It's not because of teflon...

[betsy]

Embarrassing to show the world he had lost whatever integrity he had left.

Losing integrity? For accepting the position in the senate?

It's one thing if he's still a journalist....but he's not.

Furthermore, the fact that he's been able to maintain his objectivity as a journalist only

serves to illustrate that he's earned his position in the Senate. He didn't let partisanship stand in the way of his credibility as a journalist....why shouldn't we assume that he'd not do the same as a Senator?

[August1991]

This is my favourite argument for media bias I've ever heard: The media has an overriding institutional slant because of young entry-level journalists who are trying to be hip! Who needs drivel from sociology textbooks?

I have no better explanation, ES. I agree that my reasoning is perfectly ad hoc. But the bias is not institutional. Have you ever seen the lifestyle of a journalist in the midst of a political campaign? It's a game for younger people.

Anyway, I suspect that this will be one of the last campaigns to operate this way. Technology is changing and the role of social media is overtaking the services provided by street journalists.

Here's an example.

[bloodyminded]

Noam Chomsky? Watershed?

correct.

BM, that is ad hoc nonsense that you have written. It is the kind of drivel one finds in sociology textbooks.

No, not at all. And you know nothing of the book, as is evidenced momentarily by your "Soviet authorities" remark, as I'll get to.

You invent theories to accomodate observed facts.

First of all, to clarify, the theory is not mine. If I had invented it, it would be awesome, but I did not.

Second, in what interesting world do you live in which "theories" should NOT "accomodate observed facts"?

You think observed facts should be alterted to accomodate theories?

In a few decades, when someone observes other facts, then they'll invent different theories.

This doesn't rise even to the level of informed vacuity.

The Soviet authorities had complete control over the mass media but were never able to "manufacture consent". That's it, end of story.

No, it's precisely part of the point, and it shows you have zero understanding of how Western propaganda works...no wonder your response to all such matters is "the Left....."

Western propaganda exists precisely because the media are not under central control by government authorities. It is effective because most of it contains half-truths (which are also half lies, by definition).

Perhaps you should read up on the theories of which you admittedly know nothing whatsoever before you decry the straw men that have nothing to do with the theories. A radical proposition, I know....

A (very rough) outline of the model:

1.Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners - often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience.

2.The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de-facto licensing authority".[1] Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working-class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.

3.Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the medias costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.[2]

4.Flak and the Enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.[2]

5.Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (194591), anticommunism was replaced by the "War on Terror", as the major social control mechanism

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.

In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite. It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. This is especially true where the media actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest. What is not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques, as well as the huge inequality in command of resources, and its effect both on access to a private media system and on its behavior and performance.

A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public. The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.

The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values. Within the limits of the filter constraints they often are objective; the constraints are so powerful, and are built into the system in such a fundamental way, that alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable. In assessing the newsworthiness of the U.S. government's urgent claims of a shipment of MIGs to Nicaragua on November 5, I984, the media do not stop to ponder the bias that is inherent in the priority assigned to government-supplied raw material, or the possibility that the government might be manipulating the news, imposing its own agenda, and deliberately diverting attention from other material. It requires a macro, alongside a micro- (story-by-story), view of media operations, to see the pattern of manipulation and systematic bias.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

Here's an example.

I don't get what they're upset about. Joe Volpe's handler recycled a campaign leaflet?

A Green Party leaflet in a recycling bin seems kind of fitting.

-k

[bloodyminded]

This is my favourite argument for media bias I've ever heard: The media has an overriding institutional slant because of young entry-level journalists who are trying to be hip! Who needs drivel from sociology textbooks?

Sure, when you've got such expansive analyses as that, it all starts to make sense.

[bloodyminded]

I have no better explanation, ES. I agree that my reasoning is perfectly ad hoc. But the bias is not institutional.

The biases of large corporations, beholden to shareholders, disseminating often important and contentious information, utterly interrelated, dependent on advertising revenues for profit, dependent almost solely on Government and Business spokespeople for most of its source material, and comprised of many thousands of individuals working within a distinctly institutional creature...are "not institutional"?

Rather, "young journalists trying to be hip" explains the matter better?

When you're in the mood for a serious discussion on the matter, let me know.

[Evening Star]

I don't get what they're upset about. Joe Volpe's handler recycled a campaign leaflet?

A Green Party leaflet in a recycling bin seems kind of fitting.

-k

Ha. It had a real impact though:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberal-fired-pamphlet-trashing-195019694.html

[Scotty]

correct.

A (very rough) outline of the model:

Of course, that could be and probably is all so much BS

[bloodyminded]

Of course, that could be and probably is all so much BS

Any idea could be "so much BS."

That's what debates and dicussions are for.

So far on this thread, we've had two serious proposals floated:

1.

It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. This is especially true where the media actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest. What is not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques, as well as the huge inequality in command of resources, and its effect both on access to a private media system and on its behavior and performance.

A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public.

......

The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values. Within the limits of the filter constraints they often are objective; the constraints are so powerful, and are built into the system in such a fundamental way, that alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable.

versus

2.

Journalists want to be hip, so they have a leftist bias.

Well, I can see why you'd consider the first to be bullshit, and, evidently (by omission of criticism) the second to be a sober and expansive analysis of media bias.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

Ha. It had a real impact though:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberal-fired-pamphlet-trashing-195019694.html

Ah. Hadn't realized that they'd actually plundered through peoples' mailboxes to remove their opponent's leaflets.

Should serve as a reminder to those who assume that the trashing of signs and vandalism must be done by Conservatives.

How surprising is it that Joe Volpe would be involved in a controversy like this? I bet the Liberals wish he would go find another career. How many times is he going to embarrass the party?

-k

[August1991]

The biases of large corporations, beholden to shareholders, disseminating often important and contentious information, utterly interrelated, dependent on advertising revenues for profit, dependent almost solely on Government and Business spokespeople for most of its source material, and comprised of many thousands of individuals working within a distinctly institutional creature...are "not institutional"?

BM, you and I have a very different view of corporations (although given time, I think we would probably agree).

To me, corporations are merely profit-generating mechanisms. They seek profit opportunites. In a sense, if corporate managers didn't maximize shareholder value, the corporation wouldn't exist long.

So, the only bias of large media corporations is to sell advertising space and generate revenues at the lowest cost possible. Pierre-Karl Peladeau doesn't have an agenda at Sun TV. Heck, he runs the Journal de Montreal too which generally has a separatist slant.

----

I gave the example above of the Soviet Union. If someone tries to limit or control information, people will just turn away and ignore it.

"You can lie to some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can't lie to all of the people all of the time."

For things that matter, people will go to the trouble of being informed.

----

IMV, Noam Chomsky is a standard issue French intellectual. He blathers on and uses sophisticated words/analysis but it's just amusing coffee shop digressions.

It's like me above suggesting that since young people tend to be leftist, and since it takes energy and naivety to work 16 hour days as a journalist on an election campaign, most reporting by line journalists has a leftist slant. If you add in the fact that some young women think a journalist is sexy, it's a volatile combination.

My reasoning is as good as Chomsky's. I just happen to think that I'm right.

Edited April 25, 2011 by August1991

[Scotty]

Well, I can see why you'd consider the first to be bullshit, and, evidently (by omission of criticism) the second to be a sober and expansive analysis of media bias.

I think both were bullshit, but at least his was succinct.

[Topaz]

One more pro-liberal media crap. It was not a media, it was a certain represenative of the second oldest profession.

1. Who was the reporter?

2. Why did the citizens boo him?

Somehow these two questions are not reported. You can bet the devil is in details!

The proof is in the pudding and again, a tory supporter jumps to conclusions. Listen to the question to HArper the next day and the reporter was Terry from CBC, and he says, since he didn't hear the question due to his staffers..... http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=5498

[YEGmann]

The proof is in the pudding and again, a tory supporter jumps to conclusions. Listen to the question to HArper the next day and the reporter was Terry from CBC, and he says, since he didn't hear the question due to his staffers..... http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=5498

Did you listen to the Harper's answer? It contradicts your and Milevsky assumption he didn't hear the question a day before.

This is the crucial detail the left-wing media do not report. Milevsky asked a question about that Malik's incident and received the answer that was pretty neutral. According to the report of a witness, apparently Milevsky did not like the answer and asked again obviously trying to shed bad light on Conservatives. It was so obvious that the public booed him.

In Victoria, BC, he asked the same question, which is in your clip, for the third time. And Harper gave the same answer, commenting that it is the same answer, Milevsky received a day before.

It may be my personal opinion, but I find Terry Milevsky being extremely liberal-biased in his articles on the cbc.ca website.

[capricorn]

I find Terry Milevsky being extremely liberal-biased in his articles on the cbc.ca website.

Milewski on the campaign trail, trying very hard to be a walking/talking Liberal attack ad.

[Smallc]

You do realize that it isn't the job of the press to simply accept the campaign stump speeches, correct?

[Bryan]

Milewski on the campaign trail, trying very hard to be a walking/talking Liberal attack ad.

Milewski practically is the Liberal campaign manager. That he even still has a job has eroded what little credibility the CBC had left.