Trash talk in the media seem to be lucrative.
I follow several news site and media and i noticed something, that trash talk is paying a lot, i'm thinking of Jeff Fillions in Quebec or Don Cherry in toronto or Barbarra Kay. Those people create a lot of turm oil and lawsuit but what ever happen they never seem to loose there job. What i'm worry is that they start to compete again each other in order to gain more people to listen to them.
Well, that's been going on for a long time, Lefauve. If you follow American media to any degree, you'll see that the MSM is eager to give the podium to any nut job that comes along.
Some of it is due to ratings chasing, but I think a lot of it also has to do with poisoning politics and civil discussion so that all we have is noise and coherent message can be brought forward. This helps to keep the population divided, and the establishment in power.
It's not as "in your face" in Canada, but I note Tom Flanagan was on Evan Solomon's infomercial "Power and Politics" again today, so letting the loonies to the podium is happening here.
Well, I've heard and seen worse. The best 'board' for shock jocks is usually consumer action. Turn off the program, or if need be, contact the companies that advertise on the show and register your objections with them-- letting them know that in your mind, thier "brand" is linked with something objectionable.
I am more concerned these days with less obvious challenges to journalistic ethics-- like the too close relationship between editors and reporters with 'public relations' firms. Follow an issue where a corporation has a stake against the public, and follow the news reports. You can sometimes see which reporter is working for what P.R. firm if you watch closely.
I am not sure we need a board or regulations to tackle that particular problem. Maybe the criminal court is, under fraud?
"there's no such thing as bad publicity"
conflict makes people pay attention, and that's what networks want.