Anti-Conservative Bias in CBC and MSM

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I asked for a cite, I think.  When did CNN, Global, magazines, podcasts, private radio stations... get cash ?
2. You need to try the IGNORE feature.  I only see posts from thoughtful folks like you.

CNN? It is not Canadian

"The canada media fund (cmf) receives financial contributions from the government of canada and canada's cable, satellite and iptv distributors."

"The Government of Canada remains committed to ensuring that all Canadians can access sustainable and robust independent news. The Honourable Pascale St-Onge, Minister of Canadian Heritage, announced $58.8 million in funding to extend the Local Journalism Initiative for the next three years (2024-27"

 

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well... but... you accept the premise without evidence, based on your gut feel.  99% of my online life on another forum is convincing liberals and such not to do such a thing.

They know Trump is a bad man, so why offer him any justice.
They know vaccines should be mandatory so why not fire people who don't take them.

You are either for objectivity and political process or against it.  You seem to be against it.

1. Ok - so you SUPPORT government funding then for the MSM.  Got it.
2. Regardless, you thing the Globe is left-wing then you are staring out the Overton window at a landscape of your choosing.

Prove that Trump is very right wing.  Most of his policies have been centrist.

[blackbird]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well... but... you accept the premise without evidence, based on your gut feel.  99% of my online life on another forum is convincing liberals and such not to do such a thing.

They know Trump is a bad man, so why offer him any justice.
They know vaccines should be mandatory so why not fire people who don't take them.

You are either for objectivity and political process or against it.  You seem to be against it.

I won't get into your endless word games.  I am not into that.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

No. They are indebted to the government. Soon, it will be the CPC.

OK

Then after the next election we can complain the media is all conservative LOL

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. CNN? It is not Canadian

2. "The canada media fund (cmf) receives financial contributions from the government of canada and canada's cable, satellite and iptv distributors."

"The Government of Canada remains committed to ensuring that all Canadians can access sustainable and robust independent news. The Honourable Pascale St-Onge, Minister of Canadian Heritage, announced $58.8 million in funding to extend the Local Journalism Initiative for the next three years (2024-27"

 

1. Sorry - autocorrect.  I meant CTV.   
2. TV Networks aren't mentioned here, nor are the channels I mentioned - podcasts, etc.

Not to say they won't be begging for money soon.  They will.  Bell got money to maintain jobs then laid off thousands.   I am not a fan of direct government funding but the dead-dumb argument that governments fund media to get favourable stories doesn't make sense.

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I won't get into your endless word games.  I am not into that.

Not a word game.  You haven't been convinced of anything on these pages as far as I have ever seen.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Prove that Trump is very right wing.  Most of his policies have been centrist.

The rockbed of his policies are pro-nationalist, anti-immigrant, pro-business... he regularly rails against Marxism, which I don't think any Republican candidate before him did since... maybe Nixon but before he was VP.  He had Nick Fuentes over to dinner, also... that seems a little off-brand for centrist conservatives.

This idea isn't at all controversial but it is thread drift.  Hopefully I answered your question as to why I think he's very right wing.  Your opinions may vary.

[Army Guy]

Has anyone looked at CTV power and politics with Vassy i forget her last name, she must have a hate on for all politicians because she has no qualms about ripping all of them apart, asking very pointed question, watch her last interview with Freeland...so i'm not so sure CTV has a bias, but its not apparent with Vassy anyways...  

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Has anyone looked at CTV power and politics with Vassy i forget her last name, she must have a hate on for all politicians because she has no qualms about ripping all of them apart, asking very pointed question, watch her last interview with Freeland...so i'm not so sure CTV has a bias, but its not apparent with Vassy anyways...  

It depends, of course, on who writes the show and the target audience etc.  The people who produce these things have specific goals, usually to get viewers.  CBC even had a right-wing show or editorial here and there.  But Conservatives generally avoid CBC like a bad taint so they wouldn't listen anyway.

If you want to have a laugh, try to track down the story of the first time right-wing ( 😮 ) CTV got the rights to the Grey Cup from the CBC ...

[herbie]

Losing battle Mikey.
These people have spent the last 2 decades convincing themselves the media is liberal biased. Even managed to convince many others. When you don't know or don't believe how they've earned their money it makes it easy. When the idea evolved into believing the 'cure' is purposely injecting bias, they're beyond all hope.

Look at what the MSM actually has become - the Internet. It's just so left wing, isn't it? [/s]

[Zeitgeist]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The rockbed of his policies are pro-nationalist, anti-immigrant, pro-business... he regularly rails against Marxism, which I don't think any Republican candidate before him did since... maybe Nixon but before he was VP.  He had Nick Fuentes over to dinner, also... that seems a little off-brand for centrist conservatives.

This idea isn't at all controversial but it is thread drift.  Hopefully I answered your question as to why I think he's very right wing.  Your opinions may vary.

Democrats used to be anti-Marxist.  Harry Truman?  What you seem to be missing is the fact that Marxists are now playing major decision making roles and the ideological capture of institutions is crystal clear.  Just look at the American Library Association.  The only radical policy I saw Trump try on was the Muslim ban.  Again, I found him harsh and rude.  He was hard on Canada, but he wasn’t wrong on Canada’s freeloading with NATO.  Trudeau has proven to be a Manchurian Candidate who put Canadians at risk early on during Covid when he let the Chinese fly into Canada in the name of DEI.

It’s not really thread drift in the sense that most of our institutions, newspapers, and governments are totally beholden to woke nonsense.  I’m not defining that again. I’ve already done it.  Trudeau’s Liberals are the woke establishment phoneys that the MSM reinforces and vice versa.  It’s gross and destructive and must be broken for good.

Edited April 25 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Losing battle Mikey.
These people have spent the last 2 decades convincing themselves the media is liberal biased. Even managed to convince many others. When you don't know or don't believe how they've earned their money it makes it easy. When the idea evolved into believing the 'cure' is purposely injecting bias, they're beyond all hope.

Look at what the MSM actually has become - the Internet. It's just so left wing, isn't it? [/s]

Well it IS liberal biased to the same degree that University graduates vote leftish from what I have seen.

Ideology will come through in the reporting... and that is indeed small l liberal at least.

[Michael Hardner]

44 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Democrats used to be anti-Marxist.  Harry Truman?  What you seem to be missing is the fact that Marxists are now playing major decision making roles and the ideological capture of institutions is crystal clear.   

Yeah, Truman was President before Nixon was VP.  Marxism is dead and I'm not in favour of reviving it as a contemporary bogeyman...

Wokism, culture war, etc. etc. we've already talked that to death.  Nothing more to add.  Hopefully I explained why Trump can be seen as classically right-wing.  Have a great day yourself...

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would say it's probably a given that they support Trudeau but "obvious" "cheerleading" .. I don't see it.  It's also pretty difficult to provide objective evidence of subjectivity right ?

The MSM is more accountable than actual "shill" media, ie. paid-for advocacy outlets like Rebel Media and Press Progress.

They are less accountable now that a big chunk of their income comes from the government.

Does anyone really think the Conservatives will continue that? Or that they'll fight the social media giants to ensure they divert some of their advertising profits to the MSM? It's not in their interests to have the Tories win. That's particularly so for the CBC.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would say it's probably a given that they support Trudeau but "obvious" "cheerleading" .. I don't see it. 

A liberal probably wouldn't.

When you skew the story away from the facts in order to cast an undeserved shadow on someone, then that is just bad reporting and MAY be bias. When you and the org you work for repeatedly do so to the betterment of one person or group and to the detriment of another, it's clear bias.

That's what happened here and it happens with that media outlet and reporter fairly regular.

Edited April 25 by CdnFox

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. They are less accountable now that a big chunk of their income comes from the government.

2. Does anyone really think the Conservatives will continue that? Or that they'll fight the social media giants to ensure they divert some of their advertising profits to the MSM?

3. It's not in their interests to have the Tories win. That's particularly so for the CBC.

1. I don't see it. Also again we're talking about the written press, which is almost all conservative and or right wing.. 

2. Leaving politics out of it, we are in unfortunate position where nobody wants to pay for news anymore and yet it's an essential service. The Liberals are coming up with a not very imaginative solution.  The Conservative leader may be considering just having his own party provide news content. In which case the Liberals and NDP would do the same, and we would be back to late 19th century American media model. 

3. Not sure who they is in this context. The big social media Giants are so huge that they barely care about Canada. CBC, television and radio are different animals, Canadian Network and niche television are different too.  It's complex a landscape... All we will know is that any one of them will except a government payoff, especially if the National Post does.

 

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't see it. Also again we're talking about the written press, which is almost all conservative and or right wing.. 

I disagree on how 'right-wing' the papers are. To say nothing of the networks. All of the papers, as far as I know, and I read a number, have been pretty much marching in lockstep on almost all social issues for many years. It's only been since the housing crisis got bad and a number of economists, including bank economists started insisting immigration was because of it that any of the papers even allowed the slightest criticism of any of it. Even now, even when columnists blame the housing crisis on too many new people  they virtually all focus on foreign workers and foreign students. I think I have seen on actual opinion that immigration itself be cut back. Just one. Meanwhile, the major 'conservative' columnists continue to insist Canada needs even more immigration. 

The same kind of thing goes for the trans issue. Only in the last year or so have I seen anything printed critical of the existing orthodoxy about trans rights. But I've never seen anything printed that calls into question abortion rights, gay rights, or the death penalty (for just three examples). Some of the Postmedia papers will ruthlessly criticize the Liberals for crime and weak sentencing but no one dares to criticize Gladue. And you won't find anything printed about the disproportionate number of people with suspiciously dark faces on the wanted lists, or the disproportionate number of people with immigrant-sounding names being arrested - when they even name those arrested anymore. They've mostly stopped doing that BECAUSE of those suspiciously immigrant-sounding names.

There have been a few columns in the NP about the complaints and demonstrations about what is being taught in schools on trans stuff, but almost nothing about the degree of leftist tilt that has now infected the K-12 grades and what they're taught. And I've seen zero notice taken by the papers of the number of immigrants involved in all these anti-Israel/anti-Jewish/pro-Hamas demonstrations.  Very little criticism of multiculturalism either.

Right wing? I don't think so.

 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Leaving politics out of it, we are in unfortunate position where nobody wants to pay for news anymore and yet it's an essential service.

I pay for news. So saying 'nobody' is incorrect. Young people won't pay for it, but they never bothered to consume it anyway. I would wager the age at which young people can be termed 'mature' has been pushed back quite a few years since I was younger.

 

[Moonbox]

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, it’s relatively honest.

Most of the bigger networks/media groups are relatively "honest", insofar as their factual reporting is concerned.  Whether people call them honest or dishonest has more to do with how they feel about their editorial stance.  They (generally) don't allow made-up balogna to be broadcasted. 

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

What says everything is that their writer Rupa Subramanya now does a lot with Beri Weiss’s Common Sense.

That says very little. Are we going to say that CNN is right-wing when they regularly drag Republican pundits on the air?  Hardly.  

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would really love more posters who don't see every single thing as a left-right war... Our challenges go beyond that in so many ways...

The challenges mostly go up and down, they're above and below, between the governed and their governments.

It's not who's in power that matters so much as the sheer power.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Most of the bigger networks/media groups are relatively "honest", insofar as their factual reporting is concerned.  Whether people call them honest or dishonest has more to do with how they feel about their editorial stance.  They (generally) don't allow made-up balogna to be broadcasted.

I'll agree that they don't generally out and out lie but they often do either lie by omission or use language that is suggestive or emotionally charged to cast one group or another in a bad light.

The famous often quoted example especially true in the states but also here is that if the right wing does something bad  or wrong the left leaning media says "so and do did this very wrong thing".  Whereas when it's the left it's often "Conserviatives Pounce And Accuse So and So of .... "  which is designed to give the impression that the story isn't really about what he did, but that conservatives are attacking them on it.

There are more horrible examples like the recent cbc stories insisting that Smith sent emails that she very obviously didn't but sticking by their story with no evidence at all till after that election when they said "oh our bad, shouldn't have said that",  but even with things  like the trucker's convoy stories about us funding or russia funding it were severely played up in the more left papers and the 'corrections' were tiny and on page 57 underneath the obituaries if they appeared at all.

As any magician will say - it's pretty easy to lie to people without lying to people.

[Zeitgeist]

54 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Most of the bigger networks/media groups are relatively "honest", insofar as their factual reporting is concerned.  Whether people call them honest or dishonest has more to do with how they feel about their editorial stance.  They (generally) don't allow made-up balogna to be broadcasted. 

That says very little. Are we going to say that CNN is right-wing when they regularly drag Republican pundits on the air?  Hardly.  

The radical left bias in most MSM is clear.

[Michael Hardner]

I can't add to any conversation that tries to submit that everybody is left.. or everybody is right.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmedia_Network

Post media owns 90% of Canadian daily papers, and is itself 66% owned by a company close to the Republican party. If you don't agree with some opinion they expressed, or don't find it right leaning enough, it doesn't mean that Canadian newspapers are left wing overall.

And to say there's a radical bias in MSM, meaning electronic and press media, that would mean they are promoting radical leftism... Leftism... Which necessarily includes nationalization of businesses. 

It doesn't make sense to use absolute terms like radical left, but to actually be referring to your point of view.

Marxist s do the same thing when they say everything is right-wing because it promotes private ownership. 

There's just no way to pin a public discussion when we're talking about definitions that's in one person's head, versus public definitions 

 

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

A liberal probably wouldn't.

When you skew the story away from the facts in order to cast an undeserved shadow on someone, then that is just bad reporting and MAY be bias. When you and the org you work for repeatedly do so to the betterment of one person or group and to the detriment of another, it's clear bias.

That's what happened here and it happens with that media outlet and reporter fairly regular.

I agree with you about what constitutes bias.  My beef is simply with the word cheerleading 

 

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'll agree that they don't generally out and out lie but they often do either lie by omission or use language that is suggestive or emotionally charged to cast one group or another in a bad light.

That's their editorial stance, as I mentioned.  Some people are better at recognizing it than others, and sometimes how much you notice it (or it bothers you) is based on how closely your viewpoints align. 

The better news outlets focus more on delivering real news, and clearly label (and focus less on) the editorials.  The difference between, say, a Globe and Mail vs a National Post is clear as soon as you land on their homepage.  Right now, the former has the stock market indexes listed right at the top, with mostly neutral news stories and two small (and clearly marked "opinion" pieces at the very bottom. 

The National Post, on the other hand has devoted half of its front page to editorials, with the most attention and space devoted to how young Canadians "HATE" Trudeau.  

Both of these newspapers dunk on Trudeau regularly.  One is just more serious about it.  

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The radical left bias in most MSM is clear.

Radical left woke radical left woke radical left woke...

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I disagree ....

 

I pay for news. So saying 'nobody' is incorrect. Young people won't pay for it, but they never bothered to consume it anyway. I would wager the age at which young people can be termed 'mature' has been pushed back quite a few years since I was younger.

 

So, you pay the news outlets that you agree with and want to hear, see and read.....be they biased or one sided? LOL

[Nationalist]

Remove funding for all media and let's see who survives.