Global News Killed a Documentary About the Koch Bros

[Bryan]

I just finished listening to the latest Canadaland podcast. On one hand it's pretty obvious to me why Livesey was fired, on the other it's bizarre that he ever had the job in the first place. The guy seems like a far left activist masquerading as a journalist to push a personal agenda. He doesn't appear to be reporting on anything, rather than just trying to craft a specific narrative.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Bryan

[Michael Hardner]

I just finished listening to the latest Canadaland podcast. On one hand it's pretty obvious to me why Livesey was fired, on the other it's bizarre that he ever had the job in the first place. The guy seems like a far left activist masquerading as a journalist to push a personal agenda. He doesn't appear to be reporting on anything, rather than just trying to craft a specific narrative.

Maybe. But they commissioned such a piece for a reason, and it almost made it to air. So something else killed it, other than them being surprised at the content. I can accept that it wasn't interference but I would like to know what the other options *could* be, and what the real reason was too.

[Michael Hardner]

That's not philanthropy, they're buying politicians.

I'm also interested to hear if people on here think that buying politicians is a problem, or more specifically the point at which it becomes a problem.

[Shady]

When's the George Soros documentary coming out?

[cybercoma]

I'm also interested to hear if people on here think that buying politicians is a problem, or more specifically the point at which it becomes a problem.

Of course it's a problem. Elections shouldn't be decided by fundraising. The cost of running for president is in the billions now, which is greater than the entire economies of some countries. That's why American politics have become about dynasties. They got rid of the Crown in order to have their own dynasty of billionaires running for office. When the people who run in elections are all decided on by the highest bidders before the election even happens, then all you're doing is choosing to vote for one of their two dancing monkeys: the one in the red hat or the one in the blue hat (with a chorus of completely irrelevant independents).

[cybercoma]

When's the George Soros documentary coming out?

Go make one.

[Michael Hardner]

Go make one.

There is already too much money and power behind such things, and they still aren't that popular. There was an anti-Michael Moore comedy made. We all know how popular it was.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it's a problem. Elections shouldn't be decided by fundraising. The cost of running for president is in the billions now, which is greater than the entire economies of some countries.

Well, sure, but I *know* how you feel. I want to know whether the right-of-centres feel intimidated by, for example, large lobby groups changing laws to reduce, say, freedom of religion in some areas. If it's going to be a money fight then that's what it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, sure, but I *know* how you feel. I want to know whether the right-of-centres feel intimidated by, for example, large lobby groups changing laws to reduce, say, freedom of religion in some areas. If it's going to be a money fight then that's what it is.

It is always going to be a money fight. It will also always be that a thread about Global "spiking" a documentary in Canada drifts to American presidential campaign costs. All is normal....

[Michael Hardner]

It is always going to be a money fight. It will also always be that a thread about Global "spiking" a documentary in Canada drifts to American presidential campaign costs. All is normal....

"Normal" meaning that our #1 friend to the south sets the pace and leads the world, right ? Isn't that your repeated marching tune here ?

As world leaders, your democracy is the model, so when things fail (such as with the laws and rules banking oversight in 2008) our stodgy backwardness is an advantage. Of course we care - friends should care. As such, you need to be a leader and listen to the frozen peasants.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Normal" meaning that our #1 friend to the south sets the pace and leads the world, right ? Isn't that your repeated marching tune here ?

No...normal in that always seems to be an expectation and behaviour in Canada and this forum.

Somebody in Canada must be taking the Koch Brother's money.

As world leaders, your democracy is the model, so when things fail (such as with the laws and rules banking oversight in 2008) our stodgy backwardness is an advantage. Of course we care - friends should care. As such, you need to be a leader and listen to the frozen peasants.

No, the U.S. democracy isn't the model for friends or enemies....and you are now firmly into thread drift.

[Michael Hardner]

No...normal in that always seems to be an expectation and behaviour in Canada and this forum.

Somebody in Canada must be taking the Koch Brother's money.

Are you accepting this or not ? It seems that your constant pointing out of USAmerica's superiority means you accept your status.

No, the U.S. democracy isn't the model for friends or enemies....and you are now firmly into thread drift.

Oops, I must have forced you to take a position on something. Sorry.

[guyser]

When's the George Soros documentary coming out?

Uh...you are on a bad roll these days arent you?

Your buddy Glen Beck made a two part documentary on Soros.

The BBC has done one.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you accepting this or not ? It seems that your constant pointing out of USAmerica's superiority means you accept your status.

Yes, but everything about how much Ontario really sucks I've learned right here (in Texas)...who knew ?!

Oops, I must have forced you to take a position on something. Sorry.

Gladly...the U.S. is the model for your excuses....for media and many other things.

Edited April 14, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[PIK]

And reports have it that Obama people are involved in our next election ,like they were in Israel trying to get Bibi replaced.

[Michael Hardner]

And reports have it that Obama people are involved in our next election ,like they were in Israel trying to get Bibi replaced.

Post the reports.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm also interested to hear if people on here think that buying politicians is a problem, or more specifically the point at which it becomes a problem.

Contributions to politicians or parties becomes a problem when the contributions are allowed to be so large that individuals, businesses, or other organizations can influence political policy based on the fear that if the politicians/parties don't try to implement policy that their specific contributors want then those specific contributors will stop giving them money It's bribery.

If you limit political contributions in a sensical way you can prevent, or at least greatly discourage, any one person or entity from having too much bought influence. Sensical regulation could be to ie: limit contributions from individuals to say $2000 per year, with ie: max $500 to any single politician per year & max $500 to any party itself, plus keep contributions only allowed from individual people and not from businesses or other organizations.

[dre]

Contributions to politicians or parties becomes a problem when the contributions are allowed to be so large that individuals, businesses, or other organizations can influence political policy based on the fear that if the politicians/parties don't try to implement policy that their specific contributors want then those specific contributors will stop giving them money It's bribery.

If you limit political contributions in a sensical way you can prevent, or at least greatly discourage, any one person or entity from having too much bought influence. Sensical regulation could be to ie: limit contributions from individuals to say $2000 per year, with ie: max $500 to any single politician per year & max $500 to any party itself, plus keep contributions only allowed from individual people and not from businesses or other organizations.

I wouldnt allow ANY of those contributions. Just shrink the election process itself. Theres no reason the whole thing should take more than a couple of weeks and cost a few million dollars. Have some televised debates paid for by the media, allow each candidate to circulate a well written essay paid for by the public, and allow them to broadcast one ten minute speech... also paid for by the public.

Influence peddling directly associated with campaigning would actually be really easy to eliminate without any adverse consequences. The problem is how do you stop PAC's and that type of thing... wealthy people or groups who dont donate to campaigns but instead produce their own material meant to be favorable to a certain politician? If you made a law to stop that, theres a good chance the courts would strike it down as an infringment on peoples right to speech/expression.

And since wealthy people already own the government what are the realistic chances that any government is going to write legislation to combat influence peddling in any real way? Its just not gonna happen... its gonna get worse and worse until democracies become true aristocracies/plutocracies. We are already getting really close.

Sorry... you can just forget about it. This battle has been in the books for a long long time.

Edited April 14, 2015 by dre

[GostHacked]

Gee, I wonder why.

Really ? I thought it was Canadian.

Such a fine day for fishing.

[Moonlight Graham]

Influence peddling directly associated with campaigning would actually be really easy to eliminate without any adverse consequences. The problem is how do you stop PAC's and that type of thing... wealthy people or groups who dont donate to campaigns but instead produce their own material meant to be favorable to a certain politician? If you made a law to stop that, theres a good chance the courts would strike it down as an infringment on peoples right to speech/expression.

Yeah I've thought about this a lot, that is the difficult part. You'll never eliminate that, and it may not even be right to do so. Maybe we should eliminate those horrible (and creepy) negative commercials though....

[GostHacked]

Yeah I've thought about this a lot, that is the difficult part. You'll never eliminate that, and it may not even be right to do so. Maybe we should eliminate those horrible (and creepy) negative commercials though....

Not a bad idea. I want to hear about the candidate's accomplishments instead of what the other guy did wrong. Political attack ads are terrible and not productive at all.

[GostHacked]

I like the way Canadaland is presented, the host is really good at asking the right questions. I really enjoyed the bit where the host apologized for airing the piece which got the journalist fired. But the journalist does not take offense as the journalist has gotten others fired under similar circumstances.

Regardless the Koch brothers are very influential. Throw them in the same category as someone like Soros.

[Moonlight Graham]

Not a bad idea. I want to hear about the candidate's accomplishments instead of what the other guy did wrong. Political attack ads are terrible and not productive at all.

They also are usually lies and quotes taken out of context.

[littleguy1]

Hilarious, absolutely hilarious.The right wing always complains about MSM but should take a closer look in the mirror. Money in politics, no matter what side, is bad for the process. Agendas are dictated by contributors and the real issues of the day are not addressed.

If you want to know the real problem with media, look no further than the lack of journalistic integrity. When sensationalism, tabloid, and gotcha journalism are paramount in media, then news is nothing more than a fight for ratings.

Come on, when Fox is classified a news network and CNN and MSNBC spend all of their resources talking about the same things for weeks, where can you find real news? I can tell you, and most people will not believe it.

Foreign outlets like BBC or CBC and even AL JAZEERHA have kept global news as a priority and local news as the byline. They have also achieved a neutral presentation format where all sides of a story are reported not that of the network executives or the corporate sponsors. I think that may be because they are state sponsored so the tax payer has skin in the game.

No matter if it is liberal or conservative outlets, American media coverage is biased and refuses to tackle the issues that matter. They are better at creating controversy instead of finding out why it is there. Only when journalists return to reporting with integrity and truth will the problem be solved. Only when facts out weigh opinion will the public get real information. Think about it, news should not vary from one network to the next if the truth is being reported. That is why tabloid journalism is so successful, because humans thrive on intrigue, danger and controversy. When it matches their political ideology then it is that much better.

[Je suis Omar]

Of course we care - friends should care. s.

Friends don't let friends commit war crimes. And join 'em to boot.