babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Could Barbara's boy be that bad?
I suppose so.
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.
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!!!
As I say, Catchfire, his input is a very valuable look at the political pathology south of the 49th that gave us Bush and Rush and the whole sick spectrum.
And apparently, they're now putting addictive substances in Pablum. Truth becomes as painful to ingest as methadone.
Actually, that isn't true. The Christian Science Monitor, for example, has announced they are putting there entire operation on line. The Internet is home to aggregators, but it is also home to almost every news gathering organization big and small. What is delusional is the pretending the greatest sea-change in information gathering and dissemination is somehow of lesser status than what is avaialble in mainstream publications.
As for investigative journalism, how many are currently employed by North American newspapers? What have been their big breaking stories? Did they get the no WMDs in Iraq thing?
Yes, precisely. That is what public media should do. And it doesn't.
The Ontario NDP just elected a new leader. Other than news reports that were mostly dismissive, I have heard nothing else about her. But then this morning I heard the CBC announce a segment with some Conservative MPP to discuss who will replace the Conservative leader who couldn't win an election.
And you see, this is my point. The left, even the moderate left of the NDP and trade union movement and all that entails, is excluded from the public debate on our public broadcaster.
And the solution of many who debate this issue is to "change the government" so that the CBC can be "fixed" or reformed. But they don't tell us how one wins an election when one can't even get into the debate.
In the last two Ontario elections the NDP didn't even win enough seats for official party status. The CBC promotes the two party dichotomy and that excludes from the public debate almost everyone who posts on this site and who would demand the CBC be saved to continue excluding them from the public debate.
Do you not even realize what you have written? A cover story on Newsweek (a major "corporate" media outlet) is criticizing "the Right". The way you've been arguing here, you'd think that was against the very laws of physics and the rules of mathematical probability.
Guess it's not.
Furthermore, do a Google search of: "David Frum" "Rush Limbaugh" Newsweek "Why Rush is Wrong".
What do you get?
Twelve thousand hits (many of them links to major "corporate" media).
But, in the end, I get your point that government-funded media is essential in order for critical information like that about the Right to get published and that without such media we'd all be in the dark.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I speak for myself.
That is the surest sign of a spent line of reasoning.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
You've ignored my point completely. I'll be happy to answer questions as soon as you point out an existing internet revenue model that supports a working news bureau.
The Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/media/29paper.html
But I think you've missed the point. The point is not employment for journalists but news, information, and an inclusive debate. I'm not aware of any journalists who buy computers not because they need software and tools but because they want to keep me and my colleagues in a job.
And how about you, LTJ? Do you own many buggy whips?
No, I'm rather certain that it's you who missed the point. A church-sponsored web magazine is not an example of revenue provided by internet sources.
BTW, the internet is generally superior at inclusive debate. It's the original news and information that is lacking - its current source is inevitably traditional journalism, funded by newspapers and networks.
News people now in online news postions, quoted in a NYTimes article today confirm that, LTJ.:
"Many critics and competitors of newspapers — including online start-ups that have been hailed as the future of journalism — say that no one should welcome their demise.
“It would be a terrible thing for any city for the dominant paper to go under, because that’s who does the bulk of the serious reporting,” said Joel Kramer, former editor and publisher of The Star Tribune and now the editor and chief executive of MinnPost .com, an online news organization in Minneapolis.
“Places like us would spring up,” he said, “but they wouldn’t be nearly as big. We can tweak the papers and compete with them, but we can’t replace them.”
And from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting comes the warning, today:
"Harper chose Hubert Lacroix as CBC's President. It appears that since then, Lacroix has been busy implementing Harper's agenda.
First, President Lacroix bought American game and variety shows like Jeopardy!, Wheel of Fortune and The Martha Stewart Show. He paid inflated prices for shows that should have no place on our national broadcaster to outbid private broadcasters and that put a huge dent in CBC's budget.
CBC's budget took a second hit when these programs failed to deliver hoped for ad revenue in the economic downturn.
This double whammy is now the excuse for putting ads on CBC Radio. This might be music to Stephen Harper's ears but it sounds like a disaster to us."
Sure is for this Canuck.
And the machinations of Hubert Lacroix were detailed in a Toronto Star editorial , Jan. 27, 2008, when he agreed to a deal with Fireworks International, a division of British-based Content Film to sell international rights to 135 titles - 700hours of television programming. Canadian companies were shut out of the bidding.
Ian Morrison of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting said the CBC is "not displaying the kind of prudence with the stewardship of public funds that you would expect of a national public broadcaster."
It's the sort of thing you would expect an ideologue like Sven to do if he were hired by the PM to rid the state of an encumbrance like the CBC. Public medicine will take a little longer to get rid of, having more friends than a public broadcaster that can be nibbled away.
The previous month - December 2007 - the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission released its decision to approve CanWest Global Communications' $2,3 B takeover of Alliance Atlantis Communications with help from New York's Goldman Sachs.
CanWest said it would still control Alliance Atlantis through a majority of the voting shares.
CanWest was already cutting jobs at some of iits television and newspaper properties, the former Southam empire sold off by our jailed lord.
For Steve and company, blind to the bubble, this met all of Sven's requirements, the "rough and tumble of the market."
You're rather have stability and get consistent pablum?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
You know, GV, you haven't even attempted to articulate how government-funded media would help achieve your stated goal (in fact, you haven't even stated a such a goal!!!).
Instead, you simply grind away at what you don't like about current media and off-handedly insist that government-funded media as the solution.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
First, President Lacroix bought American game and variety shows like Jeopardy!,
The addition of Jeopardy is one of the best decisions made by the CBC in recent times. My 7 and 12 year olds love it.