Canadian Media

[Hollus]

As I understand it, a properly functioning democracy requires a properly functioning free press. What is your opinion of Canadian media in serving this purpose?

[geoffrey]

Pretty good. I'd like to see more competition and less regulation. Other than that, they are doing well.

[Hollus]

What do you mean by less regulation? As I understand, a lack of regulation has led to a more consolidated market.

[geoffrey]

What do you mean by less regulation? As I understand, a lack of regulation has led to a more consolidated market.

Yes, and no. Less regulation would allow me to get Fox News on basic cable. Right now I can only get CNN and BBC world (lucky I have digital so I get to see opposing view points, most don't).

Seeing Canada in a media bubble is rather outdated thinking. Let people pick and choose what they want to watch. The National Post is now owned by a family with a tradition of Liberal support, but the paper hasn't shifted that way. It's because there is a market.

People sell things to fulfill a demand, otherwise they'd be out of business. People will always get the media they want, there is big (advertising) dollars in ensuring that. The more choice I have, the more likely it is that all viewpoints will be represented.

[August1991]

Deregulate, of course.

As I understand it, a properly functioning democracy requires a properly functioning free press. What is your opinion of Canadian media in serving this purpose?

Canadians fork over $1 billion a year to the CBC and the end result is that I have to listen to boring same old, same old 1960s leftist boomer Michael Enright on Sunday mornings. (Frankly, I suspect Enright is dead and the CBC is just playing old tapes.)

I'm not averse to state financed media. I just think state media should present all points of view, preferably with some originality.

When the CBC invites Mark Steyn to host Sunday Morning once a month, and Enright politely introduces him, then I'll believe that the CBC is making an effort to balance its presentations, and I'll also know that Enright is not really dead.

[jbg]

Yes, and no. Less regulation would allow me to get Fox News on basic cable. Right now I can only get CNN and BBC world (lucky I have digital so I get to see opposing view points, most don't).

But that would enable Canadians to hear that the paradise in government regulation touted by such disinterested voices by the CBC is fantasy, much like the Wizard of Oz. Heaven forefend!!!!

[M.Dancer]

Pretty good. I'd like to see more competition and less regulation. Other than that, they are doing well.

I would like to see more owners....When I first started working in media, there was more independant ownership....even small papers like the Kingston Whig Standard and the Regina Leader Post were able to compete in their markets and produce award winning Journalism.

But consolidation has made a real impact. With the sallowing up of Southam by Hollinger and then by Canwest, the big city papers carry exactly the same international and national news and for the most part, national editorials.

Now that the lines between broadcast and print have been blurred, with canwest controling the former southam chain and Bell owning CTV and the Globe and Mail, the opportunities for divergent coverage diminish.

[Remiel]

I would like to see more owners....When I first started working in media, there was more independant ownership....even small papers like the Kingston Whig Standard and the Regina Leader Post were able to compete in their markets and produce award winning Journalism.

I live near Kingston, and we get the Whig Standard every day. I forget what the event was, but I remember hearing that once upon a time, the Whig Standard had a correspondant in some headlining misbegotten foreign disaster or war zone before anyone else in the world.

[Shakeyhands]

What do you mean by less regulation? As I understand, a lack of regulation has led to a more consolidated market.

Yes, and no. Less regulation would allow me to get Fox News on basic cable. Right now I can only get CNN and BBC world (lucky I have digital so I get to see opposing view points, most don't).

Seeing Canada in a media bubble is rather outdated thinking. Let people pick and choose what they want to watch. The National Post is now owned by a family with a tradition of Liberal support, but the paper hasn't shifted that way. It's because there is a market.

People sell things to fulfill a demand, otherwise they'd be out of business. People will always get the media they want, there is big (advertising) dollars in ensuring that. The more choice I have, the more likely it is that all viewpoints will be represented.

I'm surprised you consider Fox News, well, news.

[M.Dancer]

I would like to see more owners....When I first started working in media, there was more independant ownership....even small papers like the Kingston Whig Standard and the Regina Leader Post were able to compete in their markets and produce award winning Journalism.

I live near Kingston, and we get the Whig Standard every day. I forget what the event was, but I remember hearing that once upon a time, the Whig Standard had a correspondant in some headlining misbegotten foreign disaster or war zone before anyone else in the world.

Afghanistan in the late 80s by whose stories they won a covetted national newspaper award.

[Figleaf]

I would like to see more owners....When I first started working in media, ...

...

I wonder if M.Dancer still has that same old paper route.

[Mad_Michael]

As I understand it, a properly functioning democracy requires a properly functioning free press.

This is apparently 'press-propaganda'.

The original Athenians managed to have a true democracy without the assistance of our all important mass media. In many ways, the arrival of the media pretty much guarentees the subversion of any real democracy. Democracy is not in the interest of our mass media.

And what is properly 'democratic' about our 'elite-representation' system that we use? Is everyone getting a vote to choose our favourite elite-representative sufficient to call the system 'democracy'?

In other words, we don't have a democracy, but everyone thinks we do. Obviously, the mass media in Canada is serving the interests of our elite-representatives very effectively.

And calling our "mass media corporations" a 'free press' is rather Orwellian.

[M.Dancer]

The original Athenians managed to have a true democracy without the assistance of our all important mass media.

The original Athenians managed to have a true democracy by denying the majority of the residents the vote.

Makes communicating the issues a lot easier if the entire interested electorate can be gathered into a forum to listen to the debates.

[AndrewL]

As I understand it, a properly functioning democracy requires a properly functioning free press. What is your opinion of Canadian media in serving this purpose?

I think a properly functioning democracy requires participation of the citizenry at all levels.

I think with the press a diversity of views is what is most important. Unfortunately the mainstream does not offer any diversity in political views. There is unfortunately things that are not safe for debate in the mainstream.. and that does nothing for democracy, in fact it undermines democracy.

I would say mainstream media major contribution to society is to turn people into consumers, as opposed to citizens partaking in democracy.

My experience with friends and family members who watch TV is that the more one watches a TV, the less one cares about politics.

Whereas, those friends and family members who read (books, blogs, newspapers, etc...) as a major component of their leisure time are far more political. Although newspaper these days tend to have a eerie sort of narrowing effect on what people think is important....

Andrew

[Mad_Michael]

The original Athenians managed to have a true democracy without the assistance of our all important mass media.

The original Athenians managed to have a true democracy by denying the majority of the residents the vote.

True, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens.

Makes communicating the issues a lot easier if the entire interested electorate can be gathered into a forum to listen to the debates.

Unfortunately for your critique, this line proves that you really just don't know that much about actual democracy in ancient Athens.

There is no way in hell one could fit all the Athenian voting citizens in the forum. That is laughably absurd. A large open field outside the city was necessary if you wanted to actually address a goodly portion of the electorate in one place.

According to actual historical records of ancient Athens, most voters got their news about scheduled votes, meetings and speeches via 'word of mouth'.

And the oligarchs fought tooth and nail to limit the franchise to property owners. The Athenians tried many times to widen the franchise.

[AndrewL]

True, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens.

Nor did they in the "great" democracies of North America until just a few decades ago.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

The original Athenians managed to have a true democracy without the assistance of our all important mass media.

The original Athenians managed to have a true democracy by denying the majority of the residents the vote.

True, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens.

Makes communicating the issues a lot easier if the entire interested electorate can be gathered into a forum to listen to the debates.

Unfortunately for your critique, this line proves that you really just don't know that much about actual democracy in ancient Athens.

There is no way in hell one could fit all the Athenian voting citizens in the forum. That is laughably absurd. A large open field outside the city was necessary if you wanted to actually address a goodly portion of the electorate in one place.

According to actual historical records of ancient Athens, most voters got their news about scheduled votes, meetings and speeches via 'word of mouth'.

And the oligarchs fought tooth and nail to limit the franchise to property owners. The Athenians tried many times to widen the franchise.

You are missing the point and the operative word. I wil repeat it.

Makes communicating the issues a lot easier if the entire interested electorate can be gathered into a forum to listen to the debates.

They may have had up to 60,000 citizens at their peak, but never was the entire citizen population polled. They would meet 6 to 10 times a year and only people who had an interest in the agenda would show up. For manageable crowds a simple show of hands was enough to see if a vote passed or not. For larger meetings with crowds of a few thousand or more, white or black balls were put in amphora and then counted.

So you are right, they could never fit all the athenian voting citiznes in the forum, and they never needed to.

[M.Dancer]

True, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens.

Nor did they in the "great" democracies of North America until just a few decades ago.

Andrew

Few decades? How about nine?

[AndrewL]

True, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens.

Nor did they in the "great" democracies of North America until just a few decades ago.

Andrew

Few decades? How about nine?

Well nine is still a blink of an eye in all of human history. (and we were considered an enlightened democracy 9 decades ago, which is the point).

But its not true anyway. Quebec women were not granted the right to participate until 1940.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

True, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens.

Nor did they in the "great" democracies of North America until just a few decades ago.

Andrew

Few decades? How about nine?

Well nine is still a blink of an eye in all of human history. (and we were considered an enlightened democracy 9 decades ago, which is the point).

But its not true anyway. Quebec women were not granted the right to participate until 1940.

Andrew

They voted federally.

[AndrewL]

True, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens.

Nor did they in the "great" democracies of North America until just a few decades ago.

Andrew

Few decades? How about nine?

Well nine is still a blink of an eye in all of human history. (and we were considered an enlightened democracy 9 decades ago, which is the point).

But its not true anyway. Quebec women were not granted the right to participate until 1940.

Andrew

They voted federally.

The point is still that democracy was what we were considered to be and what we considered ourselves to be before women or slaves had the right to vote in North America. I believe we were even proud of ourselves.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

The point is still that democracy was what we were considered to be and what we considered ourselves to be before women or slaves had the right to vote in North America. I believe we were even proud of ourselves.

Andrew

Why shouldn't we have been? When only men could vote (in the western world) the rest of the world lived in servile fear....when only propertied men could vote, the entire population still enjoyed the protection of a codified law while the rest of the world lived in fear of the capricious whims of tyrants.....

....the thing is, while our culture and civilization has made constant and steady progression towards universal suffrage, emancipation and human rights, most of the world still lives in an age where the press is either controlled or suppressed, where tyrants rule absolutely, where the npowerful run ramshod over average folks.....

While it may be impolite to be smug, our freedoms are unimaginable to the average third world joe.....