Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1085
Reputation: 116
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:51 pm    Post subject: Is this SOP for Canadian Media? Reply with quote

I sure hope not. In fact I find this pretty loathsome.
Quote:
Document sets out strategy for "exposing the Liberal record during the campaign and advocating for change"
http://www.canadalandshow.com/.....ion-plans/
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5701
Reputation: 282
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you think it's any different at any of the other mainstream media these days?

Every significant news topic has a 'narrative' which forces events into a larger narrative arc, and that larger narrative arc is propaganda. Most of the time. A lot of the published accounts are fished out of the day's events simply because they'further' the narrative.

It's where we're at.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8052
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it standard operating procedure for media in this country?
My initial thought is of course it is.

If I had stated that in August of last year that the Sun would endorse the Ontario PC Party and the Star would endorse whoever had the better chance between the NDP and Liberals I don't think anyone would have batted an eye.

Had they run editorials endlessly praising their preferred candidates and discounting the other party we wouldnt have thought twice about it.

The only thing that surprises me is that it took this long to actually find hard evidence that what we suspected existed.


Last edited by cosmostein on Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5701
Reputation: 282
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This has serious implications for political discussion into the future. Good for TC for bringing it up. I just wish he had a capacity for analysis so he could outline what he sees as objectionable from a millennial point of view.

We live in a time when the population is being divided up/is dividing itself up into what are popularly called "bubbles". It used to be that ordinary Conservatives and Liberals could accept each other and still play golf. As you go down the age grades, this is less and less the case.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....6-83873765

While it's true that these forces are strongest on the left, the right does it as well.

Part of this picture (in the USA) is that your news source is a "trigger". In an age-group and class where "punching a Nazi" is OK -- at least as rhetoric -- letting people know you watch Fox News can get someone ostracized.

In Canada, it's not as bad, and worse at the same time. In the US, they at least have two 'narratives' contending. In Canada, it's all "government news". Even so, anyone citing Ezra Levant makes himself a target for abuse. Usually from people who take pride in knowing nothing about Ezra Levant. It's weird.

My feeling is that the 'bubbles' are things we have to contend with, things that pollute our ability to actually understand our situation in a political world. After all, if you are going to have anything approaching a real democracy, Truth has a role.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1085
Reputation: 116
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
Is it standard operating procedure for media in this country?
My initial thought is of course it is.

I didnt think so nor did I think it necessary. I put stock in the idea that reporters are independant thinkers and able to discern the truth contrary to any bias they may have.

For instance , a sports reporter may have home town bias but should report that his home town team got blown out by another.
Quote:



If I had stated that in August of last year that the Sun would endorse the Ontario PC Party and the Star would endorse whoever had the better chance between the NDP and Liberals I don't think anyone would have batted an eye.
True dat.
Quote:

The only thing that surprises me is that it took this long to actually find hard evidence that what we suspected existed.

I never suspected that , in print form anyway, that media outlets would spell it out like this.
Call me naive but thats what I thought.

Now this is not to say media outlets and their staff are ....persuaded per se ....to report along some company line but I would have thought they were alllowed to report the facts as the facts lay.
This memo seems not to be the case.

Of course there is plenty...which isnt a strong enough word for Wynnes handling of the Province...to report about but some of those facts are clearly debatable if not bordering on hubris.

If we go through the major media outlets of this country we know a slant can be discerned.
The Start to the left , although they too hammer Wynne , the Sun to the right.
The others seems free of this disease being more general in their political makeup. The Nat'l Post, Globe and Mail , the major TV networks.
The outliers are just that for a reason. Rebel et al all have pervasive BS reporting which at times has no scintilla of truth attached. They grasp on stories the others dont spend much time with for various (honourable ) reasons and present said stories leading w "see what the other media wont report".....and then they report . It appears the news is no one is talking about it , not the worthiness of that news itself.

Honestly I am surprised at this. I imagine the Sun doesnt like this being out there.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8052
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:

I didn't think so nor did I think it necessary. I put stock in the idea that reporters are independent thinkers and able to discern the truth contrary to any bias they may have.


To quote visionary attorney Lionel Hutz;
"There is the Truth *shakes head* then there is the Truth!! *nods head"

I am a firm believer that most stories about a political situation can be told in their entirety in several thousand words, however given the space or time constraints journalists have you need to cram that into a much smaller allocation.

With reporting on certain parts or focusing on certain parts and reducing and omitting others you can report on a story in any which way you want all while being entirely truthful (all be it selectively).

Being honest and having a bias are two things that are not mutually exclusive, they can occur at the exact same time especially in something as nebulous as political perspective.

Toronto Centre wrote:

I never suspected that , in print form anyway, that media outlets would spell it out like this. Call me naive but thats what I thought.


To the extent I can't really comment because I really hadn't thought so deeply on the issue,

However during an election period too many talking points amongst various reporting by different journalists seemed to be in perfect alignment much of the time.

Granted there was always the decenter withing the organization, but during most elections I would find that Star articles were largely in line as were Sun articles.

All this did was lend some creditably to the fact that it was not synchronicity after all.

Toronto Centre wrote:

Now this is not to say media outlets and their staff are ....persuaded per se ....to report along some company line but I would have thought they were allowed to report the facts as the facts lay.
This memo seems not to be the case.

Of course there is plenty...which isnt a strong enough word for Wynnes handling of the Province...to report about but some of those facts are clearly debatable if not bordering on hubris.


I don't disagree that facts should be reported as facts lay;
However its more complicated because "facts" in politics and pertaining to nearly any aspect of governance isn't exactly static.

Is there a singular political issue that two people on opposite ends of the spectrum could review the evidence on and secure the same conclusion?

Then we move onto the Economy;
That is the beauty of Economics being a social science and not a real science;
Facts being debatable are the backbone of modern day Economics.

I agree with you entirely that this being brought to light is embarrassing for the Sun;
However, I tend to think that the common message be it formalize or simply mentioned in the context of an informal understanding is far more common than we like to think it is during elections.

The very concept of an "endorsement" by a media agency is already an admission of a bias so why be surprised at the formality of it internally?

Let me clear on this one point though;
Shame on the Sun for having these sorts of marching orders;

If ever there was more of an endorsement to get your news for multiple places and do your research on the facts presented I would love to see it.


Last edited by cosmostein on Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:35 pm; edited 2 times in total
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5701
Reputation: 282
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those of us who are less naive understand that this is not an accident. It came in with something called "the new journalism" -- and people like Truman Capote, Gay Talese, and Tom Wolfe. But those guys were novelists and playwrights, not "check the facts" journalists. They recreated things from real life, rather than imagining characters and plots.

Journalism schools now teach that reporters should put their "stories" into a "narrative" which means, at a minimum, there is a good guy and a bad guy. Ideally, each story is like a tile in a mosaic, and they all contribute to a larger picture -- for example, the editors painted a mosaic of Stephen Harper as a cold miserable bastard nobody likes, and whose mission was to destroy the environment so his rich buddies will add to the pile of ill-gotten gains and abuse women.

The editors create the mosaic, and the 'reporters' create the tiles.

Following with the same example, ask yourself -- why did the public get rid of the Harper government? Harper is probably a reclusive individual, quite scholarly and introspective. And with a bit of democratic idealism in him. Why, exactly, did the public come to feel the way they did about him? If it was anything he did, please identify it. I think he was a senstive intelligent educated technocrat who managed to avoid an economic crisis. He had faults, but in the end, the images in the media -- pure fiction -- brought him down. Or so it seems to me.

His active opponents believed he was an actual threat to democracy! Why? On what evidence? (I am not trying to resurrect Harper, I am using his case as an example.) They did the same thing to Joe Clark, except his problem was competence. Stanfield, as well. (The premier cartoonist of the day always portrayed Clark with 'idiot strings' holding his mittens, bumbling about, losing his luggage.) They created a factless narrative about all of these men.

They created another more positive narrative, about how Pierre Trudeau was saving the country from splitting apart ... another load ... So, at the time, people had a choice between someone saving the country and a dweeb whose wife still used her maiden name.

Understand, I am talking about the narratives of the day, and how we can now see how phony they were. I am not endorsing either of them. They're both bunk. But it's how the bias works. Against that backdrop, Joe Clark having a good day in Parliament seems to be the exception that proves the rule.

As TC so often reminds us, half the population has a two-digit IQ. Narrative journalism isn't the whole story. There is the transition of media being the property of proud families to being parts of huge corporate empires. It means there is only one narrative out there.

But the point is that it works best on that part of the population that is so trusting and naive that they don't notice, they think if they read it in the Globe, it's true. It isn't just the low-information voters -- it's the trusting middle class as well.

You amp it up with "government education" that certifies false dogmas as "Truth", and sets up these 'narratives'. Right now, the 'narrative' being constructed is that white males cause all the problems in the world, and if they weren't around screwing everything up, the world would resume its normal shape as the embodiment of Peace, good government, and a just order economically!

(And that's most believed most by the three-digit Canadians! Do I have to say Kumbayah?)

How do we sift through all this crap to get to the pony? That's the question. For real!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Is this SOP for Canadian Media?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB