Would the World Survive a Killary presidency?

131 posts / 0 new
Last post
Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Of course they have some level of bias. If you're looking for pure objectivity, you might as well go hunt a unicorn. However, there are varying degrees of care given to the veracity of the material, fact checking and approaching all sources for comment. CBC's policies are actually pretty damn good. As I said, and from previous conversations we've had, you've made up your mind that they're no good because the don't confirm your biases in how they frame the news.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Exactly, the illusion of objectivity is what all dishonest media try to sell. There is no such thing. That doesn't mean that they can't have some standards of accuracy  or fairness.

A very good description of the media I am talking about. Of course for people like you and Timebandit it seems the Cold War has never ended and therefore anything from Russia is to be considered dishonest and anything from our state media is honest. 

I tend to think the CBC does a better job at projecting the illusion of objectivity than most outlets. Hell they even present that illusion to their contractors as reality and intelligent people fall for it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Let's imagine, for a moment, a media outlet with the courage, principle and honesty to tell all sides of the story.

So, "This tax increase could help fund this and that, but it will also cost us that thing and the other thing, and what's more, the goverment could also have chosen to act thusly or otherwise".

Nobody would bother with them, since all they'd be saying, every time, is "things are complex and you need to think them through for yourself".  It wouldn't be long before we'd hear that "a media outlet who stands for nothing can fall for anything".

I don't think anyone really wants unbiased media that's going to occasionally call them on their shit.  They just want the media to finally recognize that their opinions are the right ones.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Of course they have some level of bias. If you're looking for pure objectivity, you might as well go hunt a unicorn. However, there are varying degrees of care given to the veracity of the material, fact checking and approaching all sources for comment. CBC's policies are actually pretty damn good. As I said, and from previous conversations we've had, you've made up your mind that they're no good because the don't confirm your biases in how they frame the news.

So this is you not being insulting. LMAO You of course have no biases that frame your world view only people who disagree with you suffer from bias. I don't like the CBC because they claim objectivity and it is clear that they have an extremely biased view of the world. But of course since their bias is the same as your bias they must be objective. You've made up your mind that Western media is the cats meow but you could try articulating it without the cats claw.

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

A very good description of the media I am talking about. Of course for people like you and Timebandit it seems the Cold War has never ended and therefore anything from Russia is to be considered dishonest and anything from our state media is honest.

I'll leave the personal slur to the person it was directed at.

We're talking about RT. Not "anything from Russia".

For instance, their being sanctioned because of outright lies:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/21/rt-sanctioned-over-series-...

 

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Um, no, it's not about the Cold War. It's that Russia of the 21st century has a journalism problem. Journalists who come up with scoops that are not Kremlin approved keep calling in dead to work. As for me, I've never made a claim to being unbiased, but I do work very hard at being open to information that conflicts with my worldview. I've started making a doc with one trajectory in mind and found the story was different on the ground and changed it accordingly. I certainly try. And so, for the most part, do the major media outlets, including CBC. Since you've nothing of more substance than LMAO, I guess I'll maintain my opinion on your position on CBC. Although I'm happy to change my mind if you've got something besides nasty insinuations.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It seems that RT is in good company when it is being sanctioned by Ofcom. I didn't see the piece in question but I would have discounted the idea that the BBC was fabricating the news. However the BBC and CBC regularily still report that the Syrian government gassed its citizens and I don't believe that either. 

Quote:

The BBC has screened ‘propaganda films’ funded by foreign governments in a blatant breach of broadcast rules, an Ofcom investigation found.

The broadcaster has shown dozens of programmes designed to promote charities, NGOs and governments in what the regulator described as an ‘inherent risk to [the BBC’s] independence and integrity’.

The Ofcom probe revealed the BBC had bought the ‘sponsored’ films for as little as £1 from public relations companies.

Officials found 20 breaches of sponsorship rules by BBC World News, the broadcaster’s 24-hour news channel that is shown across the world.

http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2015/08/18/propaganda-and-sponsorship-on-the-i...

Quote:

Here are alphabetical lists of new investigations launched between 15 August and 4 September 2016

Investigations launched under the Procedures for investigating breaches of content standards for television and radio

Programme

Broadcaster

Transmission date

Crimewatch Roadshow

BBC 1

30 June 2016

Dance Anthems

BBC Radio 1

6 August 2016

Geo World News

Geo TV

28 July 2016

Madhubala - Ek Ishq Ek Junoon

Rishtey Europe

6 August 2016

Keiser Report

RT

21 July 2016

It Takes Two

Safeer TV

7 August 2016

D-Live 1984 Shaheedi Smagam

Sikh Channel

7 June 2016

For more information about how Ofcom assesses complaints and conducts investigations about content standards on television and radio programmes, go to: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/procedures/standards/

Investigations launched under the Procedures for the consideration and adjudication of Fairness and Privacy complaints

Programme

Broadcaster

Transmission date

Dispatches Undercover: Inside Britain’s Children’s Services

Channel 4

26 May 2016

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/investigations/

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

To reiterate, this is how I approach what people tell me including news outlets. I guess I should just lower my standards since you think they are too high. Maybe I should just believe everything you say since your life experience is obviously more important than my lived experience.

In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Right. But you dismiss far too much without weighing it, then castigate CBC for not agreeing with you. You're not nearly as even-handed as you think you are.

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. 

 I thought the test of the truth was whether they told the truth.

Well no, it's not a civil suit. Besides, if it was just a popularity contest FOXNews would be the most trustworthy network in the U.S., no?

Sometimes - like the case of that RT ruling - it is a question of whether they told the truth, or whether they gave the BBC the opportunity to tell their side of the story before they ran with it. They did not. 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. 

 I thought the test of the truth was whether they told the truth.

The test is to help figure out whether or not a person is telling the truth.  It's not like you can tell whether a presenter is lying by their demeanour, especially when they are hired to present something on TV. The test is set out this way because good liars can fool people, so one needs to look at the whole story in its context to determine the veracity of the claims in the story. 

6079_Smith_W

Well whatever you claim you can tell from looking at a presenter, it is irrelevant, because in this case RT lied.

They. Lied.

Even though they weren't held to account for their accusations of fakery because the program was technically not a news show, they said there was a "massive investigation" into the BBC when nothing of the sort happened. They did not give the BBC any opportunity to respond to the allegations. In doing so they broke broadcast standards and were obliged to run statements on air detailing how they were misleading and not impartial in their coverage.

Just one example of many.

 

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Here's the evil RT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqNORDhdm0Y

I don't get it. If RT is a propaganda machine,what does that make Rabble?

6079_Smith_W

That's because RT viewers are so much more sophisticated than FOXNews watchers, and aren't just fooled by footage of firefighters saving stranded dogs, and reruns of The Simpsons.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Stephen Colbert is a better and more competent journalist than Matt Lauer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3GDVqcg2mc

It's funny that comedians tell you like it is and 'journalists' tell jokes (really bad ones at that)

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Here's the evil RT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqNORDhdm0Y

I don't get it. If RT is a propaganda machine,what does that make Rabble?

Rabble doesn't get it's talking points from the PMO, even though it has its own inherent bias.

RT is a sophisticated machine - larded with enough non-propaganda entertainment to give it a sheen of legitimacy. Much like the paid Russian internet trolls, if you've read about them.

6079_Smith_W

Plus it initially started out as a lightweight conspiracy site, designed to promote Russian culture and news. It is only in recent years that they got pressed into use as a disinformation and propaganda organ.

Of course maybe that was just practice for this Clinton piece from about a year ago:

"Not only do they have an illuminati logo, they also have backers who speak Hebrew"

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/194211/russia-today-airs-bizarre-anti-se...

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Timebandit wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Here's the evil RT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqNORDhdm0Y

I don't get it. If RT is a propaganda machine,what does that make Rabble?

Rabble doesn't get it's talking points from the PMO, even though it has its own inherent bias.

RT is a sophisticated machine - larded with enough non-propaganda entertainment to give it a sheen of legitimacy. Much like the paid Russian internet trolls, if you've read about them.

I will agree with you 100% that RT is biased. But I've watched Faux,I've read other conservative biased media but RT(America) is leagues and leagues more factual than the media's right wing talking heads.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

In parts, yes, and by design. But they get their marching orders from the Kremlin, and that is an important difference. Sometimes those marching orders have some factual content, and sometimes it's fact-free.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Well,the link I shared from RT,The Big Picture,is a program I enjoy. It's biased but can you find anything fact free in the link I provided?

If they were bald faced lying,they certainly fooled me.

6079_Smith_W

Maybe my point at #114 - that those are their version of puppy in peril stories the much smarter crowd that watches RT - got missed.That way you can hold it up and say see, they tell the truth, and they are even right on progressive issues.

Never mind that it is also being covered in the mainstream media:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/former-presidential-c...

The fact RT might run some stories sort of straight doesn't mean that they don't also run things like I just posted

Plus, that was an hour-long show. And it was larded with spin throughout, just as FOX is.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Timebandit wrote:

In parts, yes, and by design. But they get their marching orders from the Kremlin, and that is an important difference. Sometimes those marching orders have some factual content, and sometimes it's fact-free.

I agree with this, but I also think that the north american media, including the CBC, has a culture which excludes all opinions beyond a narrow range of acceptable positions. If you insist on believing and stating out loud various true facts, you will not get a job as a journalist for a reputable north american media company, including the CBC. Such things are just not to be said, preferably not even thought, but if you're willing to fake belief in the accepted wisdom, that's OK.

For example:

  1. The U.S. has been the greatest source of state terrorism since the second world war.
  2. The U.S. has never had any intention of spreading democracy, but rather the opposite, since free people in other countries are much less likely to go along with its wishes than wealthy authoritarians.
  3. All U.S. presidents since world war 2 have committed actions which could support convictions of war crimes, if such prosecutions were possible.

Chomsky, among others, has provided strong evidence for these and many other true statements which you will never hear a journalist in north america say, because they probably believe the offical story, and if they don't, they know perfectly well that their professional standing is at stake.

It is more subtle than the heavy handed Soviet/Russian approach, but probably more effective as well.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

OK. I'll see things your way. But my opinion is that RT is far more truthful than Fox,Breitbart,InfoWars,Drudge and all the other right wing biased media.

That alone makes me far more informed than an Alex Jones/Hannity/Beck/O'Reilly/Limbaugh listener. That's the method of right wing media. Lie and lie and lie again until that lie becomes public opinion.

I think the CBC is relatively unbiased. But all media networks have some sort of bias. That's why you need to read and watch many different sources. If you have half a brain,you realize the truth.

Unfortunately,those living in the right wing bubble have no brain to realize anything.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well whatever you claim you can tell from looking at a presenter, it is irrelevant, because in this case RT lied.

I actually am claiming that you can't tell a damn thing. The whole concept is based on the fact that you can't tell a fucking thing from looking at the presenter the only way is by testing the story against reality.

Its hard somedays to figure out whether you can't read very well for content or that you deliberately misrepresent what other people post.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

In parts, yes, and by design. But they get their marching orders from the Kremlin, and that is an important difference. Sometimes those marching orders have some factual content, and sometimes it's fact-free.

I agree with this, but I also think that the north american media, including the CBC, has a culture which excludes all opinions beyond a narrow range of acceptable positions. If you insist on believing and stating out loud various true facts, you will not get a job as a journalist for a reputable north american media company, including the CBC. Such things are just not to be said, preferably not even thought, but if you're willing to fake belief in the accepted wisdom, that's OK.

For example:

  1. The U.S. has been the greatest source of state terrorism since the second world war.
  2. The U.S. has never had any intention of spreading democracy, but rather the opposite, since free people in other countries are much less likely to go along with its wishes than wealthy authoritarians.
  3. All U.S. presidents since world war 2 have committed actions which could support convictions of war crimes, if such prosecutions were possible.

Chomsky, among others, has provided strong evidence for these and many other true statements which you will never hear a journalist in north america say, because they probably believe the offical story, and if they don't, they know perfectly well that their professional standing is at stake.

It is more subtle than the heavy handed Soviet/Russian approach, but probably more effective as well.

Thx Michael that was well expressed and in fact states my views better than I have been able to articulate them so far in this thread. The CBC for me is like the NDP. Because I believe in their ideals I hold them to a higher standard than the lying Liberals or in the case of the CBC, RT. I think that Western media is far better at manufacturing consent for their oligarchies than any foreign state media and thus accepting them as unbiased is to fall for their style of propaganda hook line and sinker.

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well whatever you claim you can tell from looking at a presenter, it is irrelevant, because in this case RT lied.

I actually am claiming that you can't tell a damn thing. The whole concept is based on the fact that you can't tell a fucking thing from looking at the presenter the only way is by testing the story against reality.

Its hard somedays to figure out whether you can't read very well for content or that you deliberately misrepresent what other people post.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? My initial point was that they lied, and did not allow a response from the BBC, and that is what the investigation found so this talk about appearance and what reasonable people feel is true is irrelevant.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? My initial point was that they lied, and did not allow a response from the BBC, and that is what the investigation found so this talk about appearance and what reasonable people feel is true is irrelevant.

There you go again. Just go ahead and sidle away while trying to deflect from the actual posts.  I brought up my approach to testing the truth of soneones statement in response to Timebandit. So I haven't a fucking clue what you mean by your "initial point". Is this maybe the one?

Quote:

On the subject of discrimination (as opposed to grievances against the state of Israel) I agree that antisemitism (like many other forms of discrimination) is sometimes a baseless charge made to obstruct. I have had "antisemite" used against me a few times, most recently when I pointed out that there is virtually no archaeological evidence that the bondage in Egypt ever happened.

All the more reason to never dismiss a claim outright. If someone's claim is BS all you have to do is calmly say why. Just calling it "bad timing" is tempting, but it is not good enough.

It doesn't help us at all if someone resorts to discrimination or bends the truth to support a good cause, nor does it help to conveniently sidestep calling someone on REAL bad behaviour. If someone calls me on something and there is something to it, he or she is doing me a favour, even if we are on opposing sides of an issue. I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable having my work built on lies and misunderstanding.

This is especially true in cases which are complicated or involve heated emotions, such as the blockade, the storming of the convoy, or Helen Thomas's comments and their consequences.

Yes it is annoying to have to do things properly sometimes. But if we don't do that hard work we risk becoming the very thing we oppose.

http://rabble.ca/babble/anti-racism-news-and-initiatives/discussing-anti...

 

6079_Smith_W

Oookay. Not sure what you are on about there in digging up a six-year-old comment (which I still agree with, and which actually is congruent with what I am saying here), but here is what I am refering to:

The actual post which started this tangent was Timebandit pointing out that the CBC has a set of standards which she has to work within. Doesn't matter whether she likes working for them, or likes their coverage. They have rules they have to follow.

None of us is saying there isn't bias in the media, but in the cases of some, RT in particular, it goes beyond bias and manipulation to outright lies and imbalance which is in breach of the rules.

My point is that RT has on many occasion been found guilty of breaking broadcast standards.

So whatever you are on about regarding how things appear, or bias, it something a bit more hard than that when media publish outright lies.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

And my point is that despite their standards they are still biased. The RCMP have great standards on paper but does that mean I should believe they are following them. The Thunderbay police service probably has gret policy on dealing with aboriginal women but should I accept that at face value. There are many people who would tell me I should but frankly I prefer to base my judgements on organizations on their actions not their words.

bekayne

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/stop-trump-stop-clinton-stop-the-...

Trump: The Fascist “Anti-Imperialist”

In the unending search for the most imbecilic political logic, one comes across that rare breed of obtuse ignoramus who suggests that Trump is the anti-imperialist’s choice.  If that word has any meaning left today – something that is very much open for debate given recent developments – its application to Donald Trump is about as appropriate as referring to Clinton as the anti-fascist’s choice.

Trump doesn’t mean no more imperial wars; he simply means no more pretending our wars aren’t imperial.  He’s not for ending the wars, but rather fighting them with the nakedly neo-colonial intentions made overt that Clinton would only secretly share over candlelit dinners with Huma Abedin, Madeleine Albright, and Mephistopheles.  With people like Walid Phares, Michael Flynn, and Keith Kellogg as advisers, Trump will retain a pro-Israel imperial policy in the Middle East while advocating for NATO’s expanded mission of counter-terrorism.  Oh, excuse me, Trump wants Denmark to pay “it’s fair share” of NATO costs – pardon me while I release to the heavens a flight of doves in his honor.

What anti-imperialist isn’t enamored with a candidate who calls for a full military invasion of Syria and Iraq? And, of course, there’s no connection whatever between imperialism, colonialism and white supremacy, right?  Trump can spout the most virulently racist filth heard in US politics since George Wallace and Barry Goldwater went on a Tinder date to the Old Ebbitt Grill, and yet these anti-imperial mannequins swear up and down that Trump is an enemy of the Empire.  Even his complimentary reach-around to Bibi Netanyahuisn’t enough to shake the cobwebs from the faux anti-imperial noodleheads of the commentariat. Sigh.

 

Pages