Media vs Harper

[hitops]

The reality is the media is owned by a number of right-wing corporations. That is a fact.

Source?

[Argus]

That's your opinion. I say it's right wing and you say it's left wing. I guess it's somewhere in between us.

Corporate donations have historically been Liberal, but then again the Liberals were in party, and corporate donations are now banned.

I don't think most corporations set an 'agenda' insofar as their ownership of news media is concerned. They care about money, not politics. I do think most of the reporters (who inevitably become the editors) have a liberal view on life, however, and so tend to be sympathetic to politicians with the same views.

[GostHacked]

Complete nonsense. Media "coporations" aren't choosing what stories to cover, and how to cover them. They're also not writing op-eds. It's the reporters themselves, and the editorialists themselves that do that. Most of which are not Harper friendly. To deny this is to deny fundamental reality.

News organizations are corporations. But not just them, but their sponsors heavily influence what is covered and what is not covered and specifically HOW it's covered. And most reporters are simply regurgitating the talking points of entities like Reuters, or AP these days. Investigative journalism is DEAD.

Example, CNN is owned by Time Warner, a corporation.

CBC, is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

To deny this is to have your head buried in the sand.

[Accountability Now]

Example, CNN is owned by Time Warner, a corporation.

CBC, is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Time Warner is a private corporation. CBC is crown corporation.

Both are corporations but one is owned by people the other is owned by the government. I think that's a noteable difference.

[GostHacked]

Time Warner is a private corporation. CBC is crown corporation.

Both are corporations but one is owned by people the other is owned by the government. I think that's a noteable difference.

Makes no difference in how both these entities suppress news. They both do it. But I guess you can say we in Canada pay for our own censorship. Tax dollars at work!

[Shady]

News organizations are corporations. But not just them, but their sponsors heavily influence what is covered and what is not covered and specifically HOW it's covered. And most reporters are simply regurgitating the talking points of entities like Reuters, or AP these days. Investigative journalism is DEAD.Example, CNN is owned by Time Warner, a corporation.CBC, is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.To deny this is to have your head buried in the sand.

So what? That doesn't discount the fact that most mainstream media tilts left. To deny this is to have your head buried in the sand.

[BubberMiley]

So what? That doesn't discount the fact that most mainstream media tilts left.

LonJowett is right. It depends on your perspective. From your angle, I'm sure FoxNews tilts left. From mine, it's all a coloured in a right-wing corporate wash.

[Accountability Now]

Makes no difference in how both these entities suppress news. They both do it. But I guess you can say we in Canada pay for our own censorship. Tax dollars at work!

I think it does matter. One is funded by a group of people that only get money if their viewers continue to watch and therefore agree with the agendas they are pushing. The other one continues to get our tax dollars no matter what.

I agree...they both suppress it but I guess I'm a little more ok with the private guys doing it as its their money...they can do what they want with it.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Accountability Now

[Shady]

LonJowett is right. It depends on your perspective. From your angle, I'm sure FoxNews tilts left. From mine, it's all a coloured in a right-wing corporate wash.

No Fox tilts right. But that's the point. Fox wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the tilt of the mainstream media. There wouldn't have been a market for it.

[Accountability Now]

No Fox tilts right. But that's the point. Fox wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the tilt of the mainstream media. There wouldn't have been a market for it.

Which is why Sun News media is around...trying to level the Canadian left wing media.

[GostHacked]

So what? That doesn't discount the fact that most mainstream media tilts left. To deny this is to have your head buried in the sand.

What really astonishes me is that people still buy into the left/right, conservative/liberal division. To even have a left and a right, means that divide and conquer has already happened.

[GostHacked]

I think it does matter. One is funded by a group of people that only get money if their viewers continue to watch and therefore agree with the agendas they are pushing. The other one continues to get our tax dollars no matter what.

I agree...they both suppress it but I guess I'm a little more ok with the private guys doing it as its their money...they can do what they want with it.

If that is the case with private entities, they should not be allowed to call themselves news organizations. What we have now is infotainment. And with these entities that pass infotainment off as news should be dealt with more harshly. People are so socially conditioned to accept what these entities portray as fact. Sometimes they actually do, but only if it suits their agenda and their worldview.

People who buy into this worldview are the ones who are going to get screwed in the end. The left AND the right are BOTH screwing with you.

CBC does not seem to care much for the expense scandals, but yet a nice piece about Harper and the Rangers. The Rangers sullied themselves by giving this guy honorary status.

[GostHacked]

No Fox tilts right. But that's the point. Fox wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the tilt of the mainstream media. There wouldn't have been a market for it.

I think 'tilt' is a huge understatement.

[PIK]

Chretien strangles a canadian protester and he became the media's hero, they all thought he was cool. The bias is as strong as ever.Todays reporters were not around for the 1st trudeau mania and they want thier own. Funny how ''the left'' are the ones trying to keep sun news off the tv, but it is ok for the foriegn ones to remain.

Edited August 26, 2013 by PIK

[BubberMiley]

Chretien, as right-wing a PM as Canada has ever had, fights back against a left-wing protester and is moderately praised for doing so, and this is your example of left-wing media bias?

[Accountability Now]

If that is the case with private entities, they should not be allowed to call themselves news organizations. What we have now is infotainment. And with these entities that pass infotainment off as news should be dealt with more harshly.

Yes...that certainly would be nice. I agree with you as I feel the media craze is absolutely BS in some cases (ie...the need to break the story first means who cares if the story is accurate!). I always think back to Sandy Hook for this example when they first accused Lanza's brother of doing the killing. Seriously...you couldn't wait a few hours to confirm this?

I guess the only good thing about right wing and left wing media sources is that you will always have a source to check to see if the other one is spewing crap. A balance of crapiness....

[PIK]

Chretien, as right-wing a PM as Canada has ever had, fights back against a left-wing protester and is moderately praised for doing so, and this is your example of left-wing media bias?

Chretien the liberal PM attacking a candian citizen, that is what happened and just imagine if harper laid a finger on someone.

[BubberMiley]

If someone assaulted Harper in a similar manner, there would be the same response. PMs are encouraged to defend themselves if need be.

What I don't understand is why you think Chretien, who reduced the size of government and balanced the budget, is more left wing than Harper, who expanded the size of government and created a deficit.

Edited August 26, 2013 by BubberMiley

[bleeding heart]

I think the "leftist media" theme is silly, entirely misses the real problems, and is akin to complaining about jock-itch in the middle of a firefight.

The Propaganda Model's Five Inter-related Filters:

1. Corporate Ownership

The media typically comprise large conglomerates - News International, CBS (now merged with Westinghouse), Turner Broadcasting (now merged with Time-Warner) - which may belong to even larger parent corporations such as General Electric (owners of NBC). All are tied into the stock market. Wealthy people sit on the boards of these major corporations, many with extensive personal and business contacts in other corporations. Herman and Chomsky point out, for instance, that: 'GE [General Electric] and Westinghouse are both huge, diversified multinational companies heavily involved in the controversial areas of weapons production and nuclear power.' It is difficult to conceive that press neutrality would not be compromised in these areas. But more widely, press freedom is limited by the simple fact that the owners of the media corporations are driven by free market ideology. How likely is it, then, that such owners would happily allow their own newspaper, radio or TV station to criticise systematically the 'free market' capitalism which is the source of his material wealth?

2. Advertising

It is clear, therefore, that for any publication or commercial radio or TV station to survive, it has to hone itself into an advertiser-friendly medium. In other words, the media has to be sympathetic to business interests, such as the travel, automobile and petrochemical industries. Even the threat of withdrawal of advertising can affect editorial content.

....

A 1992 US study of 150 news editors found that 90 per cent said that advertisers tried to interfere with newspaper content, and 70 per cent tried to stop news stories altogether. 40 per cent admitted that advertisers had in fact influenced a story.

3. Sourcing

'The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest.' Even large media corporations such as the BBC cannot afford to place reporters everywhere. They therefore concentrate their resources where major news stories are likely to happen: the White House, the Pentagon, No 10 Downing Street, and other centralised news 'terminals'. Although British newspapers may occasionally object to the 'spin-doctoring' of New Labour, for example, they are in fact highly dependent upon the pronouncements of 'the Prime Minister's personal spokesperson' for government-related news. Business corporations and trade organisations are also trusted sources of stories considered newsworthy. Editors and journalists who offend these powerful news sources, perhaps by questioning the veracity or bias of the furnished material, can be threatened with the denial of access to their media life-blood - fresh news.

....

'Professional journalism relies heavily on official sources. Reporters have to talk to the PM's official spokesperson, the White House press secretary, the business association, the army general. What those people say is news. Their perspectives are automatically legitimate.' Whereas, according to McChesney, 'if you talk to prisoners, strikers, the homeless, or protesters, you have to paint their perspectives as unreliable, or else you've become an advocate and are no longer a "neutral" professional journalist.'

4. Flak

The fourth filter is 'flak', described by Herman and Chomsky as 'negative responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. It may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, law-suits, speeches and Bills before Congress, and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action'. Business organisations regularly come together to form flak machines.

5. The Enemy

The demonisation of enemies is useful, essential even, in justifying strategic geopolitical manoeuvring and the defence of corporate interests around the world, while mollifying home-based critics of such behaviour. The creation of an 'evil empire' of some kind, as in postwar western scaremongering about the 'Soviet Menace' or earlier talk of the 'Evil Hun', has been a standard device for terrifying the population into supporting arms production and military adventurism abroad - both major sources of profit for big business. Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been a useful bogeyman for US arms manufacturers who have notched up sales of over $100bn to Saddam's neighbours in the Middle East. The fifth filter also applies to media demonisation of anti-globalisation protesters - often described as 'rioters' - and anyone else perceived as a threat to free-market ideology.

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----.htm

Edited August 26, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Accountability Now]

What I don't understand is why you think Chretien, who reduced the size of government and balanced the budget, is more left wing than Harper, who expanded the size of government and created a deficit.

You're funny Bubber. You actually believe that Chretien was the driving force behind the balanced budget? The surplus years for the Cretien governement happened in 1997-2003....which ironically coincide the US surplus years of 1998 to 2001 (with 1997 being a small deficit for the US). Perhaps a golden era for all? Harper had a suprlus budgets in his first two years (2006-2007) until 2008 which encountered the worst economic meltdown since the Depression. Do you think that global economics have anything to offer here? Or do you actually think that Chretien swtiched it up and became a right wing thinker to stimulate the North American ecomomy?

I can't comment on your stance about increasing or decreasing government but I wouldn't say he's more right wing than Harper because of the budgets...thats for sure.

[Smallc]

No, it had nothing to do with massive government cuts, or the previously implemented GST...nothing at all.

[Argus]

No Fox tilts right. But that's the point. Fox wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the tilt of the mainstream media. There wouldn't have been a market for it.

Fox's bias is institutional, same as a government propaganda organ. It is not in any way comparable to the liberal bias on other networks.

[bleeding heart]

And, again, complaining about liberal media bias (or conservative media bias, for that matter) is a promiscuously irrelevant point, at least if we're talking about the big institutional issues of the major media.

[AltaRick]

And when it comes to the owners of our media outlets, what percentage do you think are liberal? You know, the ones that actually set the 'agenda'?

When considered that Rogers / Sun Media, biased conservative to extreme, own and control over 60% of the publishing in Canada, they set the agenda. They also need to sell the product. Same with reporters and journalists. Controversy sells, truth is secondary.

[jbg]

As always Harper and the media clash on questions from A Chinese reporter based in Ottawa. I would like to know what the question was and if Harper knew what it was or if it was because the reporter was Chinese.

Are you assuming bigotry?