Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

Yes and no...we are talking about the manifestation of such media and "channels" on Canada, not the USA, which as you say, will lead not follow. The telegraph played a decisive roll in America's "Civil War".

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...

America is perfectly capable of resolving conflict without "wars", but prefers to keep that option open if only to add incentive to resolution by other means. National guard troops are at the ready for domestic unrest, which is not at all rare.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

  • Replies 524
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Yes and no...we are talking about the manifestation of such media and "channels" on Canada, not the USA, which as you say, will lead not follow. The telegraph played a decisive roll in America's "Civil War".

Yes, but the US in the testing ground.

Re: The telegraph, yes, McLuhan wrote about the effects of many media, and cable TV and the web may follow the example of the printing press.

America is perfectly capable of resolving conflict without "wars", but prefers to keep that option open if only to add incentive to resolution by other means. National guard troops are at the ready for domestic unrest, which is not at all rare.

Not at all rare, and apparently welcomed by some.

Posted

Okay, back to the topic, apparently they are applying for a category one license which require all cable and satellite providers to carry the channel. The CRTC is mulling this over and the new channel is to hit airwaves Jan 1. I for one hope they get the category 1 approval, I'd support such a channel initially.

I favour strong national/international content and I think they could find a niche for themselves. The CBC is too far left to be taken seriously at times, and the CTV is too boring.

Posted

I find that there is a lot of interest (in both directions) in a channel that in all probability will fail...

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

I find that there is a lot of interest (in both directions) in a channel that in all probability will fail...

Yep...probably will. Would have to find an audience and market share in an already challenging environment. This wiki entry remains true today:

Television has developed very differently in Canada than it has in the United States because it was introduced and developed in a different context. The distinct social, political, and economic situation of Canada shaped the historic development of mass communication and television in the country. There are mainly three factors that have made the historical development of television in Canada a unique one: The threat of American influence, the language divide and the government’s response to both of these.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Okay, back to the topic, apparently they are applying for a category one license which require all cable and satellite providers to carry the channel. The CRTC is mulling this over and the new channel is to hit airwaves Jan 1. I for one hope they get the category 1 approval, I'd support such a channel initially.

I favour strong national/international content and I think they could find a niche for themselves. The CBC is too far left to be taken seriously at times, and the CTV is too boring.

I don't consider the CBC to be particularly far left (no surprise there, eh?), but I do think it's been overrated; CTV is ok, but nothing remarkable.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the proposed organ is right-wing. I don't even care if the CRTC rules in favour or not.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted

I find that there is a lot of interest (in both directions) in a channel that in all probability will fail...

In our smaller market, that could well be, but I wonder what kind of research they've done because they seem pretty confident. I'd be curious to see what kind of viewers Fox is drawing in Canada, for instance.

The story I have says that they will have a 100 million budget/yr for the next 5 years, but if things aren't looking good after several years they would no doubt pull the plug at some point.

Posted

Yep...probably will. Would have to find an audience and market share in an already challenging environment. This wiki entry remains true today:

I was thinking more along the lines that Quebecor's current channel, Sun TV, is terrible. The original programming is unmemorable and without checking BBM I would imagine they are the least watched english service in their markets...

Today's line up...

http://suntv.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?s=shows&x=schedule&tz=allday&d_start_time=2010-06-16

I'm sure as a news channel they can provide content that will certainly be better than what is now offered....but I doubt they have the skill or the vision to provide a superior format or incorporate production values that will make watching it enjoyable.

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

In our smaller market, that could well be, but I wonder what kind of research they've done because they seem pretty confident. I'd be curious to see what kind of viewers Fox is drawing in Canada, for instance.

Mostly male, mostly moneyed, mostly older. (That's not an implied criticism of any sort, by the way.)

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted

In our smaller market, that could well be, but I wonder what kind of research they've done because they seem pretty confident. I'd be curious to see what kind of viewers Fox is drawing in Canada, for instance.

Can't find solid numbers on Fox News audience share in Canada. Just based on the posts here they have some penetration.

FYI - Fox News launched in the USA back in 1996 under much derision and skepticism. It slowly increased ratings to not only become competitive with CNN, but eventually gain the most audience share for cable news.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

The story I have says that they will have a 100 million budget/yr for the next 5 years, but if things aren't looking good after several years they would no doubt pull the plug at some point.

20 million per year isn't like they are devoting a lot of money to it...20 million could mean 10 episodes of a one hour news show the quality 60 minutes...

RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS

If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us

Posted

Yep...probably will. Would have to find an audience and market share in an already challenging environment. This wiki entry remains true today:

I was thinking more along the lines that Quebecor's current channel, Sun TV, is terrible. The original programming is unmemorable and without checking BBM I would imagine they are the least watched english service in their markets...

Today's line up...

http://suntv.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?s=shows&x=schedule&tz=allday&d_start_time=2010-06-16

I'm sure as a news channel they can provide content that will certainly be better than what is now offered....but I doubt they have the skill or the vision to provide a superior format or incorporate production values that will make watching it enjoyable.

You mean you're not a fan of Gareth Wheeler on the Casino Rama Grill Room???

Now that's riveting sports talk!!!

I think he's the next Jim Rome!!!!

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted

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

Yes, except that CBC uses our tax money to promote its bias. Fow News doesn't use tax money. CTV doesn't use tax money. That's the difference. How would you feel about a right-leaning news channel being funded with your taxes? Yep, that's what I thought. Now you know how the rest of us feel.

Posted

Yes, except that CBC uses our tax money to promote its bias. Fow News doesn't use tax money. CTV doesn't use tax money. That's the difference. How would you feel about a right-leaning news channel being funded with your taxes? Yep, that's what I thought. Now you know how the rest of us feel.

You'd probably love it and defend it,right?

This is all about some sort of response to the CeeB.It seems to be the fall back position of the fans of this idea...

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted

I don't find CBC News to be left leaning...and otherwise, public television is almost always left wing by it's very nature...mostly because the right wing has decided to shun everything that it should ever carry. You have no idea what I think...you are the most laughable truth detector in the world.

Posted (edited)

I don't find CBC News to be left leaning...and otherwise, public television is almost always left wing by it's very nature...mostly because the right wing has decided to shun everything that it should ever carry. You have no idea what I think...you are the most laughable truth detector in the world.

I have yet to see any expansive examples of this CBC news' left wing bias. (No doubt one could find two or three particular examples, but that's not indicative of anything.)

I do hear the claim made from time to time. But I don't consider the claim itself to be evidence of anything.

Edited by bloodyminded

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted

20 million per year isn't like they are devoting a lot of money to it...20 million could mean 10 episodes of a one hour news show the quality 60 minutes...

I though it's 100 million per year. Maybe I'm wrong, 20 million wouldn't be much.

Posted

I have yet to see any expansive examples of this CBC news' left wing bias.

Really? Did you not read my earlier post? Or did you just chose to ignore it?

Anyways, once again...

CBC reporter reassigned for writing Liberal questions during Schreiber hearings

OTTAWA -- 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

Posted

Really? Did you not read my earlier post? Or did you just chose to ignore it?

Anyways, once again...

No, I hadn't read it. But it has nothing to do whatsoever with the debate we are currently having.

Journalistic dishonesty that attacks the conservative Party, or that is in favour of the Liberal Party, is partisan bias...but it is not "left wing" bias." That doesn't even make sense.

In fact, the very NP article you quote edges into dishonesty, by throwing in this completely irrelevant remark:

The Conservatives regularly complain about what they see as a left-wing bias at the CBC.

That's a bit disingenuous...because the story in which this sentence appears isn't even about "left wing bias."

If that's the best example you've got, I think my point is well on its way to being proven.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted

I don't find CBC News to be left leaning...and otherwise, public television is almost always left wing by it's very nature...mostly because the right wing has decided to shun everything that it should ever carry. You have no idea what I think...you are the most laughable truth detector in the world.

This is true,and it has to do with the ideological right's free market ethos and it's aversion to (almost) all things public.

However,just because a public television network might lean to the left,it's information news shows don't always have to.At Issue would be an example of this on the CeeB,but an even better example of this might be PBS in the U.S.

It's no secret that NPR and PBS lean to the left,so much so that I can't watch alot of it.However,The Newshour(it used to be The Newshour with Jim Lehrer and before that The McNeil and Lehrer Report)is one of the most evenhanded hour long news programs on the air.In fact,it's the only American news program I can stomach because it is 1 hour long,and delves deeply into an issue.They usually cover 3 to 4 serious topics after they run through the days events.They will have guests from both sides of an issue on and discuss in depth differences and possible common ground solutions to those problems.

That's the evenhandedness I'm looking for in a news show,not some ideological sounding board/echo chamber that inflames differences to the point that they are intractable...

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted

Exactly. I would even call the National even handed. I would say the same thing about CTV National News. I think we're well served in Canada in terms of evenhandedness. I don't see how introducing partisan bickering will help things.

Posted

Exactly. I would even call the National even handed. I would say the same thing about CTV National News. I think we're well served in Canada in terms of evenhandedness. I don't see how introducing partisan bickering will help things.

That's something the ideologues that feel this is required have to answer to...

I don't see the need for it either...

The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!

Posted

I say bring it on. If people want it, it will possibly succeed. If people don't want it, it will fail.

It's more a matter of entertainment than actual news; I know, they're not selling it that way, but that's because they're lying (ie marketing). And yes, some people will take it seriously, but I don't know that it will ignite any divisions more than they already are.

Frankly, the idea that Canadians will flock to a "patriotic" news organ sounds pretty dubious to me...but I could be wrong.

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted (edited)

I've read a few people on complain about Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly has reported on many instances where judges have given lenient sentences to pedophiles. Bill O'Reilly exposed these judges. If it weren't for Billy O reporting on these types of stories, they would never have been mentioned by ABC, CNN, NBC, or CBS. Fox News has its idiots, much the same as any other news organization. What i do like about FOX News is that they report news that the other outlets deem unworthy. However, the new is far from being unworthy.

Why is it only Fox News gets demonized in Canada? Why doesn't MSNBC get the same treatment?

Edited by lukin

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,906
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Henry Blackstone
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Doowangle earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Doowangle earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dave L earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Ana Silva earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...