• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Media Bias [Merged]

From SDA's:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

Spin cycling

Marco Dube, the interim VP for Strategy & Public affairs at the CBC Radio Canada, explains the CBC's decision to not broadcast the Munk Debate:

    We don't broadcast content, like a debate, over which we have no editorial bias input. We do news coverage, though.

Parse that one at length if you will.
 
Weak excuse.  If the public broadcaster, on the public's dime, is not there to inform the public irrespective of the broadcaster's preferred criteria, then the public dime should be removed and the broadcaster should become private.
 
Some examples of current media bias:

https://bcblue.wordpress.com/

- Video: CBC’s Mary Walsh calls PM Stephen Harper “Stasi Steve” and “Herr Harper”

- Trudeau confirms Liberals would start spying on Canadians, Media Party go silent
 
Rifleman62 said:
Some examples of current media bias:

https://bcblue.wordpress.com/

- Video: CBC’s Mary Walsh calls PM Stephen Harper “Stasi Steve” and “Herr Harper”

- Trudeau confirms Liberals would start spying on Canadians, Media Party go silent

First the Union uses my dues to support groups I'm against and now the CBC is using my tax dollars to shill for politicians I don't want.

Time to burn the place down.
 
Rifleman62 said:
Some examples of current media bias:

https://bcblue.wordpress.com/

- Video: CBC’s Mary Walsh calls PM Stephen Harper “Stasi Steve” and “Herr Harper”

- Trudeau confirms Liberals would start spying on Canadians, Media Party go silent

Mary Walsh has always struck me as a talentless leftie imbued with HDS.  No loss there.  Nothing I've seen of her over the years has convinced me she was even remotely funny, let alone interesting.  The only ones paying attention to her are the silver spoon socialist "bien pensants" who signed the Leap Manifesto
 
Rifleman62 said:
Some examples of current media bias:

https://bcblue.wordpress.com/

- Video: CBC’s Mary Walsh calls PM Stephen Harper “Stasi Steve” and “Herr Harper”

- Trudeau confirms Liberals would start spying on Canadians, Media Party go silent

Seems to me that the CBC is now a third party advertiser under the Elections Act. Since they dress themselves to one specific candidates, the spending limit is $3,000 in his riding. How much does two minutes on the CBC costs?

A complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer should be filed, IMHO.

Elections Act relevant extracts:
PART 17
THIRD PARTY ELECTION ADVERTISING

Marginal note:Definitions

349. The definitions in this section apply in this Part.
“election advertising”
« publicité électorale »
“election advertising” has the same meaning as in section 319.

“election advertising expense”
« dépenses de publicité électorale »
“election advertising expense” means an expense incurred in relation to

(a) the production of an election advertising message; and
(b) the acquisition of the means of transmission to the public of an election advertising message.
“expenses”
« dépenses »
“expenses” means

(a) amounts paid;
(b) liabilities incurred;
(c) the commercial value of property and services, other than volunteer labour, that are donated or provided; and
(d) amounts that represent the difference between an amount paid or a liability incurred for property and services, other than volunteer labour, and the commercial value of the property and services, when they are provided at less than their commercial value.
“group”
« groupe »
“group” means an unincorporated trade union, trade association or other group of persons acting together by mutual consent for a common purpose.

“third party”
« tiers »
“third party” means a person or a group, other than a candidate, registered party or electoral district association of a registered party.

Marginal note:Spending limit

350. (1) Subject to section 351.1, a third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $150,000 in relation to a general election.
Marginal note:Spending limit — electoral district

(2) Not more than $3,000 of the total amount referred to in subsection (1) shall be incurred to promote or oppose the election of one or more candidates in a given electoral district, including by
(a) naming them;
(b) showing their likenesses;
(c) identifying them by their respective political affiliations; or
(d) taking a position on an issue with which they are particularly associated.
Marginal note:Expenses re party leader

(3) The limit set out in subsection (2) only applies to an amount incurred with respect to a leader of a registered party or eligible party to the extent that it is incurred to promote or oppose his or her election in a given electoral district.
Marginal note:Spending limit — by-election

(4) Subject to section 351.1, a third party shall not incur election advertising expenses of a total amount of more than $3,000 in a given electoral district in relation to a by-election.
Marginal note:Uncancellable spending

(4.1) If a general election is held on a date other than one set out in subsection 56.1(2) or section 56.2, or if a by-election is held, a third party does not incur an election advertising expense if, on the issue of the writ or writs, it is not able to cancel the transmission of that advertising.
Marginal note:Third party inflation adjustment factor

(5) The amounts referred to in subsections (1), (2) and (4) shall be multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor referred to in section 384 that is in effect on the issue of the writ or writs.
Marginal note:Election period longer than 37 days

(6) If an election period is longer than 37 days, then the amounts referred to in subsections (1), (2) and (4) are increased by adding to them the product of
(a) one thirty-seventh of the amount referred to in subsection (1), (2) or (4), as the case may be, and
(b) the number of days in the election period minus 37.
2000, c. 9, s. 350; 2014, c. 12, s. 78.
Previous Version
 
Bruce Anderson, Chairman of ABACUS DATA, and a long time political insider, touches on Six key things that will decide the federal election in an article in the Globe and Mail. One thing he discusses is debates:

    "No consortium debate. Stephen Harper’s best moments in this campaign were when he was on stage debating the other leaders. His command of complex issues was impressive, his demeanour was cool. These were moments when
    he had a chance to make a pitch to uncertain voters he would never meet on the campaign trail. If his image has been a drawback, his cause would have been better served by showing him at his best in front of the much larger
    audience that the major TV networks could have provided. A poor choice, possibly made for emotional (Sun TV vs. Media Party thinking), rather than rational reasons."


The problem was not the debates, the problem was that the CBC, our so called national broadcaster, in a fit of wholly irresponsible pique, decided to ignore its legal mandate and refused to televise the debates even though they were made freely available. It was disgraceful conduct and any responsible prime minister will fire Hubert Lacroix and Peter Mansbridge, et al, for cause, and begin the dismantling of the CBC TV Network. It has, clearly, displayed its complete lack of worth to this country and its contempt for its citizens.
 
How much you wanna bet Shiny Pony ups their funding?
 
Scott said:
How much you wanna bet Shiny Pony ups their funding?

He's already said he would, but that'd have to go through a budget.
 
Other media is reporting and Andrew Coyne, himself, has confirmed (on Twitter) that he has resigned as Editorial Page and Comment editor of the National Post but will continue as a columnist.

The "story" appears to be that the Postmedia "empire's" editorial decison to support Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives was made by Paul Godfrey, the President and CEO of Postmedia. It is, traditionally, the owner/publisher's right to endorse the candidate or party (s)he chooses ~ as the old saying goes, "freedom of the press belongs to those who own  the presses." Now that's all well and good but, sometimes (normally?) while the editorial board of a paper gets behind the owner-publisher's choice, individual columnists can endorse who they wish.

It appears than Andrew Coyne wrote a column that endorsed someone other than Prime Minister Harper and the CPC, or, perhaps, was half-hearted or qualified in his endorsement. In any event his column was pulled by management and he has quit his editorial level job.
 
Want to give "new" media a try? Hit up Jesse Brown and Canadaland. He puts screws to everyone.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
Other media is reporting and Andrew Coyne, himself, has confirmed (on Twitter) that he has resigned as Editorial Page and Comment editor of the National Post but will continue as a columnist.

The "story" appears to be that the Postmedia "empire's" editorial decison to support Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives was made by Paul Godfrey, the President and CEO of Postmedia. It is, traditionally, the owner/publisher's right to endorse the candidate or party (s)he chooses ~ as the old saying goes, "freedom of the press belongs to those who own  the presses." Now that's all well and good but, sometimes (normally?) while the editorial board of a paper gets behind the owner-publisher's choice, individual columnists can endorse who they wish.

It appears than Andrew Coyne wrote a column that endorsed someone other than Prime Minister Harper and the CPC, or, perhaps, was half-hearted or qualified in his endorsement. In any event his column was pulled by management and he has quit his editorial level job.

From his articles and appearances in the media, it has been pretty apparent his personal lean has been away from the CPC for at least a year.
 
My sense of Coyne is that he has been disappointed in the Conservatives in general and Harper in particular, for not being sufficiently libertarian.

As to the freedom of the columnist - The owner also gets to vote on whether the columnist gets a cheque.

Any number of columnists have bounced from pillar to post seeking the privilege of publishing what they want and not what the boss wants.
 
>My sense of Coyne is that he has been disappointed in the Conservatives in general and Harper in particular, for not being sufficiently libertarian.

Yes.  I used to routinely read a lot of his stuff, and it was easy to follow his disaffection as Harper proved to be insufficiently pure and too pragmatic.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Craig Oliver on the "change" ... his comments upset some people but should have surprised none.

In my opinion it shows a lack of class on his part. I can't help it but when I see him speak I think of that long beaked muppet bird we used to see on Sesame Street.
 
Jed said:
In my opinion it shows a lack of class on his part. I can't help it but when I see him speak I think of that long beaked muppet bird we used to see on Sesame Street.

And likening him to a Sesame Street character shows class how?

Aside from that, do you see an accuracy in  his comments? 
 
Hey I am not a reporter on national TV speaking about a freshly defeated Prime Minister, I'm just a plain Joe in the cheap seats with a Tag you can read below.  ;D

His comments had elements of truth but were unnecessarily harsh and cruel.
 
Back
Top