News Reader and Programs Gender

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I find my news online, in various social media forums and news outlets from around the world.

As do I, but at the root there is a journalist somewhere getting paid to do the work. Or worse, a propagandist paid to write bias

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

 Big Difference between corporate welfare and Timmins Times newspaper or CJbN Kenora TV station LOL

I think supporting community-based media there would make a bigger difference in more people's lives than giving it to some corporation that's likely more than capable of standing on their own two feet.

Quote

Besides, the media got at least $750 million plus the Google money.

Which is mice nuts compared to what the Fraser Institute is talking about or what Timmins Times newspaper or CJbN Kenora TV station might have gotten.

The amount we tax Google and other corporations is also mice nuts..

[Michael Hardner]

22 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

1. I am on the top of the list of folks that is anti government funding for news media. Especially angry that they make social media pay.

2. Does the government fund any store is they cannot sell their stuff? No. Does the government fund a company that makes a poor performing product? No

3. If the news has a lousy product, make it better or die....or add more women for eye candy and to appease a certain market segment.

1. Direct funding of media is indeed problematic, however from what I have seen and read the culture of criticism, for what it is, hasn't changed much.

Not sure why making American media pay makes you especially angry.  It's another form of tariff akin to blocking American ads so that Canadian media gets paid for McCain's french fries commercials vs ads for products we can't even buy here.

2. The government floats lots of things that just keep jobs alive, especially in depressed areas.

3. They bought a pipeline for $1B that was going to shut down I thought.  They made all of us pay way over market for dairy products to keep the Quebec Dairy Industry wealthy.

[Michael Hardner]

I really like this conversation, mostly because we are talking about information infrastructure regardless of what the content is.

I think we all recognize that we need strong oversight of government operations at federal, provincial and especially local levels.

With social media, we now also have the ability to engage individually and speak truth to power from a grassroots level.

All of this, if organized properly, would ideally serve to make Canadians understand what their government is doing, and educate each other more and more as to the details.

The potential for unification of purpose is huge, but the infrastructure has to be set up properly first.

What would follow, hopefully, would be social habits of how to force Government to focus on the things that we actually care about.

What happens today, for example, in the USA is for lobby groups (NRA, or Wokeness International) to fund politicians that use the money to pay for propaganda TV ads.  The ads don't promote dialogue, they just promote fighting.

[Zeitgeist]

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I really like this conversation, mostly because we are talking about information infrastructure regardless of what the content is.

I think we all recognize that we need strong oversight of government operations at federal, provincial and especially local levels.

With social media, we now also have the ability to engage individually and speak truth to power from a grassroots level.

All of this, if organized properly, would ideally serve to make Canadians understand what their government is doing, and educate each other more and more as to the details.

The potential for unification of purpose is huge, but the infrastructure has to be set up properly first.

What would follow, hopefully, would be social habits of how to force Government to focus on the things that we actually care about.

What happens today, for example, in the USA is for lobby groups (NRA, or Wokeness International) to fund politicians that use the money to pay for propaganda TV ads.  The ads don't promote dialogue, they just promote fighting.

At least those paid-for ads must have the source of their funding stated in the ad.  I agree that they can be misleading, but the Americans woke up a long time ago to the fact that everyone is biased, personnel is policy, and funding is influence.   We can’t have government fund media and not expect government to influence media.

It goes much further than funding in Canada because we have Canadian content regulations and all sorts of limits to speech.  It’s far too easy and tempting for governments in Canada to define “acceptable views” and enforce them.  It’s already happened.  The justification is all sorts of euphemistic drivel such as to “keep us safe” and to keep out the “racists”, “misogynists”, etc. 

We have learned that government, media, and big business can easily be fascitically partnered to enforce all sorts of “social goods” as decided by leaders or even unaccountable foreign think tanks.

This is the frightening reality of ESG and stakeholder capitalism.  The reality is that the people are disempowered and subsidiarity is lost.  People can be deplatformed and have their bank accounts frozen for holding political views that the government doesn’t like.

MSM is ideologically captured under the current government funding and regulatory framework, because a small handful of unaccountable people are setting the agenda for how we should think and live.

The only hope is protecting free speech and ending the bogus status of “government-approved” or “official” media.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.  At least those paid-for ads must have the source of their funding stated in the ad.  

2. We can’t have government fund media and not expect government to influence media.

3. It goes much further than funding in Canada because we have Canadian content regulations...

4. ... and all sorts of limits to speech.  It’s far too easy and tempting for governments in Canada to define “acceptable views” and enforce them.  It’s already happened.  The justification is all sorts of euphemistic drivel such as to “keep us safe” and to keep out the “racists”, “misogynists”, etc.  We have learned that government, media, and big business can easily be fascitically partnered to enforce all sorts of “social goods” as decided by leaders or even unaccountable foreign think tanks. This is the frightening reality of ESG and stakeholder capitalism.  The reality is that the people are disempowered and subsidiarity is lost.  People can be deplatformed and have their bank accounts frozen for holding political views that the government doesn’t like. MSM is ideologically captured under the current government funding and regulatory framework, because a small handful of unaccountable people are setting the agenda for how we should think and live. The only hope is protecting free speech and ending the bogus status of “government-approved” or “official” media.

1. Sure, but if the source is a generically-named PAC with unknown contributors what good is it.
2. For sure, and this is why the growth of grassroots media will, at some point, make it easy for us to have the potential to stop funding "old" media.
3. Right, but it's not new.  CRTC, Mulroney's Free Trade Agreemetn and the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences of 1949 firmly established Canada has enacting protectionism over its culture.  We did it for softwood, milk, and wheat so...
4. An interesting topic, but it drifts from the "pure infrastructure" kind of discussion and you're starting to talk about content.  Did you know that when newspapers consolidated in the Americas in the early 20th century a similar kind of homogenization occurred ?  Did you know that Pepsi enacted all-Black corporate teams in the 1940s ? The homogenizing forces of money-seeking have some beneficial effects on unity too. 

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Sure, but if the source is a generically-named PAC with unknown contributors what good is it.
2. For sure, and this is why the growth of grassroots media will, at some point, make it easy for us to have the potential to stop funding "old" media.
3. Right, but it's not new.  CRTC, Mulroney's Free Trade Agreemetn and the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences of 1949 firmly established Canada has enacting protectionism over its culture.  We did it for softwood, milk, and wheat so...
4. An interesting topic, but it drifts from the "pure infrastructure" kind of discussion and you're starting to talk about content.  Did you know that when newspapers consolidated in the Americas in the early 20th century a similar kind of homogenization occurred ?  Did you know that Pepsi enacted all-Black corporate teams in the 1940s ? The homogenizing forces of money-seeking have some beneficial effects on unity too. 

Those are interesting factoids and I understand a certain amount of protectionism around culture.  My concern is the ideological/activist capture of our media and institutions.  It’s a threat to democracy when governments lock in certain perspectives through media and various funding envelopes/programs.  I understand that some of this has always happened.  We see it in health and education all the time.  It’s disconcerting to see such heavy editorializing and activism coming from news organizations that purport to deliver news with journalistic integrity and neutrality.  Basically if you’re going to be an activist mouthpiece for one end of the political spectrum, be up front about it and don’t pretend to be presenting news rather than opinion.

My guess is that if the CBC or TorStar editorial boards had to answer to a multi-party committee before cameras about various positions on topics like anti-semitism or the Freedom Convoy, it would be shocking to the public just how ideological these organizations have become and how closely tied the boards are to governments.  It would also be shocking to see how beholden governments and the supposedly free press have become to some very well-funded (often by taxpayers) and well-organized activist groups.  The public didn’t sign off on this, but if the media only relied on private money, consumers could simply support the media they like.  When sketchy media is backstopped financially by governments, we have influence creep and a skewing of free markets in favour of lousy product the public doesn’t want.  Of course it’s done in the name of culture, the insinuation being that “we know what’s best for you”, whether or not it’s something you would choose to pay for or support.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. I understand a certain amount of protectionism around culture.  

2. My concern is the ideological/activist capture of our media and institutions.  

3. My guess is that if the CBC or TorStar editorial boards had to answer to a multi-party committee before cameras about various positions on topics like anti-semitism or the Freedom Convoy

4. ...it would be shocking to the public just how ideological these organizations have become and how closely tied the boards are to governments.  It would also be shocking to see how beholden governments and the supposedly free press have become to some very well-funded (often by taxpayers) and well-organized activist groups.  

5. The public didn’t sign off on this, but if the media only relied on private money, consumers could simply support the media they like.  

6. ... whether or not it’s something you would choose to pay for or support.

1. Ok.
2. Yes, I understand this and agree that it is happening.  Where I differ in that I am not sure that ideological infection of these things has increased or changed much and I'm not sure how that would be assessed objectively.  Also I want to keep to the infrastructure angle here.  But I acknowledge your point.
3. Ideology doesn't work that way.  It's in their blood and every breath to consider the Convoy people as untouchables.  Full disclosure that that was my gut reaction too.
4. They can agree to the ideology without meetings, or shadowy deals.  As with capitalism, nobody is in the room making sure that nobody drifts into nationalization of industry.  It's not on the table.
5. Television and the press relied on private money until very recently and there was no discernable change in ideology.  Television doesn't receive direct funding aside from the CBC and their ideology isn't discernably different from mainstream media in different forms.
6. The government supports lots of things that I don't support and there's not much I can do about it.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.
2. Yes, I understand this and agree that it is happening.  Where I differ in that I am not sure that ideological infection of these things has increased or changed much and I'm not sure how that would be assessed objectively.  Also I want to keep to the infrastructure angle here.  But I acknowledge your point.
3. Ideology doesn't work that way.  It's in their blood and every breath to consider the Convoy people as untouchables.  Full disclosure that that was my gut reaction too.
4. They can agree to the ideology without meetings, or shadowy deals.  As with capitalism, nobody is in the room making sure that nobody drifts into nationalization of industry.  It's not on the table.
5. Television and the press relied on private money until very recently and there was no discernable change in ideology.  Television doesn't receive direct funding aside from the CBC and their ideology isn't discernably different from mainstream media in different forms.
6. The government supports lots of things that I don't support and there's not much I can do about it.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

On .5 I would say that state television sets the standards as much as or in keeping with the CRTC.  It’s only about the content, not the infrastructure.  

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

As do I, but at the root there is a journalist somewhere getting paid to do the work. Or worse, a propagandist paid to write bias

Usually the ones who aren't professional reveal their bias very early in any article or opinion piece, which lets' you take what they say with a grain of salt - or several. And not all the professionals are free of bias by any means either. Reuters was raked over the coals by one of its own data scientists over their biases about BLM in a now very famous article.  But if you read multiple contrary sources you can usually get an idea of what's going on.