This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

You think it's a conspiracy to suggest like-minded people from similar backgrounds will have similar cultural values?

No I think its paranoid to believe these are all deliberately conspiring against you in cahoots with corporate CEO's and politicians.

Quote

I doubt CTV has more than several dozen journalists. And those making editorial decisions will largely be former journalists. The rest of the employees have little or nothing to do with deciding what to cover and how to cover it.

Minions following directives from directors?  That doesn't sound conspiratorial?

Quote

The problem with that thought is the polls don't agree with the universality of the mainstream media's support for issues like abortion, immigration, gay rights, affirmative action etc. Significant numbers, usually between 30%-60% disagree. But they and their views are not represented at all in the mainstream media except to be occasionally castigated or mocked.

You mean a left-wing mainstream media though   If, as is probably more the case, media exist to primarily make money why is there no right-wing mainstream media cashing in on the demand for reportage that better suits conservative tastes?  You seem to think it has something to do with universities and and education choices based on being privileged or not but I just don't buy it. If there is a genuine demand for conservative media then simple market forces should be more than enough to incentivize people to choose a course that is more slanted away from liberal journalistic biases.

Quote

Everyone has an agenda. Everyone has bias. The problem is when those agendas become an accepted and required orthodoxy in how you think, especially in public agencies. Can you offer up any reason other than bias for the lack of conservatives in media?

I'd say the real problem is the conflation of the word bias with agenda. These are two very things. The former is an internal state of one's mind towards something and the latter is a list of of things to do.  You can bring your biases consciously or unconsciously to an agenda but the only way to do it the other way is to do it on an order or according to an agreed upon plan - a conspiracy in other words.

So again I ask why is there no equivalent right-wing agenda being pursued in a similarly biased mainstream media? 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I provided video evidence, one would think that video of CTV saying something that is proven to be untrue with incontrovertible video evidence would suffice. 

Except it was true and police did shoot the guy in the back. Are you saying this is not a fact and the coroner is a liar?

Quote

FYI, there is not much actual difference between CTV CBC CNN WaPo et al...they're basically all one and the same m

This is simply your opinion they are co-conspirators based on your own subjective reasoning.

Quote

To be perfectly clear, I wouldn't say that their newscasts are carbon copies, and they may vary from time to time in terms of coverage or how they present certain things, but the misleading narrative of the Dems will be given to the major US networks and it will filter through our brain dead MSM without much in the way of alterations. CNN also got busted when Donna Brazile was caught giving debate questions to Hillary Clinton before the first debate with Trump.

This on the other hand is a specific accusation of an organized effort to deceive and manipulate public opinion and it's what I would argue should be an illegal abuse of power.

Quote

Full disclosure - Fox gets talking points from the GOP too. They just aren't in the awkward position of having to lie all the time right now. Maybe things will change if the Dems are ever on an honest winning streak.

 Okay so it sounds like you do have a bullshit filter after all. Now you just have to allow that other people do too and if you can't well, you'll always be stuck between your bais and a really stupid place.

Quote

 

Totally normal. 

It's the unvarnished, unfiltered, unabridged, un-skewed truth that's nearly impossible to find.

 

 In your opinion which you present as fact.

The hardest things for any bullshit filter to process are one's own thoughts and conclusions.I'd say the most important thing that makes critical thinking work is knowing your own mind.   Without that you're lost.

Edited June 27, 2020 by eyeball

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

How is it even possible that in the age of information a major event like "The world's most widely broadcast News Network had to settle a lawsuit against a High School kid for defamation of character" can be mainly kept hidden from the public's view?

It's really astonishing and alarming that it's not the biggest story of 2019.

So big that you still can't get it straight? This isn't the first time you've gotten it wrong.

[Shady]

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So again I ask why is there no equivalent right-wing agenda being pursued in a similarly biased mainstream media? 

There is, it’s called Fox News, and to a smaller extent, The Wall Street Journal and The Nation Post.  But the ratio of left-wing to right-wing is like 100 to 1.

[WestCanMan]

48 minutes ago, Independent1986 said:

 and the lock down, it is a recipe of disaster. 

People were cooped up for so long, that incident couldn't possibly have come at a worse time.

[WestCanMan]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So big that you still can't get it straight? This isn't the first time you've gotten it wrong.

Didn't get it wrong at all eyeball. 

You're the one who thought it was WashPo, and CNN did settle.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html

 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

There is, it’s called Fox News, and to a smaller extent, The Wall Street Journal and The Nation Post.  But the ratio of left-wing to right-wing is like 100 to 1.

Why does Argus contend that consumers of media who disagree is as high as 60% then? Given that why isn't the right-wing media far more mainstream?

[Shady]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Why does Argus contend that consumers of media who disagree is as high as 60% then? Given that why isn't the right-wing media far more mainstream?

It’s not more mainstream because it’s silenced and deplatformed by things like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc.  There’s only a small handful that are somewhat mainstream.  The few I mentioned.

[WestCanMan]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Except it was true and police did shoot the guy in the back. Are you saying this is not a fact and the coroner is a liar?

I only posted 1 video. 

You have to watch 3 commercials every time you go to CTV's lie vault, so I posted the first one I found. It's CTV, you can't really go wrong if you're looking for misinformation.

In that video they said "Killed after falling asleep at a drive-thru." He was actually killed after **passing out drunk in the actual drive-thru lane, being initially unresponsive (he didn't wake up from tapping on the window, they had to open the door and shake him), blowing .108, punching a cop, stealing a taser, running from the cops and shooting the stolen taser at a cop.** So they got the "falling asleep" part wrong and missed all the key (incriminating) parts that led to the shooting.

 

Re: saying "He was shot while running away from cops", that's a lie too. Police returned fire when he shot the taser at them. It's Georgia law that shooting a taser at someone is treated the same way as if they shoot a gun at you. Your ignorance of their law is no excuse. Don't weigh in if you have no clue wtf you're talking about.

The idiot DA who charged the cop with murder for killing Brooks had actually just charged a cop named willie Sauls with aggravated assault for merely point a taser at a girl. 

Quote

This is simply your opinion they are co-conspirators based on your own subjective reasoning.

No, it's a pattern that is too long, too unbroken, and their conclusions are all so wild and so wrong that it can't be dismissed as coincidence. 

If there are fifty questions on a math test and a whole bunch of kids all get the exact same 50 answers, 40 of which don't make any sense, it's not that they're 'probably' cheating off the same source. It's definitely cheating. 

Quote

In your opinion which you present as fact.

I should probably have qualified that sentence to say: "The truth is rare 'when there's good reason to politicize it'."

It was accurate enough as it stands. The truth is rare.

You just watched MSM on both sides of the border characterize 'the protests' as majority 'peaceful'. Many innocent people were killed, or suffered extreme damage from physical attacks and/or being shot. There was property damage in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Businesses were destroyed and closed for good.

Stop acting like the fucking mainstream media is worth watching. It's pathetic.

 

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Shady said:

It’s not more mainstream because it’s silenced and deplatformed by things like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc.  There’s only a small handful that are somewhat mainstream.  The few I mentioned.

Awwwww. It's really sad just how fucked over conservatives imagine they are.  Never mind how...why do you even get out of bed in the morning, is it masochism or something?

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I only posted 1 video. 

You have to watch 3 commercials every time you go to CTV's lie vault, so I posted the first one I found. It's CTV, you can't really go wrong if you're looking for misinformation.

In that video they said "Killed after falling asleep at a drive-thru." He was actually killed after **passing out drunk in the actual drive-thru lane, being initially unresponsive (he didn't wake up from tapping on the window, they had to open the door and shake him), blowing .108, punching a cop, stealing a taser, running from the cops and shooting the stolen taser at a cop.** So they got the "falling asleep" part wrong and missed all the key (incriminating) parts that led to the shooting.

What is the difference between falling asleep and passing out? I get that sleeping sounds innocuous and passing out sounds more incriminating but in any case he still wound up dead.  I guess it was the bullets in the back imparting a sense of credence to the implied innocuousness.

In any case trying to build this into the case you always make that there's a deliberate massive media-mob/government effort to mislead everyone is as paranoid as it is ridiculous. 

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

If there are fifty questions on a math test and a whole bunch of kids all get the exact same 50 answers, 40 of which don't make any sense, it's not that they're 'probably' cheating off the same source. It's definitely cheating.

OTOH it could be a case of a teacher saying it had to be cheating to cover up his own shortcomings.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

 I is ridiculous. 

Here's a quick summary of your post eyeball, with a level of accuracy that I know you'll find to your liking.

 

[WestCanMan]

Just now, eyeball said:

OTOH it could be a case of a teacher saying it had to be cheating to cover up his own shortcomings.

If they all got all the same answers you think they could have all just made the same crazy guesses? Sure eyeball.

[eyeball]

I think it's fair to conclude conservatives and progressives might as well be two distinct species or from different galaxies or something.

The ability to agree is so absent its hard to imagine there was ever a time when agreement was even possible.

[Independent1986]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

The ability to agree is so absent its hard to imagine there was ever a time when agreement was even possible.

Yes there was but then the media learned that they can make more money on separating the masses and telling each side with selective reporting what they want to hear. From my point of view the media should be a calling, not profit but I understand that is being naive.

As a result of this you have friends and families not speaking to each other. The environment created has little tolerance even for neutrality.

Each side wants you ! Majority of the media is state in state, is proof again that human beings, no matter how good intended they are once they get power abuse happens, but sure, you want that evidence before we can say something, well look at the evidence you think 10-15 years ago was that much dislike between yourself and members on the right ?

Is never too late to free your mind from the automatic programming in your brain that is based on personal experiences and propagandists in the media telling you what you want to hear.Same goes for the other side.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Independent1986

[Argus]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

How is it even possible that in the age of information a major event like "The world's most widely broadcast News Network had to settle a lawsuit against a High School kid for defamation of character" can be mainly kept hidden from the public's view?

Because the media doesn't like to see its warts exposed. The media jumped all over that story as an example of 'evil right winger mocking poor, pathetic Indian'. It was the kind of story they live for! Exposing the evils of white conservatives and their disrespect for and oppression of minorities! Getting a good old fashioned hate on for such people is their primary agenda! And it worked! There were bomb threats to the kids' school, and death threats for that particular kid. Maybe media figures tweeted how they'd like to punch this kid. How embarrassing to have it all blow up in their face and have it shown that no, the minorities were at fault and the kids weren't doing anything wrong.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

No I think its paranoid to believe these are all deliberately conspiring against you in cahoots with corporate CEO's and politicians.

Good thing I never suggested that, then. Good thing I actually said the opposite, that there wasn't any conspiracy, eh?

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

You mean a left-wing mainstream media though   If, as is probably more the case, media exist to primarily make money why is there no right-wing mainstream media cashing in on the demand for reportage that better suits conservative tastes?  You seem to think it has something to do with universities and and education choices based on being privileged or not but I just don't buy it. If there is a genuine demand for conservative media then simple market forces should be more than enough to incentivize people to choose a course that is more slanted away from liberal journalistic biases.

I think journalism, given its poor economic prospects, doesn't attract a lot of conservatives, who by their nature tend to be careful and hedge their bets. It does particularly draw the 'crusader' types who imagine themselves challenging the status quo, standing up for the downtrodden, exposing the abuse of minorities, etc. And those would invariably be leftists. As for 'conservative media', there are some in the US, like FOX but the great mass of people in Canada tend to be apolitical. Which is largely because there hasn't been, traditionally, a hell of a lot of distance between our two main parties. So there isn't a great demand for 'conservative' media. Mind you, there isn't much demand for 'liberal' media either. Most people simply want the news. And most aren't really aware of how slanted their news is.

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'd say the real problem is the conflation of the word bias with agenda.

Let me give an example of how a bias leads to an agenda. Whenever the liberal media sees a video of some white person being a dick to a minority it pushes that to the head of the news cycle. Whether it's racism, homophobia, islamophobia, or whatever. The liberal left bias of the media leads them to push these stories because to them, anything which they can use to get sympathy for their point of view, and draw condemnation of racism, islamophobia, homophobia, transophobia, etc., is very important. So what happens when there's video of a gay man who had dressed his car up for pride being assaulted by a man hurling epithets at him? Front page news! Or... not. Whoops. The attacker turned out to be a Muslim immigrant. Eeek! The media let that one die without a whimper. Because the media in all their arrogance, presumes stories like that might incite people to believe Muslim immigrants might be a tad homophobic. Can't have that! That might cause islamophobia! So the media will protect us from our baser instincts and further their simplistic narrative of oppressors (whites) vs victims (everyone else).

 

[Argus]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why does Argus contend that consumers of media who disagree is as high as 60% then? Given that why isn't the right-wing media far more mainstream?

As I said, most people are not that political, and just want to know what's happening. They might disagree with particular aspects of the social policies the media is pushing but they don't tune in for stuff like that. They want to know, generally, what's going on in the world in about 15 minutes or so. They only ones who realize, I think, how slanted it is are conservatives, but most of them are just going to shrug, take that into account, and keep watching, because they just want the news. They will make allowances for the slant they know it will contain.

Or they will stop watching. I know a number of people, not all of the conservatives, who have stopped watching the news entirely of late, sick of the endless racism story, the endless parade of virtue signallers. I myself am watching a lot more of Euronews, Al Jazeera, the BBC and even FOX (which I generally hate), just to get away from it.

[Argus]

So I just found out some information about that terrorist attack in Reading England last week. Naturally I found it out online, not in the mainstream media.

All the men killed were gay. The attacker targeted a gathering of gay men. The mainstream media would have jumped all over this if the attacker had been a skinhead or some other kind of right winger, but because the attacker was a Muslim, and worse, a Muslim asylum seeker from North Africa, they kept it a secret lest the ignorant horde (that's us) go out and bomb mosques or something. The left wing media is protecting society by not letting it know some things - primarily things which go against its narrative. I only learned it from, by chance, seeing an interview with Douglas Murray, who is that oddity, a gay conservative.

He points out that even the gay media in the UK took almost no public notice of it. And the strongest defender of gay rights in the UK, did issue a tweet recognizing they were members of the "LGBTQ" community, but then went on to strongly and sternly caution against Islamophobia. That's how the Left wing media always seems to react to these things. It downplays them then sternly warns us that, of course, just because the attacker was a Muslim screaming God is Great that doesn't mean the attack had anything to do with Islam! And certainly implying that a north African Muslim might be a tad less keen on gay rights than your average westerner would be outrageous and bigoted.

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

 ...As for 'conservative media', there are some in the US, like FOX but the great mass of people in Canada tend to be apolitical. Which is largely because there hasn't been, traditionally, a hell of a lot of distance between our two main parties. So there isn't a great demand for 'conservative' media. Mind you, there isn't much demand for 'liberal' media either. Most people simply want the news. And most aren't really aware of how slanted their news is.

 

Print and other news media in Canada has consolidated because of shrinking ad revenue, internet platforming,  demographic changes, etc., same as in other nations.   Nevertheless, Canadians still seek and get news media fixes from the U.S. and other nations, including biased views.   Cable systems provide a wide spectrum of American news and other media, while AP, Thompson-Reuters, and other "wire" services provide a steady diet of U.S. news content.

As for Fox News, some Canadians express expert knowledge of its production content and talking heads, despite claims of never watching it.   

[Argus]

Stephen Daisley is not the first to suggest that the left is treating their progressive views with all the ardor of religious fanatics, or that anti-racism has become, in effect, a religion to them. But he comes up with a good name for the new leftist religion -Coercive progressivism'. I rather like it.

Coercive progressivism is the latest incarnation of this tendency. Those currently seizing power are trying to morally improve us by regulating speech, ideas and behaviour so that we can stop replicating the sins of liberalism: racism, privilege and exploitation. They too recognize that manners can be a substitute for morality but for them lip service is not enough. They demand total compliance with their moral code. They are in the business of forced conversion. 

The religious character of coercive progressivism is central to understanding its relentless, missionary vigour. Antonia Senior has observed how identity politics functions as ‘Christianity without redemption’, and the faith espoused by the coercive progressives is just such a creed, as its response to George Floyd’s killing demonstrates. There are rituals, hymns and almsgiving. In place of justice, there is martyrdom; baptisms are now conducted at the site of Floyd’s death. There is original sin in the form of ‘white privilege’ and heritable guilt. Iniquities are confessed and, by way of penance, apologies given for the actions of others and patronising genuflections made to shine the shoes of black people. Heretics are shunned or browbeaten into repenting and even the insufficiently pious are damned. Graven images are smashed by the faithful and the theology is suitably confusing, with some activists demanding white people speak up and others that they shut up. But where Christianity offers salvation, sin is eternal in this religion and the hope of deliverance absent. There is only the cross, no resurrection.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-of-coercive-progressivism

[Argus]

And now some insight into the sorry state of the legal profession in Canada, and it's embracing of identity politics and postmodernism. One would think lawyers would be rather staid, scholarly people who embraced facts and logic. That, unfortunately, has not been the case for some time. Nor does it seem likely to improve given the mentality of the sorry band of progressive regressives at Osgood Law school.

Most will have heard of the incident in Toronto a couple of weeks back where police were called to the apartment of a black woman having a mental health crisis. She wound up dying, and there were immediate (and absurd) accusations police had thrown her off her balcony. No one witnessed this, nor has any rational motivation ever been offered up other than "well, cops are racist". The reality, as we've since heard in leaks, is far more likely to be that she fell while trying to climb from her balcony to one next door to escape police. But never mind. No need to worry about facts or evidence. The progressive students and their associations at Canada's foremost law school have already made a determination. And they're not interested in contrary views. What fine judges they'll make some day!

Even if lawyers have a bad reputation, it would serve us well to be a little more lawyerly in situations like this, waiting for facts and evidence to emerge before jumping to sweeping, emotionally charged conclusions. Yet at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall Law School, where I study, no one’s seemed much in the mood for fact-finding. The student union released a statement on behalf of the Black Law Students’ Association (BLSA) declaring that Korchinski-Paquet was killed “as a result of police violence” that “systematically targeted towards Black people.” Other school groups immediately joined the chorus. We were instructed that “individuals who are not Black” are hereby required to “act in solidarity with the Black community by listening to and amplifying the voices of Black people by starting with ‘I hear you, I believe you.’”

https://quillette.com/2020/06/27/at-social-justice-law-school-feelings-trump-facts/

Edited June 28, 2020 by Argus

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Because the media doesn't like to see its warts exposed. The media jumped all over that story as an example of 'evil right winger mocking poor, pathetic Indian'. It was the kind of story they live for! Exposing the evils of white conservatives and their disrespect for and oppression of minorities! Getting a good old fashioned hate on for such people is their primary agenda! And it worked! There were bomb threats to the kids' school, and death threats for that particular kid. Maybe media figures tweeted how they'd like to punch this kid. How embarrassing to have it all blow up in their face and have it shown that no, the minorities were at fault and the kids weren't doing anything wrong.

I agree with all the aspects of this, but I still think that CNN should have taken one right on the chin for this, publicly.

Sandman has 3 libel suits, maybe he needed money from one lawsuit so that he could really stick to his guns and get the other two, to the point where there's a major public apology. 

Hopefully that's where this is going, because media treachery is out of hand.

[Shady]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

What is the difference between falling asleep and passing out? I get that sleeping sounds innocuous and passing out sounds more incriminating but in any case he still wound up dead.  I guess it was the bullets in the back imparting a sense of credence to the implied innocuousness.

In any case trying to build this into the case you always make that there's a deliberate massive media-mob/government effort to mislead everyone is as paranoid as it is ridiculous. 

Falling asleep happens when you’re naturally tired.  Passing out is from alcohol or drugs.  There’s no big media/government effort, just a bias.  Usually an unconscious bias.  After all, 90% of the mainstream media are liberals.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Shady