Bionic Antboy Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 I bring this up because caesar mentioned media bias in another thread, and figured that it would be topic worth discussing on it's own. The following was posted in the Attack Ads thread and has been edited On June 10th, City-TV, Global and CTV all ran some kind of piece about how the Liberals were coming out with their new attack ad, and Harper's response, in which he suggested that isn't a route that his party would go. I had just seen the Conservative ad moments before (on the CBC IIRC) with a Martin-like figure throwing money in the garbage, which clearly contradicts the reporting of each of these media outlets. The reporting suggested that the Liberals (and NDP) were sinking into the negative campaigning, and the Conservatives were above it all, which is only half true at the most. Shoddy journalism or deliberate bias? Either way, it was inaccurate reporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 As far as I can see "media bias" is subordinate to the prevailing winds of the day; if everyone thinks Martin is desperate, then he is desperate. Harper has done a magificent job, politically, so far. All that remains is for him to remain above the fray in the debates and he will be the next PM. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 The vast majority of the media in Canada is controlled by business interests who support the Conservatives and the Liberals. 99% of the stuff you will see in the press will support these two parties. Absolutely there is serious bias in the media, and it is up to us Canadians to come up with ideas, and a concrete action plan, to control its abuses. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 In this election, I think the media have been tagging far behind public opinion. The depth of anger about Liberal arrogance and corruption was palpable months ago. So, if there's a media bias, it would be either pro-status quo or anti-Tory. But any bias seems to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, the media provides the basic facts so that people can form their own opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 In this election, I think the media have been tagging far behind public opinion. The depth of anger about Liberal arrogance and corruption was palpable months ago. Perhaps, but the poll numbers were there. It's hard to predict the future, as we all now know. So, if there's a media bias, it would be either pro-status quo or anti-Tory. But any bias seems to be irrelevant.Nevertheless, the media provides the basic facts so that people can form their own opinions. Agreed. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o.i.c Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 'If' (??) there's media bias? It is virtually impossible for bias not to exist when writing or expressing thoughts! It is simply whether you choose to believe in the bias or not. And if you want to be better than the bias you read, you 1) know your sources (funding!!, perspective of editor, perspective of author, etc.), 2) read a variety of independent sources (i.e. not part of the same network, international, etc.), 3) read until you find an opposing view, or until your eyes are red, then read some more. "facts"? You mean ideas that you trust. Now I'll agree trust is almost inevitable somewhere in the transfer of information, but how far are you willing to dive in; how superficial is your trust? "Own opinions"? Maybe you could describe the spectrum of thought for me, inside and outside the media. Give me the extremes, and maybe a couple of moderate views if you wish. That question is unfair I think, just because it sets me up to poke fun at you guys, and I'm not here to do that. So this is what I will say: the media has literally neglected thousands of years of poltical philosophy and confined it to two very similar perspectives: liberalism or conservatism (not necessarily related to the 'Liberal Party' or 'Conservative Party'). Sure there are grass roots activist parties (around here - Green Party, Marijuana Party), but no one is serious about them, nor are they actually opposing views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 It is virtually impossible for bias not to exist when writing or expressing thoughts! It is simply whether you choose to believe in the bias or not.I disagree. There are objective facts which do not depend on a relative context. For example, "the speed of light in a vacuum" or, "Brian Mulroney reformed the MST creating the GST". At most, I'll accept quantum mechanics: objective truth is tempered by chance, but that's absolutely unpredictable and without bias. (At the limit, such as the speed of light or a ship on the horizon, chance no longer exists. I'll accept that in the GST case.)"facts"? You mean ideas that you trust. Now I'll agree trust is almost inevitable somewhere in the transfer of information, but how far are you willing to dive in; how superficial is your trust?I'm not going to lose sleep over an empiricist's dilemma. If I see the sky is blue, I'll trust my eyes. If you tell me the sky is blue, and I have no reason to believe you gain by lying, I'll trust you."Own opinions"? Maybe you could describe the spectrum of thought for me, inside and outside the media. Give me the extremes, and maybe a couple of moderate views if you wish.The federal government should nationalize and operate Canada's auto industry. It should provide subsidies to the auto industry. It should not provide any subsidies. It should raise or lower corporate taxes.That question is unfair I think, just because it sets me up to poke fun at you guysHow?So this is what I will say: the media has literally neglected thousands of years of poltical philosophy and confined it to two very similar perspectives: liberalism or conservatismI disagree. For better or worse, this is the current result of all those years of political debate, argument and philosophizing. People learn. Knowledge is passed from generation to generation. The media provides ample evidence of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 Journalism school ethics seem to have deteriorated over the years. Moreover, journalists no longer seem content to merely do their job and report the news, but seem to want to make the news too. There's a bias. I think it runs in a number of ways. They're human, but that's no excuse for the laxity in their approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted June 12, 2004 Report Share Posted June 12, 2004 I just watched CTV News and was amazed that the top storey was how PM has renewed vigour being back on the hustings. In a chinese restaurant with a fortune cookie that said " you will have much success", (what a moron) Second storey was Craig Chandler and Rick Borostic warning Canadians. Kinda like talking to John Bryden ('member him) and well you name it; Shiela Copps, John Manley, Herb Dahlliwa {sp}, PATHETIC! We already have state tv. Kinda makes me want to own a TV station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o.i.c Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Now, just so that we're on the same page, I'm not a relativist or empiricist (is that what you called it? Are you aware of what an empiricist is?) Anyhow, this is more of an epistemological discussion, which in a political forum would be unheard of. And a thread on media bias is far too important for me to scare off people. Trust is really the problem I brought up. Your opinions and assumptions express where you place your trust quite clearly. I've come across enough information to break my trust in a lot of what mass media produces, but I occassionally refer to them only to discover they still produce garbage (it would be hypocritical of me to discredit them as sources if I did not know what came out of them). Now, I'm not a scholar, and even if I was, don't trust me, go out and read oppossing views of your opinion for yourself. If you do not try to disprove your own dogmatic opinions or subject yourself to opposition, how could you believe in them so fervently? For a silly example somewhat related to your example but using your own assumptions: classical Newtonian laws of motion took years to establish. The media prides itself on its speed to report a story. No ojections, no spectrum of thought, just one tidbit of information taken out of context, reported fairly lightly. If you believe in the logical fallacies, its increadibly easy to apply them to most stories. A significant amount of articles are merely ad hominem attacks. I had to contemplate whether to provide sources of my own, but then people would gain my own bias, and that wouldn't be beneficial. All I will say is, once you do reference a variety of independent international sources, your view of the world will fundamentally change. If you value your own so called rights and freedoms, I recommend this. Goldie, ...then why continue to watch CTV News?...why watch television at all? OR, why not start that TV station of your own? What would you televise? takeanumber, ...are you refering to the columnist(s) who were caught fabricating their stories? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Blair Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 It is pretty much impossible to put together an entertaining story of more than a few words that does not have a bias. The CBC actually does a pretty good job of that in its hard news, so does CTV. Both offer large dollops of opinion as well. The CBC does a better job of balancing those dollops than CTV IMO, but both are regularly accused of bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 For more on media bias, read "Hidden Agendas" by Brooks and Miljan. It's a great read. Actually tracks metrics and the like all the way through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 The CBC does a better job of balancing those dollops than CTV IMO, but both are regularly accused of bias. Actually tracks metrics and the like all the way through. Both these arguments depend on the premise that people are stupid and can't see through whatever bias to form their own opinion. For things that matter, I happen to think ordinary people are extremely smart. The problem is that an ordinary person only gets one vote that will change SFA in the grand scheme of things. Why bother forming intelligent opinions when your vote is pointless? Better to devote energies to seeking a suitable significant other, angling for a promotion or figuring out how to pay down the mortgage faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Blair Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 I don't think people are stupid at all, August. I do think they will seek out the media source that best reflect their own biases, making opinion very hard to change. People need to watch a variety of news if they are to stay informed amd understand that their views may not be the prevailing views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonerguy Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Media bias also includes deliberate ommissions, as well as proactive touting. For instance Mr. Layton's past performances seem to be quite predictable but not complete See http://www.JackLaytonsaid.com or current thread as above in can.politics & other newsgroups Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Media bias; Of course there is. Can West owns most of the newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations. Papers are required to publish editorials that they send to them. These editorials; the local paper is not allowed to publish letters to the editor with a credible opposing view. Have you not noticed; much news is no longer in our papers. Yes, I did notice that they referred to the Liberal ad as mud slinging. The ad is not mud slinging. They only remind people of previous stands that Harper has made that he now tries to deny. Mud slinging is vague personal attacks usually from their past; like the one on the NDP candidate that had made some remarks about Jews 10 years, ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonerguy Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Precisely, Jack Layton seems to have associated with violent, out of control groups suc as the Anti-poverty Coalition and Anti Racist group; been photgograped addressing them in circumstances which later degenerated into violence such as the 'homeless' (one of whom later put a house up as bail) storming Queen's Park Legislative Assembly; and the disorderly picketing and attack on a house on Carlton St Toronto. His activities in 1969 - organizing and participating in a riotous march on McGill Universtity, with a view to seizing the Admin Bldg, and turning a 200 year old school into a Fench only institution seem to find total media myopia. Here the leftist bias of Canadian media is painfully obvious. http://www.jackLaytonsaid.com has more details & news photos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 Media bias also includes deliberate ommissions, as well as proactive touting. Or deliberately seeking out good or bad news. The top story on CTV a few days back was some ex PC MP I'd never even heard of warning how dangerous the new Conservative Party was as he cleaned out his desk (complete with dutiful pictures of him cleaning out his desk). This is a news story? Some nobody ex-MP bitching about the new party? This is your top story on the national news? Well, it is if you have an agenda and want to portray the Conservative Party badly. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 I don't think people are stupid at all, August. I do think they will seek out the media source that best reflect their own biases, making opinion very hard to change. Some people seek out a biased media to confirm their beliefs. And I guess CanWest also tells people what they want to hear since CanWest is in the media business for profit. (The CBC on the other hand doesn't face this problem and so is open to manipulation.) My point is different. Most people devote little time to understanding public issues because these efforts lead to no personal benefit. People devote effort to looking for a job; they do not devote effort looking for Harper's hidden agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 14, 2004 Report Share Posted June 14, 2004 My point is different. Most people devote little time to understanding public issues because these efforts lead to no personal benefit. People devote effort to looking for a job; they do not devote effort looking for Harper's hidden agenda. That's why bias becomes so dangerous: when people pay little attention to public issues, they're much more likely to base their decison on a sound bite or headline. Which would explain why the Cons, who've coasted along in a media love-in have polled so well. By the way, tonerguy, who's behind that web site? I smell a Heritage Front rat... Quote America...."the worlds largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o.i.c Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Most people devote little time to understanding public issues because these efforts lead to no personal benefit. People devote effort to looking for a job; they do not devote effort looking for Harper's hidden agenda. Hm, yes. So this is another reason why people do not seem to care, that caring is not meaningful or beneficial to them? Looking for a job may certainly be one use of time. I think the general category would be to achieve some personal need. Agree? Well if all we have time for is to meet our needs, are we really the advanced society we pride ourselves as being? I don't believe that all we have time for is to meet our needs. Look at all the time people spend watching t.v. or on the Internet alone. If you want to track where people spend their time, just follow where advertisers end up, its really that simple. Another point: searching for a job, and later obtaining one, or in general, achieving a personal need, was initiated in the first place in hopes of improving one's life. They are just a means of doing so. But if we believe in democracy, then theoretically, thorough knowledge of political activity, global issues (because they do turn full circle), etc. would directly cause an improved life, because through electing political representatives that share your goals, you have more people working towards achieving those same needs you set out to do alone otherwise. If we don't believe in democracy, then why do people have this misconception of government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o.i.c Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 This post is seperate just because it's geared back towards the media bias. When I talk about media bias, I also mean the lack of information they provide. So whether or not one may decipher biased opinions, a lack of provided information is impossible to decipher unless you query a variety of sources. By that I mean also a variety of mediums. So sure you can switch the channel, get a bit of CBC and contrast that to something like Fox, but this will still vastly differ from reading independent, international sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 right; thankfully, the internet does allow you to get the main news from a variety of sources. I found the UK Telegraph to publish more international news and always way ahead of our papers. Then you can check out other sources to beef out the background, Most of the papers did lean towards supporting Bush and not publishing articles that display him in a bad light. When this information is given ; it is way back on page 7. I haven't read anything in our papers regarding the 24 former diplomats and military (Bush Sr and Reagan people) who are asking voters to vote out Bush. They are a mix of Democrats and Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o.i.c Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Well the Internet is up-to-date, and certain things only exist on the Internet (that I could access). But using the Internet still requires a bunch of sources, not just one, as you say. Take for example the UK Telegraph, which is published by Telegraph Group Limited, which is owned by Hollinger International Inc. Here is a limited, biased account of the history of Hollinger: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL, INC. SEC Obtains Federal Court Order To Protect Shareholders and Preserve Corporate Assets of Hollinger International, Inc. If you find out a little more you can come across names like Conrad Black and Henry Kissinger. There is a lot on these two names alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.