Slashdot Mirror
Attacks on the Media Are a Threat To Democracy, Justin Trudeau Says (www.cbc.ca)
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a press freedom event in Paris Sunday that one of the bulwarks protecting democratic governments from being undermined is also an institution under stress -- a free-thinking, robust media. From a report: "If a democracy is to function you need an educated populace, and you need to have an informed populace, ready to make judicious decisions about who to grant power to and when to take it away," Trudeau said. "When citizens cannot have rigorous analysis of the exercise of the power that is in their name and they have granted, the rest of the foundation of our democracies start to erode at the same time as cynicism arises." The press freedom advocacy organization Reporters Without Borders has developed a six-page international declaration on information and democracy to establish basic principles for the "common good of mankind." The organization hosted a small event on the sidelines of the Paris Peace Forum late Sunday afternoon where five presidents and prime ministers, including Trudeau, offered endorsements for this declaration. The Paris Peace Forum, intended to be an annual gathering of political, business and civil society leaders to explore peaceful solutions to the world's problems, was hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron to coincide with this weekend's events marking the centenary of the armistice agreement that ended the First World War.
Trudeau, addressing the audience at the press freedom event without a prepared text, also talked about the risk if too many citizens become too cynical about public institutions. "Attacks on the media are not just about getting your preferred political candidate elected," he said. "They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens." Citizens are feeling "very real anxiety," Trudeau said, because their jobs are transforming as globalization increases competition around the world. When that anxiety is exacerbated, it undermines trust in institutions and increases cynicism. "One of the bulwarks against that, and one of the institutions that is most under stress right now, is a free-thinking, independent, rigorous, robust, respected media," the prime minister said.
Trudeau, addressing the audience at the press freedom event without a prepared text, also talked about the risk if too many citizens become too cynical about public institutions. "Attacks on the media are not just about getting your preferred political candidate elected," he said. "They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens." Citizens are feeling "very real anxiety," Trudeau said, because their jobs are transforming as globalization increases competition around the world. When that anxiety is exacerbated, it undermines trust in institutions and increases cynicism. "One of the bulwarks against that, and one of the institutions that is most under stress right now, is a free-thinking, independent, rigorous, robust, respected media," the prime minister said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
People have a low opinion of them because of the way so many of them have repeatedly been shown to behave when they're held accountable.
"One of the bulwarks against that, and one of the institutions that is most under stress right now, is a free-thinking, independent, rigorous, robust, respected media," the prime minister said.
Interesting how he left out "honest," yet threw in "respected" like it's some obligation on the public.
Wait.. your above comment makes it sound like you *approve* of the media being throttled, controlled, and lacking a robustness? Like, you're on board with reducing the ability for the media to provide strong advice to voters, etc?
Because, you say "we're even then", as if you're on the side of "the media sucks, it should be silenced" or some such.
Or is it just that, like many people today, you see "THREAT!! NOT MY TEAM! ATTACK LEADER!", regardless of what the story says?
Realistically, you're the problem.
Here's how to fix your broken brain. Never, ever decide an issue is right or wrong, based upon the party, politics of the person saying it, etc. No party gets it right all the time, and no party gets it wrong all the time.
EG, pretty much every party out there says "murder is bad". Using your method of response, if party $x or representative $x said "Murder is bad!", you'd say "No, you suck, it's good!"
Because that's what you did right here.
One problem here is that governments in general cannot be trusted. Their own actions are slowly starting to backfire.
Governments mostly care about bookkeeping and economic growth. They - mine included - don't give a d*mn about the the civilian. Instead of the gov serving the public, we only appear to exist to serve the nation and enrich the few % wealthy.
It has little to nothing to do with internet (as Tim Berners-Lee suggest) itself, it has little but maybe something to do with information and disinformation but any mass media is guilty of that, it's not limited to internet. It has directly to do with the attitude and the actions of governments and officials who treat people as crap. It's no wonder that people get upset.
Add in some propaganda machine's, ranging from populists to anti-populists, and more and more people realizing this is all propaganda. Why is it so hard to deal with fake news? Because the line between fake news and propaganda is blurring. And the civilian? Can choose between getting brainwashed or become cynical.
The future comes by either evolution or revolution. If gov's actually would start listening and acting in favor of their on population. But i doubt they do, as most gov's are steered by a few multinationals and other wealthy influences than can afford dozens of lobbyists. The independent parliamentarian is something from last century.
https://openmedia.org/en/ca
#DeleteFacebook
Huh... it's good to know about the sources people cite.
The Rebel Media (officially The Rebel News Network Ltd.,[1] stylized as THEREBEL.media, and shortened to The Rebel) is a Canadian far-right[2][3][4][5][6] online political and social commentary media website. It was founded in February 2015 by former Sun News Network personalities Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley. It has been described as a "global platform" for the anti-Muslim ideology, also known as counter-jihad.[7][8][9]
Former Sun News reporter Faith Goldy later joined the outlet.[10] Gavin McInnes, founder of the far-right men's organization Proud Boys, was also a contributor. Lilley, Goldy, and McInnes have all since left the project.[11]
Many of The Rebel's contributors announced their departure – or were fired – in the second half of August 2017, following Goldy's prominent coverage of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and her interview with The Daily Stormer.
The Rebel Media broadcasts its content on the Rebel Media website and its YouTube channel, which previously peaked on August 16, 2017, at 873,800 subscribers, however with the August departures, it had fallen to a minimum of 842,200 as of August 31. In September–October 2017 the channel resumed its growth. On August 15, 2018, it had over one million subscribers.[12]
The Rebel Media has been described as part of the alt-right movement,[13] although it rejected the term after the Charlottesville rally.[14]
It seems to be a one-stop-shop for racism and Islamophobia.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Media has been devolving into internet clickbait for some time. There is little trust left.
I think it's tough. Trudeau is a typical politician.
He says journalism is important to democracy yet he doesn't mention how media outlets being concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations isn't.
He also was against stopping all arms sales to Saudi Arabia after their government assassinated a journalist.
So I remain confused.... I personally don't consider 90% of journalists real journalist.
Most are just reporters who take popular stories off the wire and repackage it or get a bit more (in fact checked ) information off the internet and social media and use it as sources.
Huh... it's good to know about the sources people cite.
Notice that you didn't dispute anything the articles had to say. Instead, you attacked the messenger.
Wait.. your above comment makes it sound like you *approve* of the media being throttled, controlled, and lacking a robustness?
While I'm not the GP, I believe he was implying (badly) that people should feel free to attack (i.e. strongly criticize) the media if they feel that the media deserves it. If a media outlet is mostly objective and honest then it will probably survive such a trial by fire, but if not, well, good riddance. As Trudeau is saying that the media should deserve respect because they're the media, I call bs and counter by saying that he's a shitty PM defending a shitty media (or at least, the shitty elements of it) because it's on his side, and now they're both reaping what they've sown.
Subscriber funded media, more or less without ads? Minimizes dependency on single copy (or single article) sales, and minimizes the risk of not being able to criticize major advertisers. Also, a culture of investigativeness, correctness, high ethical standards and keeping opinions to the editorial page is useful.
Strong independent (important) public service media, with independently secured funding, is quite important too.
We have had some reform of public service financing in Sweden (a friend and colleague of mine is the member of parliament that drafted the proposal) with even more focus on stable financial independence (in this case, a fixed tax going directly to the TV / radio, bypassing the budget process) and on making it impossible for any administration to directly have any bit of influence on either public service leadership or content.
There is a difference between saying that x and y statements are inaccurate (and here is evidence that they are inaccurate) or relevant information z has been left out which gives an unbalanced impression and saying [media organisation] is an enemy of the people/country/whatever.
The former is valid criticism which gives the media organisation the chance to defend their assertions and editorial choices or correct the record and generally doesn't put anything beyond reputations at risk. The latter is straight out of the playbook of personality cults and tinpot despots. Rather than being an attempt to bring the facts to the fore, it is a vulgar use of raw power to attempt to crush perceived opponents. As it is leveraged power rather than facts in dispute it is very difficult to defend against and does put people in real danger - as we have seen very real examples of. Notable users of this tactic to to destroy opposition include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Nazis Rather than encouraging a robust public debate it holds a gun to the head of any free speech that does not conform to the views of power.
Trial by facts and evidence should what the media has to deal with. Anything beyond that is straying into very dicey territory.
Citing Wikipedia is considered an attack, now? Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally? After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants? There nothing there worth responding to.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
It seems to be a one-stop-shop for racism and Islamophobia.
Okay, serious question time: What's wrong with being against a movement that is against you?
I don't know about you, but me and most people see nothing wrong in being anti-$FOO if $FOO is anti-$ME. And don't give me that crap about how only fringe Muslims are anti-$ME, the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
I see nothing wrong with anti-$FOO people, just like I see nothing wrong with groups who counter anti-$FOO people.
Finally, I'm also seeing no evidence for your "racist" claim - is that something you automatically trot out whenever you have no facts?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The issue is that the GP selected a very disreputable source for their claims. If those claims were true then it would seem wise to select a source with a good reputation and history of accurate reporting.
It's similar to how Wikipedia has banned Brietbart and the Daily Mail as sources. They could waste time evaluating every single citation, but it's easier to just ban sources with extremely poor levels of accuracy because if the story is true there will certainly be better citations available.
Thus it is worth discussing the reliability of sources, because if we see someone who relies exclusively on Rebel Media we know we should apply extra scrutiny, if not simply ignoring them. Time is limited, and citing sources like Rebel Media is worse than citing no sources at all.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Notice that the site provides no source or citation for their exceptional claims, aside from further links to their own website (going by the few pages I read). It's difficult to rebut vague claims in short articles with no source containing more details. Furthermore, it strains reasonability to attempt to do so, given how quickly bullshit can be made up by an experienced bullshitter.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Citing Wikipedia is considered an attack, now
When it's used to smear the messenger instead of debating the content of the article, then yes.
Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally?
No, of course not, and that's the crux of the issue. Wikipedia has a set of "trusted" sources. When this set is heavily biased in one manner, Wikipedia will also be biased. These same "trusted" sources will go out of their way to smear anybody that goes against their bias.
After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
Sure, but that alone cannot be a proxy for truth.
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants?
The stories contain facts and links. What facts stated there do you dispute? As for opinion, it's obvious where the opinion lies in the "trustworthy" news sources in how they report and what they choose to report.
The article didn't provide any support for the claim made therein. It links to a previous story about a man returning from the middle-east to Canada and then throws out the following claims:
Not only is the number itself not sourced anywhere in the article, neither is the claim that these men are all 'battle hardened terrorists'. People travel to conflict areas to for numerous reasons (remember, people do have family and friends still in there) and to work in numerous capacities, including as aid-workers and the people who do end up fighting fight on both sides of the conflict. There are volunteers from the west who've been fighting against the terrorists in Syria for example.
The idiocy then continues:
Well that settles it then doesn't it. If the author of the article doesn't believe it, then clearly it must not be the case right? Utter BS.
The unfounded claims then continue, with the author throwing in this:
Yet again no factual support for either of the claims made, they're simply thrown in there and the reader is expected to believe that they're true.
Yet another repetition of an unfounded claim.
Because in a nation with laws, you need evidence of a crime to prosecute someone. The author seems to be suggesting that simply visiting a conflict area is enough to serve as a basis for prosecution, which it isn't.
Because I'm guessing most if not all of them are Canadian citizens and a country cannot deport its own citizens and again even if they're foreign nationals deporting them means there has to be evidence that they're guilty of something other than just travelling to the middle-east and back.
This is not a news article of any sort, it's a blog/opinion piece by an outlet that clearly has an agenda and doesn't provide basic facts about the situation but simply throws out assertions. That's not a 'messenger', that's a propaganda-outlet, and they're quite upfront about it. Similar rhetoric is always used when defending unfounded claims. The net is full of conspiratorial blog-sites masquerading as news outlets posting all kinds of wild unfounded BS and the counter-argument from fans is always 'why are you attacking the source and not the claims' when the real question should be 'why is anyone believing such claims to begin with with little to no evidence?' On top of that, these sites themselves don't dispute claims with facts, but hand-waive them with statements like 'I don't believe this', so they themselves are simply choosing to attack the messenger instead of using facts to even try and support their arguments.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
The media is ALREADY controlled. Not by the government. But by the corporations that own them, their political leanings and the ever-present drive for clicks/views/market share.
And the portion of the media being throttled are independent journalists. Because the large news corps simply CAN'T accept any competition. Nobody's throttling the MSM.
And the MSM has lacked robustness for more than two decades now. They've ceased being NEWS and become PROPAGANDA outlets.
Again, nobody's stopping the MSM from providing ANY sort of advice to voters that they wish to.
They are stopped short by election interference laws of course.
And they can be stopped by their own violations of civility.
People's heads are exploding because Jimbo Acosta was ejected from the White House press corps.
And these same people CHEERED when Obama had a similarly obnoxious reporter ejected from the press corps greetings during his term.
Fuck this "One rule for me and another for thee" shit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
the last global survey found that the clear majority of muslims in non-muslim countries want to replace current law with sharia law.
Really. And what global survey was that? It took me about one minute to find a respectable survey that says even in most muslim countries most muslims don't want sharia law.
Cite your sources. (I'm not holding out much hope that you will or can)
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
A "disreputable source" is one you disagree with, and do not consider as being part of the sainted Media.
A "disreputable source" is one which an emotionally reactive and intellectually dishonest person disagrees with, and does not consider as being part of the sainted Media.
FTFY. There ARE people who manage to set emotions aside and analyze the news and its sources as objectively as they can given the extant resources. BTW, your pejorative attitude toward the phrase "disreputable source" is uncalled for. While reputation, (good or bad), is no guarantor of propriety, (or impropriety), it is a useful and appropriate pre-screening criterion.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
And that's not even factoring in that he's a politician and therefore an inveterate liar by definition.
"They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens."
I think you just validated his point quite nicely!
I don't think the Canadian PM cares about your constitution. Certainly the Canadian government has shown repeatedly that they don't care about free speech.
It's disreputable because left-leaning people say it's disreputable.
No, it's disreputable because reputable sources who have investigated formed a consensus that it's disreputable. In the face of that, you would need a pretty powerful argument to show that it wasn't the case.
You're not allowed to criticize them; they're media!
He means attacking reputable media organizations, claiming they are part of some leftist conspiracy, calling them fake news and banning their staff from the White House for trying to get answers to difficult questions.
Just calling yourself a journalist, setting up a glorified blog and publishing complete rubbish does not elevate you to the same level as an established news organization with editorial standards and a reputable history. The alt-right knows that, which is why they try to drag such organizations down to their level by denigrating them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> Like, you're on board with reducing the ability for the media to provide strong advice to voters, etc?
Yes. Propaganda outlets provide advice. Journalism is suppose to inform. The media is now a full bore propaganda machine and our democracy is being poisoned by it.
Oh wait. Wait. The media attacks Trump. Sorry I guess they're the good guys again. Let the neiliberalusatuon continue.
No-one is entitled to a platform.
There was a Supreme Court case about a company town (I think it was called Straton) trying to prevent Jehovah's Witnesses from entering as the entire town as its roads were privately owned. The SC ruled that if for all other intents and purposes the streets can be used by everyone else (delivery people, etc.), then they must allow the JWs on as well. If it is effectively a public place for all other uses then it must always be treated as public.
Between Facebook, Google, Twitter and Instagram you cover 95% of how people communicate with strangers on the internet. They have become the de facto public square with a monopoly on information sharing. When monopolies come into existence, anti trust laws also take effect. If the 3 phone companies that service your area all say that they don't want to do business with you even if you pay your bills on time, that's both illegal and collusion.
For offline examples, there are also venues that receive threats of protests (which as Berkeley showed last year can easily turn violent and cause millions in damage), and even anonymous bomb threats when they announce that they'll host a conservative speaker, and the venues back out in fear. This is racketeering and is illegal, but our laws aren't being enforced to punish the people responsible.
The biggest threat to democracy is the media and the government colluding together. Having them be enemies is better for the people because the media might actually expose the corruption and incompetence of the government. When the government and the media get along, you know they are both scratching each other's backs. Look at how the press was treated back in the early days of the United States by officials and how the press treated the officials... Heck, fringe whatever wing rags talking shit about the king were the spark that started the Revolutionary War.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Still there is an option to take a high road, and there's something to be said for taking it.
When firefighters are risking their lives to put out a wild fire the high road is to wish them luck, not call them losers. When a Jewish temple was a victim of a anti-semitic attack, the high road is to keep them in your prayers, not tell them they had it coming for not having armed guards.
It's really not such a tough position to take, unless you are an absolute fucking douchebag.
That depends on how you look at it. He's saying that journos need protecting because "freethinking" safeguards democracy. I'm saying those journos have long ago stopped being "freethinking" and so that battle is well and truly lost already.
To be halfway believable he should urge the journos to be that independent freethinking safeguard again that they once were. I say that takes at the very least replacing all the journos hired in the last decade or three with new ones, AFTER we revamp journalism school to be less about regurgitating press releases and more about that, you know, critical freethinking and all that. I haven't seen any of that in the mainstream press for at least a score years.
In that sense he's completely failing to adequately address the problem that caused all that bad cynicism from those bad bad bad citizens against the good good good institutions he and his friends the journos represent. That just doesn't work.
I'm not seeing that he understood the problem or is trying to fix it. From where I sit, he's just complaining the elite is losing the citizenry's support and yet he's still not willing to admit where that actually comes from. Fine, be like that. But don't expect those "levels of cynicism" to start dropping any time soon.
"If a democracy is to function you need an educated populace, and you need to have an informed populace, ready to make judicious decisions about who to grant power to and when to take it away," Trudeau said."
Well, it's functioned for 242 years w/o an educated populace, why start now? (awaiting pendants who will inform us all that we don't live in a democracy).
Just another day in Paradise
If you are still maintaining that the video was not doctored then you are lying and trying to gaslight us. You are quite simply dishonest.
Thanks for demonstrating just how dishonest the media is. Either you were fooled by their phony narrative, or you are lying yourself. The video was not sped up. It was not doctored. Here's the lefty BuzzFeed:
"There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up -- but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was "doctored" into a semantic debate."
"Watson, however, categorically denies doctoring the video. He told BuzzFeed News that the video was "not edited - it's just zoomed in." He also explained that he took the original footage directly from a GIF posted to the Twitter account of the website the Daily Wire.
"Fact is, Daily Wire put up a gif, I download a gif, zoomed in saved it again as an mt2 file - then converted it to an mp4," Watson said over direct message. "Digitally it's gonna look a tiny bit different after processing and zooming in, but I did not in any way deliberately 'speed up' or 'distort' the video. That's just horse shit.""
Acosta lied when he said he did not put his hands on the intern. Why isn't the media talking about that, instead of trying to reframe the narrative?
You lied when you said Acosta was banned for asking tough questions. He was banned for not giving up the mic and physically preventing a young, female intern from retrieving the mic.
Why don't you and the rest of the "reputable" media acknowledge that Acosta was out of line for refusing to allow the next reporter to ask questions, and acting like he has a right to ask as many questions as he wants?
Your link confirms that the video is misleading by virtue of the timing being screwed up. So even if we accept that the change was the result of the format shift (which seems unlikely because it's uneven, most of it is at the correct speed except for the moment when his arm comes down) that still leaves the fact that the result is misleading and was used to make a false allegation.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
and, at least in the US, few have any sympathy for them. They like to play the victim card over how terrible they're treated but, the reality is, they have few to blame other than themselves.
The news / media have long since ceased being a source of reliable / unbiased information and have, instead, turned into political attack dogs of whatever party they are affiliated with. As a result, I don't even bother to watch, listen or read anything other than the weather from any of our usual news sources. It's simply a waste of my time.
I would agree with Trudeau in that the news / media -should- be free from attacks and criticism, but only if news / media return to their principles and start acting as the professionals they are -supposed- to be. Not the three ring circus they have become.
Lose the bias, sensationalism, personal agendas and personal attacks against political parties and / or people they dislike and just report the damn news.
Returning to their professional roots will go a long way in re-establishing some credibility as journalists and "news" as a whole.
If not . . . . . well. . . . when you engage in mud-slinging, you're bound to get just as dirty.
Don't whine about it when no one hands you a towel.
Your link confirms that the video is misleading by virtue of the timing being screwed up.
No it doesn't. It only talks about compression artifacts and having fewer frames. While that may give the appearance of movement being faster, there's no evidence it was deliberately sped up, and that wasn't the point of the video.
So even if we accept that the change was the result of the format shift (which seems unlikely because it's uneven, most of it is at the correct speed except for the moment when his arm comes down)
That's your own fantasy. Again, from lefty BuzzFeed: "There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up"
that still leaves the fact that the result is misleading and was used to make a false allegation.
No, it was CNN that lied. Rather than admit that, you and the rest of the lying media are trying to reframe the narrative.
Here's the true sequence of events:
Sarah Sanders: "President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration. We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern..."
CNN producer Allie Malloy: "This is a complete lie. The woman grabbed Jim's arm repeatedly. He never once touched her. In fact at one point @Acosta tells her politely "pardon me, mam" as she's yanking on his arm."
Paul Joseph Watson: ""He never once touched her." That is a complete lie. He clearly did. Is whatever you're paid by CNN really worth making a total fool out of yourself for the world to see?"
And he posts the video in question. Then you clowns turn it into a "doctored" video conspiracy theory instead of acknowledging what the story was really about: CNN lying and Acosta being a douche that refused to give up the mic after asking several questions and having them answered, including using his arm to block the young intern from retaking the mic. He only gives up the mic after Trump looks like he's signaling to security to haul his ass out of there. It's the White House Press Conference, not the "Jim Acosta Show".
Anybody can watch the full exchange and see what happened.
"... if they feel that the media deserves it"
No. You can't just "feel" that they deserve criticism, you have to THINK that they deserve it, and based on factual evidence. Feelings aren't good enough; you need facts. Too many people today go about their lives just feeling and wishing, instead of thinking critically and making evidence-based decisions.
Maybe that is what you meant to say.
Should be: Media's Attacks Are a Threat To Democracy
You are free to disagree. You are also wrong and a hypocrite.
You would be the first to whine and DEMAND government intervention if FB google twitter etc were banning your favorite socialist candidates and manipulating search result against your team.
Just because you treat our politics like a team sport, doens't mean the rest of us do. There should be no "sides", just citizens trying to best govern their society.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
This man has no business being in any kind of freedom of the press event. This man who has shut down media in Canada for being against the government. He's passed laws which gives the government carte blanche to jail people for being the wrong kind of media, without legal representation in rotating-door permanent prison sentence without access to the red cross. His laws interfere with private conversation on newsworthy topics by making saying certain things, and has made studying certain areas also illegal. This is the same man who has presided over a government that has used fake news, propaganda in order to limit the ability of our media to make sense of the world, and who wants to engage in a war on math to make sure we can't even *hide* our news gathering, and news dissemination activities from the government. And don't get me started about the state run CBC and how badly they fail us.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The MSM is an agent of that left. At least in America, they view themselves as an unofficial 4th branch of government. They're not, and the can fuck off and do their job, unbiased. Not just just in what they report, but also in what they hold back and don't (omit).
The MSM, an agent of the left? The anti-corporate left? The pro-socialism left? The left that wants to reduce the influence of money in politics?
You think the MSM, owned and controlled by large corporations, is an agent of the people who rail against large corporations? Get your head out of your ass. The MSM is an agent of profit and the status-quo. They are risk-averse, and so will shun anything that threatens their revenue streams. That includes the far-left and the far-right. The far-right is just the threat du jour, with all the overt racism and aggression. The right is scaring away the ad revenue. That's why they are being silenced by the MSM; not because of some left-leaning attitudes. on the part of media owners.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
It's Justin Trudeau.
Does anyone seriously believe he wants to see mainstream journalists do a rigorous and robust analysis of (say) the "wage gap," instead of simply parroting the establishment narrative like they always do?
I think it's tough. Trudeau is a typical politician.
He isn't a typical politician, he's a puppet. He won the Liberal Party nomination not because of his ideas, or skills, or forward thinking, or anything to help Canada. He won it because of his last name. The media propped him up, went out of their way to silence issues, and refused to carry other issues. Here's a good one, "carbon tax" the previous election the Liberals and NDP lost exactly on this issue. The media went out of their way to soft-pedal it, or even openly state that it wasn't a liberal party agenda item. This is after Trudeau Jr., said that he wanted to implement it.
Want to know where the real power lies in Canada? Look up G.M. Butts. He's the same person who was behind many of Kathleen Wynne's(Liberal Party of Ontario) ideas during her tenure as Ontario's Premier. I'll now remind you that the Ontario Liberal Party is so small after that tenure, that it can fit into a 1996 Ford minivan and is no longer an officially recognized political party.
Om, nomnomnom...
He wasn't 'against stopping all arms sales' because he supports the Saudi regime. He was against burdening tax payers with the debt that would cause, as am I.
You are spewing more Fake News to fit your "whatabout" "I'm confused" "but, but but..." narrative.
I don't think most critics want to shut down media. They want to be free to criticize it when it's obviously spouting bullshit.
Trudeau's being criticized because, whether he realizes it or not, he's implying the media shouldn't be criticized when broadcasting approved propaganda. The fact he spun it as 'cynicism' is a perfect example of why it is important to be able to criticize them. The soviets spun critics of their media as 'cynics' and 'dissenters' as well.
Criticism of institutions when they fuck up is critical to maintaining a free society. It does not matter if they're public, private, local, regional, foreign, or domestic.
Dude, I've read what you write, you clearly think that women are people, and should be treated as if they have minds and feelings and are real. That's literally the definition I'm using of SJW, so you're an SJW, now I'm changing it to mean "Someone who is screechy and wants black one-legged lesbians to rule the world" so as you're an SJW I feel compelled to point out that you think that black one-legged lesbians should rule the world.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Nope. The worst offenders — the ones that distort the truth most severely — actually tend to be the ones with right-leaning ideology.
But even if you were correct on that point, you would still be missing the bigger picture. The biggest problem has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with the fact that nobody taught today's journalists that giving equal time to both sides of a story is inherently biased.
You see, most issues aren't purely a matter of opinion. There are actual, objective facts involved in supporting those opinions. And although we can argue about which facts are more important, or over how to interpret those facts, it does no one any good if we allow pundits on either side to substitute "alternative facts" that are provably incorrect.
Giving equal time to inaccurate or downright incorrect information is not serving the public good. Unfortunately, that sort of insanity is exactly what we see on TV every day. We see pundits on one side arguing with pundits on the other side, and nobody with a deep knowledge of the issue doing fact checking until afterwards. So instead of steering the discussion towards a correct, unbiased discussion of the actual facts in which people argue about how to interpret those facts and which ones are more important, we instead have a derailed discussion muddled with disinformation and people arguing over which facts are true.
For example, suppose someone wants to do a story on the shape of the world. The unbiased version of such a story cannot give equal time to people who think the world is flat, because doing so would lead people to incorrectly believe that it is just as likely to be true as the world being round. Real journalism involves reporting facts, not just taking two people who disagree with each other and putting them on screen at the same time, leaving the audience to sort it all out.
Unfortunately, gone are the days when reporters would point out the inaccuracies and lies of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) immediately and unreservedly, mainly because they're too afraid that if they do so, they won't get future interviews. And that's terrifying, because it means that most of the public has no idea what the objective facts surrounding any issue are, and only know that their guy/gal says one thing, and those bad people on the other side say the other.
This is not journalism. News today is not journalism. It is a pale shadow of journalism. And in the rare instances where it starts to approach journalism, calling politicians on their lying, they start shouting "Fake News! Fake News!" and we're back to the pairs of talking heads who can't agree on objective truth, much less subjective truth.
I cry for the future of humanity.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
*blinks*
You do know what socialism is, right? It's things like interstate highways. Socialism is no more inherently authoritarian than pure capitalism, unless by authoritarian, you mean that people have to actually, you know, pay their taxes.
Fascism? That's an ultra-right position, not an ultra-left position. So if the mainstream media is arguing for that, then they can't be ultra-left.
Communism? I don't see anybody arguing for the abolition of free enterprise in this country, on either side of the aisle, much less in the mainstream media. Now you're just making stuff up.
Seriously, do you even understand the things you're talking about, or are you just parroting somebody else's talking points?
When even the traditionally ultra-right Fox News is saying Trump is wrong, Trump is wrong.
So no, he isn't right. All media is biased. No media sticks to reporting the facts. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding him/herself.
Thus, if you're using that to define what is or is not "fake news", then all news media qualifies, and by extension, is "the enemy of the people". Interpreting his statement to be anything other than a broad attack on the mainstream press requires living in a right-wing bubble, in which the right-wing press is somehow not biased, even though all other press is.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Pardon me for quibbling. There are 50 majority-muslim countries but only eight use sharia for criminal law, the others mostly restrict it to family law, and generally to muslims.
In my opinion, theocracy is always an unsound foundation for the rule of law whatever the religion, and as such, detrimental to the economic well being of a nation. Economics will ultimately prevail, it always does.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
That is the exact problem with modern media. And how do we tell a reputable source from a disreputable one, other reputable sources tell you that it is reputable. And how do you evaluate those sources? They are verified by other reputable sources. And so on and so forth. The problem with modern journalism, is that just like wikipedia since you cannot verify sources into infinity, they are all cyclic verifications eventually. And more often that not that cyclic verification is only 1 layer deep.
While wikipedia in some cases sources articles that themselves just copied information from wikipedia, CNN, et all "verifies" its integrity, but bringing on politifact experts it itself verifies by calling them experts. Fact checking sites and news organizations feed off each other and the truth quickly spirals into a deep dark pit where the person who is saying something is more important to the factuality of a statement than what they said.
You can spot how bad of an idea this whole structure is, when the same network or fact checking site says self contradictory things, sometimes in the very same paragraph, but other times simply years apart when yesterday's villain has become today's hero.
For me personally, I lost every ounce of respect in all establishment news when I realised that about ~6 years ago, teams of experts brought onto the most respected of news channels verified unequivocally that Clinton created the Obama is a foreigner moment during her time running against him. And those exact same respected establishments, in many cases the exact same reporters, with a whole new barrell of experts verified that she indeed had nothing to do with any such movement and have always fought against such lies during the 2016 political campaign. That whole controversy is also a very good illustration of fact checking websites Snopes is one of my favourite for political facts, it has a pretty good summary of all the pertinent information, but as they all operate when it gets time to write the 1 sentence summary and give it a grade in particular, they are get weasely. As it turns out years before Clinton vs Obama campaign happened a blog with 2 subscribers published an article "othering" Obama, so no Clinton did not START the othering movement.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.