The CBC may be gutted but we shouldn't make its death easy

130 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:
The CBC mandate ought to prevent this from happening.

And who enforces that?  The government, perhaps?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

George Victor

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632 __________________________________________________

The situation described by Jefferson is what you silly bastards experienced under Dubya and his weapons of mass destruction tales for eight bloody years. It is ignorance that you should be afraid of, not a media mandated to maintain independent opinion in a world of used car salesmen.

We did not go like sheep into Iraq partly because our media - led by the CBC , not the Mike Duffy and other "private" elements - were not in the pocket of the completely mendacious regime that you elected or that wanted to take power here.And you damn near followed up by electing the redneck answer to a hunter's dream, Sarah -theatre of the absurd - Palin.

Yours is a nation of frighteningly  ignorant voters, Sven, sheep, and your appeals to freedom of thought are characteristically free of any evidence that might tarnish your grade-school theories. Your country began with some enormous intellects at the helm, but the Jacksonian element has held sway since you bought into Manifest Destiny.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

I listend to the CBC today. What I learned, in the morning, is that the NDP elected a new leader who has her work cut out for her in rebranding and rebuilding a party of old, fat, white people. Oh, and I learnt not a thing about her. Who she is, what she represents, what her goals are. Nada. Just a fat, white and old NDP.

On the way home, I heard from a (surprise, surprise) business school MBA prof that the CAW has not sacrificed enough. I heard the same again just a little while later from the Ceeb business reporter. And interestingly, if I only took my news from the CBC, I think it would be forgivable if I belived the state of North American auto manufacturing was soley because of unions and that there is no connection to the wider economy and the collapsing US economy brought about through bankster mismanagement at the highest levels.

I know, I know. All we have to do is change the government ... In the meantime to the barricades to defend the publicly funded corporate voice. 

FP:

Quote:

I haven't been to a doctor in years.  I'm healthy, fit... am I calling for cheaper health care?  User fees wouldn't bother me much.  Canadian health care is only costing me -and people like me - money to fix the problems of people who haven't taken care of themselves (thinking obesity, mainly; and drinkers of high fructose corn syrup aka, soft drinks).  Does that analogy sound familiar?  

Not at all. When you see a doctor that doctor represents you, and, hopefully, provides you with the best medical care of which he/she is capable. You enter a system, a health care system, which treats you as an individual. You are comparing apples and steel. They are completely different. The argument we are having is more like this: if you were a dyed in a wool Lutheran, would you subscribe to a magazine aimed primarily at atheists and would you positively respond to demands to help save it and its government funding? Why the hell not? Would you feel different if it was a federally chartered athiest magazine?

Quote:

Yes, CBC radio often has a repetitive format, with the same guests and talking heads.  But there's still enough there to draw me back in, mainly in current affairs and specific shows... less and less so straight news. 

But news and information is the CBC's primary mandate. So you agree it does not meet its mandate but yet you want to continue funding it? That would explain corn farming ... (sorry, couldn't resist ...)

"the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains"

--CBC

So one out of three ain't bad? I mean, it can be entertaining. I lauged out loud, for example, when I heard the Ontario NDP is old, white, and fat. I thought, I live in an NDP stronghold!

Quote:

Like George keeps repeating, and which you keep ignoring (I suggest reading all the posts) - what's the alternative?  If you think you can do a better job, then get the fuck at it.  I respect your opinions, FM, but aren't you getting tired of the soap box?  

And that proves that in your hurry to climb on your own soapbox, you didn't actually read all my posts because I have offered an alternative. The alternative is enforcing the mandate of the CRTC. 

You are familiar with London and if you listen only to the CBC you might have missed the story that in cutting back, the A-Channel, London's only remaining local television station, is eliminating local news and information programming. It is within the mandate of the CRTC to ensure the A-Channel repsepcts the terms of its license and retains local programming.

And where is the CBC, Canada's broadcaster mandated to bring Canadian news and information to all Canadians in all regions? Gone. Gone from London since 1988, I believe.

So who serves local news in London and region if it is not enfoced by the CRTC? Badboy knows: NOBODY!!!

 

 

Sven Sven's picture

George Victor wrote:

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

And the remedy is to have a government newspaper (or radio or television network)???

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Fidel

Sven wrote:
George Victor wrote:

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

And the remedy is to have a government newspaper (or radio or television network)??

Ah! Sven is obviously concerned about corporate influence and lobbying in government, and that whether news media is public or privately owned and controlled, supranational corporate mindfuck tends to pervade and poison both types of wells for information. But these are existing flaws with our North American electoral systems and rules for governance. The original 13 US colonies certainly intended to break with European monarchy and rule by financier oligarchies. But in the end they failed, and now Wall Street has basically usurped governmental powers of resource allocation and regulating themselves. Caesar Augustus and Roman senators would have been green with envy of this setup today. And Canada's dysfunctional democracy is even less transparent, and Washington style lobbying in place in Ottawa since the Mulroney era. There was a time when rightwing think tanks and corporations were not so influential on American and Canadian governments and senates. That is no longer the case.

George Victor

You are used to perverting the real situation, Sven. Twisting reality to suit your dumbed down situation. Look again at mandate. CBC is not a "guv'mint"  media. And then look at the record of your media the past decade and more. The Jefferson quotation fits your situation exactly.

You wanted Jefferson? 

Not really, eh?  And I'm sure as shit not expecting you to actually speak to your own media situation in a country coming to be known for the extent of the material and intellectual poverty of its underclass.

 

Look at the nitpicking huffing and puffing from FMs post as he finds fault with that fearsome state media that you've created for us, and which is being reduced to failure by ideologues committed to end state involvement in almost all public services created since the ark - your position.

FM demands that we somehow  require the CRTC to force the government of the day to re-instate the funding that's been taken from CBC for more than two decades. Impossible of course.

It all smacks of fatalism.

 

George Victor

And watch Sven latch on to Fidel's post  and do an end run.Laughing 

 

George Victor

And the federal minister responsible (Moore) has just announced that CBC  will  not  receive support to make up for its advertising shortfall (surprise, surprise).

And watch the CBCs conservative-appointed administration go for ads on CBC radio.

Any takers?

 

ikat381

Sven wrote:

The Democrats, in particular, boast about being "strong supporters of public education"...yet, for some reason, they don't want their own kids going to public schools.  At best, their behavior is hypocritical.  I'd like to know why they support public schools for poor people but not for people like themselves.

Oh.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
You are used to perverting the real situation, Sven. Twisting reality to suit your dumbed down situation. Look again at mandate. CBC is not a "guv'mint"  media. And then look at the record of your media the past decade and more. The Jefferson quotation fits your situation exactly.

Well, see, there you go. The complaint about US corporate media is very well established. The US doesn't need state media, it is said, because the corporate media does the job voluntarily. One obvious and plain example of that, for example, was the media's cheerleading role and lack of critical examinination of the government claims in the rush to the war against Iraq.

But how did public media fare? Well, not much better offering essentially the same stories lacking the same critical analysis but top heavy with generals and those who supported an invasion and the nonsense of WMDs.

So where was the critical analysis? In the global media readily available on the Internet.

 

al-Qa'bong

Sven wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:
The CBC mandate ought to prevent this from happening.

And who enforces that?  The government, perhaps?

 

Why not?  We have another governmental body, the CRTC, that regulates what goes on the public airwaves.

I don't understand this fear of government you are displaying.  Whatever happened to that "We the people" jazz you yanquis profess to revere?

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies.

He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six.

http://www.corporations.org/media/

graph

Sven Sven's picture

Frustrated Mess wrote:

So where was the critical analysis? In the global media readily available on the Internet.

I think that's true.  I don't watch TV "news" because it's basically garbage.  The place to get opinion, news, and information is on the Internet, where diverse and free-flowing information is widely available.

Turn on the tube and, at best, you get pablum.  Although, even I must admit that TV is okay if you're in a coma.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Whatever happened to that "We the people"...?

You're lookin' at it.

It's rabble.ca, The Nation, Der Spiegel, Mother Jones, Wikipedia, countless blogs, and roughly...oh...about a million other sources of information.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Sven Sven's picture

This discussion sounds vaguely like conservatives complaining about sex and violence on TV (only the complaint isn't about sex and violentce it's about "corporate media"): "Where's that good ol' wholesome TV we need?  You know, that honest to goodness publicly supported TV?"

Here's my advice to people who hate what is on TV (whether it's sex, violence, "corporate news," or what have you): Turn the fuckin' TV off.

 

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

al-Qa'bong

I'm referring to radio, mostly.  TV has been a wasteland ever since about 1952.

 

By the way, I've been a community radio host for 15 years.  The CRTC has had its eye on me the whole time.

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

TV has been a wasteland ever since about 1952.

Laughing

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Second headline on the Star right now, right after .78c dollar:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/598900

George Victor

FM:

"So where was the critical analysis? In the global media readily available on the Internet."

---------------

Yep, the analysis was there, but where were the people lapping it up?

If only we could connect Jefferson's ideal and his people. But remember his other requirement...people who were free of congenital ignorance. 

And then there is always the danger of babel...seen by Jefferson in 1785:

"[The] literati [of Europe are] half a dozen years before us. Books, really good, acquire just reputation in that time, and so become known to us and communicate to us all their advances in knowledge. Is not this delay compensated by our being placed out of the reach of that swarm of nonsensical publications which issues daily from a thousand presses and perishes almost in issuing?" --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Bellini, 1785. ME 5:153, Papers 8:569 Laughing

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
By the way, I've been a community radio host for 15 years.  The CRTC has had its eye on me the whole time.

Bravo! And supporting local, community radio is where the left ought to be. Fram Punk and I, for a very low cost and using readily accessible and often free technology, could quickly launch a community radio station but what stands in our way is the public regulator protecting the anti-competitive interests of the media oligarchy.

Quote:
Yep, the analysis was there, but where were the people lapping it up?

I don't follow you George. Are you arguing the CBC is only giving the market what it wants?

Sven Sven's picture

George Victor wrote:

You see, Sven, your position IS "American". At least, recent American. Has nothing to do with Jefferson who thought government had its uses.

Thomas Jefferson: "The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter".

Somehow, I doubt that Jefferson was talking about government-funded newspapers, George.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

George Victor

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

----------------------------------------------------------------

No, Sven, he was most concerned with "the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper, " silly people, like yourself, who took Dubya to heart and left  us all open to an economic armageddon. A "free press" that in its desperation to survive as businesses, wasn't free at all.

Enough of your cloud cuckooland bullshit, Sven. Get real. Look around. Real people getting really hurt while you repeat your grade school "principles".

But don't stop posting. You are a perfect example of how deluded Americans think, could bring us asset backed commercial paper, could sell Brooklyn bridges to the poor trying to put a roof over their heads. You are needed here as a template for others to understand the meaning of mammon.

Sven Sven's picture

George Victor wrote:

No, Sven, he was most concerned with "the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper, "...

Again, would his solution have been government-funded newspapers?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

You, Sven, seem to take issue with public/private ownership of media. Your own nation demonstrates better than anything I can think of the falsehood of the belief that private media will deliver the goods - objective, thorough, and critical news reporting - better than public media. 

The issue, for all of us, ought to be the quality and thoroughness of the information we recieve, and the inclusion of our own voices in the public debate over ideas.

The latter is critical, absolutely critical, to true public debate and that is the issue of utmost importance to me in this argument. I really don't care, and neither should anyone else, if the information we recieve comes from a private or public news source so long as it is objective, thorough, and the public debate is as inclusive as possible. And to me, in Canada, that criteria is missing from both public and private broadcasters.

And please note I don't say balanced. I say inclusive. They are different words and mean different things. The word "balance" in news reporting is a lie. 

ETA: For anyone interested in quality journalism, please visit here: http://www.medialens.org/donate/

Sven Sven's picture

Frustrated Mess wrote:

You, Sven, seem to take issue with public/private ownership of media. Your own nation demonstrates better than anything I can think of the falsehood of the belief that private media will deliver the goods - objective, thorough, and critical news reporting - better than public media. 

The issue, for all of us, ought to be the quality and thoroughness of the information we recieve, and the inclusion of our own voices in the public debate over ideas.

The latter is critical, absolutely critical, to true public debate and that is the issue of utmost importance to me in this argument. I really don't care, and neither should anyone else, if the information we recieve comes from a private or public news source so long as it is objective, thorough, and the public debate is as inclusive as possible. And to me, in Canada, that criteria is missing from both public and private broadcasters.

And please note I don't say balanced. I say inclusive. They are different words and mean different things. The word "balance" in news reporting is a lie. 

I agree with much of what you wrote there, FM.

But, I think the focus is too much on TV and radio.  That's not where good information is (usually) found.  The Internet is where to go to find the best and most diverse range of information and opinions.

There are tens of thousands of websites which, across the spectrum, represent every conceivable political viewpoint.  Now, a person can't be lazy and expect to be spoon-fed information.  A person looking for information and opinions on the Internet needs to be proactive...have some initiative.  But, that's always been the case.  Look at libraries...there are vast swaths of the population who have never voluntarily stepped into a library.  And I suspect that few people do any serious reading (most reading tends to than popular novels and People magazine).  That's always been the case and will likely always be the case.

But, for people who are actually interested in learning about current issues, there is more information available today than there ever has been and if there was ever a need for government-funded media, there certianly is no need for it today.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Sven wrote:
And who enforces that?  The government, perhaps?

Quote:
And the remedy is to have a government newspaper (or radio or television network)???

Quote:
Again, would his solution have been government-funded newspapers?

Why do you engage with someone whose debate strategy hopes that putting 'government' in increasingly scary formatting (from italics, to bolding, to underlining, and doubtless eventually to larger and greater font sizes, with up to five times the usual number of question marks) will lend force to his argument?

George Victor

Your country get the guv'mint" handouts  through the "private" media for the whole of Dubya's reign, Sven.

Are you missing it?

-------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, Catchfire, I have this masochistic streakUndecided

But  notice my controlled expletivs....like I say, we need this slice of Americana to see what to avoid  this side of the 49th.

And this goddam program has just stopped functioning, entirely. Won't accept editing this a.m.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
But, for people who are actually interested in learning about current issues, there is more information available today than there ever has been and if there was ever a need for government-funded media, there certianly is no need for it today.
 

I agree with that. The Internet is also where we find a diversity of voices. But radio also serves an importnat niche especially for community news and information that just isn't available elsewhere and for which there simply is not the critcal mass of interest for web based publishing.

I have argued that for years that the elimination of voices and the homogenization of news and information would be the undoing of print media.

In a city like London, Ontario, for example, where a local paper competes with major dailies, including two national papers and one parent publication, if in the local paper I find the same stories and voices as the parent  why should I buy the local paper? And if the parent is little different in coverage and opinion than the other dailies or the nationals, why should I buy that? 

As a person who once purchased four or five newspapers every day, I, today, buy none. Why should I? I know what they say before I even turn a page. I can expect little in the way of independent analysis and I can expect even less that challenges the corporate status quo.

Today, the same disease is now impacting broadcasters. It is as if the MBAs they hired to manage lack any sense of foresight or even the markets of which they claim to be experts.

Take London's A-Channel. The A-Channel through mergers and acquisitions kept changing hands. In the past years, it decided to foresake local advertizers to chase after national advertizers and it cut costs by cutting programming and in particular news and information which tended to be local and regional.

As a viewer, why watch A-Channel when you can get the same programs anywhere else? It is not a matter of actually moving away from A-Channel so much as it is a matter of knowing whatever you want there can be found anywhere with some channel surfing.

And if you are a national advertizer (and our economies have pushed out local businesses to the point where almost all are national, or at least large regional, advertizers) why advertize on the A-Channel when you can reach a larger audience, including local viewers, advertizing on the parent station?

And as both you and I demonstrate, and I am sure many others, if we, as media consumers, and we are, can't get information we value and trust from the traditional sources, we will go elsewhere.

What is interesting, though, is that the media conglomerates don't really care. They will squeeze every last penny out of traditional media and then they will use their political and lobbying influence to regulate the Internet  to force us onto their online portals and web sites.

The challenge for the left and the principled right (such a small group) and anyone who values open expression and the free flow of thougts and ideas is keeping the Internet open. Already the corporate lobbysists are salivating as government regulators are bought and paid for.

 

George Victor

As a person who once purchased four or five newspapers every day, I, today, buy none. Why should I? I know what they say before I even turn a page. I can expect little in the way of independent analysis and I can expect even less that challenges the corporate status quo."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You can participate in municipal elections as an enlightened citizen without a local paper FM?  I guess backfence gossip and knowing some folks will inform you.  I still need two delivered to the door.

And I find Krugman enlightening (and have you seen Brooks' columns the last couple of days) from NYTimes postings? BBC less so.

But I can't imagine knowing what makes our society (and world) tick without the Globe's business perspectives.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
You can participate in municipal elections as an enlightened citizen without a local paper FM?  I guess backfence gossip and knowing some folks will inform you.  I still need two delivered to the door.

I'm not sure what municipality you live in, but most have little to none in the way of civerage of local politics. It is why the most valued political asset at the local level is "name recognition". But I will accept your condescending observation and raise you another: Want to be informed of local government? Get off your ass and attend the meetings with the other half dozen concerned citizens.

 

Quote:
ut I can't imagine knowing what makes our society (and world) tick without the Globe's business perspectives.

I don't attend sporting events just for the cheerleaders either. I can't think of a greater contradiction than business journalism other than perhaps business ethics.  

Sven Sven's picture

George Victor wrote:

Your country get the guv'mint" handouts  through the "private" media for the whole of Dubya's reign, Sven.

I recommend you read and consider FM's post above.

ETA: Nevermind (I forgot to hit the "Post comment" button after writing the above immediately after reading FM's Post #78).

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Sven Sven's picture

Frustrated Mess wrote:

The challenge for the left and the principled right (such a small group) and anyone who values open expression and the free flow of thougts and ideas is keeping the Internet open. Already the corporate lobbysists are salivating as government regulators are bought and paid for.

Although you didn't mention it here, you have mentioned a concern about "Internet neutrality" in other threads.  For those of us not entirely familiar with the issue (including me), can you summarize your concern?  It seems to me (perhaps naively) that the Internet is very free flowing and that people (other than those in certain countries) can freely read and write whatever they want on the Internet, which I think is a vital right to maintain and protect.  So, what is the threat that you foresee to "Internet neutrality"?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

George Victor

The internet  is very "free flowing" Sven.

Some flows freely to the dogmatic right.

And some flows freely to the dogmatic left.

And some is just confused an meaners off into the marshes, or is blocked and locked away.

And in this way, we will find ourselves on an island of moderation in between the channels reason and understanding.

(And is FM now posting for you?) 

By the way, I don't read business pages out of love for the folks who feed there, FM.  Quite the contrary.Smile

George Victor

They depend on these fellas too much when times get tough:

Sven Sven's picture

George Victor wrote:

(And is FM now posting for you?)

What's that supposed to mean?

But, more substantively:

George Victor wrote:

The internet  is very "free flowing" Sven.

Some flows freely to the dogmatic right.

And some flows freely to the dogmatic left.

And some is just confused an meaners off into the marshes, or is blocked and locked away.

And in this way, we will find ourselves on an island of moderation in between the channels reason and understanding.

This brings us back to the original question: Will this change with government-funded media?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

George Victor

The law and you are asses!

George Victor

"Why do you engage with someone whose debate strategy hopes that putting 'government' in increasingly scary formatting (from italics, to bolding, to underlining, and doubtless eventually to larger and greater font sizes, with up to five times the usual number of question marks) will lend force to his argument?"

------------------------------------------------------------------

Insistent like Johnny one note, but not gargantuan yet, Catch. 

Sven Sven's picture

I get the sense that many people are uncomfortable with the rough-n-tumble “marketplace of ideas”— with information, opinions, and ideas simply popping up and sprouting all across the political spectrum, with some surviving and gaining strength and others withering.

Instead, they seem to pine for order and the steady hand of government to guide “the masses” in their thinking about the issues of the day and believe (in a conveniently unarticulated way) that government-funded media can successfully cull the information wheat from the information chaff.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
cull [sic] the information wheat from the information chaff

Shurely you mean "winnow" or "thresh."  "Cull" is more of an animal husbandry term.

Quote:
I get the sense that many people are uncomfortable with the rough-n-tumble “marketplace of ideas”

 

In the right context, the "marketplace of ideas" is rather interesting.  The Age of Persuasion does a nice job of exploring it.

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Shurely [sic] you mean "winnow" or "thresh."  "Cull" is more of an animal husbandry term.

Surely you mean "surely".  "Shurely" isn't even a word in the English lexicon.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Those who pride themselves on the more detailed information they can track down on the internet are, for the most part, deluding themselves. The internet is home to news aggregators, rather than actual journalism. There is no financial model operating anywhere on the internet that provides salaries for those skilled in investigative journalism. That function remains the domain of large networks and printed papers.

al-Qa'bong

Sven wrote:
al-Qa'bong wrote:

Shurely [sic] you mean "winnow" or "thresh."  "Cull" is more of an animal husbandry term.

Surely you mean "surely".  "Shurely" isn't even a word in the English lexicon.

 

 

I dunno, it was used quite often in that great example of independent, non-gov'mint owned Canadian journalism, Frank magazine. 

 

The usage is ironi...oh yeah, you're from south of the border.   Nem'mine. 

Farmpunk

LTJ:

"Those who pride themselves on the more detailed information they can track down on the internet are, for the most part, deluding themselves. The internet is home to news aggregators, rather than actual journalism. There is no financial model operating anywhere on the internet that provides salaries for those skilled in investigative journalism. That function remains the domain of large networks and printed papers."

This needs to be repeated, I think.  Of course, we wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of our resident net-sperts.

Slumberjack

Sven wrote:
I get the sense that many people are uncomfortable with the rough-n-tumble “marketplace of ideas”— with information, opinions, and ideas simply popping up and sprouting all across the political spectrum, with some surviving and gaining strength and others withering.....Instead, they seem to pine for order and the steady hand of government to guide “the masses” in their thinking about the issues of the day and believe (in a conveniently unarticulated way) that government-funded media can successfully cull the information wheat from the information chaff.

The discomfort might arise in considering where the ideas, information and opinions are coming from, and who is paying for them.  The correct ideas gain wide exposure, while the incorrect ones are forced out through lack of funding.  It isn't really a marketplace of genuine ideas at all, which is why they invented teleprompters.  People pine for information, not propaganda.  If a reasonably funded arms length public entity can provide it without looking over their shoulders for permission to speak, then it's a far better alternative to the agenda of the market.  With any luck, one of these days we'll have something like that here in Canada.

George Victor

"Sticky thread" (doing all sorts of things this a.m.).

I see that the U.S. "marketplace of ideas" is thriving. Rush Limbaugh has just signed an eight-year $400 million dollar contract to continue his three-hour daily show...the largest audience in the U.S.

One can just imagine the hate-filled drool.

And David Frum has written a Newsweek cover story entitled "Why Rush is Wrong", describing Limbaugh as "a man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as 'losers'.

"With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence - exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're co-operating."

And Frum says that Limbaugh is intimidating the leading congressional Republ;icans. "He is the most visible and poserful conservative vopice in America right now," Frum said, adding that "I wanted not to write this piece. I'm a big believer in broad coalitions. The people who listen to Rush are indespensable to any future conservative Republican coalitio0n.

"They're the people who lick the envelopes and send in the $100 donations, and when the party's in trouble, it cannot afford to alienate that base. So he is getting them agitated in favour of the most inflexible poxxible position which really constrains the aability of party leaders  to respond to the problems of today."

From says Limbaugh's insistence on a rigid social conservatism could mean the death of the party.

The piece on Frum's Newsweek story and position was under the byline of Leeo-Anne Goodman out of Washington, and carried by the Canadian Press.

I'll bet it is not carried by all newspapers in that thriving marketplace of ideas south of the 49th. Have to keep the loyal advertisers in mind.

George Victor

Sven: 

"Instead, they seem to pine for order and the steady hand of government to guide “the masses” in their thinking about the issues of the day and believe (in a conveniently unarticulated way) that government-funded media can successfully cull the information wheat from the information chaff."

______------------------------------------------------------------------

And the "masses" of the U.S. citizenry are in the gentle, steady hand of Limbaugh, whom even David axis-of-evil Frum finds disgusting.  And Rush is only one of many informing the folks up in the Heartland in the "rough and tumble" of the marketplace of ideas.

Very, very rough, and an absolute tumble of lies and distortions. Just watch what Rush and the boys do to that guy Frum from Canuckistan.

 

Slumberjack

Frum is not concerned about extremism within the GOP because he finds it personally distasteful, he's concerned because there's no longer a use for it.  It has become an impediment to furthering the neo-con agenda.

George Victor

Could Barbara's boy be that bad?

I suppose so.

George Victor

Sure hope our house echoer of slogans will try yet another run at the evils of guv'mint, virtues of markets in this shadow period of market perfidy.

Sven Sven's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

People pine for information, not propaganda.

Do you really think that is true?  Obviously, many (and not necessarily "most") people do want "infromation, not propaganda," but I wouldn't be willing to state that as such a general proposition.  In fact, I think most people want pablum.

Slumberjack wrote:
 

If a reasonably funded arms length public entity can provide it without looking over their shoulders for permission to speak, then it's a far better alternative to the agenda of the market.  With any luck, one of these days we'll have something like that here in Canada.

So what, exactly, would be the mission of the government-funded media?  To express and promote a broad array of ideas across the entire political spectrum?  All you would get then is a cacophony of information noise.  On the other hand, if the government-funded network was to stake a particular piece of ground on the political spectrum (e.g., in the dead center), then those on either side of that point on the spectrum (the majority of people) would be unhappy with their tax dollars being used to promote positions they disagree with.

I think it's an absurd uptopian pipedream to think that government-funded media is going to provide the "correct" information to "the masses" in some magical way.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Pages

Topic locked