Jump to content

The Race To The Bottom


Recommended Posts

The news about the news

What's driving this race to the bottom? Witnesses are telling the senators about the usual suspects. Chain ownership. Convergence -- the absurd idea that one reporter can tell the same story in a newspaper, on TV and on the Internet. The collapse of competition among owners.

How to fix it? A lot of you won't be happy with Waddell's suggestion, but I endorse it entirely: drive up the value of Canadian media properties and the level of competition by busting the protection racket of Canadian ownership. Let foreign owners into the Canadian newspaper market.

I can hear the squealing from the vested interests already. My first question for them isn't economic, it's moral: apart from getting rich and gutting newsrooms, what have Canadian owners done in the past 15 years to deserve further protection?

So Wells is acknowledging what more leading intellectuals in Canada have observed for some time now, that the quality of our private media is very poor. Actually private media has failed Canadians big time! Thank goodness for the CBC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The CBC is about as unbiased and reliable as Pravda or Volkskischer Beobachter.

Hyperbole !

I think Canada does very well in the news department, considering how much smaller we are than other countries.

The problem with television news is it's all driven from emotional flash-points, and there's never any resolution to the problems and conflict. It just keeps going on and on...

Like a soap opera...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have a problem with media control here in Canada and it is not CBC. The problem would not be improved by allowing foreign ownership of our news media sources. We need to limit how much of our media can be owned by a single company. Can West is our problem. It owns a majority of newspapers, tv stations, and radio stations. The head office sends editorials to the various outlet papers and does not allow opposing views to be printed on their core editorials. We need to control how much of our media sources can be owned and controlled by one source. This majority control of our media sources allows them to spread propaganda by choosing the stories it wishes to release and those it likes to ignore or bury deep in the paper. We have two large daily papers (the Province and the Sun both owned by Can West) a daily National Post again owned by Can West. These Can West Media sources all present a pro Israel/ pro American point of view as they are controlled by a Jewish family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wah wah wah, Canwest this, Canwest that.

Newspapers have a smaller role in news coverage than they used to, as most Canadians use TV as their primary source for news coverage. Newspapers continue to shrink in importants as more and more Canadians do their reading and research on the internet.

If you have a TV, you can get the CBC in Canada; their coverage is almost universal. My mother's family in the remote far north of Alberta was able to receive CBC even before they had a satellite dish; it was the only station they could get.

CTV is likewise available in almost every Canadian home, I am sure. And I suspect that almost every market has independant broadcasters or smaller chains like Craig Media or CHUM-City which provide additional alternatives to the big 3.

If one insists of focusing only on the lack of choice in newspapers, then even there you have options. I understand that in Vancouver, both major local dailies are owned by CanWest; however, the Toronto Globe and Mail is available on every streetcorner, isn't it? There's an alternate viewpoint on national and international issues. You could also get down to the library and pick up a Toronto Star for their national/international perspective, or a Winnipeg Free Press. For local issues, Syrup often mentions the virtues of the Georgia Strait as an independent media source. And again, I could understand the fuss if newspapers were the only news source available, but with a numerous TV and radio options to choose from, I just don't see the point.

Anyway, we discussed media bias before, and found that people on this forum are apparently ok with biased reportage.

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CBC is about as unbiased and reliable as Pravda or Volkskischer Beobachter.

Yawn. Can you name any examples of unbiased media outlets?

What's driving this race to the bottom? Witnesses are telling the senators about the usual suspects. Chain ownership. Convergence -- the absurd idea that one reporter can tell the same story in a newspaper, on TV and on the Internet. The collapse of competition among owners.

This would be a great phenomenon if the decay of the media was a uniquely Canadian phenomenon. It's not.

Media concentration is indeed the culprit and opening the Canadian market up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch won't help matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is bias in all media, however some have more bias than others. When you have people like Ted Turner and yes Rupert Murdoch in charge of media outlets with an agenda to push you'll get overt bias. It wouldn't be so bad if there were an equal number of left and right leaning reporters, producers, directors, bureau chiefs etc. But there hasn't been. Most of the time I think people like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings are well intentioned and try to be objective but it is impossible for them to be completely objective. So people have decided that if they're going to get biased news they might as well go somewhere they can agree with the bias. So they'll go to talk radio or Savage or Stuart Smally. At least you know where these people are coming from, they admit their bias. What is offensive is when you get people like Peter Mansbridge and Christianne Amanpour among others who pretend to be relaying objective news when in fact they are subtly pushing their opinions on the viewers. This is why mainstream media is on its way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people have decided that if they're going to get biased news they might as well go somewhere they can agree with the bias. So they'll go to talk radio or Savage or Stuart Smally. At least you know where these people are coming from, they admit their bias.

Thee problem with that is that, since such individuals are free from the usual journalistic restraints, they tend to play fast and loose with facts. So what you end up with is people "informing" themselves by watching Crossfire or listening to Rush, but getting bad information.

What is offensive is when you get people like Peter Mansbridge and Christianne Amanpour among others who pretend to be relaying objective news when in fact they are subtly pushing their opinions on the viewers.

Frankly, it's not possible to have completely unbiased news. Peopel have biases and that will shine through. The problem with the mainstream media is there's little diversity of opinion. That diversity is necessary to ensure good discourse and accuracy in information.

As an aside, to comment on the CBS memo incident: the reason that happened was not out of bias, but simply because of the competitive nature of the news business today. When getting the news out first is priority number one, then getting the news right will get lost in the shuffle.

That said, I maintain the whole thing was cooked up by Karl Rove anyway, as it couldn't possibly have worked out better for Bush. But I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be a great phenomenon if the decay of the media was a uniquely Canadian phenomenon. It's not.

Media concentration is indeed the culprit and opening the Canadian market up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch won't help matters.

BD, how can you say that in a post to an Internet forum (and presumably after reading Kimmy's post)?

Our cable networks and radio and television stations are subject to government regulations which explains in part the higher concentration in Canada than in, say, the US.

But by and large, there is ample opportunity for independant sources of information, moreso now than ever before in our history.

I have no objection in principle to the CBC but I'd like to see the idea extended to all stations. We pay for TV/radio through our taxes (CBC) or higher prices (commercial advertising). I don't know what the proper mix should be.

While the State should finance media outlets, I certainly don't think the State should be managing a media organization.

Lastly, the Internet has introduced a real whammy in the media field. Getting back to Wells' column, should we let foreigners in? In 20 years, it may well be technically impossible to keep them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind biased news outlets so musch if there is sufficient on all sides. That is another question of whether there can be.

Political slant is determined by advertising revenues as much as by ownership. In Britain, the largest circulation newspaper some years ago (Daily Mirror? I forget which) folded up because of lack of revenue. Its advertising was about one third of the next in circulation.

Its fault was in being a Left wing paper. It seems that advertisers appeal more to the Right. Curious and source for much speculation as to why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black Dog said:

since such individuals are free from the usual journalistic restraints, they tend to play fast and loose with facts. So what you end up with is people "informing" themselves by watching Crossfire or listening to Rush, but getting bad information.

Crossfire will be turfed. :lol:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...ire_1&printer=1

CNN will probably fold "Crossfire" into its other programming, perhaps as an occasional segment on the daytime show "Inside Politics," said Jonathan Klein, who was appointed in late November as chief executive of CNN's U.S. network.

The bow-tied wearing conservative pundit got into a public tussle last fall with comic Jon Stewart, who has been critical of cable political programs that devolve into shoutfests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thee problem with that is that, since such individuals are free from the usual journalistic restraints, they tend to play fast and loose with facts. So what you end up with is people "informing" themselves by watching Crossfire or listening to Rush, but getting bad information.
I think you're right. But I think many people listen to it at least with that caveat. For the most part they announce and are unapologitic for their political ideolgy. The difference is when you watch CBC news you get no warning. It's the subtlety of the bias that's the problem.

As for the memo incident, I half agree. I think Dan Rather was just trying to get the story out. I don't think he had malicious intent. I do think his underlying bias may have played a part in not being as cautious as he would have been if the story were about Kerry. But I think there was malicious intent behind the scenes by people like Mary Mapes was it? who brought out the story and obviously the people who forged the documents. I think such people should be charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why mainstream media is on its way out.
IMR, the interesting thing about the article in your link (other than Dan Rather's girth) is that this arose because of government regulation.

The FCC in effect created three main TV networks and made it virtually impossible for any new entrants. The Big Three made big profits and stifled any internal change. This invited outside technological innovation and Fox.

It wouldn't be so bad if there were an equal number of left and right leaning reporters, producers, directors, bureau chiefs etc.
IMV, people watch the news primarily to be entertained. I think they also watch it so that they don't look too stupid during workplace conversations ("Tsunami? What's that?") I'll bet people are most attentive during the weather and traffic reports.

I do not see a great difference bewteen discussions on this forum about left/right and discussions on sports forums about the Cowboys/Oilers. People choose a team because then the discussion/match is more entertaining.

But first, please see media as primarily entertainment. These guys show what is popular.

The problem with the mainstream media is there's little diversity of opinion. That diversity is necessary to ensure good discourse and accuracy in information.
IYHO.

If diversity would raise ratings, these guys would be on it in a flash. Instead, they've learned that people are much more interested in personal health questions.

As an aside, to comment on the CBS memo incident: the reason that happened was not out of bias, but simply because of the competitive nature of the news business today. When getting the news out first is priority number one, then getting the news right will get lost in the shuffle.
I agree.
That said, I maintain the whole thing was cooked up by Karl Rove anyway, as it couldn't possibly have worked out better for Bush.
I think the same.
It seems that advertisers appeal more to the Right. Curious and source for much speculation as to why.
Good question but this has nothing to do with a "corporate right wing agenda". Nor is it because advertisers only seek "rich right wingers". And listen, 2 million Canadian voted for the NDP in the last federal election. The market's there. (The Toronto Star seems pretty good at getting advertising revenues.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the mainstream media is there's little diversity of opinion. That diversity is necessary to ensure good discourse and accuracy in information.

IYHO.

If diversity would raise ratings, these guys would be on it in a flash. Instead, they've learned that people are much more interested in personal health questions.

Bull. Shit.

You forget that "these guys" have a vested interest in ensuring that only certain viewpoints get out and they're certainly not going to allow any views out that could harm them. Do you think a network owned by G.E. would allow a program to report on the dangers of nuclear power? Would ABC report about the treatment of sweatshop workers making Disney paraphanalia? Hell no.

Remember: the audience doesn't dictate content. Advertisers do. The audience is merely the product that the media delivers.

IMV, people watch the news primarily to be entertained

Which is why we're becoming a society of ignorant drones. IMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think a network owned by G.E. would allow a program to report on the dangers of nuclear power?
Bulls**t.
Which is why we're becoming a society of ignorant drones. IMV.
Becoming? Do you mean we were brilliant before and now we're, uh, sort of thick? Huh?

And when did Western Civilization reach its apogee of brilliance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there is bias in the media. There always has been and always will be. This bias comes from the views and interest of the owners, the editors, and the writers.

If I want to read the biased National Post, I will CHOOSE to buy it. If I want to read the biased Toronto Star, I will CHOOSE to buy it.

But even if I choose not to watch the CBC, I am forced to pay for it - this is what rankles me about the CBC. The CBC can stay that way in my opinion if it STOPS taking federal largesse and supports itself on advertising revenue like the rest of the broadcast world.

I will admit however, the CBC is masterful in how it exhibits the bias subtly through it's choice of stories and slants on stories so that the majority of Canadians don't recognize that the CBC is the propaganda arm of the federal government (and thus the Liberal government and the bureaucracy). They broadcast stories on the news to "create" the feeling of goodwill towards Liberal ideas. Goebbels would be proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Becoming? Do you mean we were brilliant before and now we're, uh, sort of thick? Huh?

And when did Western Civilization reach its apogee of brilliance?

Well, you could argue that when there was less competition on television, and when newspapers had more clout, there was a lot less of a drive to make news entertaining.

You can certainly tell the difference if you watch a news telecast from 20 years ago - it looks like a PBS documentary in comparison. I saw a Russian news telecast 10 years ago and it was staggering how dry and informative it was.

As television evolves, news becomes more and more entertaining and the real life that it reflects also morphs to become more entertaining. This is the main thesis of LIFE: THE MOVIE By Neal Gabler - that life itself is becoming more movie-like.

It's pointless to pine for an earlier time when this wasn't the case. What we need to do is adjust our institutions to the new reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought here.

Maybe if there were not such restrictions in publishing and broadcasting, such as myriad expensive licenses and permits, the requirement for state approval, taxes and so forth, the media market would not be so skewed in favour of big companies and against small independents?

I will be interested to see how the internet develops. Streaming radio and (after broadband gets faster) video offers an opportunity for more small and independent media outlets with much lower operating costs (servers cost less than radio broadcasts). As of yet, I don't believe the government has started to lean on internet media, although if it grows enough to be worth it they will probably demand their cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Hugo,

Maybe if there were not such restrictions in publishing and broadcasting, such as myriad expensive licenses and permits,
Much of the news and information is 'copyright protected' as well. Without infringing on 'intellectual property rights', small or independent broadcasters cannot afford these fees. Much of the news is 'bought off the wire' from independent reporters, all music is copyrighted, as are almost all broadcasts. Would it be possible to have an idependent station that broadcast solely 'napster downloads'? Would it be 'right'?
As of yet, I don't believe the government has started to lean on internet media, although if it grows enough to be worth it they will probably demand their cut.
I think the 'global intangebility' of the internet would render specific taxation impossible. They could only increase taxes on the service providers, with everyone paying an increased share for having access. If the internet truly grows to rival television and radio, I would expect big tax increases to internet providers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Pateris,

If I want to read the biased National Post, I will CHOOSE to buy it. If I want to read the biased Toronto Star, I will CHOOSE to buy it.

But even if I choose not to watch the CBC, I am forced to pay for it - this is what rankles me about the CBC

I personally like CBC. I also like some documentaries on the History Channel, and Discovery. I watch TV a couple of times a month, sometimes less. (The wife likes a couple of shows on A&E as well) but we cannot choose to have only these channels...we must subsidize crap like american sit-coms, Oprah and Jerry Springer. In fact, I am of the opinion that the 4 major stations in the US offer 99% garbage, yet I must pay them if I wnat to watch anything else. I don't find the CBC nearly as annoying, and the news programs they have can at least be counted upon to provide a little bit of unbiased truth, unlike FOX.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Hardner,

As television evolves, news becomes more and more entertaining and the real life that it reflects also morphs to become more entertaining. This is the main thesis of LIFE: THE MOVIE By Neal Gabler - that life itself is becoming more movie-like.
If I may say, what a load. Life 'morphing to the movie-esque' is an example of 'devolving'. the notion of 'tabula rasa' only serves to become more powerful the more 'popular culture' pervades it, and usurps the role of 'environment' with an artifical, make believe one, and takes over with scribbling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thelonius,

...but we cannot choose to have only these channels...we must subsidize crap like american sit-coms, Oprah and Jerry Springer. In fact, I am of the opinion that the 4 major stations in the US offer 99% garbage, yet I must pay them if I wnat to watch anything else.

The reason you cannot choose to only get specific channels is also the government's fault. The CRTC specifies which channels and packages of channels you can choose from. Why? Because the cable and satellite companies want it that way to generate revenue. Also, the smaller Canadian cable channels need that level of market penetration to survive - and the Government of Canada wants them to for "cultural reasons".

Second - YOU do NOT subsidize the crappy american stations. You get those for free (other than paying the cable company, who does NOT pay the Americans much of anything for it). American networks are funded entirely by advertising, except in cases like PBS and HBO. They also make money by selling their programs to foreign stations like CTV and CBC. So if the CBC is showing a crappy American sitcom, YES, you are subsidizing it. But if you watch NBC from New York or Seattle you are not. You are just paying the cable company's shareholders.

I don't find the CBC nearly as annoying, and the news programs they have can at least be counted upon to provide a little bit of unbiased truth, unlike FOX.

The CBC does provide a VERY small amount of unbiased news. But they slip their liberal bias into many stories, even the ones on the tsunami disaster (which I find particularly distasteful). I will admit that FoxNews is over the top when it comes to political commentary.

But at least if I choose not to watch it my taxes aren't funding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THelonious:

Dear Mr. Hardner,

QUOTE 

As television evolves, news becomes more and more entertaining and the real life that it reflects also morphs to become more entertaining. This is the main thesis of LIFE: THE MOVIE By Neal Gabler - that life itself is becoming more movie-like.

If I may say, what a load. Life 'morphing to the movie-esque' is an example of 'devolving'. the notion of 'tabula rasa' only serves to become more powerful the more 'popular culture' pervades it, and usurps the role of 'environment' with an artifical, make believe one, and takes over with scribbling.

I can't tell from this whether you agree with Gabler or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally like CBC.

Shocking.

I'm wondering how so many Canadians can rip on Fox News when they haven't had access to it. Perhaps people should actually watch Fox News, instead of watching a clip of O'Reilly or a couple articles in the Globe, before they rip on it. Yes O'Reilly's commentary is not left. He has a show on the Fox News channel. There are also leftys on the station like Alan Colmes and Greta VanSustren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...