Harper's next victim...CRTC

[M.Dancer]

If anything, wouldn't tighter margins on network news provide a greater reason to be worried about ratings?

Ratings are important, certainly, but producing 1 hour of news tend to be very expensive. Put it to you this way, for 5, 2 minute pieces delivered by staffers in Afghanistan, it's about the same cost as 30 minutes of Little Mosque on the Prarie.

[dre]

And? What does this have to do with the fact that the CRTC tells me what I can watch?

More to the fact, what do you suppose will happen when everything is coming down the tubes? Somehow the CRTC is going to magically regulate the news I read from foreign sources? Order ISPs to throw up banners advertising Canadian content?

As much as it sucks that corporate-funded news sometimes is slanted, but it's the illusion some of you guys have that government regulation doesn't end up in the same ball park. It's my TV, I should have the right to view what I want. If I don't want to watch a stitch of Canadian content (which is largely true since Trailer Park Boys ended), that's my right.

Regulation of content is nothing more than a backhanded way of censorship.

I understand how you feel but you have to balance that against the importance in a democracy of having an informed public. If you allow advertising companies to masquerade as news, or if you allow corporate propoganda to masquerade as news then you put that in jeapardy.

You can see this playing itself out in the states where corporatized media has essentially brough about the extinction of the "fact". There IS no facts any more. If youre a fox viewer you believe that huge stockpiles of WMD's were found in Iraq, if youre a CNN viewer you dont.

I dont know about outright censorship... but I would support some kind of disclaimer. Like a little caption in the corner of the screen on CNN or FOX that says "For entertainment purposes only".

[ToadBrother]

I understand how you feel but you have to balance that against the importance in a democracy of having an informed public. If you allow advertising companies to masquerade as news, or if you allow corporate propoganda to masquerade as news then you put that in jeapardy.

Surely you must see that government can be every bit as poisonous to free expression. In fact it can be much much worse.

You can see this playing itself out in the states where corporatized media has essentially brough about the extinction of the "fact". There IS no facts any more. If youre a fox viewer you believe that huge stockpiles of WMD's were found in Iraq, if youre a CNN viewer you dont.

This is hyperbole to the extreme. Yes, there are moments when the news can sadly become a servant of the government, but it can also turn on the government with great effect, just as the whole WMD issue blew up in GWB's face.

I dont know about outright censorship... but I would support some kind of disclaimer. Like a little caption in the corner of the screen on CNN or FOX that says "For entertainment purposes only".

And will this apply to public broadcasters like the CBC as well? How about the bloggers and the guys doing little YouTube items? How about to my posts and your posts?

I'm curious, considering the long history of state propaganda, that you feel the corporations are somehow more inherently evil than a government regulatory regime? I mean, where do I go if I figure the regulators have a bone to pick?

Edited August 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[dre]

We were way better off when news was a one hour show on traditional networks. Those networks relied on things like sitcoms, sports, and dramas to generate revenue so for the most part they would leave their news team alone and let jounalists determine content.

24 news networks have taken that same one hour of news, retooled it to generate ratings, then spread it out over 24 hours and filled all the gaps with editorializing and celebrity fluff pieces.

[ToadBrother]

We were way better off when news was a one hour show on traditional networks. Those networks relied on things like sitcoms, sports, and dramas to generate revenue so for the most part they would leave their news team alone and let jounalists determine content.

24 news networks have taken that same one hour of news, retooled it to generate ratings, then spread it out over 24 hours and filled all the gaps with editorializing and celebrity fluff pieces.

Whether we are better off or not is subjective. I have far more access to information now than I had twenty years ago, far more sources, and as far as editorial content, well, there's a universe of it, including right here.

I'll take today over yesteryear any day of the week.

[M.Dancer]

Those networks relied on things like sitcoms, sports, and dramas to generate revenue so for the most part they would leave their news team alone and let jounalists determine content.

When the costs are greater than the revenues, no one is spared.

http://www.newslab.ca/?p=163

24 news networks have taken that same one hour of news, retooled it to generate ratings, then spread it out over 24 hours and filled all the gaps with editorializing and celebrity fluff pieces.

ehhhh...no

CBC Newsworld, BBC World, CTV Newsnet and CNN all have widely different formats and cater to differnt audiences at different times of the day. I can't speak for Fox News, I have never seen it.

Which goes to my point. If news as you claim is market research driven, all of those networks should have similar formats, yet they don't. Why would one eschew a money maker to pursue documetaries while another choses to run the news loop? Yet they all have valid reasons for shosing the format they do....and further, with Newsworld and Newsnet, while have they chosen to forgo the talk radio format, when from a cost/revenue POV, it is clearly a winner?

[dre]

Surely you must see that government can be every bit as poisonous to free expression. In fact it can be much much worse.

This is hyperbole to the extreme. Yes, there are moments when the news can sadly become a servant of the government, but it can also turn on the government with great effect, just as the whole WMD issue blew up in GWB's face.

And will this apply to public broadcasters like the CBC as well? How about the bloggers and the guys doing little YouTube items? How about to my posts and your posts?

I'm curious, considering the long history of state propaganda, that you feel the corporations are somehow more inherently evil than a government regulatory regime? I mean, where do I go if I figure the regulators have a bone to pick?

This is hyperbole to the extreme

No its the exact truth...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/u/pipa?q=cache:M-tjR2tJCegJ:www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdf+study+maryland+fox+news&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8

Innacurate and misleading reporting devoid of journalistic integrity may very well be what allowed the Iraq war to happen. There was a clear case where having an informed public mattered, but where news corporates that stood to directly profit from a war not only spread outright falsehoods but failed to aske the important questions and demand evidence.

Instead... they redecorated their sets and made fancy new graphics and joined the march to war.

[M.Dancer]

No its the exact truth...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/u/pipa?q=cache:M-tjR2tJCegJ:www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdf+study+maryland+fox+news&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8

Innacurate and misleading reporting devoid of journalistic integrity may very well be what allowed the Iraq war to happen. There was a clear case where having an informed public mattered, but where news corporates that stood to directly profit from a war not only spread outright falsehoods but failed to aske the important questions and demand evidence.

Instead... they redecorated their sets and made fancy new graphics and joined the march to war.

You are falling for the logical fallacy ...is it theior coverage that caused it or are the viewers just not smart?

[dre]

When the costs are greater than the revenues, no one is spared.

http://www.newslab.ca/?p=163

ehhhh...no

CBC Newsworld, BBC World, CTV Newsnet and CNN all have widely different formats and cater to differnt audiences at different times of the day. I can't speak for Fox News, I have never seen it.

Which goes to my point. If news as you claim is market research driven, all of those networks should have similar formats, yet they don't. Why would one eschew a money maker to pursue documetaries while another choses to run the news loop? Yet they all have valid reasons for shosing the format they do....and further, with Newsworld and Newsnet, while have they chosen to forgo the talk radio format, when from a cost/revenue POV, it is clearly a winner?

Which goes to my point. If news as you claim is market research driven, all of those networks should have similar formats, yet they don't.

Theres more than one demographic out there, and more than one way to reach them. Also not all the networks you mentioned are market driven, and some are only partially market driven.

If news as you claim is market research driven

I never claimed that all news was market research driven. I said that advertising companies are market research driven... and that modern corporate news networks are at their core advertising companies.

[ToadBrother]

No its the exact truth...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/u/pipa?q=cache:M-tjR2tJCegJ:www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdf+study+maryland+fox+news&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8

Innacurate and misleading reporting devoid of journalistic integrity may very well be what allowed the Iraq war to happen. There was a clear case where having an informed public mattered, but where news corporates that stood to directly profit from a war not only spread outright falsehoods but failed to aske the important questions and demand evidence.

Instead... they redecorated their sets and made fancy new graphics and joined the march to war.

I think that's overstating the media's role, but even given that, you haven't explained to me how government regulation would solve the problem. I'm asking you quite directly why you would trust a government regulator any more than a corporation? Are you seriously advocating a regulatory regime that would have the power to declare a news broadcast a lie? As craven or gullible as the media may have been in the lead up to the Iraqi war, imagine giving some arm of the government the power to put little red signs in the corner saying "This is for entertainment value only".

Edited August 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[M.Dancer]

Instead... they redecorated their sets and made fancy new graphics and joined the march to war.

Much like all of the news providers

[dre]

You are falling for the logical fallacy ...is it theior coverage that caused it or are the viewers just not smart?

It was misleading coverage and the way the news was presented, plus the editorializing.

[ToadBrother]

It was misleading coverage and the way the news was presented,

The news was presented as it was. In many cases journalists have little ability but to report what government sources tell them. The military, in particular, has a long history of manipulating the press via embedded reporters. Sensible people take such reports with a grain of salt. That there are plenty of credulous people out there is doubtless, but I certainly no more trust a regulator than I do a US Marine general to get to the bottom of things.

By the way, there were plenty of people saying the WMD issue was B.S. in the leadup, both in the American and in the foreign press. Even CNN, which I was watching at the time, showed decidedly unimpressed folks from the UN during Powell's little slideshow.

plus the editorializing.

Which is supposed to sway opinions. That's rather the point. What are you suggesting, only editorials that agree with your ideological slant be allowed?

Edited August 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Much like all of the news providers

Perhaps we should have news delivered from the bottom of a hollow tube, with a digitally altered voice speaking in monotones.

"Comrades, Pravda brings you the news..."

Edited August 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[dre]

I think that's overstating the media's role, but even given that, you haven't explained to me how government regulation would solve the problem. I'm asking you quite directly why you would trust a government regulator any more than a corporation?

The government represents the public interest at least some of the time, and corporations by definition NEVER do.

But beyond that you definately raise a valid concern. Any regulatory bodies should have a high level of independence from the sitting government.

I would look at the role that the government plays in preventing and penalizing false advertising and see which parts of that might apply to false reporting as well.

[dre]

Perhaps we should have news delivered from the bottom of a hollow tube, with a digitally altered voice speaking in monotones.

"Comrades, Pravda brings you the news..."

Im all for that, and normally the news sources I like the most are the ones closest to that. Id be fine with some boring old dude dispassionately deadpanning out the known facts about a story without any editorializing. I dont really give a shit about his opinion I just want the information.

Editorializing and supposed "Expert Analysis" are two common ways to mislead people with actually having to engage in direct false reporting.

[ToadBrother]

The government represents the public interest at least some of the time, and corporations by definition NEVER do.

I think this is painting things with a very broad brush, and demonstrates precisely what I'm talking about. You have an axe to grind. You're willing to ignore centuries of governments using their substantial powers to manipulate the information citizens receive, to condemn corporate interests.

Here's a newsflash, corporations and governments are both made up of people, people who will be terribly self-serving at times. The trick here is to never automatically assume that anyone is telling the truth, but rather to have the capacity to judge things. I don't trust CBC News any more than I trust Global or CTV. What I do trust is that the competition between them for viewership will partially remove the problem, and I'll have to trust my intellect to do the rest.

But beyond that you definately raise a valid concern. Any regulatory bodies should have a high level of independence from the sitting government.

In other words, you just create another band of axe-grinders. You have far too much faith in people, or rather, a certain group of people, as if there are two species of humans out there.

I would look at the role that the government plays in preventing and penalizing false advertising and see which parts of that might apply to false reporting as well.

So now you're going to start fining and jailing people that screw up on stories? What you're advocating is infinitely more frightening. The Press must be independent of the government, or it becomes little more than organ of the government.

[eyeball]

This is hyperbole to the extreme. Yes, there are moments when the news can sadly become a servant of the government, but it can also turn on the government with great effect, just as the whole WMD issue blew up in GWB's face.

Blew up in his face?! Talk about hyperbole. He got off Scot-free.

[dre]

By the way ToadBrother...

I certainly dont claim to know all the answers. Im not sure what the solution is, only that corporate media poses a huge and dangerous problem.

[ToadBrother]

Im all for that, and normally the news sources I like the most are the ones closest to that. Id be fine with some boring old dude dispassionately deadpanning out the known facts about a story without any editorializing. I dont really give a shit about his opinion I just want the information.

And surely someone else in a free society has a right to watched the graphically sexed up version with the anchorman with the rugged good looks, the comic-cum-weatherman and the cute blonde. Why are you so interested in forcing your own likes and dislikes on everyone else?

Editorializing and supposed "Expert Analysis" are two common ways to mislead people with actually having to engage in direct false reporting.

Editorializing is supposed to shift views. I'm still trying to figure out what you're getting at here. Are you seriously advocating banning editorializing?

[ToadBrother]

By the way ToadBrother...

I certainly dont claim to know all the answers. Im not sure what the solution is, only that corporate media poses a huge and dangerous problem.

And I've got centuries of evidence that leaving it in the hands of the state is much much worse.

Here's the reality. In a free society, you're stuck. That's the price of a free society.

[ToadBrother]

Blew up in his face?! Talk about hyperbole. He got off Scot-free.

Maybe he did, but the GOP sure didn't. But I'd say that, for presidents, as for any politician, legacy is everything, and GWB's legacy is pretty bleak. I mean, they're already comparing him to horror stories like Andrew Johnson.

[dre]

Editorializing is supposed to shift views. I'm still trying to figure out what you're getting at here. Are you seriously advocating banning editorializing?

No, Im pointing out that the modern news media paradigm makes people stupid and ignorant of the facts and damages our ability to responsibly particpate in our democracies, and Im theorizing on ways we could possibly stop this trend.

You keep mentioning freedom of the press and the importance of it. But that concept applies to BOTH government and corporate interests. The principle behind it is that journalists should be left to report on the news and not put under undue pressure to report on a certain thing or in a certain way. Freedom of the press is compromised in the corporate media in exactly the same way. The jounalists are pressured to spin things in a certain way based on somebodies agenda.

[ToadBrother]

No, Im pointing out that the modern news media paradigm makes people stupid and ignorant of the facts and damages our ability to responsibly particpate in our democracies, and Im theorizing on ways we could possibly stop this trend.

By controlling editorial content?

You keep mentioning freedom of the press and the importance of it. But that concept applies to BOTH government and corporate interests. The principle behind it is that journalists should be left to report on the news and not put under undue pressure to report on a certain thing or in a certain way. Freedom of the press is compromised in the corporate media in exactly the same way. The jounalists are pressured to spin things in a certain way based on somebodies agenda.

In other words, you're going to make reporters answerable to the State. How this is supposed to make me feel more confident about the news is beyond me.

[dre]

By controlling editorial content?

In other words, you're going to make reporters answerable to the State. How this is supposed to make me feel more confident about the news is beyond me.

In other words, you're going to make reporters answerable to the State.

I never said that. I havent advocated any specific course of action at all.

Maybe the answer would be to give journalists special legal protection for ALL external pressures, including executives at his own company, AND the government.