Fox News Viewers Know Less Than Those Who Don't Watch Any News

[bleeding heart]

...........

Edited July 6, 2012 by bleeding heart

[guyser]

Do you honestly believe that controlling the budget and who runs it has no effect on what is presented/how it's presented/what isn't presented? None at all?

As hard as it seems? Yes

The budget is an act of Parliament, not so much the sitting govt. The amount is generally known from year to year, there is a top up that may be asked for.

The money is handed over and is spent as the CBC sees fit. There is no day to day nor month to month input from the sitting govt.

If there was, those who opine the CBC is leftist wouldnt have much to stand on would they?

[cybercoma]

I don't understand the desire to be involved in another country's election. Can you imagine "Americans for Harper?"

I'd say it's pretty easy to imagine.

[dre]

Do you honestly believe that controlling the budget and who runs it has no effect on what is presented/how it's presented/what isn't presented? None at all?

Yeah Steven harper has about as much direct influence over editorial policy as you do. THe president is appointed by the governor general, its activities are mandated and government by the 1991 broadcasting act, the the only real contact they have with the government is in open reports to parliament that happen each year.

Having said that, you are right to be suspicious... the fact that the CBC is partially government funded, and reports to parliament is reason enough for us to be watchfull of governments that might try to compromise its independance or directly influence editorial policy... But I dont remember any evidence of that ever happening. Still... trust aint my strong suit so Im all for any measures that would help guarantee their independance, but I really dont think its much of an issue.

[cybercoma]

...and still, FOX News viewers are less informed than those that don't watch any news at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

...and still, FOX News viewers are less informed than those that don't watch any news at all.

...and still better informed than those who only watch and listen to government controlled media like the CBC.

[socialist]

...and still better informed than those who only watch and listen to government controlled media like the CBC.

take that back. anyone who bad mouths the cbc doesnt know what the hell is going on. the cbc is the only trustowrthy media outlet in canada. the cbc speaks to people like me. human ambassadors like george strombo make the cbc strong and necessary.

[bleeding heart]

take that back. anyone who bad mouths the cbc doesnt know what the hell is going on. the cbc is the only trustowrthy media outlet in canada. the cbc speaks to people like me. human ambassadors like george strombo make the cbc strong and necessary.

You make it too easy for our resident mocker.

But, hey, you deserve it, so....

[socialist]

You make it too easy for our resident mocker.

But, hey, you deserve it, so....

so what.....

can't form a complete thought or what? you just rely on personal attacks. i don't debate with people who have nothing to offer to a debate. that describes you.

[Signals.Cpl]

so what.....

can't form a complete thought or what? you just rely on personal attacks. i don't debate with people who have nothing to offer to a debate. that describes you.

Actually that is an accurate description of you.

[socialist]

Actually that is an accurate description of you.

Another post by signals without any substance. What a surprise?

[Signals.Cpl]

Another post by signals without any substance. What a surprise?

To your 290 posts of no substance what so ever.

[bleeding heart]

so what.....

can't form a complete thought or what? you just rely on personal attacks. i don't debate with people who have nothing to offer to a debate. that describes you.

I have made attempts to debate with you, but you tend to reply in a one-note manner that appears designed only to provoke people.

That you're managing to turn off the lefties every bit as much as the conservatives and middle-roaders on the board might be food for thought. Just a suggestion.

[cybercoma]

That you're managing to turn off the lefties every bit as much as the conservatives and middle-roaders on the board might be food for thought. Just a suggestion.

He doesn't care. He's a troll and that's his MO. If I didn't think it was stopstaaron, olpfan1, olp1fan back again, I would think it's a rightwing poster making a mockery out of leftist ideology. If you don't believe me, let's take a look at the example right here in this thread.

take that back. anyone who bad mouths the cbc doesnt know what the hell is going on. the cbc is the only trustowrthy media outlet in canada. the cbc speaks to people like me. human ambassadors like george strombo make the cbc strong and necessary.

Clearly socialist is a caricature. George Strombo a "human ambassador"? The guy is awful. Which is too bad because he has such interesting guests and his show has a great format. Strombo is a joke. Anyway, everything else in the post is also so far over the top that it's absurd.

People on the left and right both despise socialist's posts because he's nothing more than a caricature and a poor one at that. He brings nothing to the discussion but absurd depictions of leftist ideology. The best way to deal with this level of ridiculousness is to just ignore him. At least he's not being an offensive jerk, that I've noticed anyway.

Edited July 8, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

As hard as it seems? Yes

The budget is an act of Parliament, not so much the sitting govt. The amount is generally known from year to year, there is a top up that may be asked for.

The money is handed over and is spent as the CBC sees fit. There is no day to day nor month to month input from the sitting govt.

If there was, those who opine the CBC is leftist wouldnt have much to stand on would they?

It is hard to understand. I'm not saying total control, but again, you said not even partially. It's not just the budget, it's the people in charge - chosen by the government. If it were an American station, I would certainly see it as state run, and partially controlled by the state. The state is funding it and choosing who heads it up.

At any rate, I've never opined that the CBC is leftist, though perhaps when the leftists are in power those who do would have something to stand on?

I want to make it clear that I'm in no way criticizing the CBC; my issue here has simply been with the facts of operation re: budget and who runs it (senior CBC leaders, including the Board of Directors and President).

Anyway, we're obviously not going to agree on this, but I have to wonder if the U.S. had a similarly run media how it would be perceived by some.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is hard to understand. I'm not saying total control, but again, you said not even partially. It's not just the budget, it's the people in charge - chosen by the government. If it were an American station, I would certainly see it as state run, and partially controlled by the state. The state is funding it and choosing who heads it up.

It is only obvious, as seen on the other end of budget cuts. As Ottawa cuts funding, the CBC shrinks from an already tepid 5 - 8% audience share. One Canadian opined that basically they pay $1 billion CAD each year to watch hockey games. Here is an example of control with a capital "C":

CBC has just suffered the biggest budget cut in its history. CBC managers argued their case to maintain its funding but members of Parliament and Ottawa bureaucrats recognize factual contortions and distortions and cut the budget. They are past masters in the art of distorting the facts and presumably didn't believe, rightly so, what the CBC said about how Canadians use its services. If CBC is to right the ship and define its role in the years ahead, former and current CBC management must put an end to statistical factortion and present their strategies to the government based on the real environment the CBC faces.

http://mediatrends-research.blogspot.com/2012/04/cbc-ex-cbc-executives-and-factortion.html

[guyser]

It is hard to understand. I'm not saying total control, but again, you said not even partially.

That is correct, not even partially.

I grant you the appointee may have some sort of agenda , but it is not scripted by our sitting govt. It would be huge news, and easily proven , if the govt had a hand in the daily operations of the CBC. In fact it would be every left leaning individuals fantasy to prove it. And alternately, every right leaning individuals worse nightmare since they could not rely on the mantra that all media, especially the CBC , was operated by the Govt.(of now that is)

It's not just the budget, it's the people in charge - chosen by the government. If it were an American station, I would certainly see it as state run, and partially controlled by the state. The state is funding it and choosing who heads it up.

All true, except that is where it ends. The appointee is generally not a political person, nor a TV person (which has been bad for thr CBC)

The only report is the annual one for which the CBC must provide.

If this were govt run,why was the govt so up in arms to find out how much people were paid at the CBC and why was the PC so PO'd not to be told everything they wanted? Because they dont run the joint and were upset that some civil servant said "No " to them.

At any rate, I've never opined that the CBC is leftist, though perhaps when the leftists are in power those who do would have something to stand on?

Nope, didnt think you did, hope I didnt make it seem that way.

I doubt it, the absolute worst for the CBC was under Chretien. He hated the CBC and almost everyone in it.He appointed the worst of the dolts to run the place. What he couldnt get by is the fact that there are people who do their job well and can smooth over any bumps.

I want to make it clear that I'm in no way criticizing the CBC; my issue here has simply been with the facts of operation re: budget and who runs it (senior CBC leaders, including the Board of Directors and President).

Anyway, we're obviously not going to agree on this, but I have to wonder if the U.S. had a similarly run media how it would be perceived by some.

Senior, as in one. The Pres is appointed, as is the Board. The rest are not.

Perception is hard, I grant that. This one is not easy to grasp. It took me awhile too......but I lived with a senior CBC Producer and knew a whack of them, and they, to a person said there is no involvment on a day to say, month to month basis. The govt appoints, the govt cuts the cheque, and CBC does as they will with all of it.(pursuant to their mandate)

Edited July 9, 2012 by guyser

[cybercoma]

There was an interesting article posted recently on Simply Statistics showing the techniques that FOX uses to mislead viewers. These intentionally deceptive graphics, coupled with a healthy dose of confirmation bias, keep FOX viewers in the dark about what's actually happening in the real world. Check it out.

[guyser]

There was an interesting article posted recently on Simply Statistics showing the techniques that FOX uses to mislead viewers.

Or one could just read the newspapers (some of them) that are framing the Ford debacle in a misleading (a generous interpetation to be sure) way. Of course the Sun is the worst.

[Boges]

Or one could just read the newspapers (some of them) that are framing the Ford debacle in a misleading (a generous interpetation to be sure) way. Of course the Sun is the worst.

What has the Sun said that's misleading. Above and beyond the opinion of a columnist.

[guyser]

What has the Sun said that's misleading. Above and beyond the opinion of a columnist.

Why the qualification...'beyond the opinion of a columnist' ?

There is a piece in todays Sun that says (paraphrasing) 'Really Toronto? You want to boot a guy for rasing funds for a charity?"

No we dont, and didnt.

But lots of people would liek that to be the truth.

[Boges]

Columnists don't represent to journalistic integrity of the paper, they represent themselves.

Warmington, Levy and Agar agree that, though this ruling sucks, it's Ford's own fault for being stubborn.

The Sun publishes columns from Warren Kinsella. He's a Liberal hack and I wonder why a Conservative paper would publish his crazy opinions but that doesn't mean the paper supports his opinions per say.

They used to publish columns from Labour Leader Sid Ryan (ironically he opposed kicking Ford out for this), Tarek Fattah writes a column for the Sun, he's quite Liberal, even admitted to voting for and donating to the Smitherman campaign. But he came out against the ruling too.

What did the column, in question actually say and who wrote it because sometimes headline writers say crazy things to get people to read the article.

There was a column I read about the recent Bi-Elections where the headline said that both the Liberals and Tories have lessons to learn from these elections.

The column stated that the Tories were clear winners and any negativity from the Calgary-Centre result comes from Calgary politics and Harper shouldn't be to blame for that result. The headline writer clearly didn't read the whole story.

[guyser]

Columnists don't represent to journalistic integrity of the paper, they represent themselves.

For the most part they do. But yes, they print some viewpoints from others as you mentioned.

Warmington, Levy and Agar agree that, though this ruling sucks, it's Ford's own fault for being stubborn.

Levy and Agar have both framed this court case as a money issue, purposely obfuscating the facts.

Agar is the Levant of radio. A whiny petulant person who can dish it out but not take it.

Classic faux news, be outraged at everything, frame everything as lefty conspired.

Truly laughable.

What did the column, in question actually say and who wrote it because sometimes headline writers say crazy things to get people to read the article.

.

Not sure if it was a guest columnist , but in any event, it was so far off base it could have been written from someone in the MLW Ford thread who still doesnt have a clue as to what he was in court for.

Here is the column, guest column at that http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/28/you-serious-to-fords-offence-pales-in-comparison-to-quebec-mayors-example

Edited November 29, 2012 by guyser

[Shakeyhands]

What has the Sun said that's misleading. Above and beyond the opinion of a columnist.

Interesting question. Now what is the "Right Wing" issue with The Star, The CBC or the rest of the so called MSM again?

[Boges]

Interesting question. Now what is the "Right Wing" issue with The Star, The CBC or the rest of the so called MSM again?

I don't think they have anything against the Star except their editorial position. They do talk about the how there are things MSM media won't discuss and they will. That's more Sun News than the Newspapers though.

The CBC on the other hand takes $1 billion MORE tax dollars than any other media organization gets in grants yet refuses to reveal information like how much certain information on how they spend public money that's supposed to go to furthering culture.

Brian Lilly has a book out about it.

http://www.torontosu...wasted-spending

Now, in case you think I’m being harsh in calling CBC a soft left, anti-business, Toronto-centric, politically correct network, understand that those are not my words but the words of the former head of CBC’s English programming: Richard Stursberg. CBC has proven time and again that they not only fit that description, but are also biased against conservative-minded Canadians, against Christians, against gun owners and against the state of Israel. If that’s what they want to be, fine, but that is not what a broadcaster owned by the government and funded by all the people of Canada should be.

In my view, CBC and all of its specialty channels and radio networks should be broken up into smaller groups and sold off. If the people of Canada want to support it, they will and CBC will flourish.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Boges