MiddleClassCentrist Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Media organizations are going to support the Liberals too. Oh I know, but I'm just giving examples of corporations weighing into the political debate and using their clout as information powerhouses to sway the electorate in the direction they'd like to see, based on whoever works at the company or whoever has the deeper pockets to get the recommendation from the corporation made public... Just like how when Harper was first elected, not a single media company endorsed anyone else... and all of the editorials were ridiculously pro-harper. Someone was paying for that... Such a slant doesn't happen by accident. Edited June 10, 2014 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Boges Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 The Star supported Harper? Do you have any evidence that media bias is bought and paid for? I saw two Working Families full page ads in The Sun today. Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) They're funded by small business not large corporations.Right....along with the Tooth Fairy & Easter Bunny. I thought small business was taxed to death, where they gettin' the cake to fund think tanks and political ads......wasn't that just the drain on the economy unions who could afford to fund them......after all its your money they're using. Edited June 10, 2014 by Bob Macadoo Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) really? Strange then that the same 308 article being referenced has this statement: "Their likely voter model... increases the Liberal lead from five points to nine". with just days before the election, the latest 308 aggregate poll that includes all new company polls released since Friday evening. Seat projection shows a tightening minority with Liberals still governing. Horwath... if this projection holds, just what did you accomplish??? Go read the polls yourself through Wikipedia. They came up with a likely voter model probably a day before their old methodology would have shown the PCs taking a lead. Three hundred eight is almost fully weighted by these ekos polls. Anyway we'll see in two days so no point debating it. Edited June 10, 2014 by CPCFTW Quote
Moonbox Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Just like how when Harper was first elected, not a single media company endorsed anyone else... and all of the editorials were ridiculously pro-harper. Someone was paying for that... Such a slant doesn't happen by accident. The Toronto Star wasn't pro-Harper, but that's beside the point. The newspapers and media groups don't pay millions to advertise their agendas to people simply watching TV or driving around. They may provide informed (and perhaps sometimes biased) opinions to people SEEKING them while reading the newspaper, but they are not spending big money to ram it down people's throats on television and with signs etc. Edited June 10, 2014 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Keepitsimple Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Just like how when Harper was first elected, not a single media company endorsed anyone else... and all of the editorials were ridiculously pro-harper. Someone was paying for that... Such a slant doesn't happen by accident. The Star - self-proclaimed as "Canada's largest Newspaper", endorsed the NDP.....and encouraged people to vote Liberal in ridings where they had a better chance of beating the Conservatives. Their position was "Anybody but Harper". Following your reasoning, who was paying for that? Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011 Quote Back to Basics
MiddleClassCentrist Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) The Star - self-proclaimed as "Canada's largest Newspaper", endorsed the NDP.....and encouraged people to vote Liberal in ridings where they had a better chance of beating the Conservatives. Their position was "Anybody but Harper". Following your reasoning, who was paying for that? Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011 Thank you for correcting that. The overwhelming support was for conservative, and the vast majority of all news outlets endorsed Harper. Also notable is if people were paying attention, they'd have noticed news was also heavily talking about ethical oil and developing the oil sands in positive light in support of Harper's policy. Edited June 10, 2014 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
MiddleClassCentrist Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) The Star supported Harper? Do you have any evidence that media bias is bought and paid for? I saw two Working Families full page ads in The Sun today. There's plenty of evidence abound as far as generic media bias supporting corporate initiatives and corporate driven policy. Like when Maclean's, owned by Rogers, had an article that heavily criticized net neutrality. As with most of these situations, we know the money is flowing... we know that corruption is present and sometimes widespread in politics. I'm not targetting just the conservatives in my argument either, they just happen to love corporations. The Federal Liberals were just as bad in their long run of power. When one party adopts a policy that favours a specific sector of corporations, there will be money spent behind the scenes to try and ensure that party's success. Corporations and wealthy elite are just better at hiding where the money is coming from. Unions, not so much. For instance, a union targets the direct policies of the political leader. Big business and the wealthy just pay to spread misinformation and astroturf policies/politicians they don't like, while funding misinformation or spin to get the politicians who have taken on policies they like seem favourable. They technically didn't directly involve themselves but, they end up with the same effect. We have seen how billions of dollars are funneled into anti-climate change rhetoric by the wealthy elite so that they don't have to change their business model. It is an ongoing concern, and it happens all the time. http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html To think that they don't do the same shady donations or pay people in news media on getting their politicians in who actually control the legislation, when they are willing to spend huge amounts of money just spreading general misinformation, would be naive. Edited June 10, 2014 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Boges Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 I'm not saying corporations don't have political sway. They lobby just like unions lobby. But there's no evidence that big corp are spending money to back Conservative candidates. Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted June 11, 2014 Report Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) I'm not saying corporations don't have political sway. They lobby just like unions lobby. But there's no evidence that big corp are spending money to back Conservative candidates. After reflecting on what I've been reading during this campaign, I feel that you are right for this provincial election. The last federal election was sketchy in my view. Although you are correct in that it was, as far as I know, indirect and not direct backing. Edited June 11, 2014 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Argus Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Way to move those goal posts. I don't know what quid you want shown to you, you wanted a 3rd party (Taxpayer Federation / Corporation-funded) spending hard now at the line. Partisan is as partisan does I guess. Listen to any radio and you'll hear it, they are eerily similar to the Working Families commercial. Like they hired the same PR firm which I wouldn't doubt. Again, the real issue here is not third party spending, it is third party spending in order to buy influence. It's corruption but legal. The unions pay millions to help the party get reelected, and in return, the party turns around and gives the unions what they want. There isn't even any question about it. The unions will put their war chest at the disposal of the party which offers them the most. Besides, I want ALL third party spending and donations stopped. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote, you can't contribute money or take out advertising. And neither unions nor corporations vote. Edited June 12, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 Just like how when Harper was first elected, not a single media company endorsed anyone else... and all of the editorials were ridiculously pro-harper. Someone was paying for that... Such a slant doesn't happen by accident. No, it happens because the other main candidate is just THAT bad. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bob Macadoo Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 Again, the real issue here is not third party spending, it is third party spending in order to buy influence. It's corruption but legal. The unions pay millions to help the party get reelected, and in return, the party turns around and gives the unions what they want. There isn't even any question about it. The unions will put their war chest at the disposal of the party which offers them the most. Besides, I want ALL third party spending and donations stopped. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote, you can't contribute money or take out advertising. And neither unions nor corporations vote. Good deflect....you should submit your candidacy. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 No, it happens because the other main candidate is just THAT bad. Exactly. Harper was elected on the back of Liberal scandal and a perennially ineffective and out of touch NDP. Nobody has ever really liked the guy. He has the charisma of a really boring cow. Fortunately for him, the Liberals chose two comically ineffective and out of touch leaders to oppose him in the next two elections, and he won mostly just by being less bad than the others. Dion ran on a totally out of touch platform, and people understandably couldn't connect with or trust Ignatieff. Hilariously, both of these clowns had even LESS charisma and gravitas than Harper. Trudeau will absolutely maul him in the next election. Just wait and see. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
PIK Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Exactly. Harper was elected on the back of Liberal scandal and a perennially ineffective and out of touch NDP. Nobody has ever really liked the guy. He has the charisma of a really boring cow. Fortunately for him, the Liberals chose two comically ineffective and out of touch leaders to oppose him in the next two elections, and he won mostly just by being less bad than the others. Dion ran on a totally out of touch platform, and people understandably couldn't connect with or trust Ignatieff. Hilariously, both of these clowns had even LESS charisma and gravitas than Harper. Trudeau will absolutely maul him in the next election. Just wait and see. But harper will have the last laugh,when trudeau destroys the country and he will. He will try and out do his father . Look at who he likes, china dicators and the extreme Islamic, what has he promised them for their support ,a little sharia law thrown in somewhere. But I have no doubt harper will win the next one. Edited June 12, 2014 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
cybercoma Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 But harper will have the last laugh,when trudeau destroys the country and he will. He will try and out do his father . Look at who he likes, china dicators and the extreme Islamic, what has he promised them for their support ,a little sharia law thrown in somewhere. But I have no doubt harper will win the next one. Just when I think I've seen it all... Quote
Moonbox Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 But harper will have the last laugh,when trudeau destroys the country and he will. .... But I have no doubt harper will win the next one. Harper is done after the next election. He's not going to sit as an opposition leader. Half the country hates him already. The only reason he won, as we've mentioned, is the weakness of the opposition. Trudeau might be a moron, and he might be just as much of a belligerent and caustic a-hole as his father was, but he's good-looking and there are enough blind fools who vote based on whether they like a politician's smile than on his record. His dad was the worst fiscal manager the country has ever had, but that did nothing to besmirch his rockstar status in central and eastern Canada. The only hope the Conservatives have to win the next election is if Justin's handlers give him too much slack, because he's prone to say idiotic things on his own accord. Failing that, all he has to do is say nice things about the country and smile for an easy victory. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
PIK Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 Just when I think I've seen it all...Explain. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
jacee Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 But harper will have the last laugh,when trudeau destroys the country and he will.Really?!I don't like Harper much, but I doubt he would laugh at that. . Quote
Argus Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Good deflect....you should submit your candidacy. Not sure what you're talking about, or even if you know what you're talking about. I have yet to see a single commercial from the Taxpayers Federation, but you seem to be desperate to use them as an excuse for the millions public service unions are pouring into advertising. And don't seem to care how that corrupts their relationship with the government as long as they agree with your choices. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Right.... I see Trudeau as a dumber, less educated, less experienced, and more ideological version of Dalton McGuinty. I don't think he will destroy the country, but I think he will take Canada where McGuinty took Ontario, into bigger deficits, bigger taxes, bigger government, drastically interfere with the energy industry, and put us in deep economic trouble. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bob Macadoo Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Not sure what you're talking about, or even if you know what you're talking about. I have yet to see a single commercial from the Taxpayers Federation, but you seem to be desperate to use them as an excuse for the millions public service unions are pouring into advertising. And don't seem to care how that corrupts their relationship with the government as long as they agree with your choices. Sorry you live under a rock......they are on talk radio, newsprint, etc. Maybe if you stayed out of your echo chamber.... Quote
Argus Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Sorry you live under a rock......they are on talk radio, newsprint, etc. Maybe if you stayed out of your echo chamber.... Oh they're on talk radio. THAT must cost way more than the endless television ads the unions are pumping out. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 I see Trudeau as a dumber, less educated, less experienced, and more ideological version of Dalton McGuinty. I don't think he will destroy the country, but I think he will take Canada where McGuinty took Ontario, into bigger deficits, bigger taxes, bigger government, drastically interfere with the energy industry, and put us in deep economic trouble. Maybe...maybe not. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.