Harper attacks Justin

[scribblet]

The next two years will give us more of an insight into Justin Trudeau, but I don't think a majority want a Trudeau dynasty. No doubt he will provide a lot more fodder for ads in the future. It is hard to believe how the media and people are fawning all over him.

[carepov]

The next two years will give us more of an insight into Justin Trudeau, but I don't think a majority want a Trudeau dynasty. No doubt he will provide a lot more fodder for ads in the future. It is hard to believe how the media and people are fawning all over him.

It is even harder to believe how the CPC and their supporters are relentlessly attacking him.

There are two of us here at work that are fiscally-conservative-independent voters that have concluded we have no choice but to vote against the CPC because of their "low-blow" tactics of using out-of-context images and quotes in attack ads. I hope that Trudeau's "stay positve" gamble pays off and a majority of Canadians will agree with our view.

Edited May 10, 2013 by carepov

[Fletch 27]

Yup, that old "Stay positive" attitude worked WONDERS for Dion...

Maybe JT simply doesn't have any ammo or dirt that is "factual"...

It is even harder to believe how the CPC and their supporters are relentlessly attacking him.

There are two of us here at work that are fiscally-conservative-independent voters that have concluded we have no choice but to vote against the CPC because of their "low-blow" tactics of using out-of-context images and quotes in attack ads. I hope that Trudeau's "stay positve" gamble pays off and a majority of Canadians will agree with our view.

[carepov]

Yup, that old "Stay positive" attitude worked WONDERS for Dion...

Maybe JT simply doesn't have any ammo or dirt that is "factual"...

Unfortunately I think that you are right and Canadians will continue to vote based of the very effective CPC "education ad campaign". I have not lost all hope yet.

Ironically, some of the best "ammo" and "dirt" against the CPC is their own "educational ad campaign".

[TimG]

Unfortunately I think that you are right and Canadians will continue to vote based of the very effective CPC "education ad campaign". I have not lost all hope yet.

Part of the problem is the systematic bias in the media which favours left of center parties. This is a US example that contrasts the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy with Katrina and points out that exactly the same issues are present but we don't hear about them because the media does want to attack the Obama administration.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/04/28/msm-gives-dems-a-pass-on-sandy-failures/

The same bias exists here so if a right of center party wants to get their spin out - they have to pay for it.

Left of center party can simply rely on the media to publish their spin for them.

Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[jbg]

Hey Jacee... I found this EXACT article but...... from 2009....!!!!?? Wow, these Polls sure were right on the Money huh? They Are in fact... If you believe everything that you read Jacee!

Now, refresh my memory on how that Election turned out.... With the big "Backfire" and all..

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2009/06/01/tory_attack_ads_backfiring_poll_finds.html

To my knowledge there was no 2009 election federally. Only in 2008 and 2011.

[carepov]

Part of the problem is the systematic bias in the media which favours left of center parties. This is a US example that contrasts the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy with Katrina and points out that exactly the same issues are present but we don't hear about them because the media does want to attack the Obama administration.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/04/28/msm-gives-dems-a-pass-on-sandy-failures/

The same bias exists here so if a right of center party wants to get their spin out - they have to pay for it.

Left of center party can simply rely on the media to publish their spin for them.

I disagree that media bias is a problem for the following reasons:

-People are free to choose from thousands of news sources, biased left, biased right or unbiased, or any combination thereof

-IMO, mainstream media mainly reflects public interest/opinion - it does not really determine public interest/opinions

I also disagree that, all else being equal, that media coverage of Sandy would be any different with Bush in power.

[justcrowing]

Mr. Clement is getting some heat in his riding

Can you please provide more details and a link?

[TimG]

mainstream media mainly reflects public interest/opinion - it does not really determine public interest/opinions

The mainstream media gives people what it thinks they want to hear. The operative word is 'thinks they want'. This means the perceptions of editors matters. If the editors and journalists have a bias then that will be reflected in the coverage and on average the editors and journalists dislike right wing parties.

I also disagree that, all else being equal, that media coverage of Sandy would be any different with Bush in power.

Why? Are you saying that the facts on the ground are different in some way? That is not the way I see it. The media has decided that this story is not worth reporting for some reason. What makes it less newsworthy other than the fact that it would require that the media criticize a president that it does not want to criticize. Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

The mainstream media gives people what it thinks they want to hear. The operative word is 'thinks they want'. This means the perceptions of editors matters. If the editors and journalists have a bias then that will be reflected in the coverage and on average the editors and journalists dislike right wing parties.

Firstly I am sceptical of your claim that "on average the editors and journalists dislike right wing parties". Most of my sources are unbiased.

More importantly, with so many choices of news outlets, averages do not matter. You may have had a point if there was a limitted number of news sources but this is not the case. The best argument to prove my case was the comments by Mrs. Frum following the Obama re-election and Karl Rove/Tea Party embarrassment. Frum spoke about the "right wing media bubble". You see, even if 1000 left wing news sources were out there all you need is Fox and a few other sources to fill the appetite of the right-wing delusionary types.

Why? Are you saying that the facts on the ground are different in some way? That is not the way I see it. The media has decided that this story is not worth reporting for some reason. What makes it less newsworthy other than the fact that it would require that the media criticize a president that it does not want to criticize.

Yes I am saying that the facts on the ground between Katrina and Sandra are very different. Is Fox news criticising Obama about Sandra? Surely they would not hold back?

[TimG]

Firstly I am sceptical of your claim that "on average the editors and journalists dislike right wing parties". Most of my sources are unbiased.

Well - I think you just don't see the bias. I follow all kinds of media and they all have biases (even media that I generally agree with). It is unavoidable. In fact, the shear number of media choices today mean that all media is under pressure to target a niche and targeting a niche *requires* bias.

Yes I am saying that the facts on the ground between Katrina and Sandra are very different. Is Fox news criticising Obama about Sandra? Surely they would not hold back?

Fox and the WSJ do cover this.

When I talk about bias, I am talking about the major networks who pretend to be unbiased and set the agenda for the public discussions. I don't include Sun and Fox news because the bias is generally acknowledged and they generally do not set the agenda for public discussion - they simply respond to it.

Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Well - I think you just don't see the bias. I follow all kinds of media and they all have biases (even media that I generally agree with). It is unavoidable. In fact, the shear number of media choices today mean that all media is under pressure to target a niche and targeting a niche *requires* bias.

Fox and the WSJ do cover this.

When I talk about bias, I am talking about the major networks who pretend to be unbiased and set the agenda for the public discussions. I don't include Sun and Fox news because the bias is generally acknowledged and they generally do not set the agenda for public discussion - they simply respond to it.

Everyone has bias. No human being, including media, can be entirely objective: We can only strive to be fair.

It's important to distinguish between 'news' and 'opinion'. News should seek to be fair, representing different perspectives where necessary, for balance.

Opinion/editorial is biased by definition, though some opinionators do still try to be fair.

There is a difference between opinion and propaganda, which is more persuasive, even subversive, using 'dirty tricks'. I think some that pose as 'media' these days are really propaganda machines.

I suppose I'd characterize right wing propaganda as more fear-and-loathing and exclusion, and left wing as more guilt-and-sympathy and condescension.

Neither is particularly constructive, imo. Extremes never are.

I prefer inclusive pragmatism: The only real solutions include individual freedoms and productive lives for every person.

I do see Reform-Alliance-Conservatives as right, and Liberals as left, as I've characterized them above, but both cater to big business nonetheless. The NDP is more inclusive pragmatic, as you might expect of a party that arose from working people, farmers and other small-medium businesses.

Harper attacks Justin, Justin smiles condescendingly, the media explodes with orgasmic fits ... and Tom Mulcair just keeps working away to make things better for all of us.

[carepov]

Well - I think you just don't see the bias. I follow all kinds of media and they all have biases (even media that I generally agree with). It is unavoidable. In fact, the shear number of media choices today mean that all media is under pressure to target a niche and targeting a niche *requires* bias.

Fox and the WSJ do cover this.

When I talk about bias, I am talking about the major networks who pretend to be unbiased and set the agenda for the public discussions. I don't include Sun and Fox news because the bias is generally acknowledged and they generally do not set the agenda for public discussion - they simply respond to it.

Well I like media that is unbiased, that is my niche.

Anyways, WSJ is criticising Obama for his handling of Sandra, great. What's the problem again?

[jacee]

Well I like media that is unbiased, that is my niche.

Where do you find that?

[TimG]

Well I like media that is unbiased, that is my niche.

There is no such thing as unbiased media. If you think you have found unbiased news sources then than just means you are blind to biases that happen to align with your own. Edited May 11, 2013 by TimG

[jbg]

Firstly I am sceptical of your claim that "on average the editors and journalists dislike right wing parties". Most of my sources are unbiased.

I don't think that the Toronto Star, CBC or the New York Times are unbiased, and all dislike right wing parties intensely.

Yes, in terms of numbers it may not be overwhelming but in terms of audience it is.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't think that the Toronto Star, CBC or the New York Times are unbiased, and all dislike right wing parties intensely.

Yes, in terms of numbers it may not be overwhelming but in terms of audience it is.

You nailed that one right on the head.......

[carepov]

Is your drinking water acidic or basic? Mine is neutral.

Given the diameter of a circle can you calculate its circumference? I can.

Do you see what I am getting at? Theoretically, no one is objective, but practically objectivity exists.

In my practical view, the CBC (specifically The National and Canadian election coverage), MacLean's, Foreign Affairs, Statistics Canada, the US department of Labour, the UN Human Development Reports, Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com are unbiased. I also like Amnesty International except I am not sure if they are biased against Israel. I am always sceptical of all media reports but even more so when I sense bias.

jacee, TimG and jbg, I appreciate many of your posts and ideas, but respectfully you three have demonstrated you own bias and therefore I highly doubt that your opinions on bias in the media are worth much. One thing that you have in common is the overuse of the terms political left/right. When used in moderation left/right is sometimes useful but when comments such as media "dislikes right wing parties immensely" that is a ridiculous (and extremely biased) claim.

[jbg]

jacee, TimG and jbg, I appreciate many of your posts and ideas, but respectfully you three have demonstrated you own bias and therefore I highly doubt that your opinions on bias in the media are worth much. One thing that you have in common is the overuse of the terms political left/right. When used in moderation left/right is sometimes useful but when comments such as media "dislikes right wing parties immensely" that is a ridiculous (and extremely biased) claim.

Don't count me in there. I am far to the left of both jacee and TimG.

The NDP won't even let me join.

[TimG]

In my practical view, the CBC

ROTFL. The CBC does air a good cross section of views but that does not change overwhelming left of center bias of many of its journalists and editors. I would say the same of the National Post (which has a right wing bias).

FWIW: I used to think that the CBC was unbiased but that was when it was my main source of information. Now that I can check facts on my own I have come to realize the insidious nature of its bias.

I appreciate many of your posts and ideas, but respectfully you three have demonstrated you own bias and therefore I highly doubt that your opinions on bias in the media are worth much.

My opinion is that all media is biased and people who insist that the have found 'unbiased' sources are simply deluding themselves. So I appreciate your thoughts but anyone who claims that unbiased media exists clearly knows nothing about the topic.

In fact, I would go further and say that people who do not understand the biases inherent in their preferred sources of information cannot claim to be informed. Today being informed means being able to understand the same set of facts from multiple narrative perspectives. That is why I like this forum - I hear the different narratives even id don't think they have much merit.

As for the left/right question: when it comes to economics there is one axis based on one's view of the role of government in society. People in the left like government and fear private enterprise. People on the right fear government and like private enterprise. There are obviously other axes for views on social or security issues but the economic axis is the dominate axis in our political discussions which means the left/right dichotomy is a convenient short hand even if it over simplifys the issues.

Edited May 12, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

Thanks for your views on media bias. If its OK with you, lets just agree to disagree. More importantly we both seem to agree that one should be sceptical no matter what the source.

Regarding left/right, what about people (like me) that sometime like government and sometimes dislike government depending on the issue and sometimes like private enterprise and sometimes dislike private enterprise again, depending on the issue?

[eyeball]

Regarding left/right, what about people (like me) that sometime like government and sometimes dislike government depending on the issue and sometimes like private enterprise and sometimes dislike private enterprise again, depending on the issue?

You won't commit one way or another so that probably makes you even worse.

What I don't understand is why it's called the right and left wing instead of the right and wrong wing. Isn't that what most people who use the terms really mean when they use them? They should be more proud of the beliefs and biases that have seized their thinking.

[TimG]

Regarding left/right, what about people (like me) that sometime like government and sometimes dislike government depending on the issue and sometimes like private enterprise and sometimes dislike private enterprise again, depending on the issue?

This is basically true of everyone since the left/right axis is a spectrum - not a binary state. That does not change the fact that you likely have a general tendency that will put you on one side or the other (the fact that you claim the CBC and Amnesty International as "unbiased" sources put you on the left side). Edited May 12, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

Is it safe to say you're pretty much always on the correct side Tim?

[TimG]

Is it safe to say you're pretty much always on the correct side Tim?

Who says one side is "correct"? The differences in opinion largely stem from differences in risk tolerance which is a purely subjective measure. People on the economic right are generally more comfortable letting people make their own choices and living with the consequences. People on the economic left want government to make the choices for people and to protect people from the consequences of bad choices. Neither philosophy is "wrong" in the abstract sense but people can be "wrong" when it comes to understanding the consequences of their preferred policies.

For example, someone could argue for an increase in minimum wage because we, as a society, want employers to invest in technology and training. One could also argue could argue for an increase in minimum wage because one believes it will increase employment. The latter argument is wrong in the assessment of the consequences - the former is not.

The real challenge is how to run a society with such mutually contradictory opinions.

Edited May 12, 2013 by TimG