• 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]

Yes, "new media" has a smaller footprint than other sources, especially in the hinterlands, but (sadly) your opinion doesn't count as much in the halls of power as the metropolitan areas, which are serviced by lots of different sorts of media.

On the other hand, you, the reader, do access the Internet and alternative sources of information and are therefore a purveyor of the most powerful weapon of information warfare: word of mouth.
 
Thucydides said:
Yes, "new media" has a smaller footprint than other sources, especially in the hinterlands, but (sadly) your opinion doesn't count as much in the halls of power as the metropolitan areas, which are serviced by lots of different sorts of media.

On the other hand, you, the reader, do access the Internet and alternative sources of information and are therefore a purveyor of the most powerful weapon of information warfare: word of mouth.

Unbelievably though when someone who does use non-traditional sources counters a newsy's opinion with facts (however strong and correct they may be) from the net, we are often met by the same sort of skepticism or hostility that the person who cites Wikipaedia meets on this site. :p ;D
 
Often times when I relate news and information I gather from the blogosphere, I get looked at like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat!  Most people still take the MSM at their word.
 
I'll be the first to say that facebook invites can be a pain in the almighty wazoo when they come 25 per hour, but I couldn't not join this group when I saw it.
I guess this would be the only thread going for this, so here it is.
CBC Bias Sucks http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2315820862

Midget
 
uncle-midget-boyd said:
I'll be the first to say that facebook invites can be a pain in the almighty wazoo when they come 25 per hour, but I couldn't not join this group when I saw it.
I guess this would be the only thread going for this, so here it is.
CBC Bias Sucks http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2315820862

This group has 4 members.

You'll need to do spme recruiting. but I think you'Re in the right place for that :).

Add : Now, THAT group seems to have a lesser recruitmment problem :)


1,000,000 Strong For Rick Mercer

This group has 56,379 members.

 
I don't think anyone else has referenced this article yet.  I was debating putting it in as a separate thread but seeing as how this thread has morphed from the CBC to include the media generally it seems to fit.  Perhaps a name change is in order: something like "The CBC and Media Bias".

In the article Martin makes many of the points that others of us have made.  But for Martin, Right is Wrong and Left is Right.

As the media tilt rightward, so will the country
LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail


February 14, 2008 at 5:22 AM EST

It's not often you'll find Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a media bash. But there he was the other night pumping hands at an Ottawa fete celebrating the expansion of the CanWest Global news organization.

CanWest, the conservative news chain (and the country's largest media company) was officially launching a national news service to compete with Canadian Press and inaugurating its Global National newscasts out of the capital.

No surprise, therefore, that the Prime Minister (Jack Layton also attended) showed up. The conservative presence in Canada was being further entrenched -- and in no small way.

The CanWest expansion will secure, among other things, a larger media presence for Western Canada, which has understandably chafed at Eastern bias. "It's almost ironic," said CanWest's CEO Leonard Asper, "that we have a Western-based company in CanWest that has the only national newscast coming out of Ottawa."

The Aspers have made a big leap. After purchasing the Southam News chain and the National Post from Conrad Black, they looked out of their depth and were roundly criticized for their management practices. Now they are growing in strength and impact.

Their continued ascendancy is a major blow -- tilt the message and you gradually tilt the mind -- to the left and to moderates. The Aspers make no bones about their conservative bias. It is evident every day in their national flagship paper, The National Post, which regularly runs the likes of Charles Krauthammer.

Given Canada's relatively small right-wing population, what the Aspers have achieved is all the more surprising. They have hardly been preaching to the converted. Their empire's growth exacerbates the trend that sees a growing disconnect between a moderate mainstream Canada and a more right-wing media elite.

In the past - in the early Trudeau era, for example - the Liberals and New Democrats could count on having much of the media at least philosophically in their corner as an election campaign began. But when these same parties peer out at the fourth estate now, they must want to duck.

They see the huge CanWest empire - whose chairman is Derek Burney - frequently railing against them. They see the large conservative Sun chain that has been piloted by Brian Mulroney. They see Maclean's, the national magazine, now being run by a former National Post editor. They hear AM radio pounding out conservative gospel. They see Global TV, run by the Aspers, and CTV, which hardly has a Liberal tilt. At the CBC, the lefties find more soulmates, though the network's editorialist, Rex Murphy, could hardly be accused of being one of them. There's the Liberals' old standby, the Toronto Star, but it is experiencing tough times.

A right-wing philosophical bias does not mean, as the Aspers would point out, a reporting bias. On their TV network and across the great swath of Asper newspapers, the reporting itself is not pro-Conservative. In today's media, however, there is great intermingling of reporting and comment. Sometimes the front page of the National Post has more columnists commenting on the news than reporters reporting it.

Currently, polling is a source of some contention. CanWest has been running polls by Ipsos-Reid, which have consistently been giving the Conservatives a showing five or six points higher than other pollsters. Ipsos pollster John Wright, who says he's been getting heat on this from bloggers, says there is no bias and anyone who makes such a suggestion will be sued. Other pollsters I talked to aren't suggesting any bias. They just find the discrepancy, as pollster Nik Nanos put it, "strange."

The Aspers once caused a stir with their policy of running national editorials in all their newspapers. They moved away from that policy, but editorialists who cross them on their views, on the Middle East, for example, know they will have a lot of explaining to do.

Success for the Aspers in Ottawa and elsewhere is by no means assured. The Post has run up huge losses over the years. Its founder Conrad Black is soon scheduled to be entering prison. But what Mr. Black initiated with his purchase of the Southam newspapers and creation of the Post, and what the Aspers have continued to build and expand, is having a significant impact on our political and media culture - liberalism beware!

You alter the character of a country by changing how it sees itself. You can change how it sees itself by changing the character of its media. Led by the Aspers, the character of Canadian media is changing.

It doesn't really matter whether Mr. Martin is right or wrong on the importance of preserving Trudeaunianism.  Nor does it matter if he is right on his assessment of the Aspers et al.  What does matter is his final shot "You can change how it (a country) sees itself by changing the character of its media".

Ultimately this is and was the purpose of Mr. Martin and his fellow torch-bearers.  They were, and are, secular acolytes dedicated to changing society in their image.  They were, and are, every bit as dedicated to their task as warring Dominicans and Franciscans or Jesuits and Recollets.

This observation is not new. 

What is new is that one of the Media would come out so openly and declare how they see themselves.    Lawrence Martin's real fear is that he and his version of right will be replaced by an alternate with which he disagrees.

What is most remarkable to me is that he is declaring openly his belief in the power of his bully pulpit.

On that basis isn't it fair to review all his "reports" from campaign trails and question his objectivity?  And all of his "friends" and "fellow-travelers"?

 
Reccesoldier said:
Unbelievably though when someone who does use non-traditional sources counters a newsy's opinion with facts (however strong and correct they may be) from the net, we are often met by the same sort of skepticism or hostility that the person who cites Wikipaedia meets on this site. :p ;D

That's an excellent observation, Reccesoldier - and to an extent I agree with you.  I would argue, however, that Reuters, CP, AP, et al actually have a hard earned reputation to protect - and therefore do their best to make sure what they present is, in fact, fact.  The same does not (yet) hold true of most internet sources such as blogs, etcetera.
 
I'm not sure if I agree with Martin's contention that the Aspers are "pro-Conservative".  Were they not Liberal fundraisers?  Did they not support Chretien?  I remember when they took over the National Post, the investigative reporting into "Shawinigate" suddenly stopped.  Now the Post has somewhat regained some of its pro-conservative slant, but I really can't say that about all CanWest publications.

As well, I really don't find CTV pro-conservative either.  In some cases, I find it far more pro-Liberal than the CBC!  You can't tell me that Craig Oliver or Jane Taber or Tory hacks!  Are the owners of CTV and the Globe and Mail, the Thompson family, also not supporters of the Liberal Party?

But I will agree that Rex Murphy is a diamond in the rough at the Ceeb.  ;D
 
hey guys, been a while, been in a shitstorm, dust is settling, on the above topic i have attached an interesting article, im sure most have probably seen it but ill post anyway.
cheers


http://www.mediaright.ca/MSMbias.htm
 
Excellent essay. It should be required reading before accepting an MSM source as valid.
 
Good link Simon.  It speaks to the "How" it is possible to use to media to create a story and sell it.  However I still find Lawrence Martin's piece more remarkable as it speaks to the "Why": the intent or the motive.  I can't think that I have ever seen or heard, more clearly stated, by a leading member of the press, an expression of the press's belief in its own power and it's willingness to use that power.  It puts the lie to the notion of the unbiased media and clearly defines a willingness and an intent to manipulate.
 
I don't know where else to put this......

Did anyone see last night Inside The Mission panel on the National last night.

There was a panel of three and Peter Mansbridge.

Sally Armstrong - Authour and film maker.
Lewis MacKenzie - you KNOW who he is.
and of course Steven Staples.

I was surprized, my wife thought I had gone barking mad when I caught the last few moments of the broadcast and I heard Mr Staples.
I switched over to a different time zone and watched the whole broadcast.

Sally Armstrong started with her statement and made a point for Canada's
participation in Afghanistan clearly and in a manner anyone could understand.
Kudos to Sally.

Lewis Mackenzie made his point but in a manner that preached to the choir.

Mr Staples embarassed himself with "we have to learn the root cause of the
conflict" or something like that. I wasn't so mad at him when I watched how
he had failed.  ;D

All in all I would say is that if there was a bias it was mildly pro-mission.
I have a new hero in Sally Armsrong. She made it real for civvies.  ;D

Anyhow....Anyone else?

Edit: to add link:http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/inside_the_mission/panel_discussion.html
 
I saw that but could hardly put it down to bias.

Steven Staples embarrased himself before a national audience because he did not have/know the facts to back up his position. Some shining examples; suggesting we or the GOA needed to open negotiations with the Taliban (already in play for several years, a fact Gen MacKenzie had to remind him of twice), talking about discovering "root causes" without stopping to think that the "Root Causetm" of the insurgency is a lust for power, suggesting the security situation and war is being lost (rather debatable considering the Taliban now take pains to avoid direct confrontation with Canadian elements in the Kandahar region, while we have freedom of movement and action) and even repeating the Taliban's rather transparent ploy of requesting a cease fire and withdrawl of Western forces (while they rearm and prepare to overturn a now weakened government of Afghanistan).

Frankly, if Mr Staples is reading this, he better start doing some serious research before he appears in public. Right now the Rideau Institute simply parrots NDP campaign platform planks; if I want some left wing meat I look to the Selenis Council since their people are actually on the ground in southern Afghanistan. I may not agree with much of what they say but I take them seriously.

As for the CBC, they chose Mr Staples as a guest for their own reasons. Since he put in such a weak performance, we can only shake our heads and wonder what the producers and bookers were thinking.
 
I think we need to remember that ”The News” in our world is a commercial enterprise – much, much, much more about selling soap than about informing the public.

Watch the CBC or CTV or Global newscasts. They are “free” to you because advertisers pay, and pay well for the news ‘shows.’

Ditto newspapers: your monthly subscription pays only a small fraction of the cost of getting a paper to your doorstep every morning. Advertising is what the business is all about.

The ‘journalists’ in all media are, actually, sales staff. They sell eyes and ears (readers, viewers and listeners) to advertisers. The better the news ‘show’ the more the network or station can charge per second of advertising.

What makes good news? Drama! Excitement! Sex! Violence! and Conflict!

The news ‘shows’ need to get as much sex and conflict into each show as possible. Peter Mansbridge cannot just have an informative conversation with a real, honest-gawd expert; he must preside over a conflict – a shouting match in which people, no matter how ill-informed or prejudiced,  argue about issues. Both Lew MacKenzie and Stephen Staples are mouths for hire – but some work for nothing, just to get and keep their name/face out in the public eye in order to keep their ‘day job’ (e.g. The Rideau Institute) in the black.

Don’t blame the CBC: they’re just trying to stay afloat in a highly competitive market – there are all kinds of news ‘shows,’ competing 24/7 for your attention. Don’t blame Stephen Staples: he’s doing exactly the same thing – there are all kinds of talking heads, a (very) few of whom even get paid for their time and effort, competing for space on the many, many news ‘shows.’

It’s show business, folks; if a little bit of useful information happens to get passed to the Canadian people, well, that’s a bonus.
 
Bang on analysis, E.R., with only one tiny exception....

E.R. Campbell said:
The ‘journalists’ in all media are, actually, sales staff. They sell eyes and ears (readers, viewers and listeners) to advertisers.

To be completely fair, one would have to say the MEDIA OUTLET is the entity selling eyes/ears to advertisers.  Sort of like the difference between the BATTALION or ARMY getting the job done, as opposed to the role of the INDIVIDUAL TROOPS.  That's not to say the institution doesn't affect how the individuals do their work, though....

Also liked the MSM 101 piece very much.
 
milnewstbay said:
Bang on analysis, E.R., with only one tiny exception....

To be completely fair, one would have to say the MEDIA OUTLET is the entity selling eyes/ears to advertisers.  Sort of like the difference between the BATTALION or ARMY getting the job done, as opposed to the role of the INDIVIDUAL TROOPS.  That's not to say the institution doesn't affect how the individuals do their work, though....

Also liked the MSM 101 piece very much.

While I accept that the selling job is done by the entire media outlet, in the 'news' departments the journalists themselves have 'value' beyond their ability to write or read the news. Sex appeal, star power and other draw factors have a marked effect on the value (to the advertiser) of each news 'show.' Journalists are 'front-line' sales staff members - and important ones, too. 
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of today’s Globe and Mail, is an unbiased piece that speaks to one of my pet peeves: the requirement for sex appeal:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080225.wcomartin25/BNStory/Front/home
Commentary

Canada's uncharismatic leaders: all cattle, no hat

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
February 25, 2008 at 4:16 AM EST

Check out the new specs -- Stéphane Dion has shed the granny glasses in favour of dark rims. The Liberal Leader had become paler over the years, aides explained. Needed more definition. So they dropped the hint.

He was quick to agree to the change. The wire rims were okay back in his professorial days when he had some hair colour, he said. Not now.

Why is this important? Well, image -- or lack of it -- may not be everything, but in today's Ottawa, it's what holds everything back. It explains why the political parties have been immobile for no less than two years running.

Today's charisma deficit may be the biggest around here since the Mackenzie King era. None of our leaders connect. In oratory, in personality, in salesmanship, they are right near the top of the dud metre.

Mr. Dion has all the allure of a taxidermist. Jack Layton, the New Democrat, looks like he was marched straight in from Trotsky's lab. Prime Minister Stephen Harper could pass for an Etobicoke store clerk.

In substance, they are impressive - intellectually strong, highly intelligent, well informed. Their problem, to borrow the American expression, is not "all hat, no cattle." It's all cattle, no hat.

Across our broad land, brains aren't selling. Kim Campbell once said she was "a sucker for highly intelligent men." Not many would appear to share her point of view. Of Ronald Reagan, it was said (and you won't get much disagreement here) that few have gone further on less mental equipment. Of our current leaders, the opposite may one day be written.

If they question why they have been frozen in the polls for so long, they needn't ponder the answer too long. It's easy. They bore us.

In the bars and cafés, people would rather talk about their aerobic instructors. In every other phase of our modern history, we have had at least one personality to mount the stage. John Diefenbaker was the greatest show on earth - a gargoyle on steroids. Pierre Trudeau was galvanizing. Brian Mulroney mixed blarney with a Robert Goulet élan. With his lumberjack prose, Jean Chrétien kept schoolteachers awake at night.

Style has no business triumphing over substance. But this being politics, it happens. Which is why no one in Ottawa triumphs.

With his white hair, white skin and wire rims, Mr. Dion has been more the receder than the leader, his vague look matched by vague policy positions and, due to weak English, vague speech patterns.

To start clicking, his three vagues needed be exterminated. The speech has improved somewhat, and the new eyewear will help. But the amount of work still be done is one of the reasons why the Liberals will give enough support to the budget tomorrow to postpone an election.

Mr. Layton's problem has nothing to do with vagueness. He comes on like a slab of concrete. He wears a suit like he's in a vice. He looks, unfortunately, like his party - straight out of the M. J. Coldwell era.

The only one in the New Democrat band approaching modernity is Thomas Mulcair, the leader in waiting.

As for Mr. Harper, some happy pills would be of benefit. Instead of projecting goodwill, he has the misfortune of a natural countenance that is grim, if not mean-spirited. It's like, as someone once said of Britain's David Lloyd George, he can't see a belt without wanting to hit below it.

There have been times recently when Mr. Harper has been gracious, answering questions in the House without resorting to rancour, showing a spirit of compromise with opponents. More of that, with the odd smile thrown in, and he would move to new heights.

A trip to the gym wouldn't hurt either. He's fighting the battle of the bulge. He looks good in head-on photographs, but aides who try and prevent the cameras from taking profile shots are on to something.

There is also the matter of speechmaking. As Hillary Clinton is finding out these days, words are indeed important. Who can recall one memorable line from any of our three leaders?

It's unfair perhaps to compare them to a Kennedy or a Trudeau or an Obama. True charisma rarely shows its face. But when you flirt too much with its opposite, you can forget about winning any landslides.

Lawrence Martin is not well known as a friend and supporter of Stephen Harper, but, in this case, the Prime Minister’s handlers and, especially, his so called communications staff would do well to listen to Martin. It is undeniably true that “Style has no business triumphing over substance. But,” as Martin says, “this being politics, it happens.” Mr. Harper appears to be a skilled political tactician, it surprises me that he is so dense to the obvious: people do not like him. Since they do not like him they are less likely to vote for the party he leads, despite good (or at least not too bad) policies and actions.

Specifically, Stephen Harper needs to learn from Barak Obama; he needs to enunciate a national “aim,” the ”vision thing” – as George Bush Sr. put it. Then he needs to set out the goals we Canadians must accomplish to achieve that aim – including the national security, foreign, fiscal, social and defence policies that will help us to achieve and maintain peace and prosperity for ourselves and, if not real peace and prosperity, at least freedom from terror and slavery for the people of the world.

If Harper (and Dion and Layton, too) fail to connect with the Canadian people then we are likely to go back to the ‘60s and choose an unknown, untried, unqualified but undeniably charismatic ‘leader’ – but this time Justin Trudeau – based solely on sex appeal.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
....journalists themselves have 'value' beyond their ability to write or read the news. Sex appeal, star power and other draw factors have a marked effect on the value (to the advertiser) of each news 'show.' Journalists are 'front-line' sales staff members - and important ones, too.

In THAT respect, at least on TV in the case of newscasters and some senior reporters, I'd have to agree.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
....Mr. Harper appears to be a skilled political tactician, it surprises me that he is so dense to the obvious: people do not like him. Since they do not like him they are less likely to vote for the party he leads, despite good (or at least not too bad) policies and actions......

I don't know if it the PM is particularly dense on the point.  It may just be considered irrelevant. If you read Johnson on Harper Harper was always a loner with a tight, small circle of friends and who drew his principle support and role models from within his immediate family.  His self-perception is probably that of somebody who has succeeded as much as he has despite not being generally "liked".

Couple that with the point made by Greg Weston (shudder) in Rote, Rote, Rote Your Vote, that something like 25% of Canadians will self-identify with the Liberal Party of Canada even if it were led by a fence post (step forward Mr. Dion and take a bow) and he may continue to believe that he has little reason to change what has worked for him to date.  Something like 35-45% of Canadians are just unreachable by him.  (25% Reflexive Liberals, 5-10% Reflexive Socialists, 5-10% Reflexive Bloquistes).  He needs to do what he can with the remaining 55-65% of the population.

The one area that Weston's column doesn't address is how many of those self-identified Fence Post Liberals actually bother to vote.  It would not surprise me at all if many of those "Liberals" are actually MIA during the election period.  That would explain why polls between elections seldom reflect the outcome of elections.
 
This story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, speaks volumes about the mainstream media’s unhealthy self-absorption:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080229.wharrymedia0229/BNStory/Front
Media's embargo on 'Harry's war' sparks debate

LUKE BAKER

Reuters

February 29, 2008 at 6:49 AM EST

LONDON — Now the world knows Britain's Prince Harry was in Afghanistan, the question on many lips is whether it was right for the media to keep quiet about it for so long.

Journalists are accustomed to embargoes — almost every day newspapers, newswires, radio and TV stations agree with governments, central banks and companies to release information only at a specific time to make it available to all at once.

In the case of Harry's front-line role in Afghanistan, the embargo just went on for a lot longer than normal — in the end, for a surprisingly enduring 10 weeks.

In a series of meetings at the Ministry of Defence late last year, British media and selected international outlets agreed not to report Harry's deployment in exchange for getting regular pictures, video and text of his day-to-day activities once the planned four-month assignment was completed.

There was a reluctance to sign up to such a deal, and an expectation among many that the “understanding”, as it was called, would inevitably, rapidly be broken given the nature of Britain's cut-throat, “exclusive-or-nothing” tabloid press.

But once everyone was on board it was a case of seeing who would blink first and if no one did, then the agreement might just end up working in everyone's interests — the Ministry of Defence, the media, Harry and the soldiers fighting alongside him, and the public who would read and hear all about it.

In the end, those who were party to the understanding stuck by it, but word leaked out and rumours slowly spread.

An Australian website got wind of something in January, but not enough to make it stick.

German newspaper Bild ran a gossip item on Wednesday, but again the Ministry of Defence hoped the chatter would quickly die down. Until the U.S. Drudge Report blog picked it up.

“Once Drudge had it, it went global and the agreement was basically over,” the Ministry of Defence said on Friday.

In the hours since the story broke, commentators — even some whose own organizations signed up to the deal — have questioned whether it was right.

Jon Snow, the presenter of television's Channel 4 news, wrote in his blog that the affair could be damaging for media credibility.

“One wonders whether viewers, readers and listeners will ever want to trust media bosses again,” he wrote. On BBC radio on Friday he questioned whether more time and effort hadn't been spent covering the “Harry story” than the more important issues about exactly what is going on in the Afghanistan conflict.

Tessa Mayes, a media commentator at Spiked Online, accused the media of doing special deals with the royals, that might have been okay when they were young, but were not acceptable now.

“They are not children now, they are adults, and we should not be doing backroom deals with royalty,” she told Sky TV.

“The role of the reporter is not to become the informational wing of the military, it's to have a degree of independence.”

Reuters, like other major news outlets, agreed to the embargo, seeing it as similar to those frequently agreed on news stories, even if the details were more complex this time. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a similar-style embargo was maintained on the timing of the invasion.

The only British national newspaper that did not put the story on its front page on Friday was the Independent.

“We don't share our rivals' incredible fascination with every aspect of the royal family's lives,” deputy editor-in-chief Ian Birrell told Reuters.

“The most interesting aspect about all this is the breaking of the media embargo by Drudge, but we decided that in itself wasn't big enough to warrant the front page.”

As far as the embargo goes, Mr. Birrell was supportive.

“I don't see a problem at all. I think the media has acted in a very responsible manner on what has been a difficult situation in which lives were at risk,” he said.

Harry is a celebrity and in this age of celebrity where, as Globe columnist Lawrence Martin put it “Style has no business triumphing over substance. But this being politics, it happens” the “news” is made by reports of celebrity comings and goings.

With regard to embargos: they seem to me to be legitimate tools that benefit all. Consider the budget. Journalists (and others) are “locked up” for the day, before the Minister of Finance speaks, with the budget documents and senior officials so that they can prepare complete and accurate, albeit often coloured reports for Canadians. In the case of Prince Harry (who is a bullet magnet and a hugely valuable target) the embargo was imposed to protect lives; that seems reasonable enough to me.

The relationship between the blogosphere and the mainstream media (MSM) is often debated, usually to the detriment of the MSM, but what this story indicates is that legitimate issues like OPSEC and PERSEC might be beyond control if the blogs are free of restraint or immune to consequences.

I suppose if one is sufficiently imaginative and cares nothing at all for the precious rights of the bloggers then some form of retribution seems possible, perhaps even desirable.




 
Back
Top