Foxnews NORTH?

[kimmy]

It's not only available in Toronto. I watch To Serve and Protect on it all of the time.

Satellite package?

I think I made my point. It isn't my point that you can't seem to understand. I am not in favour of turning news into a farce. By basing this station on Fox News, that's what's going to happen. The news part of Fox News is fine. What comes after...not so much.

The claim that it's "based on Fox news" is a presumption of critics with their own axes to grind.

-k

[Smallc]

Satellite package?

Yes

The claim that it's "based on Fox news" is a presumption of critics with their own axes to grind.

-k

They've described it as more exciting than a normal news channel. IMO, that's a bad sign.

[Smallc]

So a network that airs slanted documentaries and gives biased journalists their own shows to advocate for their particular causes would be bad?

-k

Yes...if they're passing it off as news it is. CBC News Network and CTV News Channel don't do that (and before you start on AGW, that's a non partisan issue that is, by and large, considered settled).

[Jack Weber]

Yes

They've described it as more exciting than a normal news channel. IMO, that's a bad sign.

You mean the inflammatory idiocy the likes of Glenn Beck,Sean Hannity,and,Bill O'Reilly pass of as news?

To be fair,Olbermann and Rachel Madow are'nt helping the situation...

[Smallc]

MSNBC is little if any better.

[Jack Weber]

MSNBC is little if any better.

They're not!

And that's my fear that if we some sort of deliberately imflammatory right wing editorialising channel,things will end up like they are in the States.This is where people go into ideological camps,talk only to like minded people,frankly getto the point of degrading opposing points of view,and,talk and shout at each other instead of having a constructive debate.In fact,I would think it might cause a backlash,that would have places like the Ceeb go further to the left,polarizing things even more.

I'm not opposed to it,in fact,I might watch it occasionally.But I don't see the need for it,or how it's going to be helpful.Of course,last night I was told it does'nt natter if its helpful...

[Smallc]

I don't need to reply, because those are my thoughts exactly.

[Jack Weber]

OK then....

[kimmy]

Yes...if they're passing it off as news it is. CBC News Network and CTV News Channel don't do that (and before you start on AGW, that's a non partisan issue that is, by and large, considered settled).

What about Michael Moore movies? Are those non-partisan too? What about giving Avi Lewis a show? Is Avi Lewis non-partisan?

-k

[Smallc]

What about Michael Moore movies? Are those non-partisan too? What about giving Avi Lewis a show? Is Avi Lewis non-partisan?

Well, like I said, everything has bias...that doesn't make it right. Now, what about CTVNC?

Oh, and it hasn't been Newsworld for almost a year.

[kimmy]

Well, like I said, everything has bias...that doesn't make it right.

I just find it odd that people who are so up in arms against a possible right-leaning broadcaster seem perfectly accepting of CBC NW.

It makes me think that it's not bias they hate... it's biases they don't agree with.

Now, what about CTVNC?

What about 'em?

Oh, and it hasn't been Newsworld for almost a year.

They rebranded? And I missed it??

-k

[Smallc]

I just find it odd that people who are so up in arms against a possible right-leaning broadcaster seem perfectly accepting of CBC NW.

It makes me think that it's not bias they hate... it's biases they don't agree with.

It's not bias I hate, it's biased entertainment being put forward as news...especially when said entertainment causes massive polarization.

What about 'em?

Im just saying, there is a pretty non biased non nonsense news network available (and things like The National on CBC are no worse than it). People here don't seem to think so, but you really can't get much more unbiased than CTV.

They rebranded? And I missed it??

-k

CBC News Network...in October or so.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Smallc

[kimmy]

It's not bias I hate, it's biased entertainment being put forward as news...especially when said entertainment causes massive polarization.

You don't really think that a right-wing news outlet *creates* polarization, do you?

Canadians are *already* polarized. Read the comments section of a CBC or National Post website. Or visit blogs and forums. That polarization is already there.

For the record, I think the problem with the CBC (all branches) is primarily of omission. (they'll give you Michael Moore and Avi Lewis and Anna Maria Tremonti, but no corresponding opposing views).

Im just saying, there is a pretty non biased non nonsense news network available (and things like The National on CBC are no worse than it). People here don't seem to think so, but you really can't get much more unbiased than CTV.

Sure, they're swell. All I'm asking is why can I watch Michael Moore but not Undercover Mosque?

-k

[dre]

You don't really think that a right-wing news outlet *creates* polarization, do you?

Canadians are *already* polarized. Read the comments section of a CBC or National Post website. Or visit blogs and forums. That polarization is already there.

For the record, I think the problem with the CBC (all branches) is primarily of omission. (they'll give you Michael Moore and Avi Lewis and Anna Maria Tremonti, but no corresponding opposing views).

Sure, they're swell. All I'm asking is why can I watch Michael Moore but not Undercover Mosque?

-k

I dont mind the bias so much. The thing Im worried about when it comes to having American styles infotainment networks up here similar to Fox, and CNN, and that some people really cant tell its just entertainment. They thing its news!!!

Regardless of the political slant, I miss the days when news was one hour at 6:00 that summarized the known facts about important stories. Now days they stretch the same ammount of news into 24 hours by adding 15 editorials, celebrity cream-puff shows etc. Watching Larry King interview Liza Manelli 5 fucking nights a week ISNT news. Expose's about Michael Jacksons 15th nose job ISNT news.

I want some boring old ugly dude like Walter Kronkite to dispassionately dead-pan out facts about the day's events. I dont want editorializing, or "expert analysis" and the reporters should keep their opinions to themselves.

You don't really think that a right-wing news outlet *creates* polarization, do you?

I think that editorializing and firebrand pundits create polarization and make big bucks doing so. And they pollute both sides of the political spectrum not just the "right wing".

And the terms "right wing news" and "left wing news" are oxymorons. Facts dont join political parties. Any slant is dishonest and thats why editorializing, punditry, and so-called "expert analysis" is so bad.

Edited June 15, 2010 by dre

[bloodyminded]

Sure, these mega corporations with explicit ties to Establishment Power, and whose sources (including for the CBC) are overwhelmingly skewed to the spokespeople for Government and Big Business...why, they are biased towards "the left," while the "Right" is unfairly marginalized....

Does anyone bother with looking into the complex institutional factors of news media before posting? Or do they just speak from some general "personal impression" fed by such luminaries as Mark Steyn?

This "debate" is a joke. More than almost any other popular subject, there is a palpable ignorance about "leftist bias in the media" theme that is astonishing.

So what we get is the notion of Marxist corporations who are too critical of Power.

Hmmm. Sure, that's a reasonable hypothesis.....

[bush_cheney2004]

I dont mind the bias so much. The thing Im worried about when it comes to having American styles infotainment networks up here similar to Fox, and CNN, and that some people really cant tell its just entertainment. They thing its news!!!

...I want some boring old ugly dude like Walter Kronkite to dispassionately dead-pan out facts about the day's events. I dont want editorializing, or "expert analysis" and the reporters should keep their opinions to themselves.

Sounds like you want both....to watch American infotainment and "boring" Canadian news outlets. Walter Kronkite was an American, but he (and his format) are quite dead.

[Shakeyhands]

....

Edited June 15, 2010 by Shakeyhands

[Smallc]

You don't really think that a right-wing news outlet *creates* polarization, do you?

I swear, you either have a reading comprehension problem, of you're being intentionally obtuse.

[kimmy]

I swear, you either have a reading comprehension problem, of you're being intentionally obtuse.

did I err? What you wrote is...

It's not bias I hate, it's biased entertainment being put forward as news...especially when said entertainment causes massive polarization.

But there's already massive polarization in Canada, and it must have been caused by something other than broadcasters providing biased politics-based entertainment, because as you keep pointing out we don't have that here. Preventing a new news channel on the grounds that it could be "polarizing" would be closing the gate after the horses have left.

I'm also unclear as to what this "polarization" actually means. Does it mean people have strong and differing opinions? If so, isn't that actually kind of a good thing? Does polarizaton mean that instead of saying "yeah, ok, whatever," they make placards and attend marches and rallies? Is "polarization" just the opposite of apathy?

Perhaps this "polarization" people are so worried about is actually just the result of people with differing political views frustrated that the conventional political system doesn't provide adequate means for them to express themselves.

-k

[kimmy]

This "debate" is a joke. More than almost any other popular subject, there is a palpable ignorance about "leftist bias in the media" theme that is astonishing.

I think it's generally understood that we're talking about a range of views that Canada's left are comfortable with, not Havana's leftists.

-k

[bloodyminded]

I think it's generally understood that we're talking about a range of views that Canada's left are comfortable with, not Havana's leftists.

-k

Sure, I get that. But I see some real problems in this discussion of our "leftist", establishment-friendly corporations, whose primary sources of information are government and business spokespeople. Or that advertising--the news media's primary purpose for existing--to a large extent determines, if not content, the way the content is elaborated for us. (It's not that advertising coerces the news media...or not too often. It's that ownners, managers, editors know from which way their bread is buttered.)

There are, as you say, more left-leaning documentaries offered on CBC; but, first of all, CBC is not even the most popular organ in the country; second, the right produces fewer documentaries, so this is fair anyway by the right's own standards of "free market principles," not to mention comparative right-wing disinterest for the work of making documentaries (after all, they've more easily got the finances to produce them, if they so wish); finally, most importantly, the reporting of the news is of far, far more significance than is the showing of documentaries. They're not even comparable. An occasional spout of propaganda versus a daily dose of competing propaganda.

Also, the notion of what, exactly, constitutes a "leftist" view is not a settled nor simple answer. If one reads Steyn (who, for unstated reasons, considers the United States to be the proper template of what constitutes "right" vs. "left"), then the majority of the nation is left-wing...which is to say, "left" means "mainstream." So when, according to a MacLean's poll (hardly a leftist rag by anyone's standards), 70% of Canadians are supportive of same sex marriage...to hear people complain about such "leftist" notions becomes, let's say, problematic.

[Smallc]

But there's already massive polarization in Canada,

Oh, you haven't seen anything yet. A few whack jobs on news comment sections doesn't count as massive polarization, which by and large doesn't seem to exist in Canada.

[DFCaper]

I'm in favour of Quebecor being allowed to broadcast. I'm not in favour of a polarization of the Canadian news media. I'm also not in favour of news channels doing things that aren't news....a la Fox News.

I really don't want us to become more polarized like the Americans when it comes to politics. And I think networks like Fox News ramp up the polarization. I see this as a negative to our society.

Having said that, I put a majority of the blame for this need to have right wing channel on our current news channels. And more specifically on CBC TV. As Stated throughout this topic, you can view left wing documentaries and commentaries. Although, the At Issue panel is balanced, I rarely see the right wing perspective properly presented on Canadian TV. It's unfortunate that we need to get a channel dedicated to the right wing voice. That the voice cannot be heard on another channel today. I cannot ever see CBC showing a documentary that is against Abortion, GW, etc. I put the blame on them for putting us on the road towards having channels like Fox News in Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

I really don't want us to become more polarized like the Americans when it comes to politics. And I think networks like Fox News ramp up the polarization. I see this as a negative to our society.

Yea...we wouldn't want Canada to get polarized about Quebec and hold a referendum that splits 50-50 ! (Before FOX News ever existed)

Edited June 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Wow ! How'd this happen - an entire thread on my favourite topic popped up while I was away from the site for awhile...

Some comments... CBC needs to tone down some of their more extreme documentaries, or the CRTC will have good reasons to counterbalance that with Fox.

Specifically, they have aired 9/11 conspiracy garbage. That is the left- equivalent of 'Global Warming Swindle' nonsense and should not be shown, period. Aside from those examples kimmy has given, CTV and CBC counterbalance each other on the centre.

-- -- --

I do think that the government needs to manage how political information is disseminated and exchanged in this country. The system doesn't work if there is too much bad information out there. Keeping in mind the way democracy was designed, it was never geared to be used by the masses, and as such the advent of television as the primary medium of political discussion puts democracy at risk.

The US example shows us that polarization is happening as TV news becomes less and less about information and more about entertainment and distraction. Anger and outrage gets attention, and so cable news facilities have a conflict-of-interest in that if they overstate the gravity of a situation, they will get more attention. Thus, polarization increases.

I would say that Canada is less polarized than the US, but more polarized than we have been in the past. As an example, the parties agreed to limits on funding, which makes TV advertisement a lot less of a factor in elections which is a good thing IMO.

And - the important thing is that 'polarization' isn't measured and managed, nor have we even had a discussion as to whether they should be. Dissent is necessary but too much dissent causes disunity and divides the people. The stakes are high.

The Chinese had a saying that says things that are too big collapse from within. This is what I think about with regards to the US - a country so prosperous, yet unable to agree on how to solve its problems and each year seems to be less united. Political violence is, IMO, a possibility and the sad thing is that it's mostly about identity.