Sick North American Media

[August1991]

I don't see any difference between Fox News in the US and Pravada in the old Soviet Union.

MS, I suspect you have never held the newspaper Pravda in your hands because you can't spell its name properly. (MS, what does Pravda mean?)

Ordinary Americans can choose to get their daily news from the Internet, CBS, NBC or from Fox News. Ordinary Russians could only choose to stare into space or read translated Sinclair Lewis.

MS, I happen to enjoy western civilization. Please don't toss it away so lightly.

To suggest we in North America don't have a serious problem with the concentration of the media is absurd. Look at all the bullshit that was, and still is, being spewed out in the US thoughout this entire Iraqi conflict.

MS, you really misunderstand markets. A market means supply and demand. In the US, the demand for news is not concentrated. And the supply of news is not concentrated either.

In the US, the "information market" is thriving. MS, admit that the US information market is better than the Canada information market. MS, what can interested Americans know about GWB? What can interested Canadians know about PM CSL PM?

MS, does the CBC make Canadians more informed? Is Canada more "democratic" than the the US?

[Guest eureka]

In the US, all the major media is concentrated in the hands of six corporations.

The CBC does make Canadians better informed and, it follows from that, more democratic.

The average citizen anywhere does not get his information from the Internet: the average citizen would not spend the time away from television. The average citizen gets his information from Front Page news and from 10 second sound bites on Television. The average citizen is thuse better served in Canada where the news is not so controlled by the demands of "the market."

It is true that, in a strange way, America is more opencies. Information can be found over the Internet that would be classified elsewhere. But it is necessary to have the patience and desire to find it. For example, where else would it be possible to do as I did and find the FBI file that identified Ronald Reagn as an FBI undercover informant: Confidential Agent T10.

[maplesyrup]

Fox and Pravda (or truth) were/are no different. Pravda was a puppet for the Communist Party, and Fox is a puppet for the Transnationals. Both were/are just propaganda tools.

Pravda (Online Nationalist Edition)

With 10 times the pop. the US should have more news outlets but what does that really mean? All it means to me is that the transnational propaganda is reinforced 10 times.

As far as news reporting goes, I think that one hour PBS news report each evening, where news is broken down into 3-4 major stories, with 10-15 minutes devoted to each story, has by far the most substantial content.

BTW if you want to understand democracy, keep your eye on Venezuela later on today.

[Argus]

Is the fact that the BBC was criticized by Hutton not evidence in support of the thesis that North American media is sick.

No, not at all. It is evidence of the gall of the BBC head in accusing other media of bias.

That could not happen here - to an extent it could with CBC but nowhere else on the continent. BBC also acted on the criticism and those who were guilty of the perceoved bias paid the price.

Aside from a couple of resignations I have seen little sign in a change in the political corporate mentality of the BBC. And Hutton's is not the only criticism of the BBC's institutionial bias, especially on middle east issues. The BBC has acted, to some extent, but that does not mean it is no longer biased.

With respect to Canada, the concentration is serious and the consequences are evident beyond even sponsorsgip.

I completely agree, however, Canadians have chosen not to care about it. And there will be no change as long as the Liberals are in power. Until such time as someone else gets into power and there exists the possibility of putting in place some kind of limitations on media ownership there is little point in complaining.

[Argus]

Argus.......everyone made mistakes in the UK over Iraq. The BBC did the honourable thing. What haven't the other parties followed suit? 

I am not speaking specifically of Iraq, but of the BBC's institutional bias. A bias which exists today. To suggest all its problems have been resolved because its chairman resigned is foolishness. Perhaps you should scan some of the links I provided.

[Argus]

In the US, all the major media is concentrated in the hands of six corporations.

Whatever the level of media ownership in the US, the situation is infinitely worse in Canada.

The CBC does make Canadians better informed and, it follows from that, more democratic.

How does the CBC make Canadians better informed, especially given the fairly well-noted biases of this organization? How does it make Canadians better informed than, say CTV?

The average citizen is thuse better served in Canada where the news is not so controlled by the demands of "the market."

So it is your contention that citizens are better informed by a media which tells them what they, the media, wish to tell people, rather than by a media which tells people what they, the people, wish to know? The obvious follow-through is that a nation would be better served if all independant media were supressed in favour of rigidly controlled, state-owned media. Is that your belief?

[maplesyrup]

Argus.......you tend to gloss over the accountability factor, or at least focus on one side's accountability. The BBC has been accountable. Why hasn't Blair been equally principled? The whole world now knows that Iraq's WMD was a con job. But I don't see any resignations at No 10 Downing Street, nor for that matter at 1601 Pennsylvania Avenue. Why not? Why are you promoting double standards? :angry:

[Argus]

Pravda (Online Nationalist Edition)

With 10 times the pop. the US should have more news outlets but what does that really mean? All it means to me is that the transnational propaganda is reinforced 10 times.

As far as news reporting goes, I think that one hour PBS news report each evening, where news is broken down into 3-4 major stories, with 10-15 minutes devoted to each story, has by far the most substantial content.

BTW if you want to understand democracy, keep your eye on Venezuela later on today.

Fox and Pravda  (or truth) were/are no different. Pravda was a puppet for the Communist Party, and Fox is a puppet for the Transnationals. Both were/are just propaganda tools.

This is utter nonsense. I have little time for Fox, which I regard as an extremely biased news organization, but comparing them to the state propaganda organ of a dicatorship is absurd. Wild exaggerations do not help you make your case.

[Cartman]

Russians could only choose to stare into space or read translated Sinclair Lewis.

But don't forget, they also had the option of listening to that unbiased "Voice of America" too.

[maplesyrup]

[maplesyrup]

Concerning propaganda, comparing Fox to Pravda is actually an excellent analogy.

If you don't agree, please elaborate with specific details, or some facts, instead of overblown cold war era hype.

[Argus]

Argus.......you tend to gloss over the accountability factor, or at least focus on one side's accountability. The BBC has been accountable. Why hasn't Blair been equally principled? The whole world now knows that Iraq's WMD was a con job. But I don't see any resignations at No 10 Downing Street, nor for that matter at 1601 Pennsylvania Avenue. Why not? Why are you promoting double standards? :angry:

Well, to begin with, your thread is about the media, not politicians. If you had wanted to talk about accountability in government I would have presumed you'd have titled it differently.

As for why Blaire doesn't resign, I really couldn't say, not being British. However, I believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do, and Blair is a pretty decent leader - certainly better than anyone we've seen in Canada in decades.

[Argus]

Concerning propaganda, comparing Fox to Pravda is actually an excellent analogy.

If you don't agree, please elaborate with specific details, or some facts, instead of overblown cold war era hype.

I don't agree. And as you have shown absolutely NOTHING which allows the comparison I see no reason to concern myself with picking apart your non-existent arguments.

[maplesyrup]

Who cares?

The number of humanitarian crises in the world is greater than ever before but most go unreported in Western media.

Pretty sad commentary on our Western press, n'est pas?

[Cartman]

QUOTE (maplesyrup @ Aug 15 2004, 02:44 PM)

Concerning propaganda, comparing Fox to Pravda is actually an excellent analogy.

If you don't agree, please elaborate with specific details, or some facts, instead of overblown cold war era hype. 

I don't agree. And as you have shown absolutely NOTHING which allows the comparison I see no reason to concern myself with picking apart your non-existent arguments.

I am not so sure why this should be dropped. Do they not both selectively choose what to report? Apparently, for each edition of The National, up to 1 million words and 40 hours of videotape are collected and must be reduced to about 20 minutes of air time. How do they decide and who decides what should be considered "news" and what is not? Do they not both report what is in their own self-interest? If they both aim to convince, then this is propaganda.

[caesar]

Whatever the level of media ownership in the US, the situation is infinitely worse in Canada.

Not at all. At least we still do not allow or promote trial by the media that goes on in the USA. We do have CBC and the Globe.

[caesar]

If Canadians don't like the Asper-owned media outlets, then contrary to what caesar says, they have other options.

Our local newspapers; both the Sun and the Province are what people get here in Vancouver;both are owned by Can West. We can get the Globe, which I have found so far to be accaptable; but gives us little provincial news.

[maplesyrup]

This article sums it up pretty much, don't you think?

Your Media is Killing You

The American mainstream television news media, in whole and in part, has catastrophically failed the American people and is singularly responsible for the untimely deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.

    The trajectory of this plunge is easy to chart. The 1980s saw unprecedented deregulation of the rules pertaining to the ownership of media outlets. Thus began the combination and consolidation of dozens of differing viewpoints under the iron control of a few massive corporations. The many voices became one voice, and a dullard's voice at that.

[DAC]

A little disturbing is it not, if our National Papers do not have editorial freedom.

Why?

What is magic about editors, that they should have freedom to spout their opinions, while publishers should not?

[DAC]

Fox and Pravda (or truth) were/are no different. Pravda was a puppet for the Communist Party, and Fox is a puppet for the Transnationals. Both were/are just propaganda tools.

And the CBC is a propaganda tool for the left. No honesty. No balance.

[takeanumber]

If you don't like concentration of media, go out and create your own goddamned newspaper.

If you're really that angry with it, subscribe to such an alternative.

Don't just scream and bicker. Give the bastards in the 'Peg and Toronto a run for their god damned money.

Based on what I've read on these boards, you clearly have enough to say. It could be 80% 'opinion' and 20% local news.

[maplesyrup]

Newspaper Giveaways Recorded as "Paid"

This doesn't surprise me anymore, it just disgusts me. :angry:

[maplesyrup]

Where is our Free Press?

If you cross this administration you get your head handed to you. If you open your mouth and tell the truth like former White House Economic Advisor Lawrence Lindsay did when he told the Administration that the Iraqi war was going to cost between $100-$200 billion dollars, you get fired. If you disagree with the President, like Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill did one too many times regarding the President's policy on tax cuts, you get canned. If you claim that the Administration is misrepresenting the facts and misleading the public, like Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson did, your wife's career gets ruined when she gets outed as a CIA operative in the national media. If you tell the administration that several thousand more servicemen and women are needed in Iraq, like General Shinseki did, you get publicly scolded as being incorrect. And, if you choose to air a story about George Bush's military service, or lack thereof, like CBS did last week, you and your award winning news anchor, get investigated by the FCC.

So it's no wonder that the press has taken a backseat to reporting the misdeeds of this administration. It's not surprising that the press failed to ask the hard questions leading up to the war in Iraq, when a more informed public still had time to speak up. Never mind that CBS's story included substantive and uncontested evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to, that he skipped a required physical that grounded him from flying, and that he mysteriously received an honorable discharge. Yes...the documents CBS presented could not be confirmed for their authenticity, but these details of Bush's military record have been out for public consumption for years. Why is the media not discussing the facts behind the story instead of just focusing on CBS? For example, Killian's secretary said those memos accurately reflected the Colonel's feelings. Ben Barnes, former lieutenant governor of Texas, admitted that he pulled strings to get Bush into the National Air Guard. And Robert Mintz, retired National Guardsman who served in Bush's unit in 1972, doesn't remember seeing him there. And in contrast to Senator John Kerry, who said "send me" when given the option to go to Vietnam, according to the LA Times, when asked the same question, Bush checked the box stating "do not volunteer for overseas." The media's attention is diverted from the real story because we now live in a time where the fear of revenge by this administration sends a chill through the corporations that control our media and overwhelms the press' responsibility to investigate, educate and hold our leaders accountable.

Good question Barbra, unfortunately we now know the answer, don't we! :angry:

[Shakeyhands]

I Miss Regan... Just out of curiosity.. where are you from? and have you considered emigrating to the US?

[maplesyrup]

Quite frankly, the world went to shit the day Reagan became President, a religious nut had taken over the most powerful country in the world.

Bob Macdonald, CBC science reporter, was just intveriewed following a 500 delegate science reporter's conference in Montreal, and shared some results of a survey on Canadians and their media:

Canadians responded when asked what categories were their priorities in receiving news from their media:

1 - Culture

2 - Science

3 - Business

4 - Politics

5 - Sports

And then MacDonald went on to say what Canadians get as priorities, in what order, from their media:

1 - Business

2 - Sports

3 - Politics

4 - Culture

5 - Science

So there you have it from the horse's mouth, ladies and gentlemen. Media is strictly a manipulation tool to get you to spend your hard-earned money, to buy products. My recommendation: Stop believing what you are told and what you read at least form our media!