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      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Bias?
yes
60%
 60%  [ 3 ]
no, just crappy writing.
40%
 40%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 5

Author Message
Albertan Technophile





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Reputation: 14.2
Location: guess :)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Those mean old conservatives, CTV's bias Reply with quote

Posted this today in my blog.
What a strange way to put it... Read the last sentence on the quoted text from a CTV article on two Womans groups getting funding. Theres something fishy going on.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti.....b=Politics
Board member Alison Dewar said the association was relieved to find the government thought they were still worthy of funding. The association has been getting government cash for decades in its efforts to educate women on legal issues and to support key court cases.

Dewar said it will receive $290,000 for a year's worth of funding, rather than $350,000 for 18 months as it did last year.

That sounds like they're getting shafted, doesn't it? At least until you do the math.

$290,000 for 12 months is (290,000 / 12) $24166.66 per month.

$350,000 for 18 months is (350,000 / 18) $19444.44 per month.

The funding levels went up. But why did the journalist write the sentence in such a confusing way? Look two sentences above the bolded text.

Board member Alison Dewar said the association was relieved to find the government thought they were still worthy of funding

And that my friend is a classic example of the fiction writers tool, foreshadowing. Foreshadowing is used to get the reader into the right mindset for the next event to be more emotionally effective. Creaking floor boards before the slasher attacks, eyes like limpid pools before the love scene, etcetera, etcetera.

In this biased piece the “author” is setting up the reader to believe the worst out of a purposely ambiguous sentence.

Not very subtle if this gimpy old fart can figure it out.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So... if they were getting funding before and they're getting funding now... what's the point of the story?

-Mac
Albertan Technophile





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Reputation: 14.2
Location: guess :)

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Point is that the journalist used a tricky sentance to make a rise in funding look like a cut.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, my rather cynical sense of humour doesn't translate well in written text.

-Mac
Albertan Technophile





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Reputation: 14.2
Location: guess :)

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hahaha! No prob.
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 can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Those mean old conservatives, CTV's bias

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB