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

Some of the bought & paid for media

Agreed.

It says a lot about modern day journalism that the two can be confused.
Agree fully with both you and HT's post that you quoted.

I labeled him that way purposely, and two-fold. One, I am gatekeeping the concept of "journalism", specifically what I consider to be the requisite double/triple sourcing that accompanies "news", at least in the MSM. Jamie Vernon going to the internet to fact-check JR doesn't meet that bar, IMO.

The 2nd is to highlight the changing nature of where we get the information that is important to each of us, be it facts, opinion, education, edutainment, infotainment, or simple gossip. That landscape has shifted considerably in recent years.

I can definitely relate to JR. He is exactly where I was at in my 2nd and 3rd year of Uni - smoking joints with my buddies in some dorm room, talking shit about whatever thoughts were running through my head that day. We didn't even have the internet to refer to, to "fact check" things though. JR definitely has wide appeal though, that's undeniable.
 
Lookit who's buying the Winnipeg Sun, as well as papers in Portage La Prairie and Kenora .....
Meanwhile, a bit of the REST of the story via the Globe & Mail (also archived here) ....
Screenshot 2024-05-30 120855.jpg
A bit more on Klein here (usual Wikipedia caveats apply)
 
Anyone else notice the lack of comments sections on media articles in CBC and National Post lately... I've noticed more and more there are fewer/almost no comment sections associated to posted articles. I quite enjoyed those because you could see over time, particularly this past year just how much the readers where calling out bullshit on the headlines or content on the politically charged articles. Even the comments on the CBC articles were highly critical of the "narrative" (Trudeau good, climate crisis, oil bad, CAF are rapey...etc). My tin foil hat says, this is just another step to control and regulate the message.
 
I’m going to go with hateful/extreme postings that require too much moderation/cost to deal with that it’s just easier to turn off comments.
Yup, I’d say this. They’ve been replete with vitriol and abuse for years, to the point of outright attacks on reporters or subjects of articles. There’s no onus on the news organization to platform that.
 
They’ve been replete with vitriol and abuse for years, to the point of outright attacks on reporters or subjects of articles.

From the pre-internet era,

How to write a Letter to the Editor​


LTEs should always be courteous, no matter how much you disagree with the authors of the article.
 
I’m going to go with hateful/extreme postings that require too much moderation/cost to deal with that it’s just easier to turn off comments.
That would indeed be the Occam's Razor version, but it's just not as much fun.
 
CBC just ran a story about this fella.

Conservative MP attacked online after praising police for arrest in alleged homophobic crime


CBC still hasn't seemed inclined to touch the story of the 10 Middle Eastern men kicking and stomping that lesbian couple in Halifax last month. I see stories by CTV, Global News, Hindustan Times from India.

No CBC.

Am I just missing the article?
Wrong link, here’s the correct article: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7257454

Twitter’s such an utter cesspool. For every one good faith comment or bit of discussion on anything like this there are probably dozens of anonymous trolls just slinging foul shit. Any politician who engages on there catches tons of it.
 
Wrong link, here’s the correct article: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7257454

Twitter’s such an utter cesspool. For every one good faith comment or bit of discussion on anything like this there are probably dozens of anonymous trolls just slinging foul shit. Any politician who engages on there catches tons of it.
Thanks. That other link was showing up even after I edited and used the correct one multiple times.

I made a Twitter account just to see some of the links that get posted off of this site but ended up deleting my account recently.


I'll assume it's a case of Occam's razor why the CBC hasn't reported on the hate crime in Halifax last month. Not the unbiased kind of reporting I'd hope for from a tax payer funded broadcaster.
 
CBC just ran a story about this fella.

Conservative MP attacked online after praising police for arrest in alleged homophobic crime



CBC still hasn't seemed inclined to touch the story of the 10 Middle Eastern men kicking and stomping that lesbian couple in Halifax last month. I see stories by CTV, Global News, Hindustan Times from India ...
Could be the same reason why those media outlets - and others that ran with the "Middle Eastern guys beating up someone in Canada" story - may not run with this one about the the Tory MP getting poked: can't run everything, and this doesn't fit their narrative or editorial priorities.

If there wasn't a social media post identifying the attackers as middle eastern or from Syria, that it was just some guys alleged to have attacked the two women, you think outlets like these would have run stories just as scathing?
I'm guessing not likely.

Late edit to add: I'm also going to suspect these outlets won't carry the Tory MP story for similar "doesn't fit the editorial priorities" reasons.
 
If there wasn't a social media post identifying the attackers as middle eastern or from Syria, that it was just some guys alleged to have attacked the two women, you think outlets like these would have run stories just as scathing?

If 10 Caucasian men knocked a gay woman to the ground and started kicking her, especially during pride month? I'm not sure about how scathing the other news stories would be but I'll be willing to bet the CBC would have at least ran something. Probably quite scathing. And lots of "violent right wing attack!" type stuff.

can't run everything
They can't, but that doesn't pass the sniff test here IMO.
 
can't run everything
CBC could stand to run more plain ordinary news about unsettling events and waste less space detailing human interest angles designed to push emotions in order to support policy biases. It's a public broadcaster and should be covering all of the major "event" stories across the nation. A public sh!t-kicking administered by a group of men ganging up on a couple of women - forget the racial and sexual angles - is a major "event".
 
I’m going to go with hateful/extreme postings that require too much moderation/cost to deal with that it’s just easier to turn off comments.
There is a strong possibility that you are both right. The media is convinced that they know best and do not like their world being shaken. At the same time there is a real cost in time and wages to moderate. So two birds with one stone.
 
When I first started reading internet comments on news stories over 20 years ago, I soon figured out that was a mistake. Every time I read them, I lost IQ points.
 
If 10 Caucasian men knocked a gay woman to the ground and started kicking her, especially during pride month? I'm not sure about how scathing the other news stories would be but I'll be willing to bet the CBC would have at least ran something.
Yup, I'd bet that way, too.
They can't, but that doesn't pass the sniff test here IMO.
CBC could stand to run more plain ordinary news about unsettling events and waste less space detailing human interest angles designed to push emotions in order to support policy biases.
I should have been clearer. I threw in the "can't run everything" line because this is how ALL media preface descriptions of their editorial slant/policy/bias/approach/lens/triage factors.
... A public sh!t-kicking administered by a group of men ganging up on a couple of women - forget the racial and sexual angles - is a major "event".
You've hit the nail on the head with the bit in yellow. There's a case to be made that it's precisely the racial and sexual angles that, at least in part, trigger the "so, this worth running?" algorithm for these media. And it's interesting which is highlighted in which gang of stories.

For example, how many of these outlets would have carried a story as high up as they have if there was no racial element?
How many of these outlets would have carried the story without the sexual angle?
As a thought experiment, based on the handling of the mass beating story, how about this story?
Why would both groups of outlets have difficulty figuring out why this doesn't fit their bias/lens/world view?

After all, the "defend the cops" angle might appeal to the first group, but why wouldn't they want to amplify this particular story? Also, the "a politician is supporting jumping on anti-gay shit" angle might appeal to the second cluster, but why wouldn't they want to amplify this particular story?

Good complicated case of venn diagrams of different editorial approaches from different outlets.
 
I’m going to go with hateful/extreme postings that require too much moderation/cost to deal with that it’s just easier to turn off comments.
Yup, I’d say this. They’ve been replete with vitriol and abuse for years, to the point of outright attacks on reporters or subjects of articles. There’s no onus on the news organization to platform that.
I'm not sure if there is a middle ground to be had in this.

On the one hand, not allowing the public to comment on current political theatre being reported on by a publically funded media organization seems downright wrong.

If the people are funding this organization with their tax dollars, the should be allowed to comment on the various stories that get published...

(If YouTube doesn't like the what's said in the comment section, they have their filters & algorithms to deal with the worst of it)


But on the other hand, I suspect you are right and it's easier to just turn the comment section off altogether.

It saves them the hassle of trying to police it themselves, and they aren't obligated to be a platform of the non-stop venom that people spew on the internet about politics.

(Especially with things like the Online Harms Bill on its way in that would leave them with massive fines potentially)



On the surface though, it's aggravated me for a long time that CBC will publish something on YouTube about politics & then not allow it's contents to be discussed.

It feels like I'm paying to be silenced by the same organization that seems to have more executive assistants getting bonuses than there are people in all of Canada.
 
If one is seriously offended by the coverage provided by CBC, there are several ways to contact them and notify them of one’s displeasure. A comment section where anonymous bozos can spout off nonsense is probably not the best forum for that.

I think when comment sections were introduced, they were seen as forums for people to discuss the issue of the article in good faith. That did not happen. They quickly became forums for trolls, shills and crack-pots since they could remain anonymous.

I, for one, didn’t cry when comment sections were closed.
 
Back
Top