Media Bias [Merged]

[The Bread Guy]

We have a whole, named, topic about the CBC here, which deals with more than just the Corporation's political biases ....

Standby for merge ....

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[R.C.]

The CBC's Toronto bias (when it comes to hockey at least) is so thoroughly complete that Bob Cole still calls Maple Leaf games...from Montreal...when the Leafs aren't even on the ice.

 

[jpjohnsn]

You're not being too petty.

There are several official online references (one of which is not working) they could have consulted:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/acf-apfc/insig/index-eng.asp
http://www.familyforce.ca/sites/NMFC/EN/Documents/CF-101%20for%20Civilians%20EN.pdf
Also, The Canadian Press Stylebook gives similar guidance on military rank abbreviations.

The problem is that not everyone is on board with the CP style book.  I went to Civvy U in the mid-80s at Carleton which had, at that time, the "best" journalism program in the country.  I was in engineering but two of my suitemates were in journalism.  At that time, they were all taught using an American style guide (NY Times, IIRC) hence American spelling and abbreviations.  One of the reasons they told me was that so papers could take stories straight off the wire without having to edit them for such a trivial thing as spelling (!)  It's only been about the last decade that you have been able to see colour and neighbour and not color and neighbor in OUR newspapers.

The other issue is that the default dictionaries in just about every word processing application (and e-mail, etc, etc) is American.  Even if you (or your IT section) set the options for Canadian spelling (if it even has that option and you don't have to resort to UK english), I find it often reverts randomly back to US defaults.  It will correct (or autocorrect) to wrong spellings and abbreviations.  Editors of every newspaper and most TV networks are more interested in pushing their political agendas than actually editing stories and no-one is taught how to spell anymore. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

The problem is that not everyone is on board with the CP style book.  I went to Civvy U in the mid-80s at Carleton which had, at that time, the "best" journalism program in the country.  I was in engineering but two of my suitemates were in journalism.  At that time, they were all taught using an American style guide (NY Times, IIRC) hence American spelling and abbreviations.  One of the reasons they told me was that so papers could take stories straight off the wire without having to edit them for such a trivial thing as spelling (!)  It's only been about the last decade that you have been able to see colour and neighbour and not color and neighbor in OUR newspapers.

Good point - I remember when I was still in the biz eons ago that for a while, even Canadian Press adopted American spelling for a short bit. 

That said, CBC certainly has access to a range of public sources of Canadian useage.

The other issue is that the default dictionaries in just about every word processing application (and e-mail, etc, etc) is American.  Even if you (or your IT section) set the options for Canadian spelling (if it even has that option and you don't have to resort to UK english), I find it often reverts randomly back to US defaults.  It will correct (or autocorrect) to wrong spellings and abbreviations.  Editors of every newspaper and most TV networks are more interested in pushing their political agendas than actually editing stories and no-one is taught how to spell anymore.

True about the built-in dictionaries, but that's why "editors" have that name - if "the spell check didn't catch it" doesn't cut it elsewhere, one would hope that this is still the case in journalism, including the CBC.  Maybe I dare to dream ....

 

[The_Falcon]

It was a win that they got a point, in the short season every point counts. The 1 point for the tie means they aren't dropping to 9th. Lets not forget the main station hockey night in Canada is on is CBC Toronto, its a bigger market to play to.

That may change, give that Rogers and Bell are now co-owners of the Leafs

 

[PuckChaser]

That may change, give that Rogers and Bell are now co-owners of the Leafs

CBC makes their only good money on HNIC. If Toronto and Mtl are the biggest market, they will continue to play to that to get a ratings boost. Personally, I prefer the TSN coverage of NHL games. They just seem far more into the game and easier to listen to.

 

[Wolseleydog]

UPDATE: The CBC has corrected it from "Cpt" to "Capt".

Interesting.  Good for them, I guess, but I still think it reflects upon their research to have gotten it wrong in the first place.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Not the CBC, per se, but one of its closest allies, the Toronto Star, gets a well deserved kick in its unethical ass in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/01/kelly-mcparland-the-stars-war-on-rob-ford-is-a-deceitful-vendetta-based-on-journalistic-hypocrisy/

The Star’s war on Rob Ford is a deceitful vendetta based on journalistic hypocrisy

Kelly McParland

13/04/01

Judging by the comment string attached to Chris Selley’s defence of the Toronto Star in its ugly war with Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, Full Comment readers are fully in favour of having Ford eviscerated on a daily basis, and his little dog too.

I disagree, and here’s why:

1. Even in the reduced circumstances in which the newspaper industry finds itself, the Star is a large, well-funded operation with considerable investigative resources at its command. People often do stupid things, which is why most of us try to maintain some semblance of a private life, the emphasis being on private. If the Star puts its energy into embarrassing and humiliating someone — anyone — it’s pretty much going to succeed, because we all do stupid things. One of the dark secrets of the newspaper business is that its destructive powers are far greater than its constructive ones. When William Randolph Hearst, the great newspaper baron, was asked why he favoured his newspaper empire over his movie business, he responded: “Because you can crush a man with journalism, and you can’t with motion pictures.” If the Star decided to put your life on the front page and make you look like an idiot, it could do it. The person who has absolutely nothing in their current or past life he or she would be terrified to see in the newspaper should be the first to step up and denounce Ford.

2. The attack mounted by the Star is entirely personal. Its goal is to defeat him because it dislikes his politics, but it’s his person that’s being mauled. Because it’s easy. He’s fat, he drinks (probably too much at times), he says dumb things in public, he drives his car while reading city papers and flips the bird at anyone who protests. As a social animal he’s a disaster. Nonetheless the Star would never countenance similar treatment of others; you didn’t see Star reporters crawling over Chief Teresa Spence’s private life, sending reporters to poke their nose over her back fence in Attawapiskat or investigating her financial dealings, despite plenty of evidence there was dirt to be found. Its selective tactics are wholly hypocritical and designed to destroy Ford in the public eye in hopes of getting rid of a political rival, because they’ve failed to defeat him at the ballot box or get him removed by the courts.

3. The notion that all elected figures should be exposed to similar treatment is easy to embrace if you ignore the consequences. What person with the slightest intelligence would go into public life if the result was likely to be a forensic examination of their every action from the time of puberty onward? Only the most self-centred, self-deluding egomaniacs would apply — think Dennis Rodman or Sarah Palin — guaranteeing that the level of competence in public administration, already worryingly low, would plummet further.

4. At some point in the past several decades it became common wisdom that the public had a right, and indeed a duty, to be informed on the private affairs of public figures. If we were going to give our trust to someone to handle the affairs of the city/province/ country, the reasoning went, we needed to be certain they were upstanding citizens of high moral character. You don’t want liars, cheats or deviants with their hands on the public purse. True enough. But there is a difference between ensuring someone could pass a police background test, or could be trusted with a scout troop, and poking through the entrails of  their character to the degree that has become accepted. Elected officials are mandated to run an effective and efficient government. It’s a job, and they should be judged on how they do the job. That’s not what the Star is up to: it’s trying to condemn Ford because of his appearance and habits. The city, for all Ford’s foibles, is better run than it was when the delightfully boyish David Miller — a great Star favourite — was in charge. We don’t entrust our mayors with the nuclear codes; we ask them to ensure the garbage gets picked up and the bills paid. Our limited expectations should also limit the degree to which we can hound them over their personal habits.

Ford hasn’t broken any laws, pilfered any money, abused any old ladies or cheated any constituents. He remains popular with a significant portion of the population despite his failings. The Star has resorted to character assassination because it has nothing else left.

National Post

I hold no brief for (or against) Mayor Ford; I don't know much of anything about Toronto's politics or problems; Ford is notorious but he appears to have some good or, at least, popular ideas, too.

What caught my eye was the comparison to Chief Teresa Spence, about whom we talked a lot a few weeks ago in these pages. Kelly McParland is spot on: Mayor Ford and Chief Spence receive(d) noticeably, markedly different levels of scrutiny by the media and it was not and is not "fair" or "unbiased."

BUT: I am not opposed to a biased media; in fact i doubt there is any such thing as an unbiased media outlet and if there were it would, almost certainly, go broke because it would be terminally boring. I just wish that TV and radio, especially the CBC, were as honest about it as is the Toronto Star which makes no secret of its adherence to the Atkinson principles. Now, I would argue that the consistent bias which the Star displays is out of step with the principles (although not with Atkinson) because on Individual and social justice, for example, the Star hews to Atkinson's left wing views not to the reality that left wing parties in Canada, local, provincial and national are less that enthusiastic supporters of individual liberty. Still and all, the Star has some values - even if it has trouble understand them. Too many (most) media outlets are either unprincipled or confused about their own principles.

 

[observor 69]

I found this article in the Star very interesting, and disappointingly possible.
"Why Rob Ford may easily win re-election as mayor"
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/03/28/why_rob_ford_may_easily_win_reelection_as_mayor_hepburn.html

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I found this article in the Star very interesting, and disappointingly possible.
"Why Rob Ford may easily win re-election as mayor"
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/03/28/why_rob_ford_may_easily_win_reelection_as_mayor_hepburn.html

I found the article boring and favourably possible.

Toronto finally has an honest politician, with all his warts and foibles, who is actually reducing spending and cutting off the feed trough to all the tax sucking special interest groups.

Just like the majority of hard working, politically non specific Torontonians have asked for.

The left wing, special interest, nimby flakes, that try make Toronto into some sort of hippy Utopian playground will just have to suck back and reload till they can lie another perverse sacko into  office.

The Big Smoke is tired of namby pamby "Dad knows best" governments, that give hard tax dollars to special interests while ignoring hard working tax payers, and has elected a guy who has done what he said he'd do.

I'm sure there's a tourist type craft villiage you can move to, if you don't like who most of the voters picked.

Some little socialist island off the Vancouver Island area would probably fit.

 

[The_Falcon]

Thread derail (or may should be retitled Media Bias in general)

But why is the possibility of Ford's re-election a bad thing?  The Star and others like to bemoan his personal foibles and decisions, but like the Post mentioned that's all they have.  Aside from the whole subway/transit city thing, he has actually been doing what he campaigned on, and the city hasn't completing imploded inspite of his victories. And this latest scandal  :  If he was as drunk as they say he was, why are their no pictures/video of it?  At an event with 800 people with the CDS and MDN present and the Mayor, I am sure at least 1 or 2 people would have had some kind of device capable of recording images on it on their person.  People seem to relish catching the Mayor being unmayor like and then running off to the media, so if he was really THAT drunk, it strikes me as more than a little odd, the only thing to substantiate the star's claims are numerous "anonymous" sources.

As far as the article comparing him to Klein and Barry, more obfuscation since, while the article briefly touches on Klein's penchant for hooch, they completely skip the part were he actually was pretty successful and did most of what he said (hmm sounds familiar, seems progressives actually prefer being lied to).  The comparison to Barry however is a little much, since that guys actions delved into the completely illegal (I seem to recall a famous undercover sting video showing him buying crack/cocaine).  Comparing TWO guys who while they were boorish and unrefined for the "elites" that run papers like the star were/are generally decent and did their jobs, to a person who delves in actual criminal behaviour is a bit much, and I find it more than a little offensive. 

 

[jpjohnsn]

Thread derail (or may should be retitled Media Bias in general)

it strikes me as more than a little odd, the only thing to substantiate the star's claims are numerous "anonymous" sources.

The Star's entire story pivots on a leaked Ainslie's e-mail (an ally of Mayor Ford) and not exclusively or even chiefly from "anonymous" sources.  I don't see the content of the email as being any sort of proof of anything but, clearly, he was concerned about something.  His continuing silence does nothing but stoke the fires of rumour and innuendo and hurt both his and the Mayor's reputation.  His only comment so far seems to be anger that the email was leaked, confirming he actually wrote it.

 

[The_Falcon]

The Star's entire story pivots on a leaked Ainslie's e-mail (an ally of Mayor Ford) and not exclusively or even chiefly from "anonymous" sources.  I don't see the content of the email as being any sort of proof of anything but, clearly, he was concerned about something.  His continuing silence does nothing but stoke the fires of rumour and innuendo and hurt both his and the Mayor's reputation.  His only comment so far seems to be anger that the email was leaked, confirming he actually wrote it.

The Ainslie email came out after the fact, the initial story was various anonymous sources said the event organizers asked the mayor to leave.  When those organizers went to the media and said no we didn't, THEN the star pulled out Ainslie email.

 

[mariomike]

I hold no brief for (or against) Mayor Ford; I don't know much of anything about Toronto's politics or problems; Ford is notorious but he appears to have some good or, at least, popular ideas, too.

Although retired from the City, I liked his campaign promises.

"And if they're going to make a bit more money for doing it – I have never had a person come up and say, ‘Rob, I object to paying paramedics, firefighters or police more money.’ This is where the money should be spent, and I have no problem paying our officers, or our firefighters or our paramedics good money to do a job."

Councillor Rob Ford, CP24 mayoral debate. October 2010.

 

[a_majoor]

Looks like the Mothercorp has their heads so far up the Young Dauphin's a** that "longstanding policy" becomes irrelevant:

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.ca/2013/04/cbc-when-is-long-standing-policy-not.html

When is a "long standing policy" at the CBC not really a policy at all? When it involves Justin Trudeau.
So CBC ran Justin Trudeau's latest ad during the broadcast of Hockey Night in Canada on Saturday night.

Nothing wrong with that, right?

Flashback to 2009

"OTTAWA, June 4 (UPI) -- Canada's cash-strapped public broadcaster is refusing to run the Conservative party's attack ads on the leader of the Liberal party.

The ads that accuse Michael Ignatieff of "just visiting" Canada after 34 years out of the country are airing on all other networks in the country, but the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. declined, saying it contravened a longstanding policy, the Canwest News Service reported.

CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said the refusal wasn't a political statement.

"We'll only accept political advertising like that when there is an election campaign on," he told Canwest. "We have generally pretty strict guidelines."  (highlighting mine)

Federal broadcast law stipulates all broadcasters must allocate time for political campaigning and advertising, but only after an election has been called, the report said.

Ignatieff said earlier in the week he didn't want to bring the Conservative minority government down with a non-confidence vote any time soon, but that he was under mounting pressure from fellow Liberals."

So when is a 'long standing policy" at the CBC not really a long standing policy?

When it involves Justin Trudeau.

Way to go CBC!

The CBC is really a parody of a network these days.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

  : The government really has to stop funding these guys with tax payer coin. The CBC is nothing but a bunch of overpaid elitist prigs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

  : The government really has to stop funding these guys with tax payer coin. The CBC is nothing but a bunch of overpaid elitist prigs.

The government can start by stripping the CRTC of its authority to regulate cable services.

There is a need to regulate the radio frequency spectrum (for telecom and over the air broadcasting) because spectrum is a finite natural resource (and part of a nation's sovereign patrimony) which needs to be managed for the common good. Industry Canada does a good enough job at the technical aspects of spectrum management but it is ill-equipped (and reluctant) to try to assign broadcast licenses to individual applicants (although it does so to e.g. mobile telecom providers without undue difficulty). So there is a legitimate role for an agency there - refereeing when there are more applicants than channels. But landline (copper, cable and fibre) is neither scarce or a "natural resource" and the market, itself, is well equipped to manage itself. Cable companies: Bell, Rogers, Telus, Vidéotron, etc can and do compete in an open market and they, not the CRTC are best equipped to sell customers what they want at a fair price. Cabinet can mandate e.g. carriage of some French services on the lowest price tier in predominantly English areas and vice versa but there is no need for a "mandatory carriage" scheme: if I want a channel I pay for it, if I don't then (except for a small handful of, say, French channels) I don't pay. Competition will force Bell and Rogers to compete with Shaw and Cogeco in offering lower priced, unrstricted access to the services Canadians want. If Canadians don't want to watch e.g. OmniTV then it will not be forced on them; ditto SunTV and the CBC.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I agree Edward, you want to watch them, you pay for them. My taxes shouldn't be funding them as an unfair advantage over private broadcasters, that stand on their own two feet.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree Edward, you want to watch them, you pay for them. My taxes shouldn't be funding them as an unfair advantage over private broadcasters, that stand on their own two feet.

You also support a whole host of private broadcasters you don't watch and, therefore, don't want to subsidize. The CRTC "supports Canadian culture" by requiring cable companies to charge you (mandatory carriage) for both public and private services you would rather neither watch nor subsidize.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Actually, I have a digital antennae and get about 25 channels I don't pay for. I don't subscribe to any TV service.