Bonam Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Are we now going to have to deal with ideological wackos like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann passing themselves off as the voices of reason? How does that help anything? Doesn't matter if they are wackos of if they are reasonable. Doesn't matter if it helps or it doesn't. You don't have to like it, but people are free to speak their minds, and if they have the funding, to broadcast their minds on TV. I find the opposition to the simple creation of one more news source / tv channel in Canada quite obnoxious. I would not oppose a new ultra left wing channel being created. They have the right to say what they want, it's called freedom of speech. And yet many left wingers are screaming bloody murder at this. Why the kneejerk reaction to censor and limit ideas/points of view? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 ....I find the opposition to the simple creation of one more news source / tv channel in Canada quite obnoxious. I would not oppose a new ultra left wing channel being created. They have the right to say what they want, it's called freedom of speech. Indeed...the Americans watched this very thing in the birth and slow, painful death of Air America Radio, launched in direct response to the election of George W. Bush. It seems that the "left" cannot attract consistent audience share or ad revenue. A pity..... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jack Weber Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Doesn't matter if they are wackos of if they are reasonable. Doesn't matter if it helps or it doesn't. You don't have to like it, but people are free to speak their minds, and if they have the funding, to broadcast their minds on TV. I find the opposition to the simple creation of one more news source / tv channel in Canada quite obnoxious. I would not oppose a new ultra left wing channel being created. They have the right to say what they want, it's called freedom of speech. And yet many left wingers are screaming bloody murder at this. Why the kneejerk reaction to censor and limit ideas/points of view? 1.If they are wacko's,by definition they're not reasonable. 2.How can it not matter if it's not helpful at all.One of the biggest problems I see in federal politics rigth now is the sily partisan/ideological games that get played out.This stops any real progress from happening.When there are plenty of conservative voices and thought in this country,I find this extraneous and unnecessary. If you,or anyone else,would like to pay for the "priviledge" of watching this...Be my guest...It is your money.Personally,I don't find extremism even in the democratic sense,interesting or helpful... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
kimmy Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 I did'nt say they should'nt. I don't see the point and I don't see how it's helpful longterm. Are we now going to have to deal with ideological wackos like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann passing themselves off as the voices of reason? How does that help anything? Allowing a CBC Newsworld to broadcast but denying a conservative-leaning broadcaster isn't helpful either. It gives people the impression that the playing field is tilted, builds resentment, and fuels animosity. It already exists. Keeping a right-of-center broadcaster from starting up isn't going to fight the polarization you're worried about, it fuels it. Instead of the airwaves it ends up on blogs and forums and talk radio and the comments section of newspapers. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Bonam Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 1.If they are wacko's,by definition they're not reasonable. Reading comprehension failure? 2.How can it not matter if it's not helpful at all. Who is to decide what is "helpful". You? A government committee? The Ministry of Truth? Let people say what they want and stop trying to impose standards of "helpfulness". One of the biggest problems I see in federal politics rigth now is the sily partisan/ideological games that get played out.This stops any real progress from happening.When there are plenty of conservative voices and thought in this country,I find this extraneous and unnecessary. If it's already a problem, and there's already plenty of conservative voices, then why the heck does it get your panties in a bunch that people are considering adding one more? If you,or anyone else,would like to pay for the "priviledge" of watching this...Be my guest...It is your money.Personally,I don't find extremism even in the democratic sense,interesting or helpful... Yup people have the choice of what they want to watch and what they want to pay for on TV. Quote
Jack Weber Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Allowing a CBC Newsworld to broadcast but denying a conservative-leaning broadcaster isn't helpful either. It gives people the impression that the playing field is tilted, builds resentment, and fuels animosity. It already exists. Keeping a right-of-center broadcaster from starting up isn't going to fight the polarization you're worried about, it fuels it. Instead of the airwaves it ends up on blogs and forums and talk radio and the comments section of newspapers. -k You already have a conservative leaning broadcaster.It's called CTV.It was founded by John Bassett,who was also editor of the Toronto Telegram(the forerunner to the Toronto Sun).CTV leans to the right,towards the status quo.I've never taken it as a personal affront,in fact,I like the fact that at 5:00 PM EST,I can flip back and forth between the Ceeb and CTV to get divergent poltical points of view.Conservatives are not shut out,or marginalized.There is plenty of balance,right or left.If one truly needs the ideological pablum fed to them,right or left,it says more about that individuals inability to deal with diversity of thought,than anything else. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 (edited) Reading comprehension failure? Who is to decide what is "helpful". You? A government committee? The Ministry of Truth? Let people say what they want and stop trying to impose standards of "helpfulness". If it's already a problem, and there's already plenty of conservative voices, then why the heck does it get your panties in a bunch that people are considering adding one more? Yup people have the choice of what they want to watch and what they want to pay for on TV. You're so hard done by... You're so marginalized and disenfranchised,are'nt you... "There's no conservative voices in the media!" "It's all crypto-commie liberal hacks!" Edited June 14, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Bonam Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 You're so hard done by... You're so marginalized and disenfranchised,are'nt you... "There's no conservative voices in the media!" "It's all crypto-commie liberal hacks!" Nowhere did I say or even imply any of that, nor do I believe either of those statements. My estimation of your abilities of reading comprehension, logical thought, and debating capabilities, is rapidly plummeting. Quote
Jack Weber Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Nowhere did I say or even imply any of that, nor do I believe either of those statements. My estimation of your abilities of reading comprehension, logical thought, and debating capabilities, is rapidly plummeting. Well,you've got plenty of conservative voices in the media in this country...Frankly,you just come off as a whiner who cannot deal with diversity of thought. Perhaps that's why YOU need the proposed reaffirmation session/echo chamber... Enjoy Gerry Nichols and Charles McVety et al...Because there's an obvious void of conservatives in the media. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Bonam Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Well,you've got plenty of conservative voices in the media in this country...Frankly,you just come off as a whiner who cannot deal with diversity of thought. Perhaps that's why YOU need the proposed reaffirmation session/echo chamber... You sound like a mindless attack dog. Have you read, or even skimmed over, any of the posts which you attempt to argue against? Seriously dude, if you're gonna be on a debate forum, at least try to remotely address what was actually said. Anyways, have fun trolling I suppose. Quote
kimmy Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 I know there's a broadcaster I can count on to show me a documentary about how tarsands development is encroaching on the territory of the endangered Northern Reticulated Muskeg Toad, or to do an investigative expose on whether the homeless of Vancouver's downtown east side have fulfilling sex lives. I would like to know there's a broadcast I could look to to show me something like Undercover Mosque or The Great Global Warming Swindle. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bloodyminded Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 (edited) If you refuse to compare, of course you will fail to notice any difference... If you don't like that particular example for the reasons you stated, feel free to pick another example of reporting over a somewhat contentious issue and check out the difference. sure. How about the difference in news coverage between Kosovo and East Timor? The atrocities were occurring at the same time, so the comparison is apt. The news reported on Kosovo as a splendid moment in which humanitarian principles dictated the foreign polciies of Canada, the US, the UK, and so on...ushering in a shiny new age of military humanism. Meanwhile, the far, far, far worse mass murders being carried out against the East Timorese (and it was so much worse that I'm uncomfortable comparing the two), was done with material Western aid and diplomatic support for the mass murders. And yet your crazed "left wing" press somehow refrained from citing all this as somehow a bad thing. That's a hell of a lot more compelling than your example, I should think. Edited June 14, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Shady Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Yep, no bias at CBC. CBC reporter reassigned for writing Liberal questions during Schreiber hearingsOTTAWA -- A CBC national television reporter has been transferred out of Ottawa after an internal investigation determined she had fed questions to an opposition MP for use during last month’s Commons ethics committee hearings on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Link Much of the CBC is just a propaganda arm of the Liberal party. Funded by our tax dollars. Quote
Jack Weber Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Yep, no bias at CBC. Much of the CBC is just a propaganda arm of the Liberal party. Funded by our tax dollars. We know the CeeB is biased... BFD...Film at 11...On CTV!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
sharkman Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 I know there's a broadcaster I can count on to show me a documentary about how tarsands development is encroaching on the territory of the endangered Northern Reticulated Muskeg Toad, or to do an investigative expose on whether the homeless of Vancouver's downtown east side have fulfilling sex lives. I would like to know there's a broadcast I could look to to show me something like Undercover Mosque or The Great Global Warming Swindle. -k Sorry kimmy, I think they are fresh out of reasonable went it comes to the media. Quote
Jack Weber Posted June 14, 2010 Report Posted June 14, 2010 Sorry kimmy, I think they are fresh out of reasonable went it comes to the media. 'Cause there's nowhere where you could read,or see,those things? The TO Sun editorial page? Have you read Lorrie Goldstein? CTV was talking about the potential Global Warming scam,and the incriminating E-Mails,nightly on Power Play last December... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
kimmy Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 'Cause there's nowhere where you could read,or see,those things? The TO Sun editorial page? Have you read Lorrie Goldstein? The Toronto Sun can't broadcast a documentary. Nor can SmallDeadAnimals, or the National Post, or the rest of the "convservative voices". CTV was talking about the potential Global Warming scam,and the incriminating E-Mails,nightly on Power Play last December... I asked before if there was somebody in Canada who'd show a documentary like Undercover Mosque and you said, "well, CTV did a segment like that on W5 during the Toronto 18 case." I said I'd like to know there is a broadcaster that would show The Global Warming Swindle, and you said "well, CTV talked about climate change skepticism during their panel discussion show." You can see why I'm skeptical of the balance of the balance, right? On the one hand you've got a network that will obtain these left-wing documentaries, promote them heavily on their full network, and broadcast them in their entirety. The balance is, well, a segment on the weekly news show or a mention on their panel discussion. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Smallc Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 (edited) The Toronto Sun can't broadcast a documentary. Nor can SmallDeadAnimals, or the National Post, or the rest of the "convservative voices". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CKXT-TV Edited June 15, 2010 by Smallc Quote
kimmy Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CKXT-TV So you're in favor of Quebecor being allowed to broadcast... ...but only in Toronto? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Smallc Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 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. Quote
kimmy Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 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. Ok, so I said that none of Canada's "conservative voices" can broadcast, and you say "oh yes they can!" and it's Toronto Sun TV, which is only available in Toronto, and owned by the group that you don't want to be given a broadcast license anyway. So ... uh, what point were you trying to make, anyway? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Smallc Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 Ok, so I said that none of Canada's "conservative voices" can broadcast, and you say "oh yes they can!" and it's Toronto Sun TV, which is only available in Toronto, and owned by the group that you don't want to be given a broadcast license anyway. It's not only available in Toronto. I watch To Serve and Protect on it all of the time. So ... uh, what point were you trying to make, anyway? 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. Quote
sharkman Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 It's not only available in Toronto. I watch To Serve and Protect on it all of the time. 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. Look. The news is a farce right now. Because there is only one viewpoint on tv news. That you can't seem to understand this speaks to your own bias, but the rest of Canada should have balance. Not the American Fox style but a made in Canada one. Quote
Smallc Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 Look. The news is a farce right now. Because there is only one viewpoint on tv news. That you can't seem to understand this speaks to your own bias, but the rest of Canada should have balance. Not the American Fox style but a made in Canada one. I'm not sure you understand what unbiased news is. You don't get there by having a bunch of different ideologues arguing over each other, you get there by presenting the facts. That's what we have now (with some normal bias that comes as a part of human nature). You don't want that. You want ideologues arguing past each other. That isn't news. Quote
kimmy Posted June 15, 2010 Report Posted June 15, 2010 I'm not sure you understand what unbiased news is. You don't get there by having a bunch of different ideologues arguing over each other, you get there by presenting the facts. That's what we have now (with some normal bias that comes as a part of human nature). You don't want that. You want ideologues arguing past each other. That isn't news. So a network that airs slanted documentaries and gives biased journalists their own shows to advocate for their particular causes would be bad? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.