Its all Greek to Quebec

[dogger1936]

I find the sun newspapers good and had a subscription in Ottawa; however the broadcast version horrible. It's a little too angry and over the top for me. Ezra Levant’s "The Source"... I'm not sure if it's him or the way he talks but I can't watch it.

 

[aesop081]

I read the Ottawa Sun every day.

No drag marks on my knuckles.

 

[dogger1936]

Ezra Levant was a lawyer...maybe that's what throws me off!

 

[Redeye]

I normally enjoy the interesting back and forth from our left/right wing perspectives here but I have to reply to this one.  What a complete crock of you know what.  You are making a large assumption and casting those of us with right leaning views as a bunch of low brow, low intelligence neanderthals.  How do you assume that just because our views don't agree with yours we wouldn't bother to do do the research to reach an informed point of view?

You know what's really disturbing?  That you ascribe to us the attitudes that you display.

NorthAlbertan

Actually, I didn't. There's intelligence on the right. I don't get their arguments but they can present them. The National Post frequently presents a reasoned conservative viewpoint, and the Globe does too, part that whole "grey" thing. Neither Fox nor the Sun are reasonable journalistic sources, neither is Instapundit, PJ Media, or various other right outlets. But similarly on the left there's plenty of nonsense, but they don't have anywhere near the money behind them. It's that simple. They don't have television networks with anywhere near the presence. And no, CNN and even MSNBC don't count. Both of them are at best in the centre, maybe MSNBC slightly left of centre, but balanced out with some right leaning pundits (which annoy the lefties to no end, it appears!)

The Sun newspaper is written to be somewhat lowbrow in the sense that it's written to a relatively low reading level, but does have some decent writers, but it's more the television media I have a particular issue with - people who mistake opinion for fact in particular.

There are very few people on this site, since most of you even those with whom I don't agree, that I would aggregate into the group that disturbs me. The fact that those people engage in discourse at all makes clear that they're above that.

To that point - there's been a lot of effort to try to spin opposition to a bunch of issues emergent in Quebec into one mass, which is great for the media, but doesn't really serve anyone, I think that's where we got into this from, isn't it? That said, it does seem like they're now trying to represent that not all student groups are monolithic, nor that they're all protesting the same thing. While the issue in Quebec started with protests over tuition for which I have little sympathy given the fact that they're still receiving the most subsidized tuition in the country, the response of Loi 78 and what that touched off I have a lot more interest in, especially since it seemed to get even more attention. All of it muddies any real discussion of issues, but it's clear that there are things to be concerned about therein for a lot of the population.

 

[Sythen]

Both of them are at best in the centre, maybe MSNBC slightly left of centre, but balanced out with some right leaning pundits (which annoy the lefties to no end, it appears!)

Where's that gif I believe Technoviking used in response to your posts with the guy burning his computer? Redeye, you are an intelligent person, so I can't tell if you're trolling or if its just observer bias. Either way , you're wrong. MSNBC is as much in the center as you are. CNN is 100% tabloid and far left opinion pieces. Everyone on the right, it seems, can admit they are right leaning. Why is it so difficult for the left?

 

[Redeye]

Where's that gif I believe Technoviking used in response to your posts with the guy burning his computer? Redeye, you are an intelligent person, so I can't tell if you're trolling or if its just observer bias. Either way , you're wrong. MSNBC is as much in the center as you are. CNN is 100% tabloid and far left opinion pieces. Everyone on the right, it seems, can admit they are right leaning. Why is it so difficult for the left?

MSNBC has some great left leaning (at least by American standards) people, mostly their evening lineup. They also have guys like Joe Scarborough who are much more to the right. I'll happily say that I didn't like that they were giving air time to the likes of Pat Buchanan in part because it was great for them to have an extremist knob to caricature the right. CNN 100% tabloid? Hardly, though there's a bit of that, more lately (Piers Morgan, anyone?!), and I don't really like CNN much anymore - well, I do like CNN International because some of their personalities are great. But they also have excellent, real journalists working for them like Christiane Amanpour. Those real journalists are becoming rarer because hack tabloidism (ie Fox, Sun News, etc) is the direction the industry is going, so you have to look to other sources like the BBC. Even Al Jazeera's English service for a lot of global issues is great - it's interesting that there's something of a contrast between what their Arabic service reports, which is somewhat slanted to a pro-Arab view, and the English service which has less of an editorial slant (and, I was interested to see lately, was heavily critical of the Qatari government's response to a fire in a mall that killed several children - when AJE is owned by them).

As for why "it" is difficult for the "left", I don't know what you mean. Most people on the left I know have no problem asserting their POVs. I don't particularly like any labels myself because I don't fit any. I've no problem saying I'm pretty strongly socially liberal because most things are none of the government's business, but I don't associate with the "right" because I similarly don't think that the government's job is to pander to wealth at the expense of the common good - I'm pretty much a classical Red Tory, I think - which is why I don't belong to any political party anymore, and have basically only voted in protest since the 2004 federal election.

But that's not the subject at hand, and getting into it about the media wasn't something I started, either.

 

[Sythen]

:facepalm:

 

[brihard]

MSNBC has some great left leaning (at least by American standards) people, mostly their evening lineup. They also have guys like Joe Scarborough who are much more to the right. I'll happily say that I didn't like that they were giving air time to the likes of Pat Buchanan in part because it was great for them to have an extremist knob to caricature the right. CNN 100% tabloid? Hardly, though there's a bit of that, more lately (Piers Morgan, anyone?!), and I don't really like CNN much anymore - well, I do like CNN International because some of their personalities are great. But they also have excellent, real journalists working for them like Christiane Amanpour. Those real journalists are becoming rarer because hack tabloidism (ie Fox, Sun News, etc) is the direction the industry is going, so you have to look to other sources like the BBC. Even Al Jazeera's English service for a lot of global issues is great - it's interesting that there's something of a contrast between what their Arabic service reports, which is somewhat slanted to a pro-Arab view, and the English service which has less of an editorial slant (and, I was interested to see lately, was heavily critical of the Qatari government's response to a fire in a mall that killed several children - when AJE is owned by them).

Yeah, AJE has some pretty solid journalism.  Besides that I read the National Post and Globe and Mail from here at home, and right at the top of my list is The Economist, which has a neat slant on things. I peruse some other stuff less regularly too.

 

[bridges]

I'm left-leaning and have no problem disclosing that.  I primarily read The Economist, the Globe, the Ottawa Citizen and Walrus magazine, and a wide variety of blogs & other publications on an occasional basis, particularly l'Actualité.  Rarely Maclean's anymore, as since its most recent overhaul it seems to be more sensationalist than before - and rarely The Sun, as the few times I've flipped through a spare copy lying around in the lunch room, it struck me as mostly going for the knee-jerk response.  Plus, it looks to be about 3/4 ads-? 

On TV - The Agenda, with Steve Paikin, is excellent. 

I've yet to find a completely unbiased media source, of any stripe - doubt it exists.  Seems like we're each responsible for informing ourselves, as best we can.  And keeping the lines of communication open.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

A word, if I may, in defence of tabloids.

Many years ago when I was doing economics research at university, we did a research on the "informational contents" of various newspapers in Quebec.

We compared the tabloid "Journal de Montréal" (like the Sun), the middle of the road  "La Presse" (like the "Citizen") and the high end "Le Devoir" (Financial Post/Globe and Mail).

We defined informational content as the reporting of the observed/established facts only and removed anything that would be analysis or opinion.

Believe it or not, the tabloid had the most informational content.

Why? Simple. While the tabloid was peppered with short 150-200 words articles taken right off the wires of news services and just given a small title, the other two would select a sub-set of those wire news reports they thought of interest to their reader, hand them over to journalists who then expanded them by paraphrasing or adding some mundane stuff any one could go and read in a dictionary, or getting views on the topic from known "commentators" or man in the street and reporting their views and feelings as if news. The high end one compounded this by having their journalist provide extensive alleged analysis of these facts, which could not possibly have been properly considered in view of how recent the news was.

So, don't be too hard on tabloids 'cause  some times, its the only place you find some facts.

 

[bridges]

Interesting study!  I wonder how, if at all, that comparison might have changed over the years. 

Sure, there's a place for tabloids.  Your study deliberately excluded analysis & opinion, which is useful for one specific purpose, but in terms of overall information it strikes me as taking the bones without the muscle.  I personally find the analysis/opinion to be an important complement to discrete facts - and the analysis/opinion can also be factual, depending on how well-reasoned it is.  I like The National's political panel, for example. 

Re. expanding news items with "fluff", the CBC website has started doing that lately.  They use "Storify" to gather comments from social media, and have attempted to pass that off as journalism.  It takes away from any actual investigative journalism that might be happening.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not just the website, the actual network too is "storifying".

How manny time these days have you heard lines like these on no less than the National?

"Hi, I am Wendy Messley and this is the National. What do bears and downtown Toronto have in common? The answer might surprise you. More when we come back..."

Good God! Some nights, it is so devoid of actual nationally important news that I feel like I am watching the local news of a third rate sized town going through its " squished-dogs" segment.

 

[GAP]

Well.............you WERE listening to Wendy Messley..................syrup ain't got nuttin' on her....... :

 

[Brad Sallows]

CNN and MSNBC have no more to offer than Fox.

The content of a one hour news broadcast boils down to about 5 minutes (usually less) of reading for me.

One skill I picked up from my time in is the ability to listen to what a person is saying and ignore his ability - strong or poor - to deliver it.  Most of what is said by media personalities and politicians, after it goes through the information filter, comes out as "".

 

[Rifleman62]

CNN and MSNBC have no more to offer than Fox

Do you subscribe to FOX, and watch it regularly?

 

[bridges]

Most of what is said by media personalities and politicians, after it goes through the information filter, comes out as "".

With politicians I tend to agree with you, as many of them seem to delight in NOT answering the question.  It's rare that you get a straight answer. 

With media "personalities", it depends on the individual.  Chantal Hébert, for example, I find very informative.  Same for most foreign correspondents, no matter what the network.   

 

[Brad Sallows]

I meant what I wrote literally.  A person can read the transcript of a typical one hour news broadcast in a few minutes.  It really isn't a time-effective way of obtaining information.