Foxnews NORTH?

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Not necessarily...you assumption excludes the fact that more news outlets are not dependent on "TV' at all. There is no conflict of interest for a business model based on audience share and advertising revenue.

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.

Depends on the issue.....Canada is "polarized" depending on region and/or issue.

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.

Political violence is an American mainstay...your Canadian value system is ill suited for the Americans.

[Michael Hardner]

Not necessarily...you assumption excludes the fact that more news outlets are not dependent on "TV' at all. There is no conflict of interest for a business model based on audience share and advertising revenue.

If they bill themselves as 'news', and if news is a necessary staple to a healthy democracy, then I see viewership as actually being a poor metric, and yes causes a conflict of interest.

Depends on the issue.....Canada is "polarized" depending on region and/or issue.

Agreed. On Quebec separation, the polarization became so acute that the wound became cauterized, in a sense. People hated discussing it so much that they avoided it, and times changed. Now it seems that there is an uneasy status quo that suits all - until, of course, the next crisis.

But maybe it wil hold.

Political violence is an American mainstay...your Canadian value system is ill suited for the Americans.

An astute observation, but I ask how many Americans would agree with that. If it really started happening, do you think that most would respond by saying "oh well, violence is a mainstay"...

I don't.

Furthermore, I think as time goes on, certain things do indeed change while others don't. Specifically, human nature doesn't change so we will always have identity, divisiveness, disagreement. And poverty doesn't change, either. But absolute poverty does changes, as economics changes. Starvation is simply not a threat anymore, and as such instability based on "want" should be reduced.

Likewise, political violence based on wars of the past - threats from the British or First Nations (I use that term to irk you, btw) - or economic differences based on slavery, or even the highly charged matters of civil rights from the 1960s should likely become part of the past.

The battles that lie before us seem, to me at least, to be of lower stakes. As such, it makes no sense for us to build up the importance of many of them to the point we have.

[bush_cheney2004]

If they bill themselves as 'news', and if news is a necessary staple to a healthy democracy, then I see viewership as actually being a poor metric, and yes causes a conflict of interest.

News means a departure from norm, an item of interest with broad appeal. It is not and has never been confined to the very narrow political realm and certainly is not a slave to objectivity. That jurnalists wish to aspire to such goals is fine, but that does not put butts in the seats. "Viewership" is far more complex with web based portals and companion sites. The days of just one talking head are over...too boring.

Agreed. On Quebec separation, the polarization became so acute that the wound became cauterized, in a sense. People hated discussing it so much that they avoided it, and times changed. Now it seems that there is an uneasy status quo that suits all - until, of course, the next crisis.

We hardly noticed....

An astute observation, but I ask how many Americans would agree with that. If it really started happening, do you think that most would respond by saying "oh well, violence is a mainstay"...

Not in real time, but America's history....even her very birth...is punctuated with such violence.

I don't.

Don't means won't....that's OK from your vantage point.

Furthermore, I think as time goes on, certain things do indeed change while others don't. Specifically, human nature doesn't change so we will always have identity, divisiveness, disagreement. And poverty doesn't change, either. But absolute poverty does changes, as economics changes. Starvation is simply not a threat anymore, and as such instability based on "want" should be reduced.

Don't be so sure of that....the thin veneer of "civilization" and hiearchy of needs satisfaction can erode quickly under stress and social conflict. Americans are not meek when it comes to spirited conflict.

Likewise, political violence based on wars of the past - threats from the British or First Nations (I use that term to irk you, btw) - or economic differences based on slavery, or even the highly charged matters of civil rights from the 1960s should likely become part of the past.

..and yet America is at war abroad and at home. ( I am not irked at all.)

The battles that lie before us seem, to me at least, to be of lower stakes. As such, it makes no sense for us to build up the importance of many of them to the point we have.

Conflict is essentional to move forward in the competition for scarce resources. America would be bored to tears if it were Canada.

Edited June 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

News means a departure from norm, an item of interest with broad appeal. It is not and has never been confined to the very narrow political realm and certainly is not a slave to objectivity. That jurnalists wish to aspire to such goals is fine, but that does not put butts in the seats. "Viewership" is far more complex with web based portals and companion sites. The days of just one talking head are over...too boring.

Yes, and no. Not a slave to objectivity, but as it developed in the new world journalism acquired a professionalism and established itself as such a necessity to democracy that freedom of the press was guaranteed in the constitution of the USA.

Not in real time, but America's history....even her very birth...is punctuated with such violence.

What does that mean ? Not in real time ?

Don't be so sure of that....the thin veneer of "civilization" and hiearchy of needs satisfaction can erode quickly under stress and social conflict. Americans are not meek when it comes to spirited conflict.

My point being that the sources of stress and social conflict are material wants.

Of course civilization erodes under stress and social conflict, but I'm saying the causes of these should be reduced and you just keep quoting history back at me.

..and yet America is at war abroad and at home. ( I am not irked at all.)

Even the definition of what that means and the purposes is changing under our feet.

Conflict is essentional to move forward in the competition for scarce resources. America would be bored to tears if it were Canada.

I had hoped you would have something good to come back at me with, but you're just saying that conflict happens, war happens which I concur with. I guess you don't want to talk about my point. It's probably just boring to you, so let's move on to other topics.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, and no. Not a slave to objectivity, but as it developed in the new world journalism acquired a professionalism and established itself as such a necessity to democracy that freedom of the press was guaranteed in the constitution of the USA.

....but "muckraking" is protected as well. The concept transcends the medium, as there was no television in 18th century America.

What does that mean ? Not in real time ?

It means that America's violence is firmly established and repeatable on a long continuum that will include today in some history book or Wiki page. Never hard to find...in the cities, on the border, or across the sea.

My point being that the sources of stress and social conflict are material wants.

Not necessarily...there are larger social and political issues that rise above material things.

Of course civilization erodes under stress and social conflict, but I'm saying the causes of these should be reduced and you just keep quoting history back at me.

That's because people thought as you do right after WWI.

I had hoped you would have something good to come back at me with, but you're just saying that conflict happens, war happens which I concur with. I guess you don't want to talk about my point. It's probably just boring to you, so let's move on to other topics.

I'm not sure what your point was...conflict is necessary to move forward on many different levels. Issues are engaged by varied interests, and there are winners and losers. It has always been thus.

Edited June 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

....but "muckraking" is protected as well. The concept transcends the medium, as there was no television in 18th century America.

Really.

I'm not sure what your point was...conflict is necessary to move forward on many different levels. Issues are engaged by varied interests, and there are winners and losers. It has always been thus.

I've had discussions with people like you, who insist that conflict is an intractable part of ourselves and our history but I can't understand why there's a reluctance to admit that violence does diminish.

Conflict is necessary, but the fights of today pale in comparison to those of the 18th, 19th, 20th centuries. You would rather soak in the blood of former glory than look at what is ideally possible.

The divisiveness that we see today is manufactured, and it is a pointless accessory to the identities of the feeble minded. It's not helpful for people to stake out positions on identity. The corollary of "when you have nothing, you have nothing to lose" applies here. A rich nation that wears its identity like an expensive hat risks to lose its wealth over matters of vanity.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[bush_cheney2004]

Really.

Yep...America did not get wide screen digital televisions until 1865.

I've had discussions with people like you, who insist that conflict is an intractable part of ourselves and our history but I can't understand why there's a reluctance to admit that violence does diminish.

Because it doesn't. Not only do we retain ancient ways to kill each other (Rwanda), but we invent more accurate ways to do it (GPS guided bombs).

Conflict is necessary, but the fights of today pale in comparison to those of the 18th, 19th, 20th centuries. You would rather soak in the blood of former glory than look at what is ideally possible.

This century is young, and your proposition for a decline in violence fails when comparing 19th and 20th centuries.

The divisiveness that we see today is manufactured, and it is a pointless accessory to the identities of the feeble minded. It's not helpful for people to stake out positions on identity. The corollary of "when you have nothing, you have nothing to lose" applies here. A rich nation that wears its identity like an expensive hat risks to lose its wealth over matters of vanity.

Chronic reference to USA noted, but it has no monopoly on conflict or violence. Projecting your own personal value system on a nation of 300 million (and how it got that way) is academic at best. I'm beginning to realize that such angst expressed by you and others is not about the USA at all, but rather the dread and unknown of the impact on Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

Yep...America did not get wide screen digital televisions until 1865.

This is why I like conversing with you... your sense of humour never flags. You even made sure, in your little joke there, that America got TV 2 years before Canada existed.

Because it doesn't. Not only do we retain ancient ways to kill each other (Rwanda), but we invent more accurate ways to do it (GPS guided bombs).

I don't buy it. The US is fighting its wars with a fraction of the casualties, and its citizens still don't like it. But, I am optimistic as I said.

This century is young, and your proposition for a decline in violence fails when comparing 19th and 20th centuries.

Ok.

Chronic reference to USA noted, but it has no monopoly on conflict or violence. Projecting your own personal value system on a nation of 300 million (and how it got that way) is academic at best. I'm beginning to realize that such angst expressed by you and others is not about the USA at all, but rather the dread and unknown of the impact on Canada.

Canada is always in the shadows of the US, for better (bank deregulation) or worse (blue jeans, crack cocaine, Joan Rivers). Wherest thou goest, so goeth I. So, yes, I hate the idea of you idiots paying for big screen TVs to watch Fox convince you to go to war with each other, because we sell you electricity and maybe zinc for those TVs.

[kimmy]

I'm still hoping that those who are worried that this could cause "polarization" can tell me what they're actually afraid is going to happen. What does "polarization" actually mean?

Is "polarization" what happens when people form opinions about a topic?

-k

[Jack Weber]

I'm still hoping that those who are worried that this could cause "polarization" can tell me what they're actually afraid is going to happen. What does "polarization" actually mean?

Is "polarization" what happens when people form opinions about a topic?

-k

Hello Kimmy...

How was your day?

Filled with demolishing douchebags?

The polarization would be what we see int the U.S.,where ideological psotions get hardened by people only listening to a media outlet that parrots their own position.They only really speak with people with varying degrees of the same position.This makes reasoned discussion almost impossible...

See Fox/MSNBC for this unhelpful eventuality.

In this country,at least on the 'net...

Rabble.ca and FreeDominion...

Nothing but ideological echo chambers filled with weakminded ideologues who don't have the intellectual capacity to deal with diversity of thought and opinion...

This place is quite different,and very refreshing,from those other two...

[Michael Hardner]

Is "polarization" what happens when people form opinions about a topic?

Maybe polarization is the first step to disunity.

Differences of opinion are healthy, but the worst elements of disunity are already in play with some Tea Partiers.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Canada is always in the shadows of the US, for better (bank deregulation) or worse (blue jeans, crack cocaine, Joan Rivers). Wherest thou goest, so goeth I. So, yes, I hate the idea of you idiots paying for big screen TVs to watch Fox convince you to go to war with each other, because we sell you electricity and maybe zinc for those TVs.

Telecommunications and broadcasting are very American ideas in practice, having been well received and applied for over 150 years. They linked a very large country and made it a network...that's what America is you know, a very diversified network. Canada has the CRTC to stave off the torrent of media, but resistance is futile. Ideas that seem threatening to you as seen on Fox News are just part of the mix to us...we've had it all for a very long time, from telegraph to TCP/IP.

We know where we were when JFK was shot because the network told us....in real time. The combination of relevant content and the means to deliver it is compelling.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe polarization is the first step to disunity.

Differences of opinion are healthy, but the worst elements of disunity are already in play with some Tea Partiers.

"Tea Partiers" are a very American notion....and just plain uncomfortable to many Canadians. It is the essence of our differences concerning government and governance going back to The Beginning.

...Don't tread on me.

[kimmy]

Hello Kimmy...

How was your day?

Filled with demolishing douchebags?

No, although we're working on demolishing a house...

The polarization would be what we see int the U.S.,where ideological psotions get hardened by people only listening to a media outlet that parrots their own position.They only really speak with people with varying degrees of the same position.This makes reasoned discussion almost impossible...

So a reasonable guy might be flipping channels and suddenly sees a Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann editorial, and suddenly-- PAFF!! --he's polarized?

Suddenly he's not reasonable anymore, suddenly he has an unexplainable compulsion to go around shouting "YOU, SIR! YOU, SIR!" or attend Tea Party rallies, and loses any interest in looking at things rationally?

I have a different theory. Perhaps if that happens, the guy wasn't actually very reasonable or rational to start with. Maybe the only reason he wasn't already "polarized" is because he was too apathetic or uninformed to have a strong view about anything. It seems to me that the only way to prevent people like that from becoming "polarized" is to make sure they never learn anything at all.

-k

[kimmy]

Maybe polarization is the first step to disunity.

Differences of opinion are healthy, but the worst elements of disunity are already in play with some Tea Partiers.

So what's the difference between "differences of opinion" and "disunity" and when does one become the other?

-k

[Jack Weber]

No, although we're working on demolishing a house...

So a reasonable guy might be flipping channels and suddenly sees a Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann editorial, and suddenly-- PAFF!! --he's polarized?

Suddenly he's not reasonable anymore, suddenly he has an unexplainable compulsion to go around shouting "YOU, SIR! YOU, SIR!" or attend Tea Party rallies, and loses any interest in looking at things rationally?

I have a different theory. Perhaps if that happens, the guy wasn't actually very reasonable or rational to start with. Maybe the only reason he wasn't already "polarized" is because he was too apathetic or uninformed to have a strong view about anything. It seems to me that the only way to prevent people like that from becoming "polarized" is to make sure they never learn anything at all.

-k

No,I don't think it suddenly happens...

And "PAFF"???Could'nt you have used a "KAPOW" or "Presto/Chango"?

And were you doing an Olbermann impersonation with the "YOU SIR!!!!" thing?

What I think both those examples do is inflame a situation to a point where people are frothing at the mouth and incapable of being reasonable.It's like a pep rally for ideologues...

I'm not an ideologue,so I guess I just don't get it....

[bloodyminded]

"Tea Partiers" are a very American notion....and just plain uncomfortable to many Canadians. It is the essence of our differences concerning government and governance going back to The Beginning.

...Don't tread on me.

Actually, they're sycophants, not rebels.

[Michael Hardner]

So what's the difference between "differences of opinion" and "disunity" and when does one become the other?

-k

We're having a difference of opinion right now. Disunity comes when I decide that we're not on the same team.

[Michael Hardner]

Telecommunications and broadcasting are very American ideas in practice, having been well received and applied for over 150 years. They linked a very large country and made it a network...that's what America is you know, a very diversified network. Canada has the CRTC to stave off the torrent of media, but resistance is futile. Ideas that seem threatening to you as seen on Fox News are just part of the mix to us...we've had it all for a very long time, from telegraph to TCP/IP.

We know where we were when JFK was shot because the network told us....in real time. The combination of relevant content and the means to deliver it is compelling.

And every challenge deserves a response. The market needs to adjust to put the grown-ups back up front in terms of debating the issues.

I like, though, that those news shows have found value in focusing on marginal, or self-created stories recently.

[bush_cheney2004]

We're having a difference of opinion right now. Disunity comes when I decide that we're not on the same team.

OK...and why is that a "bad" thing? Shall we all think and act the same way just for the sake of "unity"?

[Michael Hardner]

"Tea Partiers" are a very American notion....and just plain uncomfortable to many Canadians. It is the essence of our differences concerning government and governance going back to The Beginning.

In the beginning you were rallying against a foreign-based government, and today many Americans depict Washington as being foreign to them.

If you're one of those guys who constantly says "last time I checked this was the United States"... then it may be time to check again.

UNITED States.

UNITED.

[Michael Hardner]

In the beginning you were rallying against a foreign-based government, and today many Americans depict Washington as being foreign to them.

If you're one of those guys who constantly says "last time I checked this was the United States"... then it may be time to check again.

UNITED States.

UNITED.

The Onion - "Last Time Sources Checked This Still America"

[Michael Hardner]

OK...and why is that a "bad" thing? Shall we all think and act the same way just for the sake of "unity"?

If we're not on the same team, then on the great playing field we might go to war with each other.

Do you think that the civil war was something that should be repeated every once in awhile, just to keep the relationship fresh ?

[bush_cheney2004]

If we're not on the same team, then on the great playing field we might go to war with each other.

..and we often do, with "each other" being redefined on the fly.

Do you think that the civil war was something that should be repeated every once in awhile, just to keep the relationship fresh ?

Which civil war...it is not uniquely an American experience.

[Michael Hardner]

Which civil war...it is not uniquely an American experience.

Like it or not, we are talking about America - the country that is on the leading edge of new media adoption is necessarily the testing lab for how democracy will work for the rest of us after we adopt your newest "channels" - using the broad meaning of that word.

Which civil war ? The American one.

Fighting it over slavery and states' rights was difficult... imagine if they went to war over something as stupid as a carbon tax. My god...