Seeing as CBC held a contest for the new Hockey Night In Canada anthem, and since CTV has made it abundantly clear they’re all Conservative cheerleaders over there, they might as well openly declare it, so what better way then to pick a new logo for them to reflect that reality?

The snarky folks at A Creative Revolution have come up with 2 such designs for you to choose from. Let’s see which one is more popular, and may I suggest the winner gets forwarded to the CTV brass?

First one:

Welcome to ConTV. We will do whatever it takes!

Second one:

Welcome to conTV! With more fleecing!

I think I like the first one. The sheep’s a nice touch, though.

UPDATE: Jamie Callingham stopped by and came up with a new slogan that I REALLY like:

CTV - Canada’s Tory Voice.

I see James Curran is wanting to organize a boycott CTV movement for their unethical release of the outtakes that Stephane Dion did with that interview on Friday, and Mike Duffy’s (and subsequent follow-up by Craig Oliver) hatchet job on Dion. Personally, I’m not sure whether boycotting the whole network is worthwhile or just boycotting Duffy’s show would be effective. But more power to James if he can get it organized (I suggested a Facebook group).

I’d like to take it a step further though and suggest to the Liberal Party that, regardless of the outcome on Tuesday, show your displeasure with Duffy by refusing to send Liberal spokespersons on the show until he and/or CTV apologize for their blatantly partisan and unethical behaviour - or, as Geoff Meeker of the St John’s Telegram suggested - release ALL the outtakes of Stephen Harper done in interviews and let’s see all of his bloopers that he was granted “do-overs’ for. (H/T: Ed Hollett)

The Democrats for the longest time did this to Fox News for their blatant partisanship and bias against them, and it should be apparent to all that Oliver and Duffy are Con. shills, and CTV is shortform for “Conservative TeleVision Network”. Until CTV and Duffy apologize, I say that Liberals should just stick to Don Newman’s show on CBC (which is the far superior show anyhow), and let Duffy know that Fox News North isn’t wanted up here.

PS - There was mention made earlier on one blog reminding people that in the 2004 2006 French-speaking debate, Harper said several times that he didn’t understand a particular question, and asked it to be repeated. I don’t remember anyone back them questioning his ability to lead the country because he asked for clarification on the topic in his second language. Where was Craig Oliver back then?

UPDATE @ 9:03 pm: Here’s the video for the 2006 French debate, where he repeatedly asked for clarification. Does that make him unfit to lead, because he can’t understand the question in his 2nd language? Of course it doesn’t… which makes it all the more ridiculous that CTV/Duffy/Oliver went unethical on this, and Harper decided to remind Canada that Mr. Sweater-guy is a “Con-job” he was attempting to pull the wool over Canadians eyes, as it were.

In brief, I was reading this post by Jeff this AM afternoon, and I have to say along the same lines that for a pro vs con debate on a controversial topic, such as Omar Khadr, CTV can certainly bring on to debate whoever it wants - the choice of US Navy JAG Lawyer  Lieutenant Commander William Kuebler, who is defending Khadr,  is a solid choice, and good on CTV for bringing him on. Everyone knows quite crystal clear where he stands and why his views are what they are.

But, CTV has a duty to the viewers to properly identify the representative of the opposing viewpoint above and beyond the rather vague description of him as a security analyst and former Crown prosecutor.  They should have mentioned, in my view, that he worked in Stockwell Day’s office at one point, and let people know this fact so they could see where his point of view is partially coming from. The fact he has rather extreme views on the Charter of Rights and the judiciary in Canada, as Jeff has pointed out at his blogpiece, also makes one wonder if CTV couldn’t have found a better representative to articulate that side of the argument.