Foxnews NORTH?

[Shady]

You simply make the same claims over and over, until you're pressed for evidence, after which you post "evidence" that is nothing of the kind.

The fact that you think it's nothing of the kind speaks volumes. You need to take off your CBC coloured glasses.

[bloodyminded]

The fact that you think it's nothing of the kind speaks volumes. You need to take off your CBC coloured glasses.

I'm asking you specifically how the one in which Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were accidentally shown rather than American soldiers in Iraq...is the CBC's "Liberal bias."

Also, how Ignatieff's political operative (who didn't identify himself as such) in the man-on-the-street interview is the CBC's "Liberal bias."

Those two are half your "evidence," right there.

So far you remain interestingly silent on the matter.

Edited October 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[guyser]

I'm asking you specifically

Dont waste your time. Shady is mikedavid00 with better spelling, or should I say grammar?

[bloodyminded]

Dont waste your time. Shady is mikedavid00 with better spelling, or should I say grammar?

You're right. I badgered him for evidence...only to get something irrelevant to his own point, passed off as "evidence."

Pointless.

[ironstone]

Would there be any controversy at all if say,the Asper family for instance,announced they would be launching another all news tv channel?The answer is of course,no,because of the Asper familys support for the Liberals.Such a channel would in fact be welcomed by all on the political left.

This new channel hasn't even been aired yet and already there are comparisons to FOX News.I admit I'm curious to see what the fuss is about if this channel does become available.If Margaret Atwood(worlds most boring,overrated author) is against it,that makes me want to see it all the more.

If the viewers like it,they'll watch it.If not,they'll tune back to the other popular Canadian news channels...and some even to the CBC.

[Jack Weber]

I would have thought you're used to having your pants removed by now, but I guess you still have a hard time admitting when it happens.

Still, it's kind of odd to be in denial that Krista Erikson has a Conservative MP for a boyfriend and is now employed with FoxNews North.

It's hillarious,is'nt it?

Good 'ol Professor Kitzel gets twisted into an intellectual pretzel,then claims to "destroy" people in an arguement...

It'll happen again because somewhere along the line,he'll barge into a historical discussion where it'll become plainly obvious that he has absolutely no earthly conception of what he's talking about,and then when questioned,he'll

1.Obfuscate

2.Ask,"What does this matter anyway?"

3.When cornered and made a complete fool of,claim that the person questioning his intellectual prowess is"crazy"

He's basically the Baghdad Bob of the board...

Edited October 14, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Would there be any controversy at all if say,the Asper family for instance,announced they would be launching another all news tv channel?The answer is of course,no,because of the Asper familys support for the Liberals.Such a channel would in fact be welcomed by all on the political left.

This new channel hasn't even been aired yet and already there are comparisons to FOX News.I admit I'm curious to see what the fuss is about if this channel does become available.If Margaret Atwood(worlds most boring,overrated author) is against it,that makes me want to see it all the more.

If the viewers like it,they'll watch it.If not,they'll tune back to the other popular Canadian news channels...and some even to the CBC.

I'm going to watch also...

The sheer humour of watching right wing ideologues trying to outfirebreath each other will be hillarious!!!

[Smallc]

I'm going to watch also...

The sheer humour of watching right wing ideologues trying to outfirebreath each other will be hillarious!!!

Nice

[Pliny]

Trying to prove to someone as far left as Chomsky that a news organization is biased to the left wing is not possible. Everything is by default right wing, even the CBC.

Canadians, in general, in my opinion, believe we have the right balance of left and right. We are sort of sitting in the centre. To some Harper looks like a fascist he's so far right. Harper if you look at his policies and platform is a little left of centre socially (maybe because he has to be) and centre-right fiscally, which isn't too unpopular.

If you are a liberal as far left as, say Pierre Turdeau was or Barack Obama is, and think you are a centrist along with them, then it is no wonder Harper looks like an extreme right-winger and the CBC doesn't have a left-wing slant.

What is scary is thinking that soon the NDP may well become the centrist party. Since it is a blue collar party it will never be endorsed by the arrogant left wing intellectuals until one of their own starts leading it and calling on their colleagues to play their cards and show some compassion for the poor, hardworking, blue collar voter they have looked down upon for so long. But I shouldn't be giving the NDP any ideas. The liberals laugh at them, don't they Jack?

As for an example of left wing bias. I think David Suzuki finding a comfortable place on CBC and being enjoyed by millions of content Canadians is proof enough.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Trying to prove to someone as far left as Chomsky that a news organization is biased to the left wing is not possible. Everything is by default right wing, even the CBC.

But Chomsky does not claim a right-wing bias. He believes (and I agree) that the "liberal vs conservative media bias" argument is at best beside the point, and at worst an obfuscation.

According to the Chomsky/Herman model of the Political Economy of major news media, we have to concentrate on institutional factors, rather than resort to a provincially narrow view of determinant ideology. Without an expansive, institutional analysis, you're simply not going to get it.

Let's look at Canada and the US, in which the large-scale similarities far outweigh the differences: Establishment power is comprised mostly of two major parties--one centre-right, the other centre-left. (There are lots of variations and contradictions within this oversimplified view, but bear with me.) The news media are intrinsically a part of establishment power: liberal, conservative, and bipartisan financial power. These are not opposing elements: they're the same institutional structure.

The news media, being corporate entities, are naturally inclined--as well as demanded by law--to first and foremost protect the interests of shareholders. Everything else pales. So there is a determinism at play here, in which they must be sympathetic to the interests of the nexus of the wealthy minority and to political power.

The authors break it down into five basic, interrelated components that "filter" the news:

1. Ownership: The major news media are comprised of large corporations, and larger conglomerates. These conglomerates frequently (in fact, almost always) have interests well beyond the narrow one of media, news and information, so they will naturally, legally, understandably wish to protect those interests as well. That includes protecting them from their own journalistic attempts at informing the public.

2. Advertising: This is their primary source of funding; they make more from advertising than they do from the public's subscriptions to newspapers or cable. So, first, they must please the advertisers, or risk being trumped by other ad buyers.

The television industry, for example, deems advertising "the content" and the programs that interrupt the advertising "the fill." This is telling. Newspapers operate the same way.

The point is to sell a product--consumers, particularly the more affluent buyers--to the audience--Big Business. The picture sold to this audience cannot in any large-scale way conflict with the world-view of the Businesses who advertise. There is lots of room for disagreement and dissent and contradiction; but the really serious, really large-scale, institutionalized worldview must remain intact.

That's why, in 1999, all the news media (both "liberal" and "conservative," and most certainly ncluding the CBC) were filled with stories about our "humanitarian militarism" in Kosovo, which was ushering in a new world of Western concerns for human rights...now that the evil Soviets were no longer interefering with our inherent decency. However, at precisely the same time, the self-same Western humanitarian nations (Canada, the US, the UK) were intentionally and materially funding and aiding massive state terrorism and the continuation of ecades of mass slaughter in East Timor, by Saddam-goppleganger General Suharto. Far worse than what the Serbs were doing....far worse.

(And no, as I anticipate the usual apologetics, we were not "looking away"; we were directly and intentionally involved.)

The Chomsky/Herman "propaganda model" would predict exactly this sort of doublethink and disconnect with reality: and the prediction proves 100% correct.

3. Sourcing: By far the primary focus of "sourcing," of information handed to us from the media, comes from the government, its official, establishment opposition, and from Big Business. These are the news "terminals" from which we get the overwhelming majority of information. The news media are entirely dependent upon these sources--and they can be denied access--so they remain largely credulous. These major sources of information (ie the most powerful entities that exist) spend billions of dollars a year on Public Relations experts. These people, the media's chief informers, are the precisely the same industries that sell us products. In this case, they sell us ideas. They are not paid billions of dollars a year to educate us to the unvarnished truth, obviously.

Any sources that are not establishment-friendly are marginalized; we hear them, but they are not deemed as important, and we hear very little from them; further, because they do not have a trained and psychologically-astute PR industry watching their backs, they can easily be dismissed as "radical." So when the overwhelming majority of the population claims that they don't trust large corporate entities, and then some lefty or libertarian makes this point, he can be derided as "fringe"...even though it's actually people who do trust corporate entities who are "fringe." So 2+2=5, or so we are informed.

4. Flak: Flak is exactly what it sounds like: negative responses to media stories or editorial slants. And while flak can and does come in every direction, it's clear that on an institutional level, the more powerful forces are far more effective. They can organize concerted efforts, thanks to access to money and to information dispersement. Business organizations and their intellectual defenders regularly come together, forming coalitions to attack the message and the messenger. People without modes of easy access and powerful financial relationships can...well, write a letter to the editor. Which may or may not even be published, not that they have any effect anyway.

5. Ideology: Unlike the usual "the media is left" cries (which seem more hilarious the more one looks into the matter on an institutional level...all those Marxist corporations trying to commit suicide! ), we can actually see how ideological tendencies within media professionals works both ways.

But at any rate, as you can see, the "leftist media" hypothesis depends upon entirely eschewing a large-scale institutional analysis, to simplify matters beyond all reason and totally avoid political economy in general. The "propaganda model" includes it, as one of five, and arguably the least important; whereas people of your worldview tend to consider it alone as indicative of how things work. It's preposterous.

As for an example of left wing bias. I think David Suzuki finding a comfortable place on CBC and being enjoyed by millions of content Canadians is proof enough.

Ah. Well, Kevin O'Leary currently has two CBC shows; so your theory must now be that the CBC has a right-wing bias. I would disagree, but hey, it's your opinion, not mine.

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

But Chomsky does not claim a right-wing bias. He believes (and I agree) that the "liberal vs conservative media bias" argument is at best beside the point, and at worst an obfuscation.

According to the Chomsky/Herman model of the Political Economy of major news media, we have to concentrate on institutional factors, rather than resort to a provincially narrow view of determinant ideology. Without an expansive, institutional analysis, you're simply not going to get it.

Let's look at Canada and the US, in which the large-scale similarities far outweigh the differences: Establishment power is comprised mostly of two major parties--one centre-right, the other centre-left. (There are lots of variations and contradictions within this oversimplified view, but bear with me.) The news media are intrinsically a part of establishment power: liberal, conservative, and bipartisan financial power. These are not opposing elements: they're the same institutional structure.

The news media, being corporate entities, are naturally inclined--as well as demanded by law--to first and foremost protect the interests of shareholders. Everything else pales. So there is a determinism at play here, in which they must be sympathetic to the interests of the nexus of the wealthy minority and to political power.

The CBC is a crown corporate entity. Unfortunately, it does not pay for itself through it's operations and is subsidized by the Federal Government. If it is to protect the interest of shareholders it must cater to the political party that favours it's subsidy. I do not see that as oppositional to your point. However, your argument opposes the concept that corporate entities are, as stated above, "naturally inclined to first and foremost protect the interests of their shareholders".

I suppose that is the essence of this discussion. It can be immediately ended by determining the interests of the shareholders of the CBC. Rallying support to the welfare of the CBC is generally an appeal to liberals.

As for left-right media bias being being beside the point or an obfuscation, well, if you have understood Chomsky and are correctly describing his position, what you are saying about corporate structure and establishment power, is somewhat contradictory. You can't support establishment power and be unbiased. If you think, along with Hillary Clinton that the right-wing media bias is real then why is fox at such odds with the mainstream?

Hillary Clinton, like yourself, believes that the right wing is dominant in the media and it killed her health care plan in the first term of her husband's administration. She has the same myopic view that what's hurting her aspirations is the media and the establishment is too right wing. They are in relation to her position.

The authors break it down into five basic, interrelated components that "filter" the news:

Well, at least you admit the news is "filtered". How is it that the CBC has no filter and if it does how would you say it is filtered?

1. Ownership: The major news media are comprised of large corporations, and larger conglomerates. These conglomerates frequently (in fact, almost always) have interests well beyond the narrow one of media, news and information, so they will naturally, legally, understandably wish to protect those interests as well. That includes protecting them from their own journalistic attempts at informing the public.

Agreed

2. Advertising: This is their primary source of funding; they make more from advertising than they do from the public's subscriptions to newspapers or cable. So, first, they must please the advertisers, or risk being trumped by other ad buyers.

First, before advertisers even consider advertising in a specific media, there must be a customer base to advertise to. Popularity and number of potential customers reached is the determining factor. MSNBC has a shrinking audience, and advertisers whose interests are about the lib left may advertise there but most apolitical products and services will abandon it for the wider audience found on other, more popular, media. This is called competition.

The television industry, for example, deems advertising "the content" and the programs that interrupt the advertising "the fill." This is telling. Newspapers operate the same way.

The point is to sell a product--consumers, particularly the more affluent buyers--to the audience--Big Business. The picture sold to this audience cannot in any large-scale way conflict with the world-view of the Businesses who advertise. There is lots of room for disagreement and dissent and contradiction; but the really serious, really large-scale, institutionalized worldview must remain intact.

Can you see a threat to that anywhere? Is there nay competition?

That's why, in 1999, all the news media (both "liberal" and "conservative," and most certainly ncluding the CBC) were filled with stories about our "humanitarian militarism" in Kosovo, which was ushering in a new world of Western concerns for human rights...now that the evil Soviets were no longer interefering with our inherent decency. However, at precisely the same time, the self-same Western humanitarian nations (Canada, the US, the UK) were intentionally and materially funding and aiding massive state terrorism and the continuation of ecades of mass slaughter in East Timor, by Saddam-goppleganger General Suharto. Far worse than what the Serbs were doing....far worse.

(And no, as I anticipate the usual apologetics, we were not "looking away"; we were directly and intentionally involved.)

How do you expect the really large scale, institutionalized world view to remain intact?

You seem to miss the fact of how the really large scale, institutionalized world view is held in place.

Perhaps big government and establishment power interests.

Are the people kept informed or is there a political bias? If you are going to say there was a right wing bias in ignoring East Timor. I will have to argue that it is "at best beside the point and at worst an obfuscation."

The Chomsky/Herman "propaganda model" would predict exactly this sort of doublethink and disconnect with reality: and the prediction proves 100% correct.

It doesn't take a whiz kid to figure out the large scale institutionalized power establishment wishes to remain the large scale institutionalized power establishment. I suppose big government maintains that- could be left, could be right, but that's irrelevant.

3. Sourcing: By far the primary focus of "sourcing," of information handed to us from the media, comes from the government, its official, establishment opposition, and from Big Business. These are the news "terminals" from which we get the overwhelming majority of information. The news media are entirely dependent upon these sources--and they can be denied access--so they remain largely credulous. These major sources of information (ie the most powerful entities that exist) spend billions of dollars a year on Public Relations experts. These people, the media's chief informers, are the precisely the same industries that sell us products. In this case, they sell us ideas. They are not paid billions of dollars a year to educate us to the unvarnished truth, obviously.

Any sources that are not establishment-friendly are marginalized; we hear them, but they are not deemed as important, and we hear very little from them; further, because they do not have a trained and psychologically-astute PR industry watching their backs, they can easily be dismissed as "radical." So when the overwhelming majority of the population claims that they don't trust large corporate entities, and then some lefty or libertarian makes this point, he can be derided as "fringe"...even though it's actually people who do trust corporate entities who are "fringe." So 2+2=5, or so we are informed.

4. Flak: Flak is exactly what it sounds like: negative responses to media stories or editorial slants. And while flak can and does come in every direction, it's clear that on an institutional level, the more powerful forces are far more effective. They can organize concerted efforts, thanks to access to money and to information dispersement. Business organizations and their intellectual defenders regularly come together, forming coalitions to attack the message and the messenger. People without modes of easy access and powerful financial relationships can...well, write a letter to the editor. Which may or may not even be published, not that they have any effect anyway.

5. Ideology: Unlike the usual "the media is left" cries (which seem more hilarious the more one looks into the matter on an institutional level...all those Marxist corporations trying to commit suicide! ), we can actually see how ideological tendencies within media professionals works both ways.

But at any rate, as you can see, the "leftist media" hypothesis depends upon entirely eschewing a large-scale institutional analysis, to simplify matters beyond all reason and totally avoid political economy in general. The "propaganda model" includes it, as one of five, and arguably the least important; whereas people of your worldview tend to consider it alone as indicative of how things work. It's preposterous.

I'll look over the rest but am running short of time to respond.

Ah. Well, Kevin O'Leary currently has two CBC shows; so your theory must now be that the CBC has a right-wing bias. I would disagree, but hey, it's your opinion, not mine.

What are Kevin O'Leary's political views? I have a hard time finding out. If you assume he is a Conservative because he is a capitalist you could be wrong. Rockefeller was a capitalist but did all he could to politically influence populations with socialist ideology. He really despised competition and thought it was a great sin.

Geoff Immelt, the CEO of GE is a big Obama fan. Perhaps Mr. O'leary is as well? Do you know what his political leanings are?

I note as well that Mr. O'Leary's stepfather worked with the UN for the ILO. Interesting?

I think from reading about Mr. O'Leary's thoughts on business that he is a proponent of the large scale

institutionalized power establishment.

If Mr Trump were on the CBC you might have an argument. I think Global carries "The Apprentice", doesn't it. I haven't watched CBC for a few years now.

[M.Dancer]

2. Advertising: This is their primary source of funding; they make more from advertising than they do from the public's subscriptions to newspapers or cable. So, first, they must please the advertisers, or risk being trumped by other ad buyers.

I gleened this from your response ....I know it isn't your statement..

The television industry, for example, deems advertising "the content" and the programs that interrupt the advertising "the fill." This is telling. Newspapers operate the same way.

The point is to sell a product--consumers, particularly the more affluent buyers--to the audience--Big Business. The picture sold to this audience cannot in any large-scale way conflict with the world-view of the Businesses who advertise. There is lots of room for disagreement and dissent and contradiction; but the really serious, really large-scale, institutionalized worldview must remain intact

What a load of no nothing nonsense.

First off, content is King. Content is what drives audience, whether it is print, broadcast or internet. No one outside of shopping flyers reads a magazine or watches TV for ads, they are there to be informed or entertained. What is more, not only does content drive the audience, it determines who the audience is. The Lang O'Leary file does not draw many uneducated blue collar viewers and Married with children doesn't draw too many boardroom executives...and that's okay because different go after different markets. When ad reps visit ad agencies, they aren't saying to Deloitte, advertise in the Globe and Mail, our readers want your ads... they are saying, our editorial content, which covers the ins and outs of business, the issues and trends that are top of mind for professional and managerial Canadians, attracts those readers, and that is why you should be in the Globe and Mail, to reach the readers who rely on the Globe and Mail.

The same is true for the Sun. They don't go after Deloitte, they pursue retail advertising, making the argument that the readers aren't interested in long news stories and prefer the Sun's content....and not surprisingly, the Sun's demographic profile of readers shows they are less eductaed and earn less than the Globe's audience....yet there is no shrtage of marketers who desire that demographic, from Car manuifacturers selling economy cars and auto dealers selling used cars to Banks selling retail services...

The Idea that

"The point is to sell a product--consumers, particularly the more affluent buyers--to the audience--Big Business."

Is patently false..the market is and always has been segmented and the media in its various forms and products caters to each segment.

Equally idiotic is:

The picture sold to this audience cannot in any large-scale way conflict with the world-view of the Businesses who advertise.

If this were to be true we would not have any editorial content about Toyota braking woes, or the dangers of eating McDonalds....and quite frankly the world view of most businesses who advertise is quite small...SELL PRODUCT-MAKE MONEY.

[bloodyminded]

The CBC is a crown corporate entity. Unfortunately, it does not pay for itself through it's operations and is subsidized by the Federal Government. If it is to protect the interest of shareholders it must cater to the political party that favours it's subsidy. I do not see that as oppositional to your point. However, your argument opposes the concept that corporate entities are, as stated above, "naturally inclined to first and foremost protect the interests of their shareholders".

I suppose that is the essence of this discussion. It can be immediately ended by determining the interests of the shareholders of the CBC. Rallying support to the welfare of the CBC is generally an appeal to liberals.

First of all, I never said the CBC doesn't follow the same tendencies as other news media generally; I have always maintained the opposite.

This is the first time in this post, but not the last, that you attribute ideas to me that I do not hold.

I suppose you think--for some unstated, unknowable reason--that since I object to the simpleton argument that the CBC has a "leftwing bias," that I must like and defend the CBC. Why? Only you know for sure.

As for left-right media bias being being beside the point or an obfuscation, well, if you have understood Chomsky and are correctly describing his position, what you are saying about corporate structure and establishment power, is somewhat contradictory. You can't support establishment power and be unbiased.

It might be contradictory if I ever suggested such a thing. Which I haven't.

If you think, along with Hillary Clinton that the right-wing media bias is real then why is fox at such odds with the mainstream?

So, after pointing out over and over that I don't think there's a right-wing bias, that it's entirely beside the point, that i happen to agree with Chomsky on this point, and that the institutional analysis trumps the provincial and simple-minded ideology argument every time...you're stating that I think the media has a right-wing bias?

Why, in God's name?

Hillary Clinton, like yourself, believes that the right wing is dominant in the media and it killed her health care plan in the first term of her husband's administration.

Like myself? What are you talking about? Hillary Clinton? I certainly have less in common with her worldview than you do. I think she's a grade-A bitch, dishonest, hawkish, and hypocritical.

She has the same myopic view that what's hurting her aspirations is the media and the establishment is too right wing. They are in relation to her position.

She's a politician who uttered the exact same media bias argument that you, personally, adhere to, but from the point of view of the other dominant American political party. I don't take her opinion on this seriously; why would you think I do? I think she's either dead wrong, or totally disingenuous. Period.

Well, at least you admit the news is "filtered".

Yes. I think there are several, interrrelated filters, and you think there is one: liberals.

How is it that the CBC has no filter and if it does how would you say it is filtered?

No filters? How could it not? It's beset by the same institutional factors as are other media. The ownership filter is slightly different, and that's an interesting amtter to look into, I agree; but largely, it's exactly the same, and it produces exactly the same types and methods of news.

First, before advertisers even consider advertising in a specific media, there must be a customer base to advertise to. Popularity and number of potential customers reached is the determining factor. MSNBC has a shrinking audience, and advertisers whose interests are about the lib left may advertise there but most apolitical products and services will abandon it for the wider audience found on other, more popular, media. This is called competition.

How does any of this even remotely argue agaisnt what I've said? In any way?

Can you see a threat to that anywhere? Is there nay competition?

There's competition, of course...within the existing institutional structures; the structure remains precisely the same, regardless of who the major advertisers are.

Obama did not court the whale-oil industry to donate to his campaign. The NYTimes no longer runs ads for snuff. Details change; the structures remain.

You seem to see a gigantic world of diofference bewteen mainstream liberals and cosnervatives (who in fact are nearly identical); between CPC and the LP, between Democrats and Republicans.

To me, focussing on these differences, in the context of media bias (that is, our very context) is like discussing the relative merits and differences between Lucky Luciano and Bugsy Siegal. "This gangster is getting unfair treatment; no, the other one is!"

How do you expect the really large scale, institutionalized world view to remain intact?

You seem to miss the fact of how the really large scale, institutionalized world view is held in place.

Perhaps big government and establishment power interests.

I don't even know what you're getting at, or how this is an argument against anything I've said.

Are the people kept informed or is there a political bias? If you are going to say there was a right wing bias in ignoring East Timor. I will have to argue that it is "at best beside the point and at worst an obfuscation."

Yes, absolutely, as I've said over and over, the idea of a right-wing bias in ignoring East Timor is totally irrelevant to anything I'm saying. And there is no right wing bias in ignoring East Timor. (But certainly no left-wing one, either.)

You see? You're attributing notions to me that I have never, not once, claimed.

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I gleened this from your response ....I know it isn't your statement..

So you're going to respond to my posts, while pretending you're not, since you've deigned to ignore me.

So you do it at second hand.

Coward.

First off, content is King. Content is what drives audience, whether it is print, broadcast or internet. No one outside of shopping flyers reads a magazine or watches TV for ads, they are there to be informed or entertained.

I was talking about what the advertising industry calls "content" and "fill."

You're an illiterate.

What is more, not only does content drive the audience, it determines who the audience is. The Lang O'Leary file does not draw many uneducated blue collar viewers and Married with children doesn't draw too many boardroom executives...and that's okay because different go after different markets. When ad reps visit ad agencies, they aren't saying to Deloitte, advertise in the Globe and Mail, our readers want your ads... they are saying, our editorial content, which covers the ins and outs of business, the issues and trends that are top of mind for professional and managerial Canadians, attracts those readers, and that is why you should be in the Globe and Mail, to reach the readers who rely on the Globe and Mail.

The same is true for the Sun. They don't go after Deloitte, they pursue retail advertising, making the argument that the readers aren't interested in long news stories and prefer the Sun's content....and not surprisingly, the Sun's demographic profile of readers shows they are less eductaed and earn less than the Globe's audience....yet there is no shrtage of marketers who desire that demographic, from Car manuifacturers selling economy cars and auto dealers selling used cars to Banks selling retail services...

The Idea that Is patently false..the market is and always has been segmented and the media in its various forms and products caters to each segment.

It's not patently false. You've taken on a large-scale, insitutional argument about political economy and have tried to obfuscate it. I was offering a very brief overview of a much larger theory--as is perfectly clear from the moment of my introductory remarks.

And yet, when someone says, "the media has a left-wing bias!" you are suddenly quite uninterested in probing through those "details" (ie bland assertions).

Equally idiotic is:

If this were to be true we would not have any editorial content about Toyota braking woes, or the dangers of eating McDonalds....

You are not a bright fellow.

I said it cannot interfere in any large-scale way with the fundamentals of the institutions themselves; not that zero criticism, or even zero good reporting will appear. Of course they do.

Once you learn to read basic English, M. Dancer, come on back for another thrashing.

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

Trying to prove to someone as far left as Chomsky that a news organization is biased to the left wing is not possible. Everything is by default right wing, even the CBC.

Canadians, in general, in my opinion, believe we have the right balance of left and right. We are sort of sitting in the centre. To some Harper looks like a fascist he's so far right. Harper if you look at his policies and platform is a little left of centre socially (maybe because he has to be) and centre-right fiscally, which isn't too unpopular.

If you are a liberal as far left as, say Pierre Turdeau was or Barack Obama is, and think you are a centrist along with them, then it is no wonder Harper looks like an extreme right-winger and the CBC doesn't have a left-wing slant.

What is scary is thinking that soon the NDP may well become the centrist party. Since it is a blue collar party it will never be endorsed by the arrogant left wing intellectuals until one of their own starts leading it and calling on their colleagues to play their cards and show some compassion for the poor, hardworking, blue collar voter they have looked down upon for so long. But I shouldn't be giving the NDP any ideas. The liberals laugh at them, don't they Jack?

As for an example of left wing bias. I think David Suzuki finding a comfortable place on CBC and being enjoyed by millions of content Canadians is proof enough.

As for an example of left wing bias. I think David Suzuki finding a comfortable place on CBC and being enjoyed by millions of content Canadians is proof enough.

Well if absolutely NO proof is "proof enough" for you, then whats the point of debating it.

We all know the drill... ALL information that doesnt support your views is the result of a massive left wing conspiracy.

Weeeeeee!

[bloodyminded]

So far, I've had one "disagreement" that doesn't even read like a disagreement--except that it gets so many crucial and central points of the thesis wrong (ie "you think the media is run by a right-wing conspiracy"....virtually the literal opposite of my view, which is that it's institutionalized, so not a conspiracy, and not right wing);

and another disagreement, which takes some prefatory generalizations about the thesis, mistakes it for the entire argument (despite it being clearly and unambiguously not the entire argument), focusses only on one component...and gets that wrong anyway.

!!!

I understand that Chomsky and Herman are relatively formidable intellects, but I'm nevertheless surprised at the wholesale inability to even address the arguments made, much less attempt to counter them.

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[grainfedprairieboy]

I have only read through about a third of this thread so forgive me if this is answered already but:

1. Why should I give a damn about another news network? This has generated more objection in Southern Ontario then the Al Jezeera Canada chapter and that one even associates regularly with Bin Ladin and his ilk;

2. Isn't the fact that some American group from New York that is fighting to stop this from happening more disconcerting?;

3 Isn't the fact that influential people who comprise our intelligentsia and who make their living based on free speech and expression.....like Margarete Atwood, far more worrisome?

4. Why should I give a damn about another cable network anyway? TLC went from science to reality TV to stay alive and if it wasn't for prison cable the indian network would've perished long ago.

As far as I am concerned, anything should be allowed but I should be able to pick and choose which I'll pay for. That is the real issue here.

[dre]

I have only read through about a third of this thread so forgive me if this is answered already but:

1. Why should I give a damn about another news network? This has generated more objection in Southern Ontario then the Al Jezeera Canada chapter and that one even associates regularly with Bin Ladin and his ilk;

2. Isn't the fact that some American group from New York that is fighting to stop this from happening more disconcerting?;

3 Isn't the fact that influential people who comprise our intelligentsia and who make their living based on free speech and expression.....like Margarete Atwood, far more worrisome?

4. Why should I give a damn about another cable network anyway? TLC went from science to reality TV to stay alive and if it wasn't for prison cable the indian network would've perished long ago.

As far as I am concerned, anything should be allowed but I should be able to pick and choose which I'll pay for. That is the real issue here.

The problem I think is that its important to have a relatively informed populous. And some of these new cable networks blur the line between entertainment, politics, and information a little to much for my liking.

Quite frankly they make people ignorant and stupid.

I admit though... Im bias. I hate TV. Dont even have cable. Hate pretty much every single show on that piece of shit, and just about every actor too. And I cant stand the idea that Im paying money to allow corporations to place a billboard on my living wall. If it was ad driven and free I guess that would be one thing... but paying for it? Nawww.

Edited October 15, 2010 by dre

[bloodyminded]

I have only read through about a third of this thread so forgive me if this is answered already but:

1. Why should I give a damn about another news network? This has generated more objection in Southern Ontario then the Al Jezeera Canada chapter and that one even associates regularly with Bin Ladin and his ilk;

2. Isn't the fact that some American group from New York that is fighting to stop this from happening more disconcerting?;

3 Isn't the fact that influential people who comprise our intelligentsia and who make their living based on free speech and expression.....like Margarete Atwood, far more worrisome?

4. Why should I give a damn about another cable network anyway? TLC went from science to reality TV to stay alive and if it wasn't for prison cable the indian network would've perished long ago.

As far as I am concerned, anything should be allowed but I should be able to pick and choose which I'll pay for. That is the real issue here.

A couple of quibbles aside (the Indians in prison joke simply isn't that funny...but I guess it's matter of taste), I have also said in this thread that I really couldn't care less about this potential news program.

While Dre might be right that this sort of news-meshed-with-entertainment-meshed-with-selective-political-advocacy makes people stupid, I'd only counter that we already are, so no harm done.

[Pliny]

Well if absolutely NO proof is "proof enough" for you, then whats the point of debating it.

We all know the drill... ALL information that doesnt support your views is the result of a massive left wing conspiracy.

Weeeeeee!

There's no conspiracy, dre. Neither is it left wing or right wing. It's just people being people. They all want the best for themselves and most will settle for easy entitlements from the large scale institutionalized system that foists these stultifying and placating entitlements upon them, entitlements that are not only bankrupting economically but socially and morally.

[Pliny]

A couple of quibbles aside (the Indians in prison joke simply isn't that funny...but I guess it's matter of taste), I have also said in this thread that I really couldn't care less about this potential news program.

While Dre might be right that this sort of news-meshed-with-entertainment-meshed-with-selective-political-advocacy makes people stupid, I'd only counter that we already are, so no harm done.

When someone thinks in the collective "I" can always be substituted for "we" since we are all one. Try it. It's fun.

Here's a few examples from Obama slogans: "Yes, We can!" "Change we can believe in." Fun, isn't it?

[Pliny]

I understand that Chomsky and Herman are relatively formidable intellects, but I'm nevertheless surprised at the wholesale inability to even address the arguments made, much less attempt to counter them.

....and with that the discussion must end.

I really don't understand why you even bother with such dullards as myself. But then - am I making an assumption you never stated or even implied?

Carry on!

[Pliny]

I have only read through about a third of this thread so forgive me if this is answered already but:

1. Why should I give a damn about another news network? This has generated more objection in Southern Ontario then the Al Jezeera Canada chapter and that one even associates regularly with Bin Ladin and his ilk;

2. Isn't the fact that some American group from New York that is fighting to stop this from happening more disconcerting?;

3 Isn't the fact that influential people who comprise our intelligentsia and who make their living based on free speech and expression.....like Margarete Atwood, far more worrisome?

4. Why should I give a damn about another cable network anyway? TLC went from science to reality TV to stay alive and if it wasn't for prison cable the indian network would've perished long ago.

As far as I am concerned, anything should be allowed but I should be able to pick and choose which I'll pay for. That is the real issue here.

I'm glad you brought up point number 2. I wasn't aware of that.

And yes you have essentially stated the real issue here.

[Pliny]

I said it cannot interfere in any large-scale way with the fundamentals of the institutions themselves; not that zero criticism, or even zero good reporting will appear. Of course they do.

Once you learn to read basic English, M. Dancer, come on back for another thrashing.

And you don't understand why he ignores you?

[bloodyminded]

When someone thinks in the collective "I" can always be substituted for "we" since we are all one. Try it. It's fun.

"I" was implicitly included in the "we." So, done and done.

Here's a few examples from Obama slogans: "Yes, We can!" "Change we can believe in." Fun, isn't it?

Fun, sure, and a banal slogan, as I'm sure you agree. The Obama campaign won an advertising award for best marketing job of the year--that alone speaks volumes. (Though why advertisers/marketers get awards rather than the death penalty, no one has yet explained.)

But just to be fair, perhaps you noticed that the McCain/Palin ticket, presumably out of deperation, virtually plagiarized the Obama campaign style, running on banal platitudes of "change"?

Pretty embarassing stuff. As if one bout of empty sloganeering weren't enough.