA :

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (21) add comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Rob C said:

His yapping doesn't surprise me at all Richard . Fife continues to be a peace of $#!t lieberal puppet.

April 04, 2008

Gypsy said:

Complained to somebody at CTV Toronto News about Fife. I explained that this clip is now on YouTube and in the blogosphere.

The fellow I talked to got very angry and stated he will be calling YouTube to have it removed because of copyright infringement.

I think you got Fife and CTV by their sanctimonious little balls. What a coup! Save this clip Richard in case it unexpectedly disappears.

April 04, 2008

Paul said:

Great work Richard. The irony is so incredible ... that moments after doing his moralizing, Fife insults all conservatives ... on TV, LIVE, to an international audience. And he doesn't do it 16 years ago at a party.

April 04, 2008 | url

cudgel said:

Da Dawg dragged his worm infested ass thru the youtube site and left a pile...well that of a chihuahua but a pile nonetheless.

April 04, 2008

greyburr said:

Fifes an actual reporter?Who knew?I was always under the impression he was just a paid talking hack/head to round out Duffys show.

April 04, 2008

Schwarze Tulpe said:

Fife must have trouble looking at himself in the mirror in the morning knowing what he has to say to stay relevant and on camera everyday.

I'd sooner shoot myself.

April 04, 2008

Richard Evans said:

Da Dawg dragged his worm infested ass thru the youtube site and left a pile...well that of a chihuahua but a pile nonetheless.

Looks like the spam filter caught his comment and removed it...

April 04, 2008

Peter D said:

The last time we checked, reporters were supposed to report, not opine.

I can't wait for all the posts on Fox News....waiting.....waiting.....waiting....

By the way, what was it that he said wrong?

April 04, 2008 | url

Richard Evans said:

I can't wait for all the posts on Fox News....waiting.....waiting.....waiting....

Can't speak towards Fox News as it's not part of my cable package.

By the way, what was it that he said wrong?

You mean other than the assertion that Harper's caucus is full of "knuckle-dragging" social conservatives?

April 05, 2008

Peter D said:

Can't speak towards Fox News as it's not part of my cable package.

Right....

You mean other than the assertion that Harper's caucus is full of "knuckle-dragging" social conservatives?

Did he say full, or did he say some? And I'll admit, yeah, he probably shouldn't have said that. People can find a way to be more respectful with those they disagree with. But still, what he said as compared to Lekuwski...let's be honest about it.

April 05, 2008 | url

Richard Evans said:

Right....

Are you seriously asserting that I'm lying about my cable service?

Did he say full, or did he say some?

He said "some" but the "hidden agenda comment leads one to believe that he meant that there are more than just "some"

But still, what he said as compared to Lekuwski...let's be honest about it.

I am being honest about it. Lukiwski made an off-hand comment, while inhebriated, at a private function 17 years ago. Was it dumb? Absolutely. I won't make excuses for him. Fife on the other hand, made a scripted comment, on live, national television while stone sober. He did this right after chastising Lukiwski for making his comment and tried to pass it off as news. That's a problem...

While we're being honest with each other, where do you stand on Lukiwski's comments as compared to those of Tommy Douglass as highlited in the previous post?

April 05, 2008

Kate said:

I don't care if he said "some". I don't care if he said "one". He was engaging in petty, dehumanizing, name-calling in a news item.

There are accurate alternatives that don't involve slurs - "backward views". "outdated", "out of step"....

Imagine this alternate example: "The FSIN has been struggling with the problem as being seen as an organization full of stupid, old Indians. The Ahenakew reinstatement won't help their cause."

Even though that sentence contains no slurs at all, he'd be fired on the spot.

April 05, 2008 | url

Gypsy said:

Richard,

Instead of acknowledging its existence and apologizing, CTV "cleaned" the offending portion. I think next CTV will have YouTube remove the entire clip.

Please tell us you have a saved copy of the original version?

April 05, 2008

Peter D said:

He was engaging in petty, dehumanizing, name-calling in a news item.

Kate, come on. That's pretty rich coming from someone who wrote that everyone in the downtown westside should cross their legs, cap their needles, or alternatively, just kill themselves with said needles. I know, I know, you're a blogger not a journalist, but save me the speech. It's called the concept of universality - what you expect of others, you should expect more of yourself.

And let's not forget that CTV is a private company. Just like you are a private citizen.

April 05, 2008 | url

Peter D said:

quote]Are you seriously asserting that I'm lying about my cable service?

No, I'm not. But we all know that Fox is all opinion (and a tiny bit info). All it takes is two minutes on You Tube to figure that out. To be honest, the mainstream media (radio, print and TV) in all its forms is useless. Controlled by corporations and increasingly pushing fluff news and far too much opinion. Are there still some good journalists out there who do their homework and present facts with little bias (everyone has bias, it is impossible to be 100% impartial). Sure. A few. Alex Kingsbury and George Monbiot come to mind.

What I hate is when people from the right rattle on and on about media bias, but totally exempt people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter et al. They are just as bad, if not worse.

He said "some" but the "hidden agenda comment leads one to believe that he meant that there are more than just "some"

Is there a hidden agenda? I doubt it. But you have to ask questions such as why Harper has put such a strong muzzle on his caucus and MP's? What is he afraid of them saying? Does Stockwell still think the world is 6,000 years old and want to ban books? Does Larry Spencer still want to outlaw homosexuality? Does Lekewski still think that homosexuals are disease carriers? Who knows. Harper won't let them talk.

April 05, 2008 | url

Peter D said:

Fife on the other hand, made a scripted comment, on live, national television while stone sober. He did this right after chastising Lukiwski for making his comment and tried to pass it off as news. That's a problem...

Hey, I agree - the media sucks. But what you are doing is excusing Lekuwski's words and behaviour. Being drunk doesn't excuse one from any behaviour, whether it is rape, murder, or being bigoted. In fact, I would argue that being drunk lifts our political correctness shields and reveals who we truly are.

Look, I agree that we all say stupid, dumb, and idiotic things. The question is - does he still believe these things about homosexuals? At 40 (with a horrible mustahce) his views are pretty solid. What has caused him to change his viewpoints, if he has at all? If he does still hold them, this is a problem. Government for and by the people remember?

While we're being honest with each other, where do you stand on Lukiwski's comments as compared to those of Tommy Douglass as highlited in the previous post?

Tommy Douglas said those things at a time when nearly everyone thought homosexuality was a mental disorder. We know better now (hopefully). In today's context were they wrong - yes. Were they back then, no. I was 17 at the time Lekuwski said those things and I even knew better but then I actually knew people who were gay. I doubt that Tom ever had.

Look, we can go back two hundred years and see all the idiotic things people said about blacks, First Nations, Asians, and how hateful Protestants and Catholics were to each other. The only reason Douglas' comments are being brought up is as a straw mean to deflect attention away from Lekuwski.

Let me ask you this Richard - if a tape was leaked by the NDP about a Liberal MP saying, there are A's and B's, with B's being Jewish fuckers who carry disease, I guarantee you that every single conservative in the blogosphere would be writing very differently about this. This is what is so crass about partisanship and what makes partisans have zero credibility. You have one set or rules for yourself and your ideologues and one set of rules for others. You ignore your ideologues own transgressions and highlight the same transgressions when your opponents do them.

It's why I'm a non-partisan and will spoil my ballot from here on out. Politics in our country is a joke. And so are the supporters from all the parties.

April 05, 2008 | url

Richard Evans said:

Please tell us you have a saved copy of the original version?

I've got copies. In fact, I've even got copies of the copies...

But we all know that Fox is all opinion (and a tiny bit info). All it takes is two minutes on You Tube to figure that out.

No, we don't all know that and, unlike you, I'd actually like to see something before I pass judgement on it.

What I hate is when people from the right rattle on and on about media bias, but totally exempt people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter et al. They are just as bad, if not worse.

Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter are editorialists. They're not journalists. There's a difference. Fife is supposed to be a journalist and as such, he's expected to be non-biased.

Hey, I agree - the media sucks. But what you are doing is excusing Lekuwski's words and behaviour.

Actually, Lukiwski's comments were addressed in the thread prior to this one. If you'd like to address my thoughts on that matter, do it there. This thread's all about Fife.

April 05, 2008

Peter D said:

Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter are editorialists. They're not journalists.

Tomato/Tomatoe. Is there really a difference at all these days? Do the three I mentioned pass themselves off as editorialists or journalists? I think you're splitting hairs Richard. But that's just me.

April 05, 2008 | url

Richard Evans said:

Tomato/Tomatoe. Is there really a difference at all these days?

Not if you work for CTV apparently. Or the CBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC for that matter...

Do the three I mentioned pass themselves off as editorialists or journalists?

Editorialists. Anne Coulter is a lawyer and author. Limbaugh and O'Riely are Television/radio talk show hosts and authors. Not once has any one of them tried to pass themselves off as a journalist.

I think you're splitting hairs Richard. But that's just me.

If it were just "splitting hairs", you wouldn't be whining this loud and working so hard to explain-away the blatant bias of CTV "journalists"...

April 05, 2008

bob said:

It is really reflective of the lack of leadership from CTV news cheirf Robert Hurst.

HE FUBAR'd the David Akin NAFTA-gate matter. He should have resigned over the fiasco.

He brought in Fife who is about as interesting to watch as drying paint.

Hurst needs to go. Strike three in a little over a month.

BTW Which CTV executive is the big Liberal fundraiser?

April 06, 2008

Dinosaur said:

It's funny how a few short decades ago liberals locked people up for the crime of homosexuality.

now people who think like them ie me are knuckle draggers.

Homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle and my opinion does not effect that.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT...2920801063

And Lloyd was offered a job in the senate by Chretien,...

Saturday, December 13, 2003 - Page A13

Globe And Mail

The senator of CTV

CTV's veteran anchor Lloyd Robertson reported this week on Jim Munson's ascension from lowly PMO communications director and former CTV reporter to the Senate. What many did not know, and what Mr. Munson may not have known either, is that his seat at one time may have had Mr. Robertson's name on it. Indeed, several months ago, senior Chr�tienites approached Mr. Robertson, floating the idea of a Senate appointment. However, he likes his job too much and did not pursue it.

Bias, bias, everywhere and not a drop of patronage for me.

April 06, 2008 | url

Write comment