No level playing field on the right

Re Level the playing field, Editorial, April 11 I was dismayed in reading this editorial and its thesis that unions and other “interest groups” need to be reined in to control their “unfettered” interference in public discourse around election time. They “dodge” election spending rules and may even engage in “collusion” to exert unfair influence by criticizing conservative policies. So the Star pleads for a more level playing field. What’s missing here is the much greater effort made by a number of forces operating on and for the other side of the political spectrum. Start with a substantial array of media outlets that openly promote the conservative corporate agenda. Rob and Doug Ford “host” a weekly dialogue dripping with right-wing rhetoric and derisive references to “lefties’ and “union bosses.” On the day of the last federal election one radio station granted a 20-minute interview at noon to Stephen Harper. There’s startling bias to be found in the working of the neoconservative think-tanks of which the Fraser Institute is a selfproclaimed leader. With research that is frequently debunked, the institute nonetheless trundles on and gets its deeply conservative messages into friendly media. And we all help pay for it as the institute solicits donations and issues income tax receipts. To add to the unfairness of the right side of the playing field, citizens pay for the biggest scam of them all. The Conservatives in Ottawa are lavishing tens of millions of dollars on a relentless advertising campaign that is short on information but big on hammering away at its mindless branding of its policies as the “Economic Action Plan.” “A message from the government of Canada.” A recent ad actually contains a tag noting that the program in question is subject to parliamentary approval. What shocking gall. Does anyone know that the seat of government is Parliament, not the PMO or the Conservative party?

If we follow the Star’s advice on third party involvement, some selected groups would be controlled, but advocates on the other side would remain to flourish. The result would tip the playing field even more to the right. Roy Harvey, Toronto