The liberal media as propaganda outlet

[Argus]

Liberals will argue otherwise, of course, and point to newspaper political endorsements every four or five years which are directed from the boardroom, but the pervasive liberalism of the mainstream media cannot really be denied.

The culture of media elites is most definitely liberal in their day-to-day coverage of major issues. The editors and reporters choose what to cover and how to cover it, and it's really hard to imagine how they could be a better propaganda arm of the liberal party if they were actually being directed from party headquarters. That is most particularly true of the TV networks.

Their coverage of the climate talks, for example, has been breathless and utterly devoid of critical thought. I have seen zero analyses of the dollar cost to consumers and taxpayers, or the likely cost to the economy, and not one expressed doubt on the wisdom of the Liberal Party's policy, even though that policy hasn't exactly been clearly articulated.

Yesterday morning the CBC and CTV treated an impending 'deal' with wall to call coverage while other world media mostly ignored it. It didn't even draw a mention on US morning news, and barely a passing reference on the BBC or Euronews. The media have managed to convince Canadians that climate change is something which absolutely has to be addressed by them while breezily ignoring there might be any actual cost involved. And if there is a cost, don't worry, some other guy will pay it, some rich company maybe.

The refugee thing is another breathless unfolding story in Canadian media. Wall to wall coverage of the camps, refugees getting on airplanes, refugees on airplanes, refugees arriving, smiling faces greeting them, lovely houses they're shown, previous refugees who done good (never a word about previous refugees living in housing projects or in jail), and not a single thoughtful word about the costs involved or how they could be better spent. The whole theme is “We're so nice! Look how grateful they are for us being so nice! Boy, we're nice! Isn't it wonderful how nice Canadians are!?”

And I sometimes wonder if the major media pays people to notify them of the slightest hint of racial or ethnic discrimination of any kind. It's like they have people waiting around at police stations and when a call comes in, if the victim is non-white and the alleged suspect is white, urgent calls go out and the media get into their cars, sirens wailing as they race across town in hopes of a good 'prejudice' story. Last week we actually had cross-Canada network coverage because a Muslim referee at an amateur hockey game got called names! Oh, how sad it is! Look how awful some people are! Look at the poor, frightened Muslims! Isn't it awful how intolerant people can be of Muslims! Look how nice they are! How can anyone say bad things about them!?

Zero interest, of course, when the person being treated badly is white and the perpetrator is Muslim or Black or Asian. And why would there be? Why would national news cover people being rude to each other anyway? Why would it even cover minor violence? But it does – if the victim is non-white or where both parties are non-white.,

This resembled the still ongoing coverage of gays which went into overdrive as soon as the Liberals decided they were going to get behind gay marriage. Fawning, continuous stories of lovely gay couples and how sad they were when people disapproved, heart-warming stories of gays with their kids, and gays with long term relationships and gay professionals doing important stuff and sad stories bemoaning anyone who has the slightest hesitation in embracing every single aspect of the gay lifestyle and the notion of total gay equaliy.

The coverage of the Trudeaus is also tabloid style gushing admiration, with endless videos and pictures of the trendy celebrity personalities and how attractive they are. Trudeau's wife has no accomplishments that I'm aware of but apparently she's to be admired for her looks, at least, and for marrying Trudeau. Peter Mansbridge's fawning, obsequious coverage of Trudeau on the day he was sworn in resembled an adolescent fangirl covering a Justin Bieber concert. He did everything but jump up and down squealing and crying.

All of this is designed to sway the public in the direction the liberal media elites want them to follow, and is simply undeniable. An endorsement from head office twice a decade in newspaper outlets for some other party is certainly not going to counterbalance any of that.

[TimG]

The culture of media elites is most definitely liberal in their day-to-day coverage of major issues. The editors and reporters choose what to cover and how to cover it, and it's really hard to imagine how they could be a better propaganda arm of the liberal party if they were actually being directed from party headquarters. That is most particularly true of the TV networks.

I don't watch any TV news but the G&M has been running nothing but climate treaty propaganda pieces for the last month. It is sickening and not really mitigated because they allow Wente to write a couple op eds pointing out how the whole thing is a big sham.

This kind of blatant propoganda is really bad for the public conversation because instead of using their position in Canadian media to encourage debate and discussion they simply drive people who have different opinions away which only exacerbates the echo chamber problem.

Edited December 13, 2015 by TimG

[ironstone]

Since the election has passed,the media coverage of Trudeau is almost exactly like I expected it to be.With very few exceptions,so-called journalists,not only in Canada but all over the world,have been shameless in their admiration of Trudeau.

It's pretty pathetic,but Canada now has it's own royal family,the Trudeau's.He kind of reminds me of any typical red carpet celebrity,posing for the fans.

I hate to say it,but Trudeau might just be unbeatable for a very long time,at least until he becomes bored with the job just as he has always done prior to this.

Real journalists are in the minority now.

[waldo]

All of this is designed to sway the public in the direction the liberal media elites want them to follow, and is simply undeniable. An endorsement from head office twice a decade in newspaper outlets for some other party is certainly not going to counterbalance any of that.

more... yet more... of the whiny plaintive wail against the imagined "media party"? Just why do the owners/publishers/editors pony up those political endorsements of anyoneButLiberalNDP and then, seemingly, play out your worst machinations in your presumed daily homage to anythingButC/conservative? What gives with that hey?

Edited December 13, 2015 by waldo

[eyeball]

Liberals will argue otherwise, of course, and point to newspaper political endorsements every four or five years which are directed from the boardroom, but the pervasive liberalism of the mainstream media cannot really be denied.

That's simply because reality doesn't accord itself to conservative desires.

All of this is designed to sway the public in the direction the liberal media elites want them to follow,

Designed? By who or what? Have you tried praying for deliverance from evil or something?

[-1=e^ipi]

Argus, you keep referring to elites. But I think that the existence of a neoprogressive media bias doesn't require elites at all, and perhaps a better explanation doesn't involve them.

I think the reason you see such bias is due to a combination of noble cause corruption and cronyism. Maybe call it noble cause cronyism?

Neoprogressives will often view those who are not neoprogressive as evil. Where as non-neoprogressives often view neoprogressives as simply stupid. As a result of this, when it comes to hiring decisions, if a neoprogressive is making the hiring decisions they are likely to favour other neoprogressives 'for the greater good'. Where as non-neoprogressives would generally be more fair in hiring decisions and care more about merit. As a result of this, even if the people making the hiring decisions are a mix of neoprogressives and non-neoprogressives, the net result is a favouring of neoprogressives when it comes to hiring. And as neoprogressives are more likely to get hired, promoted, etc. they become more likely to get in positions where they make hiring/promoting decisions. And as the concentration of neoprogressives gets higher, the neoprogressive hiring preference increases. Which means that as one moves up in the hierarchy of certain organizations such as the media, the concentration of neoprogressives increases. In effect, the neoprogressive in-group preference that is due to noble cause croynism causes excessive concentrations of neoprogressives in positions of power.

This is why we see strong concentrations of neoprogressives in the media (especially cbc as it is government owned), academia/universities and the public service (these areas don't have to worry about profit maximizing / meeting the bottom line and are more attractive to neoprogressives as they allow the neoprogressives to change the direction of society 'for the greater good'). Want to have your paper published? Well if it has a neoprogressive slant then it is more likely to get published. Are a journalist and want to move up in the organization? Well if you run some stories that support various neoprogressive narratives then your neoprogressive bosses might be impressed and will be more likely to hire you. Etc.

Edited December 13, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

You'll be just as likely see this sort of yes-manism in hierarchal organizations that cleave to a profit line except they'll be more sociopathic and indifferent to a greater good.

Notwithstanding the merits of either approach I'll still take the results of the do unto others crowd than the do unto myself bunch any day thanks.

[-1=e^ipi]

Here is a good example of Swedish media bias:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM5zAEVXV1M

[eyeball]

It's an example of bias and a media alright.

Was that a typical Swede too?

[kimmy]

All of this is designed to sway the public in the direction the liberal media elites want them to follow, and is simply undeniable. An endorsement from head office twice a decade in newspaper outlets for some other party is certainly not going to counterbalance any of that.

I agree that many of the examples you present demonstrate media bias, but I disagree with you on the above claim. I don't believe a secret liberal cabal is secretly attempting to brainwash the public.

Yesterday morning the CBC and CTV treated an impending 'deal' with wall to call coverage while other world media mostly ignored it.

...

The refugee thing is another breathless unfolding story in Canadian media.

These are hot-button issues right now. They're receiving breathless coverage because the media want to sell newspapers and get pageviews.

This resembled the still ongoing coverage of gays which went into overdrive as soon as the Liberals decided they were going to get behind gay marriage.

I think you give the Liberals far too much credit here. I think they saw a shift in public opinion and moved to capitalize on it. I think this shift was driven by US entertainment media, not Canadian politicians.

And I sometimes wonder if the major media pays people to notify them of the slightest hint of racial or ethnic discrimination of any kind. ...

Zero interest, of course, when the person being treated badly is white and the perpetrator is Muslim or Black or Asian.

I had a long discussion with Michael Hardner over this issue some time ago, and I will attempt to locate that thread later on. My view on the subject is that currently anti-Muslim sentiment is a hotbutton issue and translates into $$$headlines$$$ and $$$pageviews$$$. Whereas the media is prone to handle incidents of violence against whites by non-whites with kid-gloves out of fear of being called racist or potentially stoking racist sentiment.

The coverage of the Trudeaus is also tabloid style gushing admiration, with endless videos and pictures of the trendy celebrity personalities and how attractive they are.

Yeah, and that's exactly what's going on here. For the moment they're Canada's "it" couple and there's an opportunity to sell newspapers or magazines or tabloids to the kind of people who'll be buying magazines with some other celebrity couple on the cover next week. If Peter Mackay and his beautiful wife became Canada's first couple, we might see similar interest.

-k

[Argus]

I agree that many of the examples you present demonstrate media bias, but I disagree with you on the above claim. I don't believe a secret liberal cabal is secretly attempting to brainwash the public.

Me neither. I'm not suggesting there is a cabal or conspiracy of any sort. I think those who go into journalism tend to be fairly like-minded people from upper middle class homes. Journalism schools tend to be staffed by that same sort of feel-good, liberal/progressive mentality, and there they impart their views of the wonderfulness of progressive harmony and equality for all, including their distaste for the backwardness of Christian churchgoers, the unfairness of capitalism and the greed and immorality of big shots, esp in private industry. Journalists learn that their mission is to expose 'bad' people, and to help everyone else. You 'help' people by dwelling on the bad things happening to them and then get government to do something about it to make it better. There is no room in any of that for nuts and bolts about what stuff costs and the whether money would be better spent elsewhere, or not spent at all. The 'big picture' tends to be boring. Journalists like to focus on the individual, like that little boy who drowned when his father decided not to stay in Turkey but to put his whole family into a leaky boat to cross illegally into Europe.

I would also say that what is and is not a 'hot button issue' is not due so much to the interest of Canadians but the interest of journalists.

[waldo]

If Peter Mackay and his beautiful wife became Canada's first couple, we might see similar interest.

yabut, uhhh... she's uhhh... she's a... Muslim! Ya, she's a Muslim... a past activist Muslim, no less! Oh wait, I see where you're at here... yes, that would be interesting - that would sell print/clicks!

.

[GostHacked]

I agree that many of the examples you present demonstrate media bias, but I disagree with you on the above claim. I don't believe a secret liberal cabal is secretly attempting to brainwash the public.

-k

I believe those entities would be called 'think tanks', which seem to have a lot of influence over policies.

[taxme]

It would appear as though all the media party(Global/CTV/CBC)want to talk about these days is about the Syrian refugees. The media party hated Harper, and as far as they were concerned, he had to go. Whenever the media party interviewed Harper it was attack, attack, attack. Now when one watches the media party interview Trudeau, it is always nice little easy questions like how is your family doing. The bias of the media party is quite pathetic indeed.

[eyeball]

This Media Party sure sounds like bad news alright.

Do they have death squads too? They sound as evil as ISIS.

[sirius]

It would appear as though all the media party(Global/CTV/CBC)want to talk about these days is about the Syrian refugees. The media party hated Harper, and as far as they were concerned, he had to go. Whenever the media party interviewed Harper it was attack, attack, attack. Now when one watches the media party interview Trudeau, it is always nice little easy questions like how is your family doing. The bias of the media party is quite pathetic indeed.

I was amazed how biased, even wrong, all the europe and canada refugee process is set on the radio. I have no tv, but I listen to CBC to see the "official view". So by cbc europians are not very welcoming the "sirian refugees" and we in canada bring them with our military plains. And little to no coverage on the "events" on new years eve in some german and swirzerland cities - numeros rapes of young german and switzerland woman.

And cbc fail to mention (not even explain) that europe countries are national countries. In france you have mostly french, in germany - germans, dutches, spanish, finnish, hungarians. An huge number of young muslim males are not welcome. Especialy without any control on the borders - no documents, no finger prints. While canada went in middle east and pick up "sirian refugee" in a strictly controled manner, with military planes.

What an irony. When I was at high school in a communist country, I listen to western media ON MY LANGUAGE, on short waves. To find some more info. Now, working to cover my rent in canada, I listen to RTand a lot of individuals (a lot of americans) on youtube to get more info and some sane explanation what is going on. And I find it. Not in the mass media.

And I may asure you, the canadian (and us) massmedia is much more "biased" than the state media in my ex communist country.

[-1=e^ipi]

What an irony. When I was at high school in a communist country, I listen to western media ON MY LANGUAGE, on short waves. To find some more info. Now, working to cover my rent in canada, I listen to RTand a lot of individuals (a lot of americans) on youtube to get more info and some sane explanation what is going on. And I find it. Not in the mass media.

And I may asure you, the canadian (and us) massmedia is much more "biased" than the state media in my ex communist country.

It's pretty sad when Russia Today is more reliable than all western mainstream media. Good thing we live in an internet age where one is able to obtain information from alternative media outlets, or even just random individuals on youtube.

[sirius]

And it is easy to drasticly reduce internet. Or to "implement some security measures" (censorship and survalance) and cut off "conspiracy" sources.

How it will come. The same principle as more security measures was taken after "twins event". Media gets an event, let's say 100-500 or more people get robbed by stolen identity. Then make it over exposed on people to made more fear and "take measures". Or even single small event like this kurdish (if remember) child on the beach befor the campain against coldharded europe and introducing "25000 sirians in welcoming canada".

We are seeing the end of democracy in america. We get into position that we can't handle any more with the tools of democracy. Without paying with sanity. People have to get dummer to believe and accept some explanations and political acts. Now most of the world is against america because of military supremacy of the dollar and values. America is not produser any more, only consumer. The last good times of 90s when "utilising" what is in russia, is over. Greece get blown first. Now eourope is blowing. China, india iran etc. are behind russia - and there is a reason, if russia falls they are next. Especially china as an economic power. If us fail to defend the supremecy of the dollar, no matter how... it is falling. It will be mayhem. And america is not ready to be self sustainable, to produce goods as in 50s and 60s. America is playing "all or nothing" against the world. Including europe and russia. That is huge mistake. Economy here in america (incl. Canada) will be good if america wins.

[jacee]

Liberals will argue otherwise, of course, and point to newspaper political endorsements every four or five years which are directed from the boardroom, but the pervasive liberalism of the mainstream media cannot really be denied.

Not even one link or example?

.

[Argus]

It's pretty sad when Russia Today is more reliable than all western mainstream media.

Would be if it were true, but it isn't.

[Argus]

Not even one link or example?

.

I gave sufficient examples to back up my opinion. I don't feel I need the opinion of someone at a newspaper to back up my opinion.

You can add the deliberate commission of reporting on the sexual assaults of women throughout Germany on New Years eve, and in Sweden, as well, to the list of politicized left wing media who slant coverage. That concerns the media in those countries, but it is not really any different here. When gangs of Somali refugees were swarming people in Ottawa some years back, all the media referred to it as "youth swarmings" omitting any mention of their almost universal origins.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Argus

[-1=e^ipi]

Would be if it were true, but it isn't.

Not sure about that. At least with respect to ISIS, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

[Argus]

Not sure about that. At least with respect to ISIS, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The only things which RT can be reliable on is that all of its reports will make Russia look good, if they involve Russian behaviour, and make Western countries look bad, elsewise. It paints the world with a broad brush that sees the evil West behind every bad thing going on and Russia as the poor proud victim of Western bullying and aggression.

[-1=e^ipi]

The only things which RT can be reliable on is that all of its reports will make Russia look good, if they involve Russian behaviour, and make Western countries look bad, elsewise. It paints the world with a broad brush that sees the evil West behind every bad thing going on and Russia as the poor proud victim of Western bullying and aggression.

One of the most effective ways to promote a narrative and indoctrinate people with propaganda is by omission of information. If you try to get information from multiple sources of media, you are much less susceptible to omission of information.

[sirius]

Nato (us led) bombed Jugoslavia, Iraq, Libia -just a few examples- and tear apart or ruined countries. Under butter words like freedom, democracy and prosperity. And nothing good happens. They supported radical elements in ucraine to put convinient leaders that will confront russia. Now ucraine is ruines. Convinient ruins. How can I understand that anywhere us/nato/ec support some "freedome" movements (often created by them) and the country goes to ruins.

How can I understand the full cover over ttip? The papers will be secret 30 years in ec and 5 years in us.

Now the world is different and main stream media in america is the blanket covering up the real issues. Rt is one of the very few to expose more of the real issues. We are living in an dark age where people are not informed but desinformed. And only the very few realy interested can obtain a real information and connect the dots. All the other are pushed to ignorance -easy to rule. And from that very few (self)informed even fewer will go public and try to infom/educate the other. Not enough. Go and look alternative whistle blowers and medias and thing.