Videodrome
Senior Member
CP24 is basically the TV version of the Sun, including the pro-Ford bias.
|
|
|
2019 Canadian Federal Election
- Thread starter christiesplits
- Start date
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
The Star is most definitely biased. As are the Post and Sun. Unreadable.
The CBC isn't bad....but wow is it ever PC groupthink-approved. Though, to be fair, not enough to keep me away, which should be seen as a decent qualifier.
All media is biased, some just more blatantly than others.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
It is well understood that this breakfast channel should actually be named CP2Ford
Videodrome
Senior Member
I call it Cp2Ford all the time.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Newstalk 1010, should be called Fordtalk 1010.
Videodrome
Senior Member
I didn't realize that the lady who voiced Rogue in the 90's X-Men series is now an MP.
lenaitch
Senior Member
All journalism has a bias, because it is human. It is up to the reader to determine their own mind, preferably based on a wide base of research. Print journalism has a long history of it, probably dating back to the day when circulation print became a thing, perhaps even before. Newspapers used to unabashed hacks and shills for parties and politicians.
JasonParis
Moderator
Newspapers have always held biases, at least editorially, but they've been open and frank about them. Even the Sun generally writes copy bias-free.
The change has come largely on television where networks used to use their news divisions as part of the public trust for taking our spectrum in order to make money (largely off of US fare in a Canadian context). In general, terrestrial networks' news divisions still hold these principals, despite making little of their profits over-the-air anymore (or on news). Enter the rise of cable news and crusading journalism, particularly in the US. As there was never any public trust to be filled, the glory days of even CNN have withered and wandered only to be outdone, ratings-wise at least, by overtly biased MSNBC and Fox News. Americans have essentially become so accustomed to "their network" rooting for "their guy" that traditional journalism is considered even more biased than the super obvious bias of what they are watching. It's why Trump-heads hate CBS News for example. Even though it is far less biased than MSNBC or Fox News, the fact that they aren't championing either the GOP or the Dems confuses them. People choose the news they want to hear and far too often. Social networking allows us to even curate it to our beliefs. This has slipped into Canada even though we don't have direct equivalents of MSNBC and Fox News.
CBC News goes through a lot of that criticism, despite being super aware of getting different voices on the air. One of the reasons that Conservative insiders like the CBC so much (although they don't state it publically) is because it is so easy to get "their voices" on panels, etc. That need to represent all of Canada should shield CBC from a lot of the criticism it receives, but it often does the opposite. As people don't hear them "rooting" for their team, they must be "biased" even though they aren't rooting for any team. And the fact that they are public means they must be in the hands of the Liberals, despite Liberals cutting the corp just as badly as Conservatives historically and despite CBC breaking more Liberal scandals than most other organizations combined.
There's no easy way out of this bind as the people seem to have made their mind up on what they think is biased and what isn't, but I'd argue that the crusading journalism is more on the right than the left (although definitely exists on both sides) and that with all major media companies being part of billion-dollar conglomerates (save pubcasters and non-profits), the bias actually continues to move more to the right which has amplified their voice regarding the "biases" in traditional media, despite being largely untrue.
The change has come largely on television where networks used to use their news divisions as part of the public trust for taking our spectrum in order to make money (largely off of US fare in a Canadian context). In general, terrestrial networks' news divisions still hold these principals, despite making little of their profits over-the-air anymore (or on news). Enter the rise of cable news and crusading journalism, particularly in the US. As there was never any public trust to be filled, the glory days of even CNN have withered and wandered only to be outdone, ratings-wise at least, by overtly biased MSNBC and Fox News. Americans have essentially become so accustomed to "their network" rooting for "their guy" that traditional journalism is considered even more biased than the super obvious bias of what they are watching. It's why Trump-heads hate CBS News for example. Even though it is far less biased than MSNBC or Fox News, the fact that they aren't championing either the GOP or the Dems confuses them. People choose the news they want to hear and far too often. Social networking allows us to even curate it to our beliefs. This has slipped into Canada even though we don't have direct equivalents of MSNBC and Fox News.
CBC News goes through a lot of that criticism, despite being super aware of getting different voices on the air. One of the reasons that Conservative insiders like the CBC so much (although they don't state it publically) is because it is so easy to get "their voices" on panels, etc. That need to represent all of Canada should shield CBC from a lot of the criticism it receives, but it often does the opposite. As people don't hear them "rooting" for their team, they must be "biased" even though they aren't rooting for any team. And the fact that they are public means they must be in the hands of the Liberals, despite Liberals cutting the corp just as badly as Conservatives historically and despite CBC breaking more Liberal scandals than most other organizations combined.
There's no easy way out of this bind as the people seem to have made their mind up on what they think is biased and what isn't, but I'd argue that the crusading journalism is more on the right than the left (although definitely exists on both sides) and that with all major media companies being part of billion-dollar conglomerates (save pubcasters and non-profits), the bias actually continues to move more to the right which has amplified their voice regarding the "biases" in traditional media, despite being largely untrue.
The Liberals, on the other hand, point to Harper era appointees on the CBC board to “prove” that it is a Conservative mouthpiece.
TransitBart
Senior Member
https://apple.news/AEsKwo7LJRvOG2Hdme51FPA
It’s the end for Scheer. I didn’t realize how socially conservative his views were. His economic policies were anything but conservative. Opportunistic and populist. What a lump.
It’s the end for Scheer. I didn’t realize how socially conservative his views were. His economic policies were anything but conservative. Opportunistic and populist. What a lump.
narduch
Senior Member
Scheer is done.
Once the CTV reporters start coming after you with articles like that its over.
Once the CTV reporters start coming after you with articles like that its over.
Videodrome
Senior Member
Very much agreed. He seems more suited to the Christian Heritage Party. It just seems so inauthentic to have a devoted SoCon try and pass himself off as merely "accepting" of socially liberal policies. There are a lot of gay conservatives out there who like low taxes and their right to exist not being questioned.
Jasmine18
Senior Member
Be honest Peter Mackay would be a much better choice... He would have done far better in the Maritimes at least.
Jasmine18
Senior Member
Could you not use that logic for people still voting liberal in the provincial election in Toronto or voted for the liberals in 2011?
No you can't because that is stupid logic...
Frankly, this election showed the flaws of FPTP as so many people did not vote who they wanted. I think a lot of people would have voted for Bloc or NDP more but voted Trudeau to stop Tories and all kinds of mental gymnastics.
Last edited: