Media Generalizations and Lack of Information

[Smallc]

Now, I'm usually a big media defender, but these things really irk me. Yesterday, I was watching Power and Politics, because I hate myself, and, Greg Weston and Rosemary Barton were talking about the Speaker of the House and the perks that he gets. While they were doing this, they made it sound like the speaker does nothing outside of the House of Commons. In fact, he's charged with the management of the entirety of Parliament. He's also an officer of parliament who represents this country abroad. Yes, some of the perks may be over the top (The Farm and an apartment on Parliament Hill - maybe the Speaker of the Senate could have one so he could have a place to live), but, most of them are similar to what a minister makes.

What really made me decide to write this was a statement from Greg Weston, which basically said, that the speaker in Canada isn't all that important. After all, they aren't the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Now, what does this even mean? Have we gotten to the point where those in the media only think of the ministers as being of any importance? Actually, yes, and it's dangerous. They don't talk about the speakers of either house when they're representing Canada, they don't talk about where the GG goes, and what he does, and so people have the impression he does nothing, they don't talk about the Senate, ever, except to disparage it, so people think that it does nothing. Even normal MPs don't get much respect from the media.

I mean, come on. No wonder I get most of my news from the internet using a variety of sources.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Smallc

[Shwa]

Yesterday, I was watching Power and Politics, because I hate myself, and, Greg Weston and Rosemary Barton were talking about...

Did you have to take a long shower and scrub off a few layers of skin after that experience?

[Smallc]

Did you have to take a long shower and scrub off a few layers of skin after that experience?

[Dave_ON]

What really made me decide to write this was a statement from Greg Weston, which basically said, that the speaker in Canada isn't all that important. After all, they aren't the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Now, what does this even mean? Have we gotten to the point where those in the media only think of the ministers as being of any importance? Actually, yes, and it's dangerous. They don't talk about the speakers of either house when they're representing Canada, they don't talk about where the GG goes, and what he does, and so people have the impression he does nothing, they don't talk about the Senate, ever, except to disparage it, so people think that it does nothing. Even normal MPs don't get much respect from the media.

Agreed but what can truly be done? Media, must appeal to the vast majority of Canadians, ie. the lowest common denominator of political knowledge. Most Canadians, don't understand, nor care to understand how our government works. In order to rope most Canadians in you have to aim at their level of knowledge. Hence, the PM and Cabinet, and the Leader of the official opposition get the lion's share of media attention. The rest of the parliament is largely regarded as voting drones, a means to an end.

The current state of affairs, is merely a result of what Trudeau started nigh on four decades ago through various means, and a tradition that Mr. Harper is just as happy to continue. ie. further concentrating the power of the PMO, sapping the power of the Crown through obfuscation and stacking the senate.

Many don't realize that abolishing the senate would allow the PMO that much more power and basically allow him and his cabinet unchecked across the country. There's no denying the senate isn't functioning fully as intended, to say that regional interests are represented so long as the PM appoints the senators is a stretch. However, we'd be in a sad state of affairs if we abolished it. I don't know what I think is worse, blatant patronage appointments and stacking of the senate, or the current disparaging of the senate which might ultimately lead to it's abolition.

[GostHacked]

I agree with the lack of real information in main stream media. It's mostly slanted and biased towards one line of thinking. And you have one outlet representing the left while another is representing the right.

More and more are turning to other forms of media and independant news outlets to get some real news. And if it's reported in the independant media (like Jones) and not really on MSM, then it's not considered worthy or of any value or substance.

Articles on most MSM seemed to be really dumbed down, and in many cases the grammar and even spelling is shameful. Sure I make mistakes, but I am not part of the media.

Is that why many of us turn to these forums? So we can discuss these articles and point out the flaws and lack of real information? Which is really not such a bad thing.

[Smallc]

Agreed but what can truly be done? Media, must appeal to the vast majority of Canadians, ie. the lowest common denominator of political knowledge. Most Canadians, don't understand, nor care to understand how our government works. In order to rope most Canadians in you have to aim at their level of knowledge.

You're right, and that's the real problem, I suppose. People don't want to know. They simply want to revel in their ignorance, absorbing only things that the want to hear...and the media gives them that. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't lead anywhere good.

There's no denying the senate isn't functioning fully as intended, to say that regional interests are represented so long as the PM appoints the senators is a stretch. However, we'd be in a sad state of affairs if we abolished it.

I think it's working in general, but your right, it isn't working as originally intended. I've proposed a solution that I think might help, but I doubt it would ever be implemented.

[bjre]

Not even a news.

Your brain has been washed since you were a baby.

That's how come you think the western world has "freedom" or "human rights" or "democracy".

Actually, non of those exists.

Right Wing Messaging Works Well Because... Well, They Own The Media

Yesterday Rolling Stone published a spectacular feature by Tim Dickinson, How Roger Ailes Built the Fox News Fear Factory. "Ailes runs the most profitable-- and therefore least accountable – head of the News Corp. hydra," he writes. "Fox News reaped an estimated profit of $816 million last year-- nearly a fifth of Murdoch’s global haul. The cable channel’s earnings rivaled those of News Corp.’s entire film division, which includes 20th Century Fox, and helped offset a slump at Murdoch’s beloved newspapers unit, which took a $3 billion write-down after acquiring the Wall Street Journal. With its bare-bones news-gathering operation-- Fox News has one-third the staff and 30 fewer bureaus than CNN-- Ailes generates profit margins above 50 percent... Fox News now reaches 100 million households, attracting more viewers than all other cable-news outlets combined, and Ailes aims for his network to “throw off a billion in profits.” Like right-wing media moguls before him, he sells fear-- anger, bombast, a virulent paranoid streak, unending appeals to white resentment... And Americans have been buying it.

One of the primary components of right-wing dominance in American politics is their almost total control of the mass media-- even including the irony of the absurd phrase "the liberal media." In fact, the media is completely corporate and overwhelmingly right-wing. Although many people trace that back the deregulatory catastrophe of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (gutting the Communications Act of 1934 and empowering Australian fascist Rupert Murdoch), this has been a major problem for progressives since American oligarchs and fascists made a conscious decision to buy up the media after the success of the muckrakers. As Glen Yeadon points out in The Nazi Hydra in America, American corporate leaders-- a fabulously wealthy elite commonly knows as the robber barons whose practices were universally detested by the public and subject to unwanted scrutiny and regulation by reform-minded government-- saw themselves as the victims of a political atmosphere created by the muckrakers. "Having experienced first hand the power of the press," writes Yeadon, "corporate America employed the media in a full scale assault to regain its stature. It used the three most successful propaganda method ever devised: patriotism, religion and anti-communism." But first it had to get control of the media. On Feb. 9, 1917 Texas Democrat, Rep. Oscar Callaway, inserted a statement into the Congressional Record that unmasks the machinations of the robber barons' play for control of the media:

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.

“These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."

[eyeball]

The only solution to media generalizations and the lack of information about what our politicians do is total transparency that transcends the media, by quite literally hard-wiring politicians to the Internet.

The idea of transcendent accountability is actually quite an ancient one in our governing system given the fact our leaders basically swear to God they will be honest and above board. Unless they're atheists, politicians fully expect to be monitored 24 and 7.

Us...God...what's the real difference as far as politicians are concerned?

Edited June 2, 2011 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

The only solution to media generalizations and the lack of information about what our politicians do is total transparency that transcends the media, by quite literally hard-wiring politicians to the Internet.

Completely and utterly impractical.

We have all the tools to provide substantial monitoring of government without this extreme idea, and we can't even generate interest from the public to do that... yet.

[jacee]

... Media, must appeal to the vast majority of Canadians, ie. the lowest common denominator of political knowledge.

...

There's no denying the senate isn't functioning fully as intended, ... However, we'd be in a sad state of affairs if we abolished it. I don't know what I think is worse, blatant patronage appointments and stacking of the senate, or the current disparaging of the senate which might ultimately lead to it's abolition.

Boy do I ever agree! If we stop and think about it, of course all of our elected politicians want to abolish anything that limits their own power to impose their ideologies on all of us so they can solidify their own voter base. Harper is mouthing the right words about 'efforts to win the confidence of all Canadians' but without the checks and balances built into our system, there are no limits on his power. Some of the Senators appointed by him agree too, saying their view of the importance of the Senate has changed since they now see the importance of their work there.

The Senate is a more stable representation of the politics of the people over time, not as heavily influenced by current political swings as the HoC.

The Senate is to take a longer term view of the legal landscape of Canadian lawmaking, to ensure that unpopular issues that never appear in elections are still given due consideration (eg Aboriginal and treaty rights). It is to provide a forum for "sober second thought" about how current proposed legislation interacts with law currently on the books, preserves democratic limits on power of elected represtatives, promotes consistency in Canada's international relations and correspondence of our laws with international laws and conventions, and generally takes a longer term view of Canada as a democracy to balance the Executive branch that runs Canada as a corporation (which it also is).

I do not support abolition of the Senate, but reform of the body to strengthen its functions to perform civilian oversight of the HoC and to preserve the strength of our Constitution and democratic principles and practices over the long term.

The HoC is the people we hire to run the corporation day to day. The Senate is the Board of Directors. Given the chance any CEO would dump the Board of directors, but as the shareholders in Canada, we should not allow that, imo.

Edited to add...

As for the media, well canadians need to pay more attention to how our democracy is being undermined by people more interested small wads of tissue than the long term health of the power of the people. The media has its own purpose$ that have nothing to do with democracy.

Edited June 2, 2011 by jacee

[Molly]

Good observation, Small c.

I note that Bob Fife was shipping that same load this a.m.

There are some- a few- who are truly trying to offer clear, concise, accurate and thorough information, but they live in a sound-bite world. These are not good times for real journalists.

[Smallc]

Good observation, Small c.

I note that Bob Fife was shipping that same load this a.m.

He always does that. I turned away from CBC when Don Newman left...and I stopped watching CTV National News because of him. I always used to defend him. I don't think he's a Liberal, like so many people accuse him of being, I simply think that when it comes to the facts of the way that our system operates, he's lazy and or doesn't want to be bothered with the truth.

There are some- a few- who are truly trying to offer clear, concise, accurate and thorough information, but they live in a sound-bite world. These are not good times for real journalists.

for political news, it seems that only CPAC is willing to give real, and nearly full information.

[Dave_ON]

Not even a news.

Your brain has been washed since you were a baby.

That's how come you think the western world has "freedom" or "human rights" or "democracy".

Actually, non of those exists.

Two things.

First this is a thread that is about Canadian Politics, something that Fox news has no bearing on.

Secondly if we have no freedom, why are you allowed to write whatever you feel like writing on these and any number of other forums?

Bonus questions, please define for us what you feel "democracy" is precisely.

[bjre]

Two things.

First this is a thread that is about Canadian Politics, something that Fox news has no bearing on.

Secondly if we have no freedom, why are you allowed to write whatever you feel like writing on these and any number of other forums?

Bonus questions, please define for us what you feel "democracy" is precisely.

First, I believe not only Canada, but also the whole "democracy" world is controlled by huge global interest groups. All the mass media are controlled by those groups to wash brains to make people thinks Iraq had WMD and war is needed. And all the congress or parliments are full of the members that matches the rule given by the mass media so that laws can be made to take money from hard working people all over the world and give to those interest groups. That is the reason they loves such kind of totally manuplatable "democracy" system.

Second, search my previous posts, you will find enough proofs that freedom here is just a lie.

Last, I don't think real democracy is perfect, because that means if 51% people want to kill 49% people, that would be legal. I believe always think of others, help others, kindness should be the way to solve problems, not the terrified fascism "zero tolerate" laws. I believe that only 3 rules will be needed to replace all laws.

1. Kill the one who kills another human being.

2. Pay money if one damage another person's property, or work for him until all lost payed or life end.

3. If one make money more than 100 times than average personal income, all the extra part should be take away as tax for public use.

That would be enough to make a very strong and wealthy world.

[Tilter]

1. Kill the one who kills another human being.

2.Pay money if one damage another person's property, or work for him until all lost payed or life end

3. If one make money more than 100 times than average personal income, all the extra part should be take away as tax for public use.

Kill the one who kills another human being

Wrong, wrong wrong

too many treehuggers or in another context--- killerhuggers. As everyone knows Canada is far too civilized for that--- we put killers under house arrest fro 6 months or if, say you help kill 2 ore 3 or even 4 young girls, put you in regular jail (no facials or pedicures) for a couple of years while you get a University degree (on us) then a country club jail for a few more & then let you go, let you change your name & leave the country.

Pay money if one damage another person's property, or work for him until all lost payed or life end

no, no no--- the Canadian way is far better--- for example-- If some idiotNo strike that-- some artistic youngster paints your garage door & the side of your Vinyl-sided house and the police catch him, have the judge give him a firm talking to and move on to the next case--- an adult whose house was graffited who failed, in the 15 days provided by the city Bylaw Officer, to remove the graffiti and fine him 200.bux for this flagrant abuse of the law.

If one make money more than 100 times than average personal income, all the extra part should be take away as tax for public use

Now this is absolutely UnCanadian. What you do in a case like this is makes sure that the Canadian who makes

more than 100 times than average personal income

is to commend him for hiring enough people at the minimum wage so that he can make

more than 100 times than average personal income

, allow him to have enuf nontaxable deductions so that he pays NO tax. This makes a lot of sense because there are so few of him and a lot (hundreds of times more) who subsist on Minimum wage or slightly above that level. These are the people who should be paying the 30% to 40% of their wages so that our politicians can enjoy

more than 100 times than average personal income

and make sure that a lot of ti is nontaxable even forever after the people refuse to re-elect them.

It's the Canadian way

[Topaz]

Canadians can listen to the CBC, CTV, C-PAC and now SunTV plus there local news and get information on the governments without Canada. I would add Global but they don't have a political news show, do they?

[Battletoads]

As demonstrated by the recent election, Canadians are more concerned with rhetoric than with facts.

[Keepitsimple]

Now, I'm usually a big media defender, but these things really irk me. I mean, come on. No wonder I get most of my news from the internet using a variety of sources.

I watched the same program and felt the same way. There are many other examples of the media failing to educate the public with some basic statements:

1) H1N1 - they were so busy trying to sensationalize this "global epidemic" that they ignored (or were too dumb) to educate people that on average, over 2500 Canadians die from flu-related causes every year. That was a travesty.

2) Abortion - the media has never laid out the comparisons of Canada's abortion legislation (none) with all the other Western countries. Whether you agree or not, Canadians should know what's going on in other countries.

3) Medicare - likewise, the media does not lay out the comparisons of other countries when it comes to waiting times, access, and public/private mixes of delivery services. They sometimes offer a general comment but educate Canadians? Nope.

A final note: Greg Weston's viewpoints seem to have become more anti-Conservative since he started to be paid by the CBC. Not surprising I guess.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

3) Medicare - likewise, the media does not lay out the comparisons of other countries when it comes to waiting times, access, and public/private mixes of delivery services. They sometimes over a general comment but educate Canadians? Nope.

I think this is the best example of media's failure to engage people into a complex topic. Our media needs to progress to address the complexity of these problems. MLW seems to me like a stepping stone, if only to identify a core group of citizens who pay enough attention to details - a group that can be leveraged to help move things forward.

[g_bambino]

Have we gotten to the point where those in the media only think of the ministers as being of any importance? Actually, yes, and it's dangerous. They don't talk about the speakers of either house when they're representing Canada, they don't talk about where the GG goes, and what he does, and so people have the impression he does nothing, they don't talk about the Senate, ever, except to disparage it, so people think that it does nothing. Even normal MPs don't get much respect from the media.

The media loves controversy and, in the context of government (i.e. leaving out celebrities), politicians are continual sources of it, especially the more senior ones who make all the big decisions. People like the Queen, the governor general, the speakers, senators, they're all less or not at all partisan and, hence, hardly rock any boats, which the press finds incredibly boring. Hence, these figures are either never covered or, when they are, it's because of some overblown scandal or, otherwise, some controversy has to be tacked on, even if it's completely fabricated. Regard how almost every article about every royal tour is a fluff piece that focuses on hats and "royal watchers" and has to have included in it some reference to the cost and what the latest poll says Canadians think about "ties" to the "British" monarchy; pandering to their audience by throwing in two things Canadians seem obsessed about: an ugly combination of anti-Anglo-nationalism and miserliness. No matter the unfairness and misinformation (would the same be done for all articles about Harper, always mentioning the cost of his office or of his travel and telling us what people polled think of the need for an office that's a "relic" from Canada's "British colonial" past?), there's no interest, apparently, in merely reporting on the Crown's role or focusing on the royals' and viceroys' charitable work. The overall impression given: they're useless and colonial and expensive. So much for impartiality! And, of course, it's the same, as you mention, for senators and the Speaker of the House of Commons; pointless and pricey.

Too disinterested to do the research themselves, the audience absorbs this stuff without effort and those in it, including media figures who obviously read and watch other media, come to all sorts of bizarre conclusions based on these skewed and/or inaccurate reports. It's a sad state of affairs.

[c/e]

Edited June 3, 2011 by g_bambino

[Michael Hardner]

Too disinterested to do the research themselves, the audience absorbs this stuff without effort and those in it, including media figures who obviously read and watch other media, come to all sorts of bizarre conclusions based on these skewed and/or inaccurate reports. It's a sad state of affairs.

[c/e]

As the number of channels increases, though, we should be able to identify channels that specifically work towards the goals that the Founding Fathers had for a free press. If gossip and trivia are so profitable, then they should be able to survive as channels all their own. There is still something like 20% of people who want information and we should leverage them, i.e. us.

[Smallc]

There it is again, Terry Milewski brushing off the Senate as undemocratic.

[Molly]

To be fair, the media 'failure to cover' must be partially chalked up to media 'failure to exist'.

If the local daily/weekly has 10 reporters to cover the activities of the area, then those events are pretty likely to be covered and covered in depth, but if that same weekly shares a single reporter with three or four other community advertiser rags, you could drop a bomb on city hall without the press noticing.

Economic stresses have removed many many of those 'feet on the ground', so non-net news relies on fewer and fewer feeder sources, with less and less time/space/information to flesh out what does appear.

I understand the lazy gossip and copycat sound-bite sort of reporting. It's all that a reporter has time to do, and all that their employers want from them. I hate it, but I get it.

[Molly]

That said, the CTV over-the-top, all-out cheeze-for-brains gush about the royal wedding is hard to explain. They could have spent the same time/effort/money on something that actually mattered, but chose not to.

[bloodyminded]

That said, the CTV over-the-top, all-out cheeze-for-brains gush about the royal wedding is hard to explain. They could have spent the same time/effort/money on something that actually mattered, but chose not to.

Yeah, I was glad when it was over. I thought CBC spent way too much focus on it as well...and MacLeans' practically had an orgasm.