Media vs Harper

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't recall Chretien losing 3.1 billion, I do recall Martin handing Harper a hefty surplus. Look at what hapenned to that! No the 3.1 billion I.m talking about is the one that went missing in the last Harper budget. Remember that one?

[Smallc]

Again, that money went missing over a decade, not last year.

[cybercoma]

Again, that money went missing over a decade, not last year.

While true, that money didn't turn up in the first audit after Martin left office. So you can scratch 2003-2005 off the decade.

[Smallc]

Well that changes things...

[dre]

Well whatever it is, to think that every media outlet is squeaky clean except Fox is self evidently wrong.

Thats definately true... unfortunately the news media has morphed into a huge self interested industry over the last few decades.

The content and bias for the most part is dictated by people trying to sell ads.

To ellaborate on what I mean.. When you watched the "news hour" in 1978, you basically had some dude come on and deadpan out the known facts regarding a certain issue. The networks provided this mostly as a public service and they made their real money from selling sitcoms, dramas, etc.

That changed with the advent of 24 hour news networks. Theres no more real "news" than what got reported during an hour in 70's, but these networks have to provide content 24/7 so the strategy is to mix that hour of real news into 23 hours of editorializing, and do it in a way that gets good ratings from the target demographic so that ad space is sold.

This is often mistaken for a genuine interest in politics. For example... is fox news content determined by a top-down political ideology? Or is it based on a business model that targets a certain demographic for the purpose of making money? I would argue the latter... Fox saw a space for them in the market providing content to same kind of people that watch NASCAR, and they designed news content that would appeal to that demographic so that they could sell ads to corporate sponsors.

Is CNN a political operation? Or a corporation designed to generate a profit for shareholders? Is fox a political operation? Or a corporation designed to generate profit for shareholders?

This is really just capatilism 101. Fox and CNN, and NBC all present content that they think is marketable and will make them money. Im a slightly left of center libral, but If I could make a billion dollars selling conservatives what they want to hear I would do it in a heart beat.

The important thing for people to realize is that modern news corporations whether or not they have a liberal or conservative bias care very little about traditonal journalism, or accurately informing the populace. They care about generating profit for shareholders. Period.

I dont buy ANY of these products. But my advice to those who do is to only use them as entry points into a story. If CNN runs a story about an event in country X, just read the headline, and then go and find some real news sources from country X. Local papers, channels, etc, and try to get a real feel for whats going on.

[bleeding heart]

Like when the CBC asked trudeau a tough question and he brushed them off by calling them sun news, how embarressed he must have been when the guy said I from the CBC ,but still did not get a answer.

Well, that sort of undermines the "CBC in the tank for the Liberals" theme, doesn't it?

[sharkman]

One single occasion is enough to redeem the CBC?

[bleeding heart]

One single occasion is enough to redeem the CBC?

Nothing to do with redeeming them.

But I doubt that the one and only single instance in the history of the entire organization just suddenly fell into my lap during a discussion on MLW.

That is, if people are going to make contentions about the CBC's "Liberal bias," then the onus is on them to undertake a serious institutional analysis...rather than selective picking of transgressions.

Edited September 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[ironstone]

I think that for the most part,the media does indeed have it in for Harper.Most Canadians do not have a favourable impression of him in terms of likeability,although on rare occasions I have read that those that do in fact know him say he's quite a friendly guy.Whether or not he is likeable or not isn't that important to someone like myself,I am mainly concerned about how competent he is in his current job.It seems to me that most so-called journalists are decidedly very left leaning.I don't care if someone is leftist or not but in the case of a lot of journalists,I see a huge bias in what they report and also in what they choose to leave out.

Has anyone seen the newsclips from Sun News in the past of how Justin Trudeau reac

[bleeding heart]

.Most Canadians do not have a favourable impression of him in terms of likeability,although on rare occasions I have read that those that do in fact know him say he's quite a friendly guy.

I've never quite understood this matter about his likeability. I'm not a fan of Harper, but I simply don't see him as terribly unlikeable. He's got a reserved manner at times, that's all. Hell, there was even some incredibly trivial kerfuffle about him shaking his son's hand! Talk about reading cheap psychology into a thoroughly benign situation.

[On Guard for Thee]

Thats definately true... unfortunately the news media has morphed into a huge self interested industry over the last few decades.

The content and bias for the most part is dictated by people trying to sell ads.

To ellaborate on what I mean.. When you watched the "news hour" in 1978, you basically had some dude come on and deadpan out the known facts regarding a certain issue. The networks provided this mostly as a public service and they made their real money from selling sitcoms, dramas, etc.

That changed with the advent of 24 hour news networks. Theres no more real "news" than what got reported during an hour in 70's, but these networks have to provide content 24/7 so the strategy is to mix that hour of real news into 23 hours of editorializing, and do it in a way that gets good ratings from the target demographic so that ad space is sold.

This is often mistaken for a genuine interest in politics. For example... is fox news content determined by a top-down political ideology? Or is it based on a business model that targets a certain demographic for the purpose of making money? I would argue the latter... Fox saw a space for them in the market providing content to same kind of people that watch NASCAR, and they designed news content that would appeal to that demographic so that they could sell ads to corporate sponsors.

Is CNN a political operation? Or a corporation designed to generate a profit for shareholders? Is fox a political operation? Or a corporation designed to generate profit for shareholders?

This is really just capatilism 101. Fox and CNN, and NBC all present content that they think is marketable and will make them money. Im a slightly left of center libral, but If I could make a billion dollars selling conservatives what they want to hear I would do it in a heart beat.

The important thing for people to realize is that modern news corporations whether or not they have a liberal or conservative bias care very little about traditonal journalism, or accurately informing the populace. They care about generating profit for shareholders. Period.

I dont buy ANY of these products. But my advice to those who do is to only use them as entry points into a story. If CNN runs a story about an event in country X, just read the headline, and then go and find some real news sources from country X. Local papers, channels, etc, and try to get a real feel for whats going on.

That is extremely good advice and I can tell a personal story that says why. I was eating breakfast on a US military base in Afghanistan and listening to FOX tv, which seemed to be what the soldiers liked to listen to. The discussion of the day was with regard to two speeches given by Obama with regard to why Git'mo was illegal and needed to be shut down. There was also a follow up by Dick Cheney who attempted to justify the whole mess. One of the three talking heads Fox had on to discuss the issue: Dick Cheney's daughter posing as nothing more than a reporter. If you buy that, I have a piece of wonderful property I'll seel ya.

[g_bambino]

[T]hese networks have to provide content 24/7 so the strategy is to mix that hour of real news into 23 hours of editorializing, and do it in a way that gets good ratings from the target demographic so that ad space is sold.

Indeed. That was settled for me when I caught for the first time, on TV in Cairo, FOX News International. What a contrast to FOX News broadcast within the United States!

[normanchateau]

I think that for the most part,the media does indeed have it in for Harper.

I think it depends on how you define "...have it in for Harper." If you mean by "...have it in..." that they supported the election of Stephen Harper, I would agree with you. I've cut-and-pasted a list of newspapers and magazines which published editorials supporting the election of Stephen Harper in 2011:

• The Brampton Guardian
• The Recorder and Times (Brockville)
• Burlington Post
• Calgary Herald
• Calgary Sun
• The Economist
• Edmonton Journal
• Edmonton Sun
• Etobicoke Guardian
• The Globe and Mail
• The Mississauga News
• The Gazette (Montreal)
• The Hamilton Spectator
• Inside Toronto
• Maclean's
• National Post
• Oakville Beaver
• Ottawa Citizen
• Ottawa Sun
• The Province (Vancouver)
• The Suburban (Quebec)
• Sudbury Star
• Toronto Sun
• The Vancouver Sun
• Waterloo Region Record
• Windsor Star
• Winnipeg Free Press
• Winnipeg Sun

I haven't provided the lists for the 2006 and 2008 elections but I can say, and you can verify, that most of the publications above also supported Stephen Harper in 2006 and 2008.

The Toronto Star endorsed the NDP in 2011. If you have a list of major newspapers which supported the federal Liberals in 2011, please produce it.

Objective evidence of anti-Harper newspaper bias is difficult to obtain. Owners of major newspapers tend to be Conservatives and while their writers certainly criticize Harper at times, they also criticize Mulcair and Trudeau. I rarely see criticism of Elizabeth May but I doubt that's evidence of a pro-Green bias.