eyeball Posted March 10 Report Share Posted March 10 23 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Joking aside there was a time when i cared about a specific political issue and was on a forum with many thousands of other canadians who were also interested in that issue and i helped organize and influence a LOT of people. And in the end we achieved what we wanted to. Took years but we did. Hmm.... Cite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 10 Report Share Posted March 10 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. If you look at the polls, you might get an idea of what's going to be done. 2. Maybe not, but is there really no value in journalism at all? What i did look at was Canadians reaction to each as they were happening, and the polling numbers really did not reflect the seriousness of the scandal...and in my opinion was, the entire scandall liberal voters did not seem to mind... Well in this case all it really did was give us something to him and waw about at the water cooler...No one was held responsible or should i say had any consequences...it was like Canadians expect this type of things to happen and just shrug it off...So my question was did this journalism make any changes, accomplish anything other than for our entertainment not really... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 10 Author Report Share Posted March 10 1 hour ago, WestCanMan said: Let's not pretend that this isn't a political weapon. We all know that calling conservatives white supremacists or talking like they're the only race of people to ever own slaves won't result in ten cents worth of fines, but if you correctly point out the fact that mohammed chopped people's heads off for not converting islam and that he forced women and children into slavery, you'll be out thousands of dollars. For sure. Calling people 'settlers' or 'colonials' or 'whitey' or the like will mean nothing. Saying 'men are pigs' won't count either. Saying 'white people are privileged and owe us money" won't. Calling someone a "cis white male" in a derrogatory way won't fall under this law. But call someone a fat lesbian and enjoy the next 20 years in jail. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted March 10 Report Share Posted March 10 Just now, CdnFox said: For sure. Calling people 'settlers' or 'colonials' or 'whitey' or the like will mean nothing. Saying 'men are pigs' won't count either. Saying 'white people are privileged and owe us money" won't. Calling someone a "cis white male" in a derrogatory way won't fall under this law. But call someone a fat lesbian and enjoy the next 20 years in jail. We can't get Trudeau and Biden out of office fast enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 10 Author Report Share Posted March 10 2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: We can't get Trudeau and Biden out of office fast enough. I know.' Most of the time you see a really bad gov't you think "we really need recall legislation". With those two you think "we really need an ejection seat". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 10 Report Share Posted March 10 Conservatives aren't Chuds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 20 hours ago, CdnFox said: It kind of depends on what you mean by 'journalism'. I think we have this idealistic vision of "journalists" and "reporters" as jimmy olsen types with their press cards stuck in their fedorah and radio personalities saying "Good evening mr and mrs america and all the ships at sea. Flash! - today...." I think that journalists have always been entertainers more than we think. Or just tools of propaganda, such as the old school 'town crier' who simply said what the authorities wrote for him. I think journalism is changing - it's becoming more 'you tube influencers' and blogs and even places like this. I think for a time in history 'journalists' felt that being somewhat honest and having the appearance of integrity was a great marketing gimmick. But i think they'll go in another direction now and that journalism at the end of the day is just some guy collecting facts and misinterpreting them to others. Yes again...perhaps. I searched the word and found this: Quote The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public. The Society of Professional Journalists further specifies guidelines, including: Journalists should: Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Is sensationalism and lying, serving the public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Banana Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Conservatives aren't Chuds... Quips the Chump . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 20 hours ago, CdnFox said: For sure. Calling people 'settlers' or 'colonials' or 'whitey' or the like will mean nothing. Saying 'men are pigs' won't count either. Saying 'white people are privileged and owe us money" won't. Calling someone a "cis white male" in a derrogatory way won't fall under this law. No one is actually offended by any of those terms and anyone who says they are is a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 11 Author Report Share Posted March 11 2 hours ago, Nationalist said: I searched the word and found this: Is sensationalism and lying, serving the public? This would be the public that voted for Justin Trudeau last election? The public certainly seems to think so. They write stuff like that but as i said it's more of a marketing gimmick. There has never ever been a time when that was the primary concern of journalists and their editors in all the various forms that journalism has taken. We struggle like hell to keep bias and spin and slant out of our research papers never mind our journalists. Journalists and reporters historically do it for the clicks, no matter what the era. Hell even the Bayeux Tapestry paints William in a positive light and that was 1000 years ago Bards embellished the songs they wrote about real people to gain a wider audience and passed it off as accurate. THere's that famous line from Deadwood to the effect of "i don't care about your newspaper, i'll just start my own to lie the other way". The very first print newspapers have been found to be bias by historians because that was the only way they could gain the patronage to buy the very expensive press. Journalists may SAY that serving the public and telling the truth is their highest priority but sadly that's just a lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 43 minutes ago, CdnFox said: This would be the public that voted for Justin Trudeau last election? The public certainly seems to think so. They write stuff like that but as i said it's more of a marketing gimmick. There has never ever been a time when that was the primary concern of journalists and their editors in all the various forms that journalism has taken. We struggle like hell to keep bias and spin and slant out of our research papers never mind our journalists. Journalists and reporters historically do it for the clicks, no matter what the era. Hell even the Bayeux Tapestry paints William in a positive light and that was 1000 years ago Bards embellished the songs they wrote about real people to gain a wider audience and passed it off as accurate. THere's that famous line from Deadwood to the effect of "i don't care about your newspaper, i'll just start my own to lie the other way". The very first print newspapers have been found to be bias by historians because that was the only way they could gain the patronage to buy the very expensive press. Journalists may SAY that serving the public and telling the truth is their highest priority but sadly that's just a lie. Point taken. Its sad though. Is the raw truth so frightening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 (edited) On 3/9/2024 at 11:42 AM, Michael Hardner said: is there really no value in journalism at all? 🤢🤮 On avg our MSM here = Xinhua, NoKo Nooz, TASS, etc. There's value in it compared to staring at clouds and guessing what's happening, but that's it. For example, at least you'd know there's a war in Ukraine if you watched a bit of it, but that's literally the extent of what you should take away from watching our news: "there's a war". NVM their BS about who started it, why, who's winning, etc, none of it has any basis in truth. Step 2 is just to look at the online maps that show where the battles are. Then you know. Edited March 11 by WestCanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 8 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Its sad though. Is the raw truth so frightening? So how is the determination made that something is to frightening for the public exactly? Is it one person or a committee? Do they meet in person or text, email or call one another? How does the determination, once it's been made, find its way to editorial rooms around the country, presumably the world when it's REALLY frightening? I've asked you people these sorts of questions before but... The raw truth about that must be so horrifying even you can't bear to look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 💩- "What about me?" BANNED IN CANADA! NO POOP EMOJIS FOR YOU! I'm pretty sure that it will be legal to accuse conservatives of rape with no evidence or corroborating testimony though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 11 Author Report Share Posted March 11 53 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Point taken. Its sad though. Is the raw truth so frightening? I think that for the most part it's just boring. "today nothing terribly bad happened, the stuff that did happen is pretty run of the mill and the world will continue spinning. Subscribe for only 10 dollars a month" Hence the old saying if it bleeds it leads. And if you can make it sound like it bled a little more than it did, so much the better. The thing that politician did? That wasn't just a thing. It was a bad thing. In fact it was the worst kind of bad thing. In fact it was a horrible travesty and a direct threat to our democracy and kittens everywhere! You like kittens don't you? Of course you do! Pay 10 dollars and find out what happened to the kittens (my god, you won't believe it). Then there's the patronage. Media sources since the very dawn of man have required support and usually money from bigger patrons, wealthy governments, or wealthy nobles, etc. That is still true today, and those who OWN the papers and media have their own bias. And perhaps understandably given a choice between 'Colouring" and spinning (or scrapping) a few stories to keep that patron happy so your family can eat tonight may seem like a small price. People think subscriber and ad revenues reduces that but if anything it just makes it worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 1 hour ago, eyeball said: The raw truth about that must be so horrifying even you can't bear to look at it. It's not the frightening stuff that gets suppressed it's the boring and obvious stuff... like the Gini coefficient numbers creeping upwards, consolidation of wealth, growth of monopolies... yawn... Also - no group is willing to admit that their group's favourite media tends to shut out stories that aren't complimentary to the group. Fox doesn't cover Trump scandals to any level of adequacy and CNN covers Trump scandals like they'd cover a daily nuclear strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: It's not the frightening stuff that gets suppressed it's the boring and obvious stuff... like the Gini coefficient numbers Excuses excuses...c'mon...people can't just follow the science? Gini coefficient... How hard can it be? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 2 hours ago, eyeball said: So how is the determination made that something is to frightening for the public exactly? Is it one person or a committee? Do they meet in person or text, email or call one another? How does the determination, once it's been made, find its way to editorial rooms around the country, presumably the world when it's REALLY frightening? I've asked you people these sorts of questions before but... The raw truth about that must be so horrifying even you can't bear to look at it. So...you don't know about the Twitter Files then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: Also - no group is willing to admit that their group's favourite media tends to shut out stories that aren't complimentary to the group. Fox doesn't cover Trump scandals to any level of adequacy and CNN covers Trump scandals like they'd cover a daily nuclear strike. This is true. Which is why I prefer independent news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 Twitter is mainstream media ? It's social media, which along with Meta and Google represent information monopolies. I thought mainstream media referred to cable and broadcast media and print ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 In any case... here we are with a desire to see the "raw truth". So if Social Media is included in that (I guess) ... then what do we want ? Do you want moderated, mediated and distilled stories as you had from the arrival of broadcast media in the first quarter of the 20th century ? Do you want consortia working together with government to decide what is palatable and acceptable for national information ? Or do you want literally everything and anything to be printed without any moderation ? Because those are the options I see offered lately. If you pick and choose based on who you like as a moderator, that's not an answer. If you deny the supremacy of government in ultimately owning the public discussion space, that too is not an answer. Neither of these are practical for the public sphere, and have not been achieved successfully. If you want all media to be based on "owning the libs" or "smashing capitalism" that's not an answer. What you want is open and competitive but responsible sources being created by named onshore sources. Each of these will/should gain a reputation for their product based on open criticism in the public sphere. Twitter is clearly on a down trend. Facebook is getting out of the news business. In Canada, Poilievre is going to defund CBC News and the printed press. So what do you want, then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.