Media Bias [Merged]
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
BravoCharlie said:
So tell me how holding politicians to entirely different standards for saying and doing exactly the same things is reflective of a "good people"?
I would say misinforming people and using bias to judge people by different standards is the mark of a very capricious and arbitrary group of "bad people".
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
IS there a statement more benign than
The CBC calling something“an extraordinary step” given that budget secrecy is “legendary.”
It's merely stating a fact of magnitude. As to which end of the spectrum this statement falls, it is left to the readers to form their opinion.
What you're slamming Thucy is the National Post, which does have a bias that IS harmful to Canada. I agree
The CBC calling something“an extraordinary step” given that budget secrecy is “legendary.”
It's merely stating a fact of magnitude. As to which end of the spectrum this statement falls, it is left to the readers to form their opinion.
What you're slamming Thucy is the National Post, which does have a bias that IS harmful to Canada. I agree
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The key difference is I can choose to buy or subscribe to the NP, Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, National Review or anything else I choose. If I decide they do not represent my interests or report the facts, I can always choose to stop reading and supporting them.
CBC, by virtue of having the power of the State to take our tax dollars, can choose to slant their reporting with no recourse for us. This is known as propaganda. The political rent seekers who run the CBC will do everything in their power to prevent a majority Conservative government, in order to continue feeding at the trough. (The recent decision of the government to rebuff the CBC's request for an additional funding on the grounds other broadcasters without access to taxpayer monies are also suffering reduced revenues is a good sign that biased reporting will not be tolerated. If there was a CPC majority this step could have been taken a long time ago).
CBC, by virtue of having the power of the State to take our tax dollars, can choose to slant their reporting with no recourse for us. This is known as propaganda. The political rent seekers who run the CBC will do everything in their power to prevent a majority Conservative government, in order to continue feeding at the trough. (The recent decision of the government to rebuff the CBC's request for an additional funding on the grounds other broadcasters without access to taxpayer monies are also suffering reduced revenues is a good sign that biased reporting will not be tolerated. If there was a CPC majority this step could have been taken a long time ago).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
What too is being over looked is that even an East Vancouver lefty like myself can live with the CBC's centrist position without feeling robbed and cheated. However, those who are equidistant from the CBC but to the right of the spectrum tend to get their undies bunched up about the lack of "on board" reporting that the CBC offers.
I and my ilk can live and be happy with a CBC, that does not represent our interests wholly and even challenges our beliefs. We know it would do harm to dismantle the CBC and if the right had it's way the CBC would be replaced with a similar but right leaning broadcaster.
The centrist approach to information dissemination that the CBC employs is the correct one for this country.
I and my ilk can live and be happy with a CBC, that does not represent our interests wholly and even challenges our beliefs. We know it would do harm to dismantle the CBC and if the right had it's way the CBC would be replaced with a similar but right leaning broadcaster.
The centrist approach to information dissemination that the CBC employs is the correct one for this country.
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
BravoCharlie said:
No mate. That's where you are wrong. This rightist doesn't want any government broadcaster. Punkt. Period. Full Stop.
I don't want to be told what to think or, in the ineffable phrase of his baldness "What are we to think?"
Some years ago, and not too many, I recall somebody bemoaning the fact that in the good old days, when Walter Kronkite was telling the tale, there was a common story that everybody believed. Back in those halcyon days "everybody", all 50% of Americans, believed that they should get out of Vietnam.
Walter, Peter, the Ayatollah, Stalin.....they were not the first people to seek to find The One, The Only, The Singular, The Unique Truth in the hope that that singularity would be so persuasive as to convince the rest of humanity of the appropriateness of a course and thus avert discord.
However, it has been my observation that the more people insist on a singular truth, the more likely that the opposing argument becomes equally entrenched. It becomes like too magnets facing North Pole to North Pole. The more they are forced together the stronger the repellent forces and the more unstable the situation becomes.
Thucydides has been pointing out some other examples of similar thinking with respect to the Obama administrations positions on philanthropy and on the economy generally. They do not celebrate diversity. They seek to impose uniformity, dogma, authority.
Democracy is about free individuals making free choices, and everybody else tolerating their right to make wrong decisions, in so far as their decisions do not actually cause harm to anyone other than themselves.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I am confused by this apparent hypocrisy, and I look forward to your illumination, because as we know I am still a civvie, and I do want to have the military insiders perspective on things.
As I understand it, you do not want to be told how to think and by extension behave by the government of the day, right or left. My confusion herein lies that you are absolutely under the control of the days government by serving as a member of the Forces. I understand that CF is a self governed entity, however it's mandate is handed down to you, and I hope one day soon I. PLease offer some insight as to how these two apparent opposite ideal can exist in one person?
Using your analogy of the magnets, which I can agree with to a point, and my understanding of your perspective (which is in no way concrete) you are at risk of being ripped apart by your own paradox.
And you and I would not be able to agree on a point, for the closer we came to understanding, the greater the resistance we would encounter. I disagree. While singular truth is unattainable given the limitation of the human mind, we can still make compromise that sees us both at ease with the outcome.
As I understand it, you do not want to be told how to think and by extension behave by the government of the day, right or left. My confusion herein lies that you are absolutely under the control of the days government by serving as a member of the Forces. I understand that CF is a self governed entity, however it's mandate is handed down to you, and I hope one day soon I. PLease offer some insight as to how these two apparent opposite ideal can exist in one person?
Using your analogy of the magnets, which I can agree with to a point, and my understanding of your perspective (which is in no way concrete) you are at risk of being ripped apart by your own paradox.
And you and I would not be able to agree on a point, for the closer we came to understanding, the greater the resistance we would encounter. I disagree. While singular truth is unattainable given the limitation of the human mind, we can still make compromise that sees us both at ease with the outcome.
- Reaction score
- 6,469
- Points
- 1,360
Umm, no.BravoCharlie said:
Your confusion must stem from the thinking that once you sign up you slide into a Borg-like trance.......
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
BravoCharlie said:
Simply put, we made a voluntary choice to join the CF. We were full aware that we would have to accept orders and control of others. We don't have any choice over funding the CBC. As Thucydides pointed out, the state funds the CBC by taking money (from taxpayers) through it's monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Nobody put a gun to our heads and make us enroll. They do when they fund the CBC.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
BravoCharlie said:
To address your confusion, consider the following but bear in mind that my opinion on this is mine and not neccesarily representing anyone else:
Service in the military is a constant state of dichotomy, of paradox, of what some might see as 'hypocrisy'. What many members believe is often directly contradicted by how we behave, not by choice but by how we are expected to serve.
I believe strongly in the right to free speech, yet was denied it as member of the military, and accepted it because I understood that the military as a whole cannot allow itself to be involved in politics and general opinion.
I believe strongly in rule of law and a free society, yet lived in a harshly repressive system of rules of obligations. I endured these conditions not because I was an outcast or misfit but because I understood that those who are handed power must be controlled so that the power is not misused, as seen so often in many other countries worldwide.
I am distrustful of higher political authority because I saw the faults of the system, but followed the orders of those same political leaders because I think that is the best system currently available. I dislike the self-serving interests I see in our leadership because the majority of us have given up our personal interests in service to the country, and I expect elected officials to do likewise.
I fire back criticism of our beliefs and standards because we are not meek and do not turn the other cheek, despite everyone wishing we would shut up and do as we are told. I obeyed orders because with so many aggressive independent and leader-orientated minds all in one organization, I understood that if we did not there would be complete anarchy within the system. I dislike rigid fixed structures of society, but stick to a rigid fixed system of order and comand because I have seen that the military is often the last bastion of civilization and order in areas of chaos.
I perform actions similiar to those performed by law enforcement and security services, yet am denied the same level of acceptance and respect as those services. I distrust many media sources and do not believe their assrtions that they are unbiased because I have seen too many examples of bias and untruth worldwide, yet must read the news for information because there is no other way to get the information I need.
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
BravoCharlie said:
You KNOW nothing of the sort. It's simply YOUR opinion, which some may agree with and some consider misguided and untruthful.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
The CBC receives almost two-thirds of its funding from the Canadian government via a parliamentary appropriation, with the rest of its revenue coming from a variety of other sources.
http://www.tru.ca/news/digests05nov8/publicbroadcastfunding/CBCFundingDetails.htm
That's a democracy for ya!
http://www.tru.ca/news/digests05nov8/publicbroadcastfunding/CBCFundingDetails.htm
That's a democracy for ya!
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
BravoCharlie said:
Item the first: I am not currently a serving member. Anciently I was.
When I was, I accepted the terms of my contract which for a limited period constrained my rights. This was for reasons well described by Grey Matters and G2G.
I, and they, and all other serving members VOLUNTARILY accepted those terms. We find, and found, the rationale for those terms sufficiently valid as to be persuasive.
Inside or outside of those terms nobody ever told me what to think. They certainly told me what to do. They certainly told me, on occasion, what I could not say. Off the job, out of uniform, I was as free as any "East Vancouver leftie" to think, do and say what I wished, so long as I did not bring disgrace to my commission or my uniform.
Then, and now, outside of the contract, I crave freedom. Freedom to think and to act. Freedom to make my own decisions.....decisions based on all available information, not information screened so as to lead me to a single, ineluctable answer but all available information. That includes information from sources with which I do not agree. In consequence, I do occasionally watch/listen to CBC. But it is a truly boring exercise as the talking points are so ruddy predictable.
I don't oppose the right of CBC to exist. I don't oppose their right to spout inanities. I do resent that I am forced to pay for the drivel.
But, as Baden Guy suggests: it is in the nature of a democracy that at least from time to time the majority will do something that embarrasses/appalls/discomfits me.
Such is this case.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Brilliant. 
Yes signing away those rights are voluntary, I will accept to those terms when called upon, and internally I may at times crave a voice and remain hungry, I am prepared and eager. There is a chicken and egg issue that arises from the previous discussion though, and that is does attitude shape behavior or behavior shape attitude. The latter is more often true, and compound that with the extreme social pressure that exists within the forces there is going to be a gradual and for some a dramatic shift in core values over time. But I digress.
Because they are your tax dollars, you're damn right to complain about how they are spent, if you feel it is unjust, or plain wasteful. But I don't see how you're tax dollars being mismanaged contributes to the political bias of the CBC negatively. If anything it would encourage the CBC to cozy up to whom ever is making the decisions with regard to their federal funding. Alas, the CBC's way of sucking up to the conservatives did not impress them enough, or perhaps it was as simple as not knowing the proper hand shake. Regardless, more money is not at this time being allocated, as far as I know.
Back to the apparent Bias the CBC has, and remember I am and have been defending CBC Radio, today's Cross Country Checkup was dedicated to the question "Are you satisfied with Canada's role in Afghanistan?"
The question is not in itself biased, nor was the cross section of respondents. They ranged from brass to politician to civie, and ex members. A very open discussion, and no censorship was observed. An open field for any Canadian patient enough to stay on hold. It was very fair and balanced.
Yes signing away those rights are voluntary, I will accept to those terms when called upon, and internally I may at times crave a voice and remain hungry, I am prepared and eager. There is a chicken and egg issue that arises from the previous discussion though, and that is does attitude shape behavior or behavior shape attitude. The latter is more often true, and compound that with the extreme social pressure that exists within the forces there is going to be a gradual and for some a dramatic shift in core values over time. But I digress.
Because they are your tax dollars, you're damn right to complain about how they are spent, if you feel it is unjust, or plain wasteful. But I don't see how you're tax dollars being mismanaged contributes to the political bias of the CBC negatively. If anything it would encourage the CBC to cozy up to whom ever is making the decisions with regard to their federal funding. Alas, the CBC's way of sucking up to the conservatives did not impress them enough, or perhaps it was as simple as not knowing the proper hand shake. Regardless, more money is not at this time being allocated, as far as I know.
Back to the apparent Bias the CBC has, and remember I am and have been defending CBC Radio, today's Cross Country Checkup was dedicated to the question "Are you satisfied with Canada's role in Afghanistan?"
The question is not in itself biased, nor was the cross section of respondents. They ranged from brass to politician to civie, and ex members. A very open discussion, and no censorship was observed. An open field for any Canadian patient enough to stay on hold. It was very fair and balanced.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,738
- Points
- 1,040
>My confusion herein lies that you are absolutely under the control of the days government by serving as a member of the Forces.
The confusion originates with the notion that anyone is "absolutely" under the control of the government while serving as a member of the Forces. It isn't only the individual on one side of the contract that is constrained by terms of agreement and laws of the country.
Some may try to tell others "what to think" but there is no power in any person to enforce it.
The confusion originates with the notion that anyone is "absolutely" under the control of the government while serving as a member of the Forces. It isn't only the individual on one side of the contract that is constrained by terms of agreement and laws of the country.
Some may try to tell others "what to think" but there is no power in any person to enforce it.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Bias comes in many forms.
If a private broadcaster chooses to represent only one side of an argument (or more commonly fail to represent another side of the argument by omission), they will fell the sting in the marketplace as their customers realize they are being cheated. Many MSM outlets in the United States are feeling the heat as readers, viewers and listeners drop away. "Air America", a talk radio network devoted to covering only "progressive" themes died on the vine as they discovered there were simply not enough listeners to attract advertisers.
Like I pointed out, a broadcaster funded in large part by the State has no such constraints, and if the CBC were to rely on advertising revenues and their actual viewers/listeners/readership numbers, it would suffer the fate of Air America.
Were that to happen, I might regret the loss of one or two shows, but will be satisfied in the knowledge that the talented people involved in those efforts will soon find other employment (or would be the core of a reconstituted CBC). What I do not accept is the idea that I must be compelled to pay for ideas and opinions that I do not agree with, and indeed that the level of State support actually supresses competing ideas (if there were another billion dollars in private hands available to invest in media, how many new outlets might have been funded? This is the question of "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen"
As for the organization and structure of the Armed Forces, I am in full agreement with the others of what we accept and why, and will add one caveat: if I were ever to find the terms and conditions of service intolerable, I can always put in my release.
Indeed that is the ultimate analogy: As a volunteer I freely agree and can freely release, just as in a free market I can choose to support or not support any market vendor. If I were conscripted, I have no choice in the matter and may not release (except on what terms the State may arbitrarily offer), similarly, I have no choice but to pay for the CBC.
If a private broadcaster chooses to represent only one side of an argument (or more commonly fail to represent another side of the argument by omission), they will fell the sting in the marketplace as their customers realize they are being cheated. Many MSM outlets in the United States are feeling the heat as readers, viewers and listeners drop away. "Air America", a talk radio network devoted to covering only "progressive" themes died on the vine as they discovered there were simply not enough listeners to attract advertisers.
Like I pointed out, a broadcaster funded in large part by the State has no such constraints, and if the CBC were to rely on advertising revenues and their actual viewers/listeners/readership numbers, it would suffer the fate of Air America.
Were that to happen, I might regret the loss of one or two shows, but will be satisfied in the knowledge that the talented people involved in those efforts will soon find other employment (or would be the core of a reconstituted CBC). What I do not accept is the idea that I must be compelled to pay for ideas and opinions that I do not agree with, and indeed that the level of State support actually supresses competing ideas (if there were another billion dollars in private hands available to invest in media, how many new outlets might have been funded? This is the question of "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen"
As for the organization and structure of the Armed Forces, I am in full agreement with the others of what we accept and why, and will add one caveat: if I were ever to find the terms and conditions of service intolerable, I can always put in my release.
Indeed that is the ultimate analogy: As a volunteer I freely agree and can freely release, just as in a free market I can choose to support or not support any market vendor. If I were conscripted, I have no choice in the matter and may not release (except on what terms the State may arbitrarily offer), similarly, I have no choice but to pay for the CBC.
