Media Bias [Merged]

[Fishbone Jones]

At least he doesn't appear to have hornswoggled the complete MSM with his total lack of substance.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was quite surprised when I watched Rex Murphy's monologue on Thurs 14 Nov: he launched into quite an anti JT rant, at one point drawing not very subtle connections between JT and both Mao and Hitler (including background graphics showing those two). He left no doubt as to his opinion of JT.

Comparing (almost) any mainstream Canadian politician to Mao or Hitler is odious.

M. Trudeau is a lightweight in a business that demands gravitas, but he has heavyweight backers and handlers and that bothers me because we don't know what strings they will pull. Messers Harper and Mulcair have backers and handlers too, but we can, I believe, safely assume that they, Harper and Mulcair, are in charge and that they actually understand the policies they propose to us.

 

[a_majoor]

Comparing (almost) any mainstream Canadian politician to Mao or Hitler is odious.

M. Trudeau is a lightweight in a business that demands gravitas, but he has heavyweight backers and handlers and that bothers me because we don't know what strings they will pull. Messers Harper and Mulcair have backers and handlers too, but we can, I believe, safely assume that they, Harper and Mulcair, are in charge and that they actually understand the policies they propose to us.

I recall in the "Mr. Dithers" era there was a very complicated diagram of Liberal supporters and power brokers, and all lines eventually led back to the Desmarais family (including real family ties with Canadian politicans). Regardless was this is true or not, whatever diagram existed in 2006 is probably still there with a few minor adjustments, while following the argument of "The Big Shift" the REAL power in Canada has steadily migrated away from the Toronto-Montreal corridor and is now growing in both the suburban "905" region and allied to the Western provinces.

So the Liberal movers and handlers will need to start looking beyond the so called Laurentian consensus, or get left behind. This process needs to be seen as evolutionary, otherwise you will end up with a Preston Manning: right place but a decade too early. If the Liberals want to make a breakthrough, they need to find a way to couple the Laurentian consensus to the new emerging centers of power. This is especially true if the Liberals want/need to go through Quebec as their route to power. Of course this means articulating a program and platform that has some real ideas and substance behind it....

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm posting this article, an opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, here, rather than in the Rob Ford thread, because it illustrates media bias, albeit of a sort hat some members here do not find objectionable:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/why-the-ford-nation-tv-show-is-a-stroke-of-genius/article15456681/#dashboard/follows/

Why the Ford Nation TV show is a stroke of genius

JOHN DOYLE
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Nov. 18 2013

A new newscast starts tonight. That’s Kevin Newman Live (CTV News Channel, 9 p.m.).

The program, starring the veteran broadcaster, promises “more context,” and a lot of online content with contributions from viewers. It’s been in rehearsals for a while and you can find those rehearsals online. Also online, you can find Newman musing about what kind of news program it will be. He says this: “I’ve had a few weeks of random conversations which are settling into a pattern. Starting with ongoing conversations about what this newscast is going to be about. It’s hard to define in words – almost impossible, I’m discovering. Because its about an insight, a notion.”

As much as Kevin Newman is an experienced, respected newsman and broadcaster, only one response is appropriate – good luck with that.

See, also starting tonight, and also on the news side of things, is Ford Nation (Sun News Network, 8 p.m.). That means Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and his brother Councillor Doug Ford will be on-air doing whatever it is that Sun News allows them to do. If it’s like their recently cancelled Toronto radio show, it’s about ranting, making excuses for dubious behaviour and attacking people. It is on the radio show that the Toronto media were called “maggots” and Doug encouraged Rob to confine his drinking to, “Stay in your basement, have a few pops. That’s it.”

We live in bewildering times. Analysis is beggared by the news as it unfolds. The Senate scandal. The Rob Ford fandango of revelations, accusations, apologies and freakouts. Irony is beggared by it all. There is nowhere to go but directly to the source. Some news stations, while covering the Ford situation, have relied upon the usual menu of punditry. Often some expert in the marketing and selling of politicians is brought in to pontificate. This is comically useless in the Ford situation. There is no playbook. There are no rules.

That’s why Ford Nation makes perfect sense as a TV show. It’s a stroke of genius. When a situation beggars conventional analysis and even irony itself, just air the situation and let the viewers judge. That’s one of television’s gifts to us, like it or not.

Last Thursday, when the debut of Ford Nation was announced, I reached Kory Teneycke, former director of communication for the PMO and currently vice-president of Sun News. He said, “It is the age of reality television and there is nothing more real than the Fords.” That’s pretty much all he would say. And he does have a point. What’s horrifyingly compelling about the Ford fandango is that it is real. You couldn’t make it up. And it unfolds constantly on TV. Bizarre press conferences, gnomic remarks or sudden confessions to journalists during scrums on live TV. Some foul language the other day. Stern warnings on another day.

Of all the addiction accusations that have swirled around Mayor Rob Ford, only one thing is a dead certainty – addiction to the TV camera. He’s already a reality-TV star, a super, unequalable reality-TV figure, his actions happening on live television without a TV show’s producers in the background shaping the narrative. It just unfolds.

We can speculate on what Ford Nation will be – Duck Dynasty meets The Surreal Life meets The Wire. Or an exercise in gruff narcissism so bottomless in its banality that it brings on disgust. Such is the strangeness that it could turn into The Wire-like drama. After all, the Toronto Police do want to speak to Rob Ford and hey, you know he’ll be in a studio at Sun News at a certain day and time. They could drop by the show.

A couple of weeks ago I suggested that Rob and Doug Ford were a new kind of Canadian hoser, a warped, malignant variation on those boorish but lovable chumps, Bob and Doug McKenzie. Now the Ford brothers have their own TV show. But it would not do this development justice to say a new, mad McKenzie brothers-type show has arrived. We live not only in a different time, but often it feels like a different universe – the universe of bewilderment. We just watch, as we must.

Meanwhile, let’s hope that the Kevin Newman show, with its “online content,” doesn’t amount to some young person standing in front of a big computer screen reading out tweets. That’s awful TV. It promises to take viewers beyond “What’s Happening” to “What’s Next.”

Indeed. Noble aspirations. But these are ignoble times. Ford Nation times.

Now, I agree with John Doyle that we live in a (horrid) "reality TV world" and, on that basis, giving the Ford brothers their own TV show is, indeed, a stroke of marketing genius. But it is, also, a direct attack on the mainstream, Laurentiam consensus media. This is media bias writ large; it is part of Sun media's continuing attack on, especially, the CBC. Canadians should not be persuaded that this is about giving Ford a voice or even about exploiting a situation for profit: this a one wing of media bias versus another.

 

[pbi]

...So the Liberal movers and handlers will need to start looking beyond the so called Laurentian consensus, or get left behind. This process needs to be seen as evolutionary, otherwise you will end up with a Preston Manning: right place but a decade too early. If the Liberals want to make a breakthrough, they need to find a way to couple the Laurentian consensus to the new emerging centers of power. This is especially true if the Liberals want/need to go through Quebec as their route to power. Of course this means articulating a program and platform that has some real ideas and substance behind it....

As an avid reader of  "The Big Shift", I agree with you. I'm not sure that JT and his crew actually get this. That said, one thing about the Liberals is that historically they are usually pretty good at adopting/adapting other peoples' platform planks to get traction with the electorate.  I suppose that was inherent in their ability to hold the middle ground for long enough to develop the conceit of being "The Natural Governing Party".

 

[Old Sweat]

As an avid reader of  "The Big Shift", I agree with you. I'm not sure that JT and his crew actually get this. That said, one thing about the Liberals is that historically they are usually pretty good at adopting/adapting other peoples' platform planks to get traction with the electorate.  I suppose that was inherent in their ability to hold the middle ground for long enough to develop the conceit of being "The Natural Governing Party".

The Liberals were indeed adaptable and masterful at following the middle ground. One should not forget that a great deal of their power base was the Quebec electorate, especially as the Conservatives seemed unusually adapt at doing things that alienated them from Quebec for a generation or more, for example hanging Riel and imposing conscription in the Great War. The shrinkage in the relative number of seats from Quebec was part of the Big Shift, and it remains to be seen what will come of the battle between the Grits and the NDP for these seats, which make up less than a quarter of the House of Commons. 'twas not the case a couple of decades ago, and I feel that this was understood far too well by the Quebec power brokers.

 

[a_majoor]

Since Prime Minister Harper and Thomas Mulcair are moving into the "middle", the LPC might be more like those unfortunate ships that tried to get into the Black Sea before the Argo: crushed between the clashing rocks.

Indeed, I'm positive Edward and several other commenters have made the point on this and other boards: this is no accident but a deliberate policy on the part of the CPC and NDP to deny the Liberals the "middle ground". It is working too. The Liberals are a transactive party, so they don't stand for anything. When Marc Garneau was stumping for Liberal leadership, his platform could have been delivered by Thomas Mulcair without anyone noticing the difference. Similarly, Martha Hall Findlay's platform could have been delivered by Jim Flaherty without raising too many eyebrows. The Young Dauphin simply didn't say anything at all.

The CPC and NDP are Transformative parties (yeah, I know this is mostly in theory), but at least there is a philosophical "core" which informs what they say and (less frequently) what they do.

 

[pbi]

...The CPC and NDP are Transformative parties (yeah, I know this is mostly in theory), but at least there is a philosophical "core" which informs what they say and (less frequently) what they do...

Which is why they will probably keep chomping off pieces of the LPC base. I am probably a good example of the demographic that would be "expected" to vote Liberal, but at present I have no intention of doing that. I absolutely do not see JT as fit to lead this country. At least not yet, anyway.

The downside of this, and one I do not want to see at all in this country, is a descent into a US-style bipolar disorder, with entrenched Right and Left howling rhetoric at each other and destroying any reasonable middle ground. (Which is where, IMHO, most things get achieved politically)

 

[Kirkhill]

Is it just me (ie. Do I need to go out and buy more tinfoil?) or does anybody else wonder about a connection between the government eating the lunch of the Wireless/Cable companies by threatening to bring in competition and force prices down, AND, those self same companies, owning the TV and Radio stations, as  well as the magazines and newspapers that spend a great deal of time attacking the government?

Perhaps there is a yearning for the good old Liberal days and a degree of dissatisfaction with these "radical" conservatives.

 

[Edward Campbell]

For all the CBC haters around ... this business story will send financial and, eventually, policy ripples throughout the CBC.

The CBC has said it wil not ask for new funding, smart move ...

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen is a simplified view of the issue:

The CBC will continue to shed viewers, now at an accelerated rate ... costs, e.g. Peter Mansbridge's salary, will not fall unless there is some drastic pruning.

Now, those who admire public broadcasting will see, in this situation, an opportunity ... ditto those who oppose the principle of "public" broadcasting.

Such editorial/journalistic bias as the CBC may have will not change ... unless or until you change the people. Ditto the CBC's cultural biases. And there's usually nothing in lost revenues that  will make poor management better.

 

[a_majoor]

Frankly the only way to change things is for the CBC (and everyone else) to get with the 21rst century and go "a la carte" or PPV. This should cover virtually every check box:

1. Don't want to pay for CBC=don't watch it
2. Admire CBC and willing to pay for it = watch it
3. CBC, SUN TV, CTV etc. all on an equal footing = check
4. Gets taxpayers off the hook/reduce government spending = check
5. Forces management to prioritize based on real metrics of veiwership and revenues = check

And the cable companies are feeding everyone a huge BS sandwitch if they claim "a la carte" viewing is impossible, it is technically very possible, and if you have a digital box (i.e. about 99% of all cable viewers now) quite easy to impliment. Their revenue models are built on forcing subsidization of their properties via bundles. So breaking their straglehold will also benefit viewers.

 

[The_Falcon]

Frankly the only way to change things is for the CBC (and everyone else) to get with the 21rst century and go "a la carte" or PPV. This should cover virtually every check box:

1. Don't want to pay for CBC=don't watch it
2. Admire CBC and willing to pay for it = watch it
3. CBC, SUN TV, CTV etc. all on an equal footing = check
4. Gets taxpayers off the hook/reduce government spending = check
5. Forces management to prioritize based on real metrics of veiwership and revenues = check

And the cable companies are feeding everyone a huge BS sandwitch if they claim "a la carte" viewing is impossible, it is technically very possible, and if you have a digital box (i.e. about 99% of all cable viewers now) quite easy to impliment. Their revenue models are built on forcing subsidization of their properties via bundles. So breaking their straglehold will also benefit viewers.

It's slowly going that way thanks to the likes of Netflix, Hulu etc.  At least for the Americans and those who are willing and able to tweak their internet settings to bypass regional restrictions.

I read a few comments/articles about how this is the death of free over the air hockey, that remains to be seen.  The plus is that this opens up HNIC to a less Toronto centric base, which is something people have complained about for decades.

 

[ModlrMike]

It's slowly going that way thanks to the likes of Netflix, Hulu etc.  At least for the Americans and those who are willing and able to tweak their internet settings to bypass regional restrictions.

I read a few comments/articles about how this is the death of free over the air hockey, that remains to be seen.  The plus is that this opens up HNIC to a less Toronto centric base, which is something people have complained about for decades.

At least now CBC will have a few extra hundred million per year to spread around.

They shouldn't have to whine about ad revenues or fee for carriage... like that will ever happen  >

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's slowly going that way thanks to the likes of Netflix, Hulu etc.  At least for the Americans and those who are willing and able to tweak their internet settings to bypass regional restrictions.

I read a few comments/articles about how this is the death of free over the air hockey, that remains to be seen.  The plus is that this opens up HNIC to a less Toronto centric base, which is something people have complained about for decades.

Almost anything broadcast, or in theaters, past or present, including NHL games is available on XBMC.

I don't watch sports so I haven't looked into installing the add-ons (which may or may not require a subscription :dunno

Basic XBMC is a free download that you can use on your computer, tablets, smart phones or TV.

XBMC and NHL information:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=xbmc+and+nhl&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&gws_rd=cr&ei=kB6aUtDQAc7UoASu-oLABw

 

[Edward Campbell]

Preston Manning makes a pertinent point in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/senate-ethics-press-gallery-ethics/article16093020/#dashboard/follows/

Senate ethics – what about Press Gallery ethics?

PRESTON MANNING
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Dec. 27 2013

A great deal of media attention has been paid these past few months to the ethics, or alleged lack thereof, of senators Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy. Much less attention has been paid to the likelihood that the ethics of both are at least partially rooted in their training and experience as prominent members of the media.

While Mr. Duffy has been a senator for four years, he was a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery for 35 years prior (from 1974 to 2009). “The Gallery is an organization of journalists, photographers, camerapersons and soundpersons who cover Parliament and the federal political scene in Ottawa,” according to its official handbook. So what ethical guidelines does that organization provide to its members and how does it monitor and enforce compliance?

The handbook has 36 sections covering everything from its history to scrums to parking privileges. But, surprisingly, it has almost nothing to say on ethics. The Press Gallery’s constitution consists of 50 clauses, only one of which deals with ethics. Its focus, however, is quite relevant to the Duffy case.

Section 10 of that constitution provides for the expulsion of a member by a majority vote of the members for only one reason: “… that such member uses his membership or the facilities of the Gallery to obtain a benefit other than by journalism …”

Accordingly, if a member were to use his position as a member of the gallery to lobby for a federal appointment – a benefit being sought “other than by journalism” – he should have been subjected to an investigation by the gallery, a membership meeting to discuss and vote on the allegation, and expulsion on ethical grounds if the allegation had been substantiated.

It is therefore appropriate to ask whether section 10 of the gallery’s constitution – the only one dealing with ethics – has ever been applied? If so, when and to whom? And if not, why not, especially in the case of Mr. Duffy, who (as is well known) had been lobbying for a federal appointment for years? No doubt if section 10 had been applied, the chances of the expelled member receiving any federal appointment from either the Liberal or Conservative governments would have been substantially reduced.

Is there any silver lining to the ethical cloud that hangs over the Senate and also the gallery through the involvement of one of its long-standing members? Yes, there is. Just as the Enron scandal refocused corporate boards and business schools on beefing up their commitment to ethics, and just as the sponsorship scandal resulted in the federal Accountability Act, it is to be hoped that the Senate scandal and the role of prominent media persons in it will spark a recommitment on the part of both the Senate and the Press Gallery to stronger positions on ethics.

With respect to the Ottawa Press Gallery, should its members and their spouses be prohibited from accepting any federal appointment for X years once the member leaves the gallery? Should gallery members be obliged to declare and decline offers of gifts, entertainment, trips and paid speaking engagements from federal organizations and officials whom they report on as journalists? Should gallery members who have a conflict of interest in covering a particular issue or event be obliged to publicly disclose it (e.g., reporters and commentators for the CBC, a highly subsidized corporation, when they report on governmental initiatives to reduce or eliminate corporate subsidies)?

Most importantly, if freedom of the press is to be maintained, it is imperative that the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery itself address these ethical issues rather than have its freedoms and privileges curtailed by intrusive state regulation. Most of its members are sincere, dedicated individuals who adhere to and practise high professional and ethical standards. It is in their interests especially that action be taken by the gallery to ensure that their reputations and the reputation of their institution are not unjustly tarnished by the unethical behaviour of the few.

Preston Manning is the founder of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

Now, since I regard journalists as tradesmen rather than as professionals I don't know why they should be expected to have anything in the way of ethics beyond what I should expect from a plumber or garage mechanic or a civil service clerk. I expect specific, detailed ethical standards, an ethos, from lawyers, physicians, accountants, priests and soldiers,* but not from sales clerks, truck drivers, insurance agents or journalists.

_____
* There is some academic debate ~ see e.g. Huntington's The Soldier and The State ~ re: who, exactly, qualifies as a member of the military profession. Is it all ranks or just officers? Do we expect the same ethos and standards from all or do they differ with ranks and status?

_____

ff topic:

... but doe anyone else wonder if this media thread shouldn't be merged what that one. The titles, at least, seem to have a lot in common.  >

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't blame the media for this, I blame us all; but has anyone else noticed that Mayor Rob Ford's trip to Hollywood and the Academy Awards receive almost as much attention as the situation in Ukraine?

We have become a celebrity obsessed culture.

The media is just doing what we ask demand: giving us more and more fluff about inconsequential people and events while avoiding things that might frighten us ... or, at least, require us to think a bit.

 

[ModlrMike]

The media is just doing what we ask demand: giving us more and more fluff about inconsequential people and events while avoiding things that might frighten us ... or, at least, require us to think a bit.

I think it goes hand-in-glove with the inception of the 24 news cycle. The media needs to make news rather than simply report it in order to fill those 24 hours. Witness the Leslie non-story and how much mileage they got, and might continue to get out of that.

 

[OldSolduer]

I don't blame the media for this, I blame us all; but has anyone else noticed that Mayor Rob Ford's trip to Hollywood and the Academy Awards receive almost as much attention as the situation in Ukraine?

We have become a celebrity obsessed culture.

The media is just doing what we ask demand: giving us more and more fluff about inconsequential people and events while avoiding things that might frighten us ... or, at least, require us to think a bit.

Agreed sir.

We are fed too much cake and not enough broccoli and bran.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As error goes, here is a small one, that would probably only be noted by a few trained observers that would then not be able to get it out of their mind when looking at it:

On the National last night, they presented a little "info-graphic" on the Russian forces status in Crimea. To denote warships off Sevasotpol, they had a ship outline with a "Russian" little flag in it. Problem is the ship outline was that of a British Type 42 stretched destroyer.

I know I am splitting hair here but, after you spend half your life going through all those "Recognition" magazines looking at outlines and pics from all possible angles and such,  you just can't help it.

 

[George Wallace]

As error goes, here is a small one, that would probably only be noted by a few trained observers that would then not be able to get it out of their mind when looking at it:

On the National last night, they presented a little "info-graphic" on the Russian forces status in Crimea. To denote warships off Sevasotpol, they had a ship outline with a "Russian" little flag in it. Problem is the ship outline was that of a British Type 42 stretched destroyer.

I know I am splitting hair here but, after you spend half your life going through all those "Recognition" magazines looking at outlines and pics from all possible angles and such,  you just can't help it.

I know the feeling and really have to bite my tongue when I go to the movies.