What The Media Should Shut Up About

64 posts / 0 new
Last post

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Interviews with grieving family members who think sentences weren't harsh enough, for no reason at all other than no sentence would be harsh enough. That isn't news; it is exploitation.




Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

To be fair, if someone wants to forgive and embrace the person who raped and dismembered their daughter, the media is just as quick to report that.  So I don't feel like the media has pledged to serve the cause of vengeance.


I am actually okay with the 10th anniversary article. It is in better taste than our former minister in charge of STC claiming last month that that tragedy was the turning point in the shutdown of our bus service.

As for the coverage back then, of course they have a right to voice their opinion, and of course the media should cover that.

When it is an article solely devoted to nothing but how the family felt he needed to be held responsible, even though he was found not criminally responsible, yes I blame the media. I read several articles and saw TV pieces devoted to that single point.

It was sad and manipulative and embarrassing to watch. The  interviewer didn't even have the guts to point out to them that we have laws about offenders who are not criminally responsible.

And as we saw back then, it ended up with the province stepping in and overruling doctors for no reason at all other than public perception. And that's not counting all the rest of the discrimination against the mentally ill, and calls for the death penalty that resulted from someone just wanting a juicy story.

(cross posted)

And there's a bit of a difference between expressing forgiveness and calling for mercy (there was a story about that in the case of the mother of the La Loche killer too) and not recognizing the principle of someone being not criminally responsible, or the fact that prisons aren't just built as tools of vengance.

Again, if this hadn't whipped up a whole bunch of discrimination, and interference on the part of the government it wouldn't have been such a problem.



Misfit Misfit's picture

I'm sick and tired of seeing Trump's reality tv style become the new headline grabber every single  day.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

No one is obliged to forgive someone who kills a family member. Expecting them to forgive after 100 years is completely unreasonable, if they do not want to do so. There is no forgiveness for taking a life.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

progressive17 wrote:

No one is obliged to forgive someone who kills a family member. Expecting them to forgive after 100 years is completely unreasonable, if they do not want to do so. There is no forgiveness for taking a life.

Of course no one is obliged to forgive anything. The question is always what are the advantages and disadvantages of forgiving those who have harmed us. In my opinion, the answer varies according to circumstances and personality. Some people are naturally, or through learned conviction, more forgiving than others. However that may be for an individual, their actual behaviour will vary depending on how grievous is the harm. Those who forgive serious harm immediately and those who hang on to the slightest grudge for life represent the tails of this distribution. Most of us fall somewhere in between.


Russiagate. I'm going to be generous and pretend that there is actually some truth to that, and that it isn't a silly distraction the Democrats are using to blame anyone and anything for their election losses other than themselves. How is the focus on Russiagate going to bring people health care, give them good jobs, move towards a non fossil fuel economy, and reduce military tensions and conflicts all over the world?


Brett Kavanaugh. To a point, the fact that there are allegations against him is troubling, and exposes a real issue that needs to be discussed. The problem is it has taken up so much time in the media at the expense of other issues that are impacting people's lives. I'm perticularly frustrated that it takes up so much space in Canadian media because we have no control over the process.

The other issue I have is that this is merely the Democrats playing politics with the issue and lashing out becuase they know they have lost this one, and refuse to take responsibility for their role in this. When Scalia died, the Democrats did not effectively stand up to the Republican obstructionism that prevented Obama from filling that void. They used the issue of the Supreme Court nomination to attempt to win the Presidency, and that backfired on them big time. Now all they can do is wail and moan, but unfortunately for them, Kavanaugh's appointment to the bench was a sure thing from day one. There was never any realistic hope of stoopping this thing.


Legal cannabis in Canada!

oh god please make it stop. Just stick a fuckin cork in it already corporate Canadian media. 

The media bombardment about this is non stop. Just a moment ago I read an article about how Newfoundland was the first province to legalize because of the time zones. This is way over the top. 

I now refuse to read anything more about this topic! 

I used to smoke/consumer years ago and as far as I’m concerned it’s just a waste of time. Just like alcohol cigarettes etc etc etc. 

If someone wants to smoke it, go right ahead. Sure it should have never been illegal in the first place, just like all other recreational substances and the use of. But I suspect that corporate media is hyper inflating this issue to revive their circus freek side show darling Justin Trudeau 


That is your opinion. There are many fine people who enjoy a joint, a beer, or a glass of wine. I don't give a damn, as long as nobody does potentially dangerous things such as drink or drug driving, operating machinery etc. or if they get violent (unlikely with cannabis) and attack other people.

I think it is important, and not because I'm any great Trudeau fan. Many people are saddled with criminal records for simple possession and it has a serious impact on their lives. In that sense, it is an important civil liberty issue and a matter of justice. Often police would be more likely to single out young people of colour.

Another important issue is the attempt to undercut criminal gangs.


Sorry what was that lagatta4? For a moment there I went blind and deaf from the Canadian media megaphone assaulting me 24/7 with their coverage! But it's OK because I can shut it off and move on. This ability I have of not getting sucked up into the media circus freak's sideshow helps me call it out  for what it is.

As far as expressing my opinion, I think that's one of the reasons why posters come to forums like babble? 

Also, I'm not going to get sucked into a debate about legalisation use criminality etc etc. I'm posting about the media. The media's job is to inform us. If I wanted to know what province marihuana was going to be legal in first because of time zones I probably would have slapped myself in the face and thought "who the fuck cares?"

Ya I get it corporate media, marijuana is now legal (recreational use and many added new laws to go along). But hey lets all read another 20-50 articles about how pot is now legal and there's nothing else going on in the world.


re: 'criminal gangs'

And replace them with others:

Brian Mulroney Joins Board of Directors of New York Based Pot Company


"Acreage holdings, one of the largest vertically integrated cannabis companies in the US, says Mulroney will officially become a board member in November, when the company will list on the Canadian Securities Exchange. Mulroney, who also served as prime minister 1984 to 1993, will join other prominent former US politicians on the board of Acreage, including former House of Representatives speaker John Boehner and former Massachusetts governor William Weld...Mulroney's daughter, Caroline Mulroney, is the attorney general of Ontario and has been overseeing the legalization of marijuana in that province..."


The 2020 Presidential race. In recent months, we have heard several names floated. Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders. Andrew Yang. Richard Ojeda. Tulsi Gabbard. Kirsten Gillibrand. Kamala Harris. Corey Booker. Beto O'Rourke. Elizabeth Warren. Heck, I even read in the newspaper that my *dog* was interested in running, and I don't even have a dog. This was going on even before the current Congress was sworn in. The next election is just a little over 2 years away, let's deal with it then, and focus on more pressing things.