Right-wing ideological capture of Canadian Media

67 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2010-11-26 13:59

kropotkin1951

I want to hear Stevie boy being asked if he is a Christian or a Canadian first. Or how about Doris Day will he put country before his religion?

I hate the CBC these days it is so up the ass of the government and its Islamiphobic mime.

Sat, 2010-11-27 04:05

#53

thorin_bane

Franics is another one of our media elite that grew up american and has never let go. Like Tom Flannigan. If you love the states so much then go home. Don't change my country into that failure of capitalism. This isn't a slight at all americans. Many would gladly take up our healthcare which they thought they were getting with obama. Really hate francis, is her son that guy on HotStove on hockey night in canada Erik Francis- someone on a hockey forum said his mom was in the media.

clandestiny stock up on the meds because it will only get worse with fox news north. I know I will be seeking blood pressure meds because the lies coming will be easily debunked, but will make its way into the public conscious...it has happened enough already with sun CTV etc. In a June 2007 NEWSWEEK poll, four years after the invasion of Iraq, 41 precent of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11—even though President Bush had said otherwise as early as September 2003 (and apparently so does ms francis in that false scenario of the mastermind of iraq to get himself killed on purpose WTR to WMDs)

Sun, 2010-11-28 14:11

#54

clandestiny

i'm thinking of making a sandwich board wearable sign and going to Front Steet CBC HQ and patrolling around with " 'Free the publicly funded CBC from covert control by rightwing corporate thuggees and expose the Hitler nazi WW2 victory on Sept11/01 by the fascasti liars who are now running world into the ground! Truth would cost them their lives as traitors and thieves, so they make up lies as times passes until eventually it will be too late!' " ... Hahaha

Obviously, this 60 year old 'admirer of the counter-culture failed hippy idea/movement' aint gonna do anything as brash, stupid and useless (the news will report that 'a commie activist/troublemaker?' was bothering busy passers-by and had to be tasered to prevent injury to law enforcement personel, and to himself- though society shouldn't care about damn troublemakers who cause trouble in first place, so much!)

if i liked Canada even a little bit, i might do something like this, but...listening to hate radio, i think it best god pulls the plug

Fri, 2010-12-03 13:12

#55

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

This from the interim report on bias at the CBC:

The perception that the CBC serves as a taxpayer-subsidized soapbox for the Harper Conservatives is well founded.

Fri, 2010-12-03 13:40

#56

remind

So much for CTV Edmonton's claim they serve no "interests".

Perhaps they should be reported for false advertising?

Fri, 2010-12-03 14:28

#57

George Victor

However, like Ian Morrison of Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, I find this a damned disturbing prospect. I don't "do" television, and CBC Radio One this morning, like yesterday, has given much play to opposition comments and to exposure of the government position in Afghanistan and at home, on the Chief Blair front (his comment that the video from G20 on the police beating of Nobody was edited...a comment made on CBC Radio One....

I hope that this is not necessarily true: " anecdotal evidence is not allowed in the new digital corpocracy." And I'm not about to join in the "oh well" chorus.

Anyway, I think that this would be a disgusting outcome :

"Stephen Harper's secret plan for the CBC was revealed on November 23rd when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage mused publicly about killing our public broadcaster!

Dean Del Mastro floated an extremely dangerous trial balloon at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meeting by asking whether the government should "get out of the broadcasting business". As shocking as it may seem, a senior member of the Conservative caucus blurted out that the government is considering cutting ALL funding to the CBC! You can listen to his comments for yourself here.

As you know, Harper exercises absolute control of his government's messaging. None of his Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries or MPs speak out without prior approval from the Prime Minister's Office. That's why Mr. Del Mastro's comments about cutting the CBC's entire grant are so sinister.

Consider for a moment: cutting CBC's grant would kill CBC Radio One, CBC Radio Two, CBC Television and CBC NewsNet, leaving Canadian broadcasting entirely in the hands of the private broadcasters, and in the case of television, private broadcasters controlled by cable monopolies!"

I am writing with an urgent appeal for your help to stop Stephen Harper from implementing his long-held, but until now hidden agenda to eliminate the CBC.

Sun, 2010-12-05 18:13

#58

thorin_bane

http://www.erinresearch.com/images/cbc.pdf

In 2004, the Liberals lead throughout the campaign and received
the largest amount of speaking time. In 2006, the Liberals were in
power going into the campaign and lead until the final week.
Then, the Conservatives shot ahead in the polls and in that final
week received the largest share of interview time. Overall, Liberals
had an advantage in interview time, but only a small one.
In 2008 the Conservatives lead in the polls throughout the
campaign and the figures for interview time reflect this.
In each recent campaign, the CBC invited leaders of the major
national parties to appear in feature interviews on Sunday Night
and/or The National, though not all parties took full advantage of
these opportunities. The Green Party had feature interviews in
2006 and 2008 but not in 2004.

Mon, 2011-01-17 10:43

#59

NDPP

CRTC May Ease Ban On Broadcasting False or Misleading News

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/922697--crtc-may-ease-ban-on-...

"The CRTC is proposing a regulatory change that would give Canadian TV and radio stations more leeway to broadcast false or misleading news. Current regulations contain a blanket prohibition on broadcasting 'any false or misleading news'"

If the existing policy was enforced, virtually all the MSM would be up on charges

Mon, 2011-01-17 16:01

#60

Sean in Ottawa

While the law is not enforced the way it should be, broadcasters tend to keep their back foot on the line they have crossed-- the removal of that line means things will indeed get worse.

Will be especially interesting if they manage to both get rid of the CBC and any obligation to tell the truth for anyone else.

This will end the "chill" on lying-- sure they already do it but they won't have to be careful about it anymore.

Mon, 2011-01-17 16:11

#61

NDPP

Harper still retain Ari Fleischer as media advisor to the PMO?

Mon, 2011-01-17 17:03

#62

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
The committee feared the sweeping ban on false and misleading news was too broad and vague and wouldn't withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights. Its concerns were based on a number of court rulings at the time involving freedom of speech.

For the same reason, the committee urged - and the CRTC is now also proposing - to narrow the scope of the current sweeping ban on programming that contains "obscene or profane language."

Aha!

Now the absurd ruling on the 25-year-old Dire Straits tune starts to make sense - as a little piece of theatre meant to set up for this draconian rejection of any regulation on right-wing propaganda in this country.

Tue, 2011-01-18 02:34

#63

nskinskinski

Forgive my impudence, but I would hate for anyone to miss Sean in Ottawa's eloquent, impassioned consideration of the implications of the proposed change (to be found on a thread I started, which may drift). I belatedly realized my post would have been more appropriately placed in this thread, apologies.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

@Contrarianna-- I think the difference is not whether you get prosecuted for getting it wrong-- it is about having a duty of care. What is missing from this is the duty to make a reasonable effort that what you say is true.

Years ago, I published books and this was a responsibility-- you know where the line is. At times depending on the story you cannot go with it unless you can be certain it is true; at other times, when it is less damaging the standard is a little less than that but you still have to put effort in to verify and if you can't, well the story does not go anywhere. The bottom line standard is a reasonable effort to know that it is true and that is proportional to what the story is, who might get hurt etc. It is absurd in today's technologically advanced communications world that it would be harder to verify stories today than it was decades ago. This is not a practical change -- this is a moral one.

All that responsibility is being removed with a new standard that so long as the physical health of somebody is not hurt you can lie through your teeth or you can just not investigate even when you know you can and should. And when you are purposefully lying, it becomes more difficult for anyone to prove.

People are not acknowledging here the real nature of the situation -- we are not talking about old-style news agencies at arms length of their owners trying to get a story right. We are talking about conflicts of interest as today's news agencies are highly integrated in many other businesses and have more interests than sales of their news product. A broadcaster connected to a telephone company for example can rush to air a story about their competition; or a story that suits their political views about the opposition. To catch them in the lie the burden of proof would be one that includes intent rather than result-- this is a much more difficult standard to prove.

I'll be even more direct about what this is. This is about the legal removal of regulated ethics in practice-- Agreed it was a dirty business but it is getting dirtier. The new standard is a fraud as it offers nothing in law at all. If you eliminated the standard altogether then you would have the same effect as keeping this pale imitation of a standard. That is because all that is offered with this new standard is what already exists in Tort law-- basic liability for actual physical, measurable damage. This is a wholesale surrender of any notion of ethics, justice, truth and fairness from the rules relating to what you can say on the air. All that is left is the minimum liability for direct damages but none for lying. There is no responsibility, duty of care, need to be truthful. There remains a need to consider the parties who would be hurt in a liable case but not understood contract with the public to be honest-- at least to some degree.

This is an extremely important step in the reversal of what is left of Canadian democracy. We are getting close to being able to declare that this is no longer an erosion of democracy but a wholesale collapse. The cumulative effect of the changes of the last 5 years is truly astonishing. The Canada of today would not be recognized if someone from the 1970s were brought directly to this date.

I feel some nostalgia for the ideals that used to exist here-- they did not always prevail but they put up a good fight. This is a rout of justice and honesty and truth. After this, anything can happen and in some cases we won't even know it because they won't have to tell us the truth. No doubt we can cue the Orwell quotes any time now.

Amendment and electronic form for objections are here, deadline Feb 9th.

Thu, 2013-03-21 20:57

#64

knownothing knownothing's picture

Chomsky vs Canadian Journalists (1988)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB3oMWlwIoU

Wed, 2013-06-12 12:30

#65

NDPP

Canada Drops on World Press Freedom Index (and vid)

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/06/12/308590/canada-drops-on-world-pr...

"Freedom of the Press is on the decline in Canada. This according to Reporters Without Borders 2013 World Press Freedom index. Canada, which used to occupy a top-ten position for press freedom plummeted to 20th place in this year's report."