In all seriousness, the major problem SunTV is going to face is the lack of any real political personalities or polarizing national political issues in Canada. It would certainly be possible to get some pundits a la O'Reilly, Beck, et cetera, but the other parts of the formula aren't present. There aren't Sarah Palins, Mike Huckabees and the like. No one is going to tune in to watch an exclusive interview with John Baird, Tony Clement or Vic Toews. Even if there were no one who is actually in the Conservative party is allowed to break the party imposed message discipline. A CPC member who made the sort of comments that Sarah Palin makes would never be allowed anywhere near a TV camera. Even Stephen Harper earned his conservative stripes as a policy wonk and is consistently running slightly right of center, rather than existing at the center of a right wing cult of personality. From a strategic point of view, what the Conservatives want to do is woo undecided, center right, middle class Canadians in rural and suburban ridings in Eastern Canada to, rather than energize and reinforce the world view of their base.
The second issue is the absence of polarizing national political issues. This isn't to say there is no polarization in Canadian politics, but the polarizing issues are regional rather than national. There's no analog to the American societal disconnect over issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, public health care, etc. This isn't to say there are no, say, anti-abortion activists in Canada, but rather there's no widespread public "pro-life" and "pro-choice" movement.
The other elephant in the room is that the dominant political narrative in the mainstream Canadian media is center right, dominated by Red Tories, Blue Liberals and moderate fiscal conservatives. Even in the supposedly socialist bowels of the vaunted Mother Corp (the CBC), the political panel is composed of two moderate conservatives (Coyne and Gregg) and a moderate liberal (Hebert). That's not to say that one can't cry "liberal bias" in order to shift the discourse rightward, but in the absence of the elements I described above, it's unlikely to draw the fanbase to make this happen.
What you are missing is that people like Fox News CREATED that environment. It didn't come from nowhere. It was nurtured and brought into being.
And parts of the Right Wing in this country are trying to do the same up here right now.
Some people on the Canadian right would certainly like to do that, but it's incorrect to assert that Fox News created the environment. The American right got started with developing support around conservative personalities in the 1960s and fully embraced the idea in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. The sharply polarization of the "culture war" is of a similar pedigree, was fully developed by the 1970s and has been going on ever since. Personality politics and the culture war laid the groundwork that allowed right-wing talk radio to develop, the very premise of which would be borderline nonsensical without the level of polarization and partisanship that developed from the culture war, and entities like Fox News developed from that. SunTV is banking on there being enough bleed over from the political culture of the U.S. for them to build a foundation on without the same level of development in the political culture of the right in Canada. That in itself is risky, because historically the right wing in Eastern Canada has been skeptical of the U.S. (and this is going back to the very beginning of Canada, as the roots of eastern conservatism and the Red Tories are partially intertwined with the United Empire Loyalists).
If I had to take a wild guess as to what the developers of this "Ultra patriotic right wing news program" were up to, I'd say that it was to try and point out how "bad" The liberals are down in the states (re: obama) and how if canada goes down that path we'll become some sort of hell hole.
Honestly this whole thing wreaks of CPC and possibly republican shenanigans.
If I had to take a wild guess as to what the developers of this "Ultra patriotic right wing news program" were up to, I'd say that it was to try and point out how "bad" The liberals are down in the states (re: obama) and how if canada goes down that path we'll become some sort of hell hole.
Honestly this whole thing wreaks of CPC and possibly republican shenanigans.
I'm glad we're so reasonable about something that doesn't exist yet.
Edit: Something you should consider is if competition is going to make the content of CBC and CTV better or worse. To me it's clear, it's going to mean more jobs for broadcast journalists (which is great for me, my friends and the industry) and it'll make the media landscape fuller.
Media is something that needs lots of voices. Skilled ones are better. But even if they endup being fools it's still better for journalism.
In all seriousness, the major problem SunTV is going to face is the lack of any real political personalities or polarizing national political issues in Canada. It would certainly be possible to get some pundits a la O'Reilly, Beck, et cetera, but the other parts of the formula aren't present. There aren't Sarah Palins, Mike Huckabees and the like. No one is going to tune in to watch an exclusive interview with John Baird, Tony Clement or Vic Toews. Even if there were no one who is actually in the Conservative party is allowed to break the party imposed message discipline. A CPC member who made the sort of comments that Sarah Palin makes would never be allowed anywhere near a TV camera. Even Stephen Harper earned his conservative stripes as a policy wonk and is consistently running slightly right of center, rather than existing at the center of a right wing cult of personality. From a strategic point of view, what the Conservatives want to do is woo undecided, center right, middle class Canadians in rural and suburban ridings in Eastern Canada to, rather than energize and reinforce the world view of their base.
The second issue is the absence of polarizing national political issues. This isn't to say there is no polarization in Canadian politics, but the polarizing issues are regional rather than national. There's no analog to the American societal disconnect over issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, public health care, etc. This isn't to say there are no, say, anti-abortion activists in Canada, but rather there's no widespread public "pro-life" and "pro-choice" movement.
The other elephant in the room is that the dominant political narrative in the mainstream Canadian media is center right, dominated by Red Tories, Blue Liberals and moderate fiscal conservatives. Even in the supposedly socialist bowels of the vaunted Mother Corp (the CBC), the political panel is composed of two moderate conservatives (Coyne and Gregg) and a moderate liberal (Hebert). That's not to say that one can't cry "liberal bias" in order to shift the discourse rightward, but in the absence of the elements I described above, it's unlikely to draw the fanbase to make this happen.
What you are missing is that people like Fox News CREATED that environment. It didn't come from nowhere. It was nurtured and brought into being.
And parts of the Right Wing in this country are trying to do the same up here right now.
Some people on the Canadian right would certainly like to do that, but it's incorrect to assert that Fox News created the environment. The American right got started with developing support around conservative personalities in the 1960s and fully embraced the idea in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. The sharply polarization of the "culture war" is of a similar pedigree, was fully developed by the 1970s and has been going on ever since. Personality politics and the culture war laid the groundwork that allowed right-wing talk radio to develop, the very premise of which would be borderline nonsensical without the level of polarization and partisanship that developed from the culture war, and entities like Fox News developed from that.
That's why I said people LIKE Fox News. Fox News is just the latest incarnation of a media movement that aimed, and succeeded, at tearing the American Right Wing away from Reality and the rest of their country. They grabbed the conservatives and spoon fed them Right Wing Propaganda, slowly ramping it up and up until now, like 40 years later, it's like talking to people who don't even speak the same language.
SunTV is banking on there being enough bleed over from the political culture of the U.S. for them to build a foundation on without the same level of development in the political culture of the right in Canada. That in itself is risky, because historically the right wing in Eastern Canada has been skeptical of the U.S. (and this is going back to the very beginning of Canada, as the roots of eastern conservatism and the Red Tories are partially intertwined with the United Empire Loyalists).
I don't know why you are focusing on the East. The very obvious target for this is the Conservative Party base and the like, mostly out West or Suburban Ontario and the like. The more American-style conservatives up here.
If I had to take a wild guess as to what the developers of this "Ultra patriotic right wing news program" were up to, I'd say that it was to try and point out how "bad" The liberals are down in the states (re: obama) and how if canada goes down that path we'll become some sort of hell hole.
Honestly this whole thing wreaks of CPC and possibly republican shenanigans.
I'm glad we're so reasonable about something that doesn't exist yet.
Edit: Something you should consider is if competition is going to make the content of CBC and CTV better or worse. To me it's clear, it's going to mean more jobs for broadcast journalists (which is great for me, my friends and the industry) and it'll make the media landscape fuller.
Media is something that needs lots of voices. Skilled ones are better. But even if they endup being fools it's still better for journalism.
I seriously contest the idea that a news organization dedicated to a polititical ideology is in anyways good for media.
Look at the big three in the US. All three have allowed the quality of there news to go into the shitter in order to push political ideology and chase ratings.
Media is something that needs lots of voices. Skilled ones are better. But even if they endup being fools it's still better for journalism.
I don't give a shit if it's good for your industry and will make you and your friends money, I care if it's good for the country. Having anyone even remotely like Coulter or Beck given a place to vent their stupidity and racism cannot be good for our country.
If I had to take a wild guess as to what the developers of this "Ultra patriotic right wing news program" were up to, I'd say that it was to try and point out how "bad" The liberals are down in the states (re: obama) and how if canada goes down that path we'll become some sort of hell hole.
Honestly this whole thing wreaks of CPC and possibly republican shenanigans.
I'm glad we're so reasonable about something that doesn't exist yet.
Edit: Something you should consider is if competition is going to make the content of CBC and CTV better or worse. To me it's clear, it's going to mean more jobs for broadcast journalists (which is great for me, my friends and the industry) and it'll make the media landscape fuller.
Media is something that needs lots of voices. Skilled ones are better. But even if they endup being fools it's still better for journalism.
I seriously contest the idea that a news organization dedicated to a polititical ideology is in anyways good for media.
Look at the big three in the US. All three have allowed the quality of there news to go into the shitter in order to push political ideology and chase ratings.
Exactly. More is not necessaritly better. In the case of the news media, a few good, objective, accurate, dull and bland voices are uncontestably better than a lot of ideoligally-motivated fact-distorting rating-grabbing newstanement voices.
Here's to hoping the CRTC does it's job and denies Fox News North a license.
I really think you guys are completely wrong when it comes to this.
News media sucks right now because there have been so many closures of newspapers. Because there aren't any 2 newspaper towns anymore. Does any city other than Toronto have 2 newspapers? It's competition for readers, for scoops and for stories that creates the environment for good journalism.
When there's only 1 game in town all you have to do is re-write press releases. Toronto has 2 big papers (Sun/Star) but most cities are becoming 1 paper towns. When you're guarenteed 100% of the newspaper audience you start cutting back. What's the most expensive kind of journalism? It's also the most prestigious: Investigative Journalism. Who needs prestige when you're the only community newspaper?
It's not possible for this to be bad for journalism. I'm completely serious. If Quebecor unearth half-truths and sensationalize (worst case scenario), then CBC/CTV (or a newspaper/magazine) can pick up where they failed and do real stories. Once a shitty story goes to air it identifies the sources used, that gives everything a journalist of a stronger news organizations needs to do a better story.
If Quebecor does a hatchetjob on tarsands, and fucks up a tarsand-safety story really bad, then the sources that should've been talked to will call up CTV and give them a scoop.
This is good for the media and it's good for the consumer.
---
Regarding Richy's post: When it comes to exchange of ideas, more is always better. You talk about the "big three" broadcast sites in the US. 3 Broadcast news stations for 300 million isn't exactly a lot. And the truth is most TV stations get their leads and their tips from newspapers, which have been dying.
If you want good journalism you're going to have to find a way to fill the void that Newspapers left. Because in terms of quality newspaper just kicks everyone's ass. Internet might find a way to do it sometime, but is missing something.
I really think you guys are completely wrong when it comes to this.
News media sucks right now because there have been so many closures of newspapers. Because there aren't any 2 newspaper towns anymore. Does any city other than Toronto have 2 newspapers? It's competition for readers, for scoops and for stories that creates the environment for good journalism.
When there's only 1 game in town all you have to do is re-write press releases.
I'm completely serious. It's not possible for this to be bad for journalism. If they unearth half-truths and sensationalize (worst case scenario), then CBC/CTV can pick up where they failed and do real stories. Once a shitty story goes to air it identifies the sources used, that gives everything a journalist of a stronger news organizations they need to do a better story.
If Quebecor does a hatchetjob on tarsands, and fucks up a tarsand-safety story really bad, then the sources that should've been talked to will call up CTV and give them a scoop.
This is good for the media and it's good for the consumer.
First off, your comparing apples and oranges. Newspapers =/= 24 hour news channels.
Second of all, you seem to have pointedly ignored what I said in regards to the US' big 3. All of them have been corrupted by there thirst for political ideology, punditry, sensationalism, and of course ratings.
Given that there mission statement seems to indicate that they are modelling themselves after fox news (nationalist, conservative, excitement > bland), I have a really hard time buying into the idea that this is good for journalism.
Loklar, are you completely oblivious to what has happened to the news media in the US since Fox News came around?
Fox News is worse than your worst-case scenario. They don't present half-truth, they downright make shit up and present editorials as facts. They distort, they cover up facts that contradicts them, they pass off Repblican party members as objective experts on issues, present never more than a strawman of the opposing viewpoints. But they do so with such a wow factor that they've managed to become the most watched news network in the USA by a very large margin. So where did this leave CNN and MSNBC? With advertisement (and therefore funding) naturally moving to the network with the most viewers, they've been forced, on the one hand, to cut their own investigative journalism to save money, and on the other to follow Fox's lead to try to win back viewers. And that's how the three big networks in the USA became newstainment and editorials instead of hard investigative news and analysis.
That's what will happen in Canada if we let Fox News North get in.
Competition is only good when all parties compete fairly. In the case of news networks, that means competing for the best quality journalism, the most thorough investigations, and the most complete analyses. When one party cheats and instead goes for cheap rating-grabbing made-up news, that's not fair competition anymore. And that is most definitely not good for the consumer.
It's all journalism. Does it really matter if a story breaks in print or on television? No. They are different media, with different strengths. But in terms of 'informing the public' or 'shinging a light' they can both do that. They just do it differently.
I could talk about the differences but that's a whole other discussion, but trust me. A really good shoeleather newspaper journalist would make a really good shoeleather broadcast journalist. The important stuff is the same.
Loklar, are you completely oblivious to what has happened to the news media in the US since Fox News came around?
Fox News is worse than your worst-case scenario. They don't present half-truth, they downright make shit up and present editorials as facts. They distort, they cover up facts that contradicts them, they pass off Repblican party members as objective experts on issues, present never more than a strawman of the opposing viewpoints. But they do so with such a wow factor that they've managed to become the most watched news network in the USA by a very large margin. So where did this leave CNN and MSNBC? With advertisement (and therefore funding) naturally moving to the network with the most viewers, they've been forced, on the one hand, to cut their own investigative journalism to save money, and on the other to follow Fox's lead to try to win back viewers. And that's how the three big networks in the USA became newstainment and editorials instead of hard investigative news and analysis.
That's what will happen in Canada if we let Fox News North get in.
Competition is only good when all parties compete fairly. In the case of news networks, that means competing for the best quality journalism, the most thorough investigations, and the most complete analyses. When one party cheats and instead goes for cheap rating-grabbing made-up news, that's not fair competition anymore. And that is most definitely not good for the consumer.
Did you know that CNN makes more money than Fox News? It's true.
If you look at Fox News, for somebody like Beck, who's incendiary but built a huge and very loyal audience, you know, a lot of the advertisers are people you might not want. So you might have, for example, not a Lexus ad but you might have an ad for people who are gold traders. You might have an ad for people who are - and this is literally one of their advertisers - people who will sell you seeds so that you can plant your own crops in the event of - an apocalyptic event happening, you will have foodstuffs for your family. These are unlikely to pay top dollar for commercials.
Also in school we heard that CNN's biggest income comes from selling it's massive archive of raw stock footage. Now you need photojournalists and videographers (AKA "journalists"), and telecommunication infrastructure to amass a huge library. Fox struggles with this because of it's focus on local stuff and opinion fluff.
It's all journalism. Does it really matter if a story breaks in print or on television? No. They are different media, with different strengths. But in terms of 'informing the public' or 'shinging a light' they can both do that. They just do it differently.
I could talk about the differences but that's a whole other discussion, but trust me. A really good shoeleather newspaper journalist would make a really good shoeleather broadcast journalist. The important stuff is the same.
ANSWER ME YOU SILLIEST OF GEESE: HOW IS A POLTICALLY BIASED NEWS ORGANIZATION GOOD FOR JOURNALISM?
The simple fact is that it isn't. it presents a corrupted view of the world and he facts that will damage the comprehension of reality for the viewers.
Note that when I say this I mean BOTH ends of the spectrum. If an organization came forward pushing for a MSNBC north I'd fight it tooth and nail.
If you were really part of a news organization you would be in full agreement with me that decemination of information should never be influenced by the political, social or religious ideals of the reporter or his editor.
It's all journalism. Does it really matter if a story breaks in print or on television? No. They are different media, with different strengths. But in terms of 'informing the public' or 'shinging a light' they can both do that. They just do it differently.
I could talk about the differences but that's a whole other discussion, but trust me. A really good shoeleather newspaper journalist would make a really good shoeleather broadcast journalist. The important stuff is the same.
ANSWER ME YOU SILLIEST OF GEESE: HOW IS A POLTICALLY BIASED NEWS ORGANIZATION GOOD FOR JOURNALISM?
The simple fact is that it isn't. it presents a corrupted view of the world and he facts that will damage the comprehension of reality for the viewers.
Note that when I say this I mean BOTH ends of the spectrum. If an organization came forward pushing for a MSNBC north I'd fight it tooth and nail.
If you were really part of a news organization you would be in full agreement with me that decemination of information should never be influenced by the political, social or religious ideals of the reporter or his editor.
Everything is biased. It's an impossible task to try and avoid bias. This is a first-year journalism talk. The CBC's mandate is biased, it's biased to cover Canadian stories. I heard from an oldtimer-colleague that we used to have different colour letterhead for when a new federal government came to power. Blue for Tories red for Grits.
"If you were really part of the..." I am really part of a news organization. You can visit my link to see that CNN makes more money than Fox doing news. You can take me at my word that newspapers are an intrinsic part of news ecosystem, and has been dying over the past 30 years (or just Google "newspaper deaths") and you'll probably find that that sinks up nicely with the decline of quality journalism.
Loklar, are you completely oblivious to what has happened to the news media in the US since Fox News came around?
Fox News is worse than your worst-case scenario. They don't present half-truth, they downright make shit up and present editorials as facts. They distort, they cover up facts that contradicts them, they pass off Repblican party members as objective experts on issues, present never more than a strawman of the opposing viewpoints. But they do so with such a wow factor that they've managed to become the most watched news network in the USA by a very large margin. So where did this leave CNN and MSNBC? With advertisement (and therefore funding) naturally moving to the network with the most viewers, they've been forced, on the one hand, to cut their own investigative journalism to save money, and on the other to follow Fox's lead to try to win back viewers. And that's how the three big networks in the USA became newstainment and editorials instead of hard investigative news and analysis.
That's what will happen in Canada if we let Fox News North get in.
Competition is only good when all parties compete fairly. In the case of news networks, that means competing for the best quality journalism, the most thorough investigations, and the most complete analyses. When one party cheats and instead goes for cheap rating-grabbing made-up news, that's not fair competition anymore. And that is most definitely not good for the consumer.
Did you know that CNN makes more money than Fox News? It's true.
If you look at Fox News, for somebody like Beck, who's incendiary but built a huge and very loyal audience, you know, a lot of the advertisers are people you might not want. So you might have, for example, not a Lexus ad but you might have an ad for people who are gold traders. You might have an ad for people who are - and this is literally one of their advertisers - people who will sell you seeds so that you can plant your own crops in the event of - an apocalyptic event happening, you will have foodstuffs for your family. These are unlikely to pay top dollar for commercials.
Also in school we heard that CNN's biggest income comes from selling it's massive archive of raw stock footage. Now you need photojournalists and videographers (AKA "journalists"), and telecommunication infrastructure to amass a huge library. Fox struggles with this because of it's focus on local stuff and opinion fluff.
No, Loklar, you're wrong again. CNN does not make more money than Fox. Very much the opposite, in fact.
At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined. The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year.
You'd think someone who claims to be an investigative journalist and despises just repeating a news report would actually investigate a claim rather than just repeat an NPR line.
I sometimes amazed how someone in this thread either completely misses the point, or is so disingenuous as to consistently muddy the waters by discussing facets that aren't being talked about.
And in case there is any confusion, your comment on bias, Loklar, is completely missing the point and is talking about a different facet of bias than what people are complaining about.
Everything is biased. It's an impossible task to try and avoid bias. This is a first-year journalism talk. The CBC's mandate is biased, it's biased to cover Canadian stories. I heard from an oldtimer-colleague that we used to have different colour letterhead for when a new federal government came to power. Blue for Tories red for Grits.
Giving coverage to a specific topic isn't a bias. CBC isn't biased towards Canadian stories, the Financial Post isn't biased towards business news, the comic pages in the Saturday paper aren't biased towards Garfield.
A bias is deliberately presenting the story in a way to make your prefered side look good. Saying that a news organization covers stories on topic X doesn't mean they are biased on topic X. As long as they are presenting the stories fairly and factually without twisting them to push their own prefered side, then they are not biased.
Jesus Christ Loklar, you do realize that walking past a university jounalism building one day doesn't make you a journalist, right? Because so far that's about the extent of the journalism skills you've shown.
Everything is biased. It's an impossible task to try and avoid bias. This is a first-year journalism talk. The CBC's mandate is biased, it's biased to cover Canadian stories. I heard from an oldtimer-colleague that we used to have different colour letterhead for when a new federal government came to power. Blue for Tories red for Grits.
Giving coverage to a specific topic isn't a bias. CBC isn't biased towards Canadian stories, the Financial Post isn't biased towards business news, the comic pages in the Saturday paper aren't biased towards Garfield.
A bias is deliberately presenting the story in a way to make your prefered side look good. Saying that a news organization covers stories on topic X doesn't mean they are biased on topic X. As long as they are presenting the stories fairly and factually without twisting them to push their own prefered side, then they are not biased.
Jesus Christ Loklar, you do realize that walking past a university jounalism building one day doesn't make you a journalist, right? Because so far that's about the extent of the journalism skills you've shown.
If you don't give a crap that I've studied journalism, or work in the field, that's fine. I'm not like Peter Mansbridge's secret internet avatar. I'm just a dude who works at the CBC. Feel free to lighten up a little though.
Anyways, if you want to talk about "political bias" are you going to argue that news organizations don't have that? Really? I'm sure the New York Times endorses election candidates, Canadian newspapers too. I was trying to show you a really obvious case of bias. But anything I say is going to get shit on. So like whatever. You win. The news organizations that you like aren't biased.
Because there totally exists unfiltered news out there somewhere, that isn't decided upon by, numerous, news editors with advertisers, CEO's and readership in mind.
This is totally dumb. I don't even know what I'm supposed to argue. That there isn't an unbiased source? Isn't that obvious? There is no such thing as an unbiased source.
So now (I'm assuming we agree there) the only question is whether more voices add or subtract to the landscape of journalism. Al Jazeera is coming to Canada, is that a good thing? What about Canwest almost closing it's doors? What about CBC's reduced funding?
I'm going to suggest to you, take it or leave it, that more voices are better. It's clear to me, and I've put out as good an argument as I can without being paid. Take it or leave it.
Anyways, if you want to talk about "political bias" are you going to argue that news organizations don't have that? Really? I'm sure the New York Times endorses election candidates, Canadian newspapers too. I was trying to show you a really obvious case of bias. But anything I say is going to get shit on. So like whatever. You win. The news organizations that you like aren't biased.
You called the CBC covering Canadian stories a "bias". I'm not arguing that news organizations are not biased. I'm arguing that you have no fucking clue what the word "bias" actually means.
So now (I'm assuming we agree there) the only question is whether more voices add or subtract to the landscape of journalism. Al Jazeera is coming to Canada, is that a good thing? What about Canwest almost closing it's doors? What about CBC's reduced funding?
We've gone over that, and you've ignored it. More voices dedicated to factual news reporting, investigating and analysing? Good thing. The Fox News voice dedicated to partisanship, slander, and sensationalism disguised as news? Not a good thing.
I'm going to suggest to you, take it or leave it, that more voices are better. It's clear to me, and I've put out as good an argument as I can without being paid. Take it or leave it.
No, you haven't put a good argument for it. You've put arguments that were immediately and thorougly disproven by several people in this thread. Those don't count as "good" arguments. In fact, we're all still waiting for you to put forward a good argument why Fox News North will improve our nation's news media.
You're continuing to miss the point. Nobody is arguing that media outlets do not have ideological or political biases. Please point out where someone is doing so. No, what we are pointing out is the difference between a healthy bias and an unhealthy one.
It's one thing to take facts and present them in such a fashion that they are beneficial to your side of the argument. I would suggest that such actions are unavoidable and can be construed as a healthy bias, and very much contribute to the media landscape. The problem lies with what organizations like Fox News does, which is what this SunTV station appears to be aiming to be like. Such organizations don't take facts and spin them to their sides advantage, no, they deliberately spread or create falsehoods and present them as news or fact. That will damage the quality and integrity of media in this country, and is not a voice that we should be adding to the conversation.
That's about as clearly as I can lay it out for you, and if your going to miss the point of that...
You're continuing to miss the point. Nobody is arguing that media outlets do not have ideological or political biases. Please point out where someone is doing so. No, what we are pointing out is the difference between a healthy bias and an unhealthy one.
It's one thing to take facts and present them in such a fashion that they are beneficial to your side of the argument. I would suggest that such actions are unavoidable and can be construed as a healthy bias, and very much contribute to the media landscape. The problem lies with what organizations like Fox News does, which is what this SunTV station appears to be aiming to be like. Such organizations don't take facts and spin them to their sides advantage, no, they deliberately spread or create falsehoods and present them as news or fact. That will damage the quality and integrity of media in this country, and is not a voice that we should be adding to the conversation.
That's about as clearly as I can lay it out for you, and if your going to miss the point of that...
Well you're making a "magnitude" argument. Which is fair enough, but I don't buy it. There's no such thing as a "the centre". How do you measure that something is far-left or just a little left?
This was Saggio's sage point awhile ago.
If a newsbroadcaster comes here to deliberately spread false-news, we have laws against that. If they only cover news where Conservative party does awesome, and only when the Liberal party fucks up, well then that's unfortunate. But that will empower Radio, Newspapers, Magazines and the internet to contribute a fresh perspective.
As long as they are presenting the stories fairly and factually without twisting them to push their own prefered side, then they are not biased.
Here Richy is arguing the "unbiased" is possible. So there are people who argue that unbiased is possible.
So oldmanken and I agree that unbiased isn't possible. So now we're at whether "a little" biased is possible or not. I say no. Everything comes from a perspective.
But I'd agree with is whether fairness exists. Which it does and we should strive for. And from there whether an unfair news-source help or hinders the news-landscape. I say the more voices the better.
If you silence a voice you're making a biased decision.
I am not making a 'magnitude' argument, the level of bias is irrelevant, as is which side of the aisle it comes from. I'm making an argument against the spread of falsehoods and disinformation, which is the goal of a Fox News style outlet. While there are laws which may deal with false-news, there are some very easy ways around it. My favourite, and a common Fox News ploy, is making a false statement and then later issuing a fine-print retraction/apology.
So no, you are continuing to miss the point of my argument, which makes me question the sincerity of your posting, as nobody can be this thick.
oldmanken on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
Richy was making a point about you using the term 'bias' to describe the CBC presenting Canadian news, Loklar. He wasn't saying any of the news organizations weren't biased.
I'm starting to think you're trolling because you shift your focus a little bit with every post avoiding directly dealing with the topic at hand.
I am not making a 'magnitude' argument, the level of bias is irrelevant, as is which side of the aisle it comes from. I'm making an argument against the spread of falsehoods and disinformation, which is the goal of a Fox News style outlet. While there are laws which may deal with false-news, there are some very easy ways around it. My favourite, and a common Fox News ploy, is making a false statement and then later issuing a fine-print retraction/apology.
So no, you are continuing to miss the point of my argument, which makes me question the sincerity of your posting, as nobody can be this thick.
In this country corrections are posted in the same size and the same visibility as the original mistake. Also it still leaves you open to be sued.
I know what Fox news story you're talking about. And Fox news used a defense that's not available in Canada.
Richy was making a point about you using the term 'bias' to describe the CBC presenting Canadian news, Loklar. He wasn't saying any of the news organizations weren't biased.
I'm starting to think you're trolling because you shift your focus a little bit with every post avoiding directly dealing with the topic at hand.
The post I quoted happened earlier-in-time than my post about the CBC having a Canadian bias. Which means that it wasn't a response to that particular post. Richy made the comment I quoted THEN I talked about CBC bias. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
Richy was making a point about you using the term 'bias' to describe the CBC presenting Canadian news, Loklar. He wasn't saying any of the news organizations weren't biased.
I'm starting to think you're trolling because you shift your focus a little bit with every post avoiding directly dealing with the topic at hand.
The post I quoted happened earlier-in-time than my post about the CBC having a Canadian bias. Which means that it wasn't a response to that particular post. Richy made the comment I quoted THEN I talked about CBC bias. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
No, you are now flat out lying...
The full post, with your quoted comment, showing you're full of shit and lying you're ass off:
Everything is biased. It's an impossible task to try and avoid bias. This is a first-year journalism talk. The CBC's mandate is biased, it's biased to cover Canadian stories. I heard from an oldtimer-colleague that we used to have different colour letterhead for when a new federal government came to power. Blue for Tories red for Grits.
Giving coverage to a specific topic isn't a bias. CBC isn't biased towards Canadian stories, the Financial Post isn't biased towards business news, the comic pages in the Saturday paper aren't biased towards Garfield.
A bias is deliberately presenting the story in a way to make your prefered side look good. Saying that a news organization covers stories on topic X doesn't mean they are biased on topic X. As long as they are presenting the stories fairly and factually without twisting them to push their own prefered side, then they are not biased.
Jesus Christ Loklar, you do realize that walking past a university jounalism building one day doesn't make you a journalist, right? Because so far that's about the extent of the journalism skills you've shown.
Richy was making a point about you using the term 'bias' to describe the CBC presenting Canadian news, Loklar. He wasn't saying any of the news organizations weren't biased.
I'm starting to think you're trolling because you shift your focus a little bit with every post avoiding directly dealing with the topic at hand.
The post I quoted happened earlier-in-time than my post about the CBC having a Canadian bias. Which means that it wasn't a response to that particular post. Richy made the comment I quoted THEN I talked about CBC bias. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
Not only did my post happen after your comment on CBC, but it quotes your comment on the CBC.
Richy was making a point about you using the term 'bias' to describe the CBC presenting Canadian news, Loklar. He wasn't saying any of the news organizations weren't biased.
I'm starting to think you're trolling because you shift your focus a little bit with every post avoiding directly dealing with the topic at hand.
The post I quoted happened earlier-in-time than my post about the CBC having a Canadian bias. Which means that it wasn't a response to that particular post. Richy made the comment I quoted THEN I talked about CBC bias. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
No, you are now flat out lying...
The full post, with your quoted comment, showing your full of shit and lying your ass off:
Everything is biased. It's an impossible task to try and avoid bias. This is a first-year journalism talk. The CBC's mandate is biased, it's biased to cover Canadian stories. I heard from an oldtimer-colleague that we used to have different colour letterhead for when a new federal government came to power. Blue for Tories red for Grits.
Giving coverage to a specific topic isn't a bias. CBC isn't biased towards Canadian stories, the Financial Post isn't biased towards business news, the comic pages in the Saturday paper aren't biased towards Garfield.
A bias is deliberately presenting the story in a way to make your prefered side look good. Saying that a news organization covers stories on topic X doesn't mean they are biased on topic X. As long as they are presenting the stories fairly and factually without twisting them to push their own prefered side, then they are not biased.
Jesus Christ Loklar, you do realize that walking past a university jounalism building one day doesn't make you a journalist, right? Because so far that's about the extent of the journalism skills you've shown.
Richy was making a point about you using the term 'bias' to describe the CBC presenting Canadian news, Loklar. He wasn't saying any of the news organizations weren't biased.
I'm starting to think you're trolling because you shift your focus a little bit with every post avoiding directly dealing with the topic at hand.
It's the way he always posts.
He's also got the worst ideas ever about journalism.
In all seriousness, the major problem SunTV is going to face is the lack of any real political personalities or polarizing national political issues in Canada. It would certainly be possible to get some pundits a la O'Reilly, Beck, et cetera, but the other parts of the formula aren't present. There aren't Sarah Palins, Mike Huckabees and the like. No one is going to tune in to watch an exclusive interview with John Baird, Tony Clement or Vic Toews. Even if there were no one who is actually in the Conservative party is allowed to break the party imposed message discipline. A CPC member who made the sort of comments that Sarah Palin makes would never be allowed anywhere near a TV camera. Even Stephen Harper earned his conservative stripes as a policy wonk and is consistently running slightly right of center, rather than existing at the center of a right wing cult of personality. From a strategic point of view, what the Conservatives want to do is woo undecided, center right, middle class Canadians in rural and suburban ridings in Eastern Canada to, rather than energize and reinforce the world view of their base.
The second issue is the absence of polarizing national political issues. This isn't to say there is no polarization in Canadian politics, but the polarizing issues are regional rather than national. There's no analog to the American societal disconnect over issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, public health care, etc. This isn't to say there are no, say, anti-abortion activists in Canada, but rather there's no widespread public "pro-life" and "pro-choice" movement.
The other elephant in the room is that the dominant political narrative in the mainstream Canadian media is center right, dominated by Red Tories, Blue Liberals and moderate fiscal conservatives. Even in the supposedly socialist bowels of the vaunted Mother Corp (the CBC), the political panel is composed of two moderate conservatives (Coyne and Gregg) and a moderate liberal (Hebert). That's not to say that one can't cry "liberal bias" in order to shift the discourse rightward, but in the absence of the elements I described above, it's unlikely to draw the fanbase to make this happen.
What you are missing is that people like Fox News CREATED that environment. It didn't come from nowhere. It was nurtured and brought into being.
And parts of the Right Wing in this country are trying to do the same up here right now.
Some people on the Canadian right would certainly like to do that, but it's incorrect to assert that Fox News created the environment. The American right got started with developing support around conservative personalities in the 1960s and fully embraced the idea in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. The sharply polarization of the "culture war" is of a similar pedigree, was fully developed by the 1970s and has been going on ever since. Personality politics and the culture war laid the groundwork that allowed right-wing talk radio to develop, the very premise of which would be borderline nonsensical without the level of polarization and partisanship that developed from the culture war, and entities like Fox News developed from that.
That's why I said people LIKE Fox News. Fox News is just the latest incarnation of a media movement that aimed, and succeeded, at tearing the American Right Wing away from Reality and the rest of their country. They grabbed the conservatives and spoon fed them Right Wing Propaganda, slowly ramping it up and up until now, like 40 years later, it's like talking to people who don't even speak the same language.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "like" Fox News, but if you mean as a media entity then I'm afraid I have to disagree. Right wing media (talk radio and subsequently Fox News) are a result of movement conservatism (the combination of political personalities and cultural polarization), not a cause of it. They help reinforce an ideological echo chamber, but they didn't create that echo chamber. In order for these media outlets to even exist, you have to have a critical mass of people whose political culture is so completely alienated from traditional media sources that they perceive said sources to be on the other side. The world view you are speaking of precedes the media, which is a tool used to reinforce and shift the discourse to the right.
SunTV is banking on there being enough bleed over from the political culture of the U.S. for them to build a foundation on without the same level of development in the political culture of the right in Canada. That in itself is risky, because historically the right wing in Eastern Canada has been skeptical of the U.S. (and this is going back to the very beginning of Canada, as the roots of eastern conservatism and the Red Tories are partially intertwined with the United Empire Loyalists).
I don't know why you are focusing on the East. The very obvious target for this is the Conservative Party base and the like, mostly out West or Suburban Ontario and the like. The more American-style conservatives up here.
I completely disagree that the target is the CPC base, particularly the Western Canadian base. To define my terms, when I'm talking about Eastern Canada, I'm referring to English speaking Canada from Ontario eastward. Western Canada is everything West of that. Francophones in Quebec are a seperate matter, which I'll touch on briefly. To address the West for a moment, running anything too extreme is a strategic risk because it jeopardizes the CPC's party machinery in Alberta (under strain already from the folks who are voting Wild Rose provincially) and puts weak backbenchers in Western ridings (i.e. Rob Anders) under threat. That said, the reason I have been dwelling on Eastern Canada is because that's where the CPC needs to win seats in order to get a majority government - they are already doing as well as they can reasonably hope to do in the West and they have been unable to woo Quebec voters in sufficient numbers to make the serious gains required to win additional seats there. Stephen Harper needs to get a majority government (quite possibly no later than the next election) or he will be ousted as party leader. SunTV is being managed by allies of Stephen Harper, so they are likely to be supportive of his strategic interests and unlikely to act contrary to them. Reinforcing the base of right wind ideologues in Ontario is contrary to the objective of winning more seats, as they are already all voting Conservative. The requirement is to get more of the sort of people who will vote for a right of center candidate regardless of whether they are Liberal or Conservative. Positioning one's message too far to the right (in the style of Republicans in the U.S. and things like their loyalty pledge) risks alienating these people and driving them to either stay home or vote Liberal. Historically speaking, such voters have always been skeptical of right-wing populism of the sort being discussed, something that can be traced back at least as far as the Social Credit movement.
I am sorry about getting the chronology in Richy's post wrong.
But now that we agree that unbiased is impossible, all we are left with is our government making a decision on who's allowed to have a tv news station. That's really not an unbiased decision, it's a political decision by default. And, if there are Canadians clamouring for crazy news, there is the Internet. So the crazies are going to have an outlet anyway.
Unless you want the CRTC to control the Internet too, which I doubt.
The fact is that there is no professional organization that decides what is news or who are journalists. If you want to silence voices then you're taking on the roll of a censor. If you petition the government to deny Quebecor from having this company then you're doing the same thing.
Maybe their news network will be terrible. But how will that affect you? Just don't watch it. But if you believe in the freedom of speech then you can't be too against this network, beyond just not wanting to watch it or just wanting to shit all over it.
But advocating for a CRTC block to a Canadian media company because of it's political rhetoric falls in the camp oh "I hope for censorship," which is what makes me mad. And all I was trying to convey.
If it spreads false news, that is illegal here. So all you have to worry about is some rednecks you don't like liking this channel.
See, you're moving the goal posts again and changing the topic of the discussion.
I'm in no way suggesting that SunTV should not be allowed to broadcast, as they most certainly should be able to. What I'm arguing and commenting about is whether or not such a station will contribute to the quality of the political discourse in this country. I think it's a pretty damn impossible argument to make that it will be a good thing to have a deceitful and disingenuous 'news' organization, as part of the political discourse. I'm pretty sure that's the argument that others here are making, and I've yet to see a convincing argument of the opposite.
Dude, it's a false dichotomy/false generalization that just because bias is unavoidable, ALL bias is therefore acceptable. You might as well say sexism is unavoidable because men and women are fundamentally different, so the honour killing of women is okay. Like even if you win the damn argument about who's biased and who isn't biased and what's biased or not, you STILL don't address the actual point that this channel will not be good for the news industry. Which STILL in turn doesn't address the actual point about whether this channel will be good for the country.
Which... I'm not sure of. I think your reasoning for why competition -> better media is a terrible justification though, rooted in the same flawed understanding of economics that many conservatives hold. Because the news media doesn't compete over who has BETTER coverage; they compete over who has more viewers. If more viewers arise from shittier coverage, competition will actually move them towards shittier coverage, which seems to be what's happened in the US with Fox News (though US news media was already rather shitty even beforehand).
As an analogy, the idea that having MORE politicians in an election makes it more competitive makes for a better winner isn't true. It can, though not necessarily, result in worse politicking because the fragmented voter base causes polarization and extremism in the campaigns, as well as more negative campaigning and pandering. The more candidates in the running, the less likely you're going to get one of them campaigning on an increase in taxes, because that causes them to stand out like a sore thumb and opens them up to negative attacks from more sides, even if a tax increase would be the economically prudent choice at that time. This is because they don't compete over better politicking and better platforms; they compete over more votes, and the strict correlation that would ideally be there often does not hold.
---
And also, I'd have to say I've found The Toronto Star's reporting has actually been better in the last few years than before, as they settled down into a nice balance of international and local news. They used to focus too hard on the local-ish stuff, but still in broad, after-the-fact contexts. Now they have a sharply dedicated World section and their local coverage is a lot more down-to-earth with important political and economic pieces about things-to-come rather than just things-that-have-happened, and added a lot more investigative reporting. I think this has actually been a result of the collapsing newspaper market, as they've focused more on those who will stick with newspapers over Internet/TV news, as in those who will want analysis and investigative reporting rather than post hoc news collations. They have a system for regular online surveys for reader feedback too that I'm a part of.
So in their case, I think lower levels of competition actually correlated with improved quality.
Posts
Some people on the Canadian right would certainly like to do that, but it's incorrect to assert that Fox News created the environment. The American right got started with developing support around conservative personalities in the 1960s and fully embraced the idea in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. The sharply polarization of the "culture war" is of a similar pedigree, was fully developed by the 1970s and has been going on ever since. Personality politics and the culture war laid the groundwork that allowed right-wing talk radio to develop, the very premise of which would be borderline nonsensical without the level of polarization and partisanship that developed from the culture war, and entities like Fox News developed from that. SunTV is banking on there being enough bleed over from the political culture of the U.S. for them to build a foundation on without the same level of development in the political culture of the right in Canada. That in itself is risky, because historically the right wing in Eastern Canada has been skeptical of the U.S. (and this is going back to the very beginning of Canada, as the roots of eastern conservatism and the Red Tories are partially intertwined with the United Empire Loyalists).
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Honestly this whole thing wreaks of CPC and possibly republican shenanigans.
I'm glad we're so reasonable about something that doesn't exist yet.
Edit: Something you should consider is if competition is going to make the content of CBC and CTV better or worse. To me it's clear, it's going to mean more jobs for broadcast journalists (which is great for me, my friends and the industry) and it'll make the media landscape fuller.
Media is something that needs lots of voices. Skilled ones are better. But even if they endup being fools it's still better for journalism.
That's why I said people LIKE Fox News. Fox News is just the latest incarnation of a media movement that aimed, and succeeded, at tearing the American Right Wing away from Reality and the rest of their country. They grabbed the conservatives and spoon fed them Right Wing Propaganda, slowly ramping it up and up until now, like 40 years later, it's like talking to people who don't even speak the same language.
I don't know why you are focusing on the East. The very obvious target for this is the Conservative Party base and the like, mostly out West or Suburban Ontario and the like. The more American-style conservatives up here.
I seriously contest the idea that a news organization dedicated to a polititical ideology is in anyways good for media.
Look at the big three in the US. All three have allowed the quality of there news to go into the shitter in order to push political ideology and chase ratings.
I don't give a shit if it's good for your industry and will make you and your friends money, I care if it's good for the country. Having anyone even remotely like Coulter or Beck given a place to vent their stupidity and racism cannot be good for our country.
Exactly. More is not necessaritly better. In the case of the news media, a few good, objective, accurate, dull and bland voices are uncontestably better than a lot of ideoligally-motivated fact-distorting rating-grabbing newstanement voices.
Here's to hoping the CRTC does it's job and denies Fox News North a license.
ahahahahahhahahaha
News media sucks right now because there have been so many closures of newspapers. Because there aren't any 2 newspaper towns anymore. Does any city other than Toronto have 2 newspapers? It's competition for readers, for scoops and for stories that creates the environment for good journalism.
When there's only 1 game in town all you have to do is re-write press releases. Toronto has 2 big papers (Sun/Star) but most cities are becoming 1 paper towns. When you're guarenteed 100% of the newspaper audience you start cutting back. What's the most expensive kind of journalism? It's also the most prestigious: Investigative Journalism. Who needs prestige when you're the only community newspaper?
It's not possible for this to be bad for journalism. I'm completely serious. If Quebecor unearth half-truths and sensationalize (worst case scenario), then CBC/CTV (or a newspaper/magazine) can pick up where they failed and do real stories. Once a shitty story goes to air it identifies the sources used, that gives everything a journalist of a stronger news organizations needs to do a better story.
If Quebecor does a hatchetjob on tarsands, and fucks up a tarsand-safety story really bad, then the sources that should've been talked to will call up CTV and give them a scoop.
This is good for the media and it's good for the consumer.
---
Regarding Richy's post: When it comes to exchange of ideas, more is always better. You talk about the "big three" broadcast sites in the US. 3 Broadcast news stations for 300 million isn't exactly a lot. And the truth is most TV stations get their leads and their tips from newspapers, which have been dying.
If you want good journalism you're going to have to find a way to fill the void that Newspapers left. Because in terms of quality newspaper just kicks everyone's ass. Internet might find a way to do it sometime, but is missing something.
First off, your comparing apples and oranges. Newspapers =/= 24 hour news channels.
Second of all, you seem to have pointedly ignored what I said in regards to the US' big 3. All of them have been corrupted by there thirst for political ideology, punditry, sensationalism, and of course ratings.
Given that there mission statement seems to indicate that they are modelling themselves after fox news (nationalist, conservative, excitement > bland), I have a really hard time buying into the idea that this is good for journalism.
Fox News is worse than your worst-case scenario. They don't present half-truth, they downright make shit up and present editorials as facts. They distort, they cover up facts that contradicts them, they pass off Repblican party members as objective experts on issues, present never more than a strawman of the opposing viewpoints. But they do so with such a wow factor that they've managed to become the most watched news network in the USA by a very large margin. So where did this leave CNN and MSNBC? With advertisement (and therefore funding) naturally moving to the network with the most viewers, they've been forced, on the one hand, to cut their own investigative journalism to save money, and on the other to follow Fox's lead to try to win back viewers. And that's how the three big networks in the USA became newstainment and editorials instead of hard investigative news and analysis.
That's what will happen in Canada if we let Fox News North get in.
Competition is only good when all parties compete fairly. In the case of news networks, that means competing for the best quality journalism, the most thorough investigations, and the most complete analyses. When one party cheats and instead goes for cheap rating-grabbing made-up news, that's not fair competition anymore. And that is most definitely not good for the consumer.
I could talk about the differences but that's a whole other discussion, but trust me. A really good shoeleather newspaper journalist would make a really good shoeleather broadcast journalist. The important stuff is the same.
Did you know that CNN makes more money than Fox News? It's true.
Edit: Source
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125394661&ft=1&f=1020
Also in school we heard that CNN's biggest income comes from selling it's massive archive of raw stock footage. Now you need photojournalists and videographers (AKA "journalists"), and telecommunication infrastructure to amass a huge library. Fox struggles with this because of it's focus on local stuff and opinion fluff.
Also, Television and Print journalism are vastly different.
ANSWER ME YOU SILLIEST OF GEESE: HOW IS A POLTICALLY BIASED NEWS ORGANIZATION GOOD FOR JOURNALISM?
The simple fact is that it isn't. it presents a corrupted view of the world and he facts that will damage the comprehension of reality for the viewers.
Note that when I say this I mean BOTH ends of the spectrum. If an organization came forward pushing for a MSNBC north I'd fight it tooth and nail.
If you were really part of a news organization you would be in full agreement with me that decemination of information should never be influenced by the political, social or religious ideals of the reporter or his editor.
Everything is biased. It's an impossible task to try and avoid bias. This is a first-year journalism talk. The CBC's mandate is biased, it's biased to cover Canadian stories. I heard from an oldtimer-colleague that we used to have different colour letterhead for when a new federal government came to power. Blue for Tories red for Grits.
"If you were really part of the..." I am really part of a news organization. You can visit my link to see that CNN makes more money than Fox doing news. You can take me at my word that newspapers are an intrinsic part of news ecosystem, and has been dying over the past 30 years (or just Google "newspaper deaths") and you'll probably find that that sinks up nicely with the decline of quality journalism.
No, Loklar, you're wrong again. CNN does not make more money than Fox. Very much the opposite, in fact.
It's true.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67965294-6903-11df-910b-00144feab49a.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html
You'd think someone who claims to be an investigative journalist and despises just repeating a news report would actually investigate a claim rather than just repeat an NPR line.
And in case there is any confusion, your comment on bias, Loklar, is completely missing the point and is talking about a different facet of bias than what people are complaining about.
Giving coverage to a specific topic isn't a bias. CBC isn't biased towards Canadian stories, the Financial Post isn't biased towards business news, the comic pages in the Saturday paper aren't biased towards Garfield.
A bias is deliberately presenting the story in a way to make your prefered side look good. Saying that a news organization covers stories on topic X doesn't mean they are biased on topic X. As long as they are presenting the stories fairly and factually without twisting them to push their own prefered side, then they are not biased.
Jesus Christ Loklar, you do realize that walking past a university jounalism building one day doesn't make you a journalist, right? Because so far that's about the extent of the journalism skills you've shown.
If you don't give a crap that I've studied journalism, or work in the field, that's fine. I'm not like Peter Mansbridge's secret internet avatar. I'm just a dude who works at the CBC. Feel free to lighten up a little though.
Anyways, if you want to talk about "political bias" are you going to argue that news organizations don't have that? Really? I'm sure the New York Times endorses election candidates, Canadian newspapers too. I was trying to show you a really obvious case of bias. But anything I say is going to get shit on. So like whatever. You win. The news organizations that you like aren't biased.
Because there totally exists unfiltered news out there somewhere, that isn't decided upon by, numerous, news editors with advertisers, CEO's and readership in mind.
This is totally dumb. I don't even know what I'm supposed to argue. That there isn't an unbiased source? Isn't that obvious? There is no such thing as an unbiased source.
So now (I'm assuming we agree there) the only question is whether more voices add or subtract to the landscape of journalism. Al Jazeera is coming to Canada, is that a good thing? What about Canwest almost closing it's doors? What about CBC's reduced funding?
I'm going to suggest to you, take it or leave it, that more voices are better. It's clear to me, and I've put out as good an argument as I can without being paid. Take it or leave it.
We've gone over that, and you've ignored it. More voices dedicated to factual news reporting, investigating and analysing? Good thing. The Fox News voice dedicated to partisanship, slander, and sensationalism disguised as news? Not a good thing.
No, you haven't put a good argument for it. You've put arguments that were immediately and thorougly disproven by several people in this thread. Those don't count as "good" arguments. In fact, we're all still waiting for you to put forward a good argument why Fox News North will improve our nation's news media.
2 news stations is better then 2 news stations and 10 Fox News-style "News" Stations.
Strangely, the QUALITY of said voices actually matters.
Given the way you argue I doubt you've made it through university.
It's one thing to take facts and present them in such a fashion that they are beneficial to your side of the argument. I would suggest that such actions are unavoidable and can be construed as a healthy bias, and very much contribute to the media landscape. The problem lies with what organizations like Fox News does, which is what this SunTV station appears to be aiming to be like. Such organizations don't take facts and spin them to their sides advantage, no, they deliberately spread or create falsehoods and present them as news or fact. That will damage the quality and integrity of media in this country, and is not a voice that we should be adding to the conversation.
That's about as clearly as I can lay it out for you, and if your going to miss the point of that...
Well you're making a "magnitude" argument. Which is fair enough, but I don't buy it. There's no such thing as a "the centre". How do you measure that something is far-left or just a little left?
This was Saggio's sage point awhile ago.
If a newsbroadcaster comes here to deliberately spread false-news, we have laws against that. If they only cover news where Conservative party does awesome, and only when the Liberal party fucks up, well then that's unfortunate. But that will empower Radio, Newspapers, Magazines and the internet to contribute a fresh perspective.
Here Richy is arguing the "unbiased" is possible. So there are people who argue that unbiased is possible.
So oldmanken and I agree that unbiased isn't possible. So now we're at whether "a little" biased is possible or not. I say no. Everything comes from a perspective.
But I'd agree with is whether fairness exists. Which it does and we should strive for. And from there whether an unfair news-source help or hinders the news-landscape. I say the more voices the better.
If you silence a voice you're making a biased decision.
So no, you are continuing to miss the point of my argument, which makes me question the sincerity of your posting, as nobody can be this thick.
I'm starting to think you're trolling because you shift your focus a little bit with every post avoiding directly dealing with the topic at hand.
In this country corrections are posted in the same size and the same visibility as the original mistake. Also it still leaves you open to be sued.
I know what Fox news story you're talking about. And Fox news used a defense that's not available in Canada.
Yeah I totally am!
The post I quoted happened earlier-in-time than my post about the CBC having a Canadian bias. Which means that it wasn't a response to that particular post. Richy made the comment I quoted THEN I talked about CBC bias. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
No, you are now flat out lying...
The full post, with your quoted comment, showing you're full of shit and lying you're ass off:
Not only did my post happen after your comment on CBC, but it quotes your comment on the CBC.
Ahhh fuck. I thought I was right. Made a mistake.
Edit: Of course I searched it myself.
It's the way he always posts.
He's also got the worst ideas ever about journalism.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "like" Fox News, but if you mean as a media entity then I'm afraid I have to disagree. Right wing media (talk radio and subsequently Fox News) are a result of movement conservatism (the combination of political personalities and cultural polarization), not a cause of it. They help reinforce an ideological echo chamber, but they didn't create that echo chamber. In order for these media outlets to even exist, you have to have a critical mass of people whose political culture is so completely alienated from traditional media sources that they perceive said sources to be on the other side. The world view you are speaking of precedes the media, which is a tool used to reinforce and shift the discourse to the right.
I completely disagree that the target is the CPC base, particularly the Western Canadian base. To define my terms, when I'm talking about Eastern Canada, I'm referring to English speaking Canada from Ontario eastward. Western Canada is everything West of that. Francophones in Quebec are a seperate matter, which I'll touch on briefly. To address the West for a moment, running anything too extreme is a strategic risk because it jeopardizes the CPC's party machinery in Alberta (under strain already from the folks who are voting Wild Rose provincially) and puts weak backbenchers in Western ridings (i.e. Rob Anders) under threat. That said, the reason I have been dwelling on Eastern Canada is because that's where the CPC needs to win seats in order to get a majority government - they are already doing as well as they can reasonably hope to do in the West and they have been unable to woo Quebec voters in sufficient numbers to make the serious gains required to win additional seats there. Stephen Harper needs to get a majority government (quite possibly no later than the next election) or he will be ousted as party leader. SunTV is being managed by allies of Stephen Harper, so they are likely to be supportive of his strategic interests and unlikely to act contrary to them. Reinforcing the base of right wind ideologues in Ontario is contrary to the objective of winning more seats, as they are already all voting Conservative. The requirement is to get more of the sort of people who will vote for a right of center candidate regardless of whether they are Liberal or Conservative. Positioning one's message too far to the right (in the style of Republicans in the U.S. and things like their loyalty pledge) risks alienating these people and driving them to either stay home or vote Liberal. Historically speaking, such voters have always been skeptical of right-wing populism of the sort being discussed, something that can be traced back at least as far as the Social Credit movement.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
But now that we agree that unbiased is impossible, all we are left with is our government making a decision on who's allowed to have a tv news station. That's really not an unbiased decision, it's a political decision by default. And, if there are Canadians clamouring for crazy news, there is the Internet. So the crazies are going to have an outlet anyway.
Unless you want the CRTC to control the Internet too, which I doubt.
The fact is that there is no professional organization that decides what is news or who are journalists. If you want to silence voices then you're taking on the roll of a censor. If you petition the government to deny Quebecor from having this company then you're doing the same thing.
Maybe their news network will be terrible. But how will that affect you? Just don't watch it. But if you believe in the freedom of speech then you can't be too against this network, beyond just not wanting to watch it or just wanting to shit all over it.
But advocating for a CRTC block to a Canadian media company because of it's political rhetoric falls in the camp oh "I hope for censorship," which is what makes me mad. And all I was trying to convey.
If it spreads false news, that is illegal here. So all you have to worry about is some rednecks you don't like liking this channel.
I'm in no way suggesting that SunTV should not be allowed to broadcast, as they most certainly should be able to. What I'm arguing and commenting about is whether or not such a station will contribute to the quality of the political discourse in this country. I think it's a pretty damn impossible argument to make that it will be a good thing to have a deceitful and disingenuous 'news' organization, as part of the political discourse. I'm pretty sure that's the argument that others here are making, and I've yet to see a convincing argument of the opposite.
Which... I'm not sure of. I think your reasoning for why competition -> better media is a terrible justification though, rooted in the same flawed understanding of economics that many conservatives hold. Because the news media doesn't compete over who has BETTER coverage; they compete over who has more viewers. If more viewers arise from shittier coverage, competition will actually move them towards shittier coverage, which seems to be what's happened in the US with Fox News (though US news media was already rather shitty even beforehand).
As an analogy, the idea that having MORE politicians in an election makes it more competitive makes for a better winner isn't true. It can, though not necessarily, result in worse politicking because the fragmented voter base causes polarization and extremism in the campaigns, as well as more negative campaigning and pandering. The more candidates in the running, the less likely you're going to get one of them campaigning on an increase in taxes, because that causes them to stand out like a sore thumb and opens them up to negative attacks from more sides, even if a tax increase would be the economically prudent choice at that time. This is because they don't compete over better politicking and better platforms; they compete over more votes, and the strict correlation that would ideally be there often does not hold.
---
And also, I'd have to say I've found The Toronto Star's reporting has actually been better in the last few years than before, as they settled down into a nice balance of international and local news. They used to focus too hard on the local-ish stuff, but still in broad, after-the-fact contexts. Now they have a sharply dedicated World section and their local coverage is a lot more down-to-earth with important political and economic pieces about things-to-come rather than just things-that-have-happened, and added a lot more investigative reporting. I think this has actually been a result of the collapsing newspaper market, as they've focused more on those who will stick with newspapers over Internet/TV news, as in those who will want analysis and investigative reporting rather than post hoc news collations. They have a system for regular online surveys for reader feedback too that I'm a part of.
So in their case, I think lower levels of competition actually correlated with improved quality.