Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Be nice or else

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:58am - 114 Comments

In Hungary, which takes over the European Presidency on Jan. 1, the parliament has passed a media law that some in Canada would dream of: it gives a government-appointed board the mandate to seek out unbalanced news coverage and levy massive fines for those deemed to transgress.

“Media can be forced to reveal their sources, the media authority can search editorial offices, can copy reporters’ notes and mandate that publishers hand over confidential business information and levy serious fines on those that refuse,” according to one account. “Immoral” reporting, involving sex, violence or alcohol, would be policed too. Hungarian newspapers have run blank front pages in protest. Poland’s Adam Michnik, a hero of the anti-Communist resistance and a great newspaper proprietor, is pretty angry.

The government of one-time pro-democracy darling Viktor Orban says its hands are tied: the bill was introduced as a private-members measure, so government members have no responsibility for it, although they all, surprise surprise, wound up voting for it.

So now a panel of government appointees will decide what’s fair, balanced and nice, and punish transgressors. How could this possibly go wrong?

Tags: free speech, Hungary

More by Paul Wells

Cats

the parliament has passed a media law that some in Canada would dream of

We already have human rights tribunals.

Then again, the Liberal media polices itself.

Gotcha Cats!

Mike T.

Even with only one comment showing on the main page, I knew that somebody with absolutely no kjnowledge of human rights tribunals would be making a foolish comparison!

Predictable uninformed CATS!

PeterboroDave

Oh Mike- you didn't receive my notice below! Fear not my friend! The question was asked and the answer given! Isn't life great!
Cats

Sigh, apparently I lack "kjnowledge".

Knowledge Cats!

PeterboroDave

You are completely 100% correct. There is no need for further comment. You sir, are right. I have absolutely nothing to add to what you said. Thank you for the complete 100% correct comment.

It's a great feeling to say that we can now end this thread!

Cheers to all and Merry Christmas.

Cats

Merry CATmas to you too!

Y'know I make lakes of spellin and grammer errors but usually when you are mocking someone's intelligence its good to get the little things correct eh ?

Cats away eh ?

PeterboroDave

But, but, I was serious.

PeterboroDave

Wait a second, I am being lectured by CATS about mocking and grammar.

The world is indeed strange and wonderful place.

Merry Christmas, Cats.

bergkamp

" …. some in Canada would dream of: it gives a government-appointed board the mandate to seek out unbalanced news coverage and levy massive fines for those deemed to transgress."

No need to dream. Between human rights commissions, and our various levels of pols thinking it is their duty to comment on Macleans articles, we have government censorship. Even tho there is no formal law in writing, I am willing to bet many/most of our journos think about what they are writing and will it anger pols and/or human rights commission.

I am sure people in msm notice that Macleans is a bit of a lightning rod and don't want to be part of it. There has been little comment by other msm sources about Government making accusations about Macleans over the past year, which should shock me but it doesn't.

Other than Macleans, and one or two others journos, our msm is deeply in thrall to Government and/ or political correctness and writing interesting articles that readers might enjoy is secondary.

Thwim

More stock in Alcan you say?
GeoffM

"I am willing to bet many/most of our journos think about what they are writing"

Apologize immediately for that ludicrous allegation.
s_c_f

You're right, it's absolutely disgraceful that the rest of the media has failed to stand up for Maclean's when politicians were denouncing the magazine. In the US, when the government tried to isolate Fox News and exclude them from government press access, the other media organizations banded together with Fox News. That's the way it's supposed to be. In Canada the leftist media would rather cozy up to the government that stand up for their profession.

Many Canadian journalists are not even smart enough to stand up for their profession. They allow their politics to trump their job performance.

Emily

In an age where the Web and Wikileaks exist and borders don't, Hungary is somewhat behind the times.

No doubt it will take a few years for them to catch up.

Cats

Borders don't exist ??

Tell that to everyone waiting 2 hours to get into the US.

Lolzs @ some of the most ridiculous things Emily says when she tries SO SO SO VERY HARD to be WORLDLY, WISE, AND WEARY.

Cats! Oh for the love of God CATS!
ex-canuck

One fears you are a tad patronising, Ms Emily.

john g

Yikes. I'm one of the biggest believers in media bias on these boards and that kind of arrangement even here in a healthy democracy like Canada would scare the crap out of me, let alone a country with Hungary's recent history. Media bias is a problem that needs to be solved but putting it under the control of the government is not the way.

bergkamp

" …. one of the biggest believers in media bias on these boards …. "

There is no doubt out msm leans liberal/progressive but the solution is not government intervention, the solution is to bring better balance.

I was wondering who Wells had in mind when he wrote some people dream of a law like Hungary's because conservatives I know think msm is biased but would like government intervention even less.

Hungary's law would appeal to people on left, the ones who get the vapours when Macleans publishes article about too many asians and how we are going to need affirmative action programs for white kids to get into university soon because they are too dim.

Thwim

The media isn't biased. The facts are.

Cats

More stock in Alcan I hear.

Or Pfizer. Like ya know whichever.

Where does this guy get this stuff Cats ???

Mike T.

'm one of the biggest believers in media bias on these boards

***

And with a mightly big tendency to play fast and loose with facts yrself, mr. 9/11 mosque…

QED, I guess.

john g

Mike, put your money where your mouth is. I challenge you to produce a single fact that I've stated on these boards that I've "lied" about regarding the 9/11 mosque. Just one. Bring it forward and lets have at it. If you find an error in my facts I'll acknowledge it, but everything I've posted here on that topic has been done so in good faith and I believed it to be true at the time. You should be able to search my IntenseDebate comment history pretty easily. I wouldn't have posted on this topic from anywhere else.

If you're going to bring up "It's not really at Ground zero", that's a question of interpretation, not a fact. It's at a building that was damaged by the wreckage of the 9/11 aircraft. That's a fact. I interpret that to be "at Ground Zero". You may not.

If you can't find one example to justify calling me a liar, then kindly piss off.

Mike T.

…and the Ezra Levant article, and the "gee, I don't know if the CPC is serious about being able to take all 3 byelections".

You're a joke, kiddo.

john g

"gee, I don't know if the CPC is serious about being able to take all 3 byelections"

Interesting. Because that's not what I said, nor is it what the CPC said. They didn't say they could take all 3 by-elections, and neither did I. Read the story again, and my comment.

So you have to misrepresent my own positions to make a liar out of me? Joke's on you, dumbass. I'm done with you.
Mike T.

I am sorry you "feel" this way. Of course, who knows what you really say or mean?
Mike T.

if you think you've actually rebutted your disingenous falsheood with that, then indeed there is nothing left to say.
Cats

2 replies ?

Someone just showed that he lost and that he's desperate.

Egg on your face it appears. John G comes away spotless, the better man to be sure.

Victory Cats!

LdKitchenersOwn

"Media can be forced to reveal their sources…"

Unless the government of Hungary is planning on using torture, or threatening peoples' families or something, I wouldn't be so confident that this is the case if I were them. Journalists are often jailed for not revealing their sources, but I find that many of them tend to be pretty sticky about not actually doing so nonetheless.

hollinm

Once of the serious issues and it is becoming more prevalent these days is the issue of politicians/bureaucrats etc. speaking on background coupled with unnamed sources. It is very difficult to judge whether the person speaking has an axe to grind or the reporter/columnists is simply using the "unnamed source" meme to advance their story line.

McC_

those aren't bureaucrats speaking on background, those are political staffers. about the only things they have in common with public servants is that they also reside in Ottawa and are also paid by our taxes.

hollinm

Prove to me that bureaucrats don't leak or pass out brown envelopes or talk about their own pet projects to spin the media. Maybe I didn't word my comments to your liking. Maybe bureaucrats are a different class of leakers or spinners. How do you think the media gets some of the information they get if not by bureaucrats?

McC_

I'm saying that 99.9% of the time a story cites a "senior government official" a "government spokesperson" or "sources inside the government " it is refering to a political staffer not a public servant.
hollinm

You forgot annonymous sources……You must be a bureaucrat. Why the defense of this group who are predominately Liberal in philosphy and not like the government. I know for a fact the bureaucrats are working against the government.

Skinny Dipper

A Harper appointed media panel would conclude that Faux News North (Sun Media) is fair; the Toronto Star and the CBC are unfair (not including the Power and Politics show).

hollinm

And they would be absolutely right.

LdKitchenersOwn

Just as "absolutely right" as a Layton-appointed panel who concluded that the Toronto Star and CBC are fair, and that Sun News is unfair?

How are you avoiding slipping on that slope!?!?!

hollinm

It was sarcasm old boy…sarcasm.

LdKitchenersOwn

Ah. I've entered a bit of a Christmastime irony-free zone for the holidays, so my antennae aren't as sharp as always.
craigola

Just goes to show what I know. I thought it was a pun.

alfanerd

which is why it's a terrible idea – whether the media panel is appointed by Harper, or by anyone else. media fairness is not something the government should get into.

alfanerd

Well, as much as I dislike the HRCs/HRTs, they dont have yet a mandate to make sure news coverage is balanced. Besides, if we want to improve 'media balance' in Canada, all we need to do is liquidate the CBC. Not only would we save 1 billion per year, we could probably pick up an extra 2 billion from the sale of the CBC's assets, and improve 'media balance' in Canada.

Not that I consider 'media balance' to be something the government should strive to achieve, but i would enjoy lefty heads exploding.

McC_

Why do you hate Stuart McLean?

alfanerd

i dont. he can have his show on a station which is not subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of 1 billion a year.

McC_

Do you honestly believe that commercial and private radio broadcasters could deliver programming of the same quality as the CBC in every corner of the country? becase all evidence is to the contrary.

alfanerd

Same "quality" as the CBC? I can only guess that you're being sarcastic here.

In any event, the quality of the broadcasting is besides the point – government shouldnt fund/subsidize media outlets, period (that includes macleans/rogers/everything else, but the CBC is clearly the largest recipient of taxpayer $).
Thwim

So you're saying folks in smaller and rural areas should be satisfied with the local paper that comes out once a week? Because that's essentially what you're arguing. There's a reason we subsidize media and broadcasters, and part of that is so that they will continue to push their programming into markets that aren't lucrative enough to bother with otherwise.
Cats

CBC doesn't offer reporting in smaller or rural areas.

They have big city stations. Just like everyone else.

Subsidizing community television is another matter altogether. Although perhaps without CBC crowding everyone else out we'd see more boutique style regional networks offering good smaller/rural area services.

Cats away!
alfanerd

No not quite. I think you're confusing carriers with content producers. CBC's 1 billion is not used to bring content to rural areas. Nice strawman though.
McC_

of course the CBC brings radio content to rural areas that are not serviced by (many) commercial broadcasters.
alfanerd

Ok then, let's get rid of the CBC, and subsidize broadcasters who broadcast in underserviced areas. That'll cost far less than the 1 billion the CBC receives.
Holly Stick

You have no sense of reality, do you? Did you think up these stupid ideas yourself, or were they in the official memo?
Thwim

I think you're simply wrong in that. CBC has economies of scale on its side for that kind of thing. Supporting however many thousand independants it would require to ensure similar coverage would, I expect, cost far more than a billion.
Thwim

Hm. That could be, actually. I'm under the impression that the CBC is the one responsible for ensuring that its signal gets out to people in the boonies — whether that meant it had to hire carriers or offer it's programming at a vastly reduced rate to get them to carry it.

However, it's quite possible I'm mistaken in that.

Even so, however, I can't help but think that the mere presence of the CBC, because of its size and reliability, works to create a broadcasting community that makes it more profitable for private content producers — *and carriers* — to operate in the remoter regions of Canada.

Also, I have to admit, I feel there's value in having a publicly supported station in Canada — one not entirely beholden to advertisers, and yet with the resources to provide solid production values, good programming, and without having to constantly resort to three hour funding drives. Now I'll admit, I rarely watch it other than the occasional documentary, but I hardly begrudge the portion of my tax dollar going to support the CBC and the ancillary industries it supports across Canada — at least, I begrudge it a hell of a lot less than I begrudge the money going to useless MPs as "parliamentary secretaries" and useless MP's as "cabinet ministers" when said ministers and secretaries can't even be arsed to answer a question in question period.

And I certainly begrudge it a lot less than the money spent on, say, snowmobile trail development, gazebo building, or elevated sidwalks
alfanerd

Well, at least you're being honest in wanting a public broadcaster for the sake of having a public broadcaster.

I dont think the CBC's presence helps private content producers though – they're the competition, and having a subsidized competition is never good.
Thwim

Oh I don't know about that.. it can serve to bring in some economies of scale around labour that wouldn't exist otherwise. If we go by the common assumption that, being government funded, a job at CBC pays pretty decently, one could argue that the knowledge of this can encourage people to get the skills which might get them a job there, and, since there's limited employment there, they then have these skills which can be taken to private providers.

Also, it has provided a potential market for new Canadian television and film producers which wouldn't have existed otherwise. This definitely supports the development of the industry, which then the private producers are able to tap into, as Znaimer and his various stations such as CityTV etc, are starting to do now.
Cats

There is little "economy" to be found at the CBC.

Like all government entities their workers are overpaid compared to the private sector.

And apparently Sun reported that their execs are livin' large !

Seriously Cats ? Stop talking economics please Cats!
Jenn_

I think it would be great to have a real discussion about the CBC and what it brings to the table. The first thing would be that we don't start from a view of "scrap the whole thing" or "leave it completely alone as it is"

As an urbanite, the only thing I watch on CBC is Power and Politics, and I never listen to the radio channels. I like the concept of a National broadcaster, because oddly I think it prevents CTV from becoming an affiliate of NBC, CBS or something. I understand rural citizens find it invaluable–although I'm not exactly sure why. Is it because "you can only get channel 3" like in my cottaging youth? Is there some way we can re-align the production of Canadian shows with a product required to make a profit?
Keith in Brampton

It's been a long time since I lived in a remote community, but back then not only was CBC the only broadcaster, but it provided valuable local content. CBC North in particular reached out to the native communities with programming in their own language. Even if they now have cable/satellite and internet, such unique programming (assuming it is still available) is well worth supporting with tax dollars.

I rarely watch the CBC, as I have access to so much more, but there is definite value to a lot of its local coverage that a commercial network simply would not be able to supply. Not all of us live in major centers…
kcm

I'm North of sixty. CBC North still going strong – Aboriginal programming too.
Cats

Why can't we start from the view of "scrap the whole thing" ??

How about we start from our own views, hear the opposing arguments, if they are persuasive change our views and if not stick with them ?

Instead of taking the most obvious option off the table straight away.

Don't limit Cats!
Jenn_

Well, dear Cats, because when you start with either extreme, you tend to alienate people completely, immediately. So they won't listen to any good points you might have because they've already decided you are a kook or something.
kcm

Shhh, you might wake the cat up.
Andre

Because abolishing the CBC is about as feasible as dismantling the CRA. How about a no non-sense discussion for once.
xiv

One of the problems is to have this real discussion from the point of view of "the CBC can exist but i'd like to know why it costs a billion dollars in subsidies per year" is it would involve seeing their books in detail. And with that information released you'd get more screaming about how much they spend on coffee than rational discussion about the shrinking, repurposing, or validation of the role of the CBC.

As a crown corporation that receives a rather large annual subsidy it's in a complex place of needing to act like a corporation while being accountable to the public, and that makes none of this simple.
Jenn_

Well, I'm not sure that the coffee expense shouldn't be looked at, although certainly I take your point that the discussion on where to spend the money is at least as important as how much money is spent where.

Cats

CRTC has a mandate to ensure balanced coverage.

No, i'm not even joking.

Cats!

alfanerd

Really? Can you point to a section in the Act?

Cats

Sorry too busy to do any digging. But jump to point 24 on the following link:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-725.h…

Its the CRTC deciding whether Al Jazeera English is balanced enough to air in Canada.

The issue came up in all the newspaper columns discussing Sun TV too. Warren Kinsella calls himself the "token" lefty because without one there would be no CRTC approval.

Cats away!

hollinm

This sound like the Fairness doctrine that some in the U.S. are advocating in an effort to silence Conservative talk shows and of course Fox News.
Given technology today and its evolution we don't need these draconian measures. There are plenty who can expose the various media outlets for their biases and failure to report the full story.
In fact many Canadians view the print and electronic media as superficial and biased. So they simply ignore them. The traditional media is becoming more irrelevant as people seek out other sources of information.

Dan Calda

This is nothing new. There used to be a fairness in broadcasting law in the US until Reagan repealed it. This gave rise to the Glen Becks and Fox News of the world. In Canada it is not much different. Our media concentration is worse then in the States. A few corporate entities control all the news outlets. That is why Harper gets a free pass on many issues. If he were a Liberal, and pulled the stunts he has…he would be crucified.

But it is even worse here. Far too many reporters are eyeing Senate appointments to suck up to Herr Harper

hollinm

Your post did not make a lot of sense and really it is not in touch reality. If you think the media is on Harper's side then you have a distorted view of what's happening in Canada these days. However, believe what you will.

You lost me with the Herr Harper reference. Its over the top and really shows you are desperate.

gottabesaid

Before you even entertain the debate over freedom of the press (and the predictable and ever-irritating bellyaching about the 'left-wing media bias' here), Hungary's new journalism overlords are going to have a helluva time keeping a lid on unfavourable press. China can pull it off… but how much resources are dedicated to that? How much resources will the Hungarian government have to dedicate to this effort even to get meager results? With information being accessible as it is these days, Hungary will be facing an uphill battle. Don't count on this media board lasting too long.
Mike T.

When government cares not for truth and the press will not hold them to account, all the regulation in the world cannot resolve the issue.

s_c_f

You're off topic. The story is about government holding the press to account, which is an absurd proposition.

You're talking about the press holding the government to account, which is a completely different topic.

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

The best means to unbiased media is the scientific method. Sources must be documented. Statements must be tested. Also, citizens need education in media literacy, cognitive bias, and need be given the tools and skills to cut through spin and messaging. Information wants to be freed. You can't impose standards or restrictions on the production or dissemination of information, but you must educate people to see how manipulation distorts meaning.

john g

Even more important than this though, is that people need to know when the media deliberately suppress news because releasing it might be embarrassing or cost political capital to their favoured side.

This is the hardest kind of media bias to catch. It's easy to focus on what the media does cover; it's much harder to know when they deliberately leave important things on the cutting room floor.

Thwim

Partly because what's "important" differs from person to person.

john g

Exactly my point.

To illustrate…go to Google News Archive Search. "Rahim Jaffer" "Drunk Driving" results in "About 78 results".

But of course, you may say, because of everything else that came out about Jaffer's activities. However, there are 19 stories in the Google archive that refer specifically to his drunk driving arrest the day it happened (before his other shenanigans were known about), and 20 more demanding explanations from the Conservatives when the charges were dropped.

"Pablo Rodriguez" "Drunk Driving" results in 2 stories (there are 6 stories on the page, but 3 of them are unrelated, and for one of them Rodriguez is mentioned only in the comments). Both in the National Post.

Clearly to the aggregate of people that are in the Canadian media, a former Conservative MP's drunk driving escapades in which there was no damage or injuries to anyone was at least 10 times more important than the drunk driving escapades of a current Liberal MP and member of the Liberal Shadow Cabinet who actually crashed his car into another, refused to blow into the breathalyzer, and tried to use his party membership to evade police charges.

So tell me Thwim…why do you think the media collectively found one "politician caught drunk driving" story so much more "important" than the other? Do you think it is acceptable that they do?

The Google archive contains 20 stories demanding explanations from the Conservatives for Jaffer's charges being dropped, despite Jaffer no longer being an MP. Only the National Post has written demanding that Pablo Rodriguez's actions be explained or that he be removed from Shadow Cabinet.

Why do think the media is collectively 20 times more interested in accountability for former MP Rahim Jaffer than for current MP Pablo Rodriguez? Do you consider that acceptable?

brooster2

I just did your google search on both politicians and got 1 hit on Rodriguez and 2 on Jaffer (Canadian page search in both cases).

In addition, the disparity in the results you found may be explained by the fact that Jaffer was the subject of many other stories relating to his business activities, alleged lobbying transgressions, marriage to Helena Guergis and her tribulations. Many of those stories would have mentioned, by way of background, Jaffer's charge of "drunk driving" and these unrelated stories would have been harvested in your google search.

So, not to belabour the point, I don't think this kind of data is indicative of a media bias so much as it's a reflection of "newsworthiness".
john g

Search Google news Archives. Not the current page.

And I addressed your other point. You'll see it if you search the archives. 3rd item is the news reports on Jaffer's initial DD arrest. There were 19 stories. Before any of the other nonsense.
brooster2

Fair enough. I stand corrected. I guess I'm still skeptical that this kind of data is necessarily indicative of a collective, monolithic pro-left bias. Anecdotally, politicians from other parties have also been magnets for negative media attention, for example Ruby Dhalla when she was accused of exploiting and abusing immigrant domestic staff.

To me, it's more accurate to portray each of the major media in Canada as perched somewhere across a spectrum of political perspectives, from right (the Sun chain, National Post) to left (and here I'm struggling to think of a major Canadian medium that I would consider "left").

Part of the problem here is how one evaluates the perspective of a particular medium. For example, I consider the Toronto Star to be a moderate or left-center paper but I know many will insist it's a handmaiden of the left wing.
Orson Bean

I agree it's a bit difficult to say that the greater coverage of Jaffer's arrest is purely due to media bias. Jaffer was always a more high-profile MP than Rodriguez, so that immediately confounds things.

This reminds me of the kind of analysis Chomsky does in Manufacturing Consent — he purports to compare "equivalent" stories in the American media, and then concludes that because story A received more coverage than story B, it's proof of corporate media bias. But Chomsky's examples suffer from the same problem noted above — there are lots of reasons why one story might get more play, not just ideological or partisan bias.
Thwim

Do remember that scandals of those in power is always more newsworthy than those not in power.

Not everybody has the obsession with the Liberals that you do.
john g

Jaffer was not in power. He was a defeated MP.
Leo

Harper and 'where is the wafer' storey has to be the winner in junk journalism.
Kevin

Completely unacceptable. Race should never be a factor in these matters.
briguyhfx

"Svend Robinson ring" brings up 4090 results on a Google search, but only 2 from a Google News search. How do you search just the Google News Archives (as opposed to Google News non-archive)?
john g

After you do your search on Google news, "Archives" is in the left sidebar. It will let you search specific time periods, although the completeness of the archives does leave something to be desired.
briguyhfx

Thanks!

My Svend Robinson ring search came up with 327 Google News archive results. I'm guessing that the papers that stayed quiet over Rahim Jaffer's poor driving choices had a field day. As did the papers that shut up about Pablo Rodriguez.

OTOH, Gordon Cambell drunk driving returns 225 results, and he was both a Liberal and (was) a darling of the right when he decided to risk the lives of innocent Hawaiians. Not sure what to make of these results, besides possibly that the party affiliation and political leanings have little to do with the determination of newsworthiness by newsroom editors. Or maybe that some stories are too big to be killed by political insiders in the newsroom.
tobyornotoby

Or what about if I search Rahim and Cocaine? Or Rahim and strippers? Oh look, lots of stories; must be media bias.

Unless … could it be that someone getting away with cocaine possession, running a lobbying business out of a cabinet minister's office and taking business meetings in strip clubs is a bit more sensational than a drunk driving arrest?

http://www.twitter.com/neiljedmondson Neil Edmondson

Cats is right, we already have the HRCs. The Press Council thingie has teeth too when the powers that be want it to and when media types deviate from the meta-party line, as evidenced by the Jan Wonging of Jan Wong.

I'm with Solzhenitsen, we should elect the media, the public interest is too precious to leave to corporations. I'm kidding, mostly, but look what happened with Sun News TV, you've got a former head of PEN Canada, Atwwod, trying to shut it down before it even opens. You've got Senator Poy agitating to cut Macleans' subsidy for writing one (1) article perceived as painting outside the lines.

Oh, and did I mention how much I enjoyed the recent Maclean's issue with the cover claiming that Omar Khadr is a, quote, "model citizen"? Great job, team!

Mike T.

There is absolutely no correlation between government tribunals, some of which have the ability to levy penalties for hate speech, and government tribunals which have the ability to levy penalties for the nature of reporting on the government.
sine_ingenio

For the record, Ms Atwood didn't try to shut down Sun News TV, she merely objected as did many others that it be given preferential treatment, a request that has since been abandoned by the owners.

Orson Bean

Ms. Atwood, and especially others with whom she was affiliated, played quite fast and loose with that. If you went to, e.g., the websites of many of her fellow-travellers, they had headlines like "NO FOX NEWS NORTH". That is not just an objection to preferential treatment — that's saying no Fox North, period.

Atwood came out with her "clarification" about preferential treatment, that's true, but only after she was rightly criticized for being anti-free speech.

And the thing is, every knowledgeable media commentator knew from the get-go that Sun TV's chances of getting the preferential "must carry" license were extremely slim. A lot of the opponents used that rather technical issue as a fig leaf for attacking Sun TV generally.

Holly Stick

Speaking of government boards misbehaving, look at who Right & Democracy sent some of its money to:
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5853
briguyhfx

I've always considered it a good sign that there are many, many newspapers and magazines that print absolute tripe that no sane person could agree with, and there there are a few that print kernels of truth. And that there are rags that simply reprint press releases and spew party/company propaganda, whereas there are good zines and weeklies that actually do investigative journalism. It makes me appreciate the journalists who actually can research topics and come to understand complex ideas that much more, and makes me want to consider the other stories in the magazine/paper that runs their byline.

It does bother me that people can so easily be fooled by the lies of organised liars (hello FOXNews!), or the ignorance of paid stenographers, but certainly the answer to propaganda and ignorance can't be government interference. Loss of press freedom leads to complete Authoritarianism pretty damn quickly.

john g

but certainly the answer to propaganda and ignorance can't be government interference. Loss of press freedom leads to complete Authoritarianism pretty damn quickly.

Absolutely agree.

The media needs more watchdogs but they must be private. There are some good ones in the States like the Media Research Center and Accuracy In Media, on the conservative side, or Media Matters on the liberal side (though the liberals obviously don't need as many media advocacy groups). I don't really think media bias can ever be eliminated, but people need to know where their news is coming from and what is shaping it.

I'd also like to see some of the polling that Gallup does down south about media perceptions come up here. If the producers of our news were shown numbers like this, perhaps that would help lead to a better product. Maybe our media do run these polls internally, but the results are too embarrassing to publish.

Leo

Are we seeing a trend hdeveloping? Argentina new media law as of October 2009.

"Argentina’s media pie will be reallocated in three even slices of 33 per cent each: one will be retained by the private conglomerates, including of course the Grupo Clarin, whereas the other two will be redistributed between state-funded press and non-governmental organisations. Seventy per cent of radio content and 60 per cent of television content be produced in Argentina, and cable TV companies, now fountains of North American media, will be required to carry channels operated by universities, unions, Indigenous groups and other NGOs" http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3040
s_c_f

Some senators in Canada are already going down the same road.

What's the Maclean's position on this: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Senate+ca…

Seems as though Liberal Senate members want to disqualify magazines that do not espouse Liberal party ideals from funding.

Or, in other words, a Liberal member of the senate wants to pull funding from magazines that she does not agree with.

Seems to me the chamber of sober second thought is not so sober. Seems sort of drunken to me.
chet

The opposition to SUN TVs CRTC application is just as creepy.

Let all ideas and sides be heard, and let the light of day shine on what the truth really is.
Thwim

Cost of Sirius satellite radio is 165 US, plus activation and taxes.. plus radio. So you're talking around $200 for a year. A billion dollars would thus provide radio for about 5 million people.. (assuming we're using proper Canadian billions here).

A billion dollars currently provides radio for the entire population of Canada.. 33 million, which includes that subset of 5 million.

Figures you'd think the former was a better deal. Conservative math in action.

Cats

Um wow. You don't figure the Canadian government could get a smoking deal for buying in bulk ??

BTW – you mean 5 million HOUSEHOLDS. Which pretty much takes care of most of the people who would actually want one of these things.

Most of us live in cities, small or large, that have perfectly good local stations.

Don't question my math Cats!

Thwim

Okay, let's say they get a smoking deal.. say 50%.. (which, incidentally, ain't gonna happen. Look at their last report. Their margins are too thin. Really any more than a 10% discount and they're providing service at a loss) that's still only 10 million people.

Or the gov't could serve 3x as many for the same billion.

Question your math? I wouldn't dream of it.. I'm just waiting for you to actually present some.

Vatro

I for one look forward to discovering what the clear, ever changing, definition of unbalanced is going to be. Hungry is going places as it always does :D

PS: WTF do cats have to do with anything? The only thing I know about them is that they make a lot of creepy noise at night and fight a lot. Also I think they took to peeing on my front door.
chet

The great equalizer is of course the internet.

For instance, I can post this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/21/sea-ice-new…

Which links to a number of authoritative sources that show Antarctic Ice is at record highs.

The media dare not shatter the AGW meme which has focused soley on the North Pole (Shhhhh there is no South Pole) and then only when the North Pole decreases, but not increases.

But Watts and others like him cannot be silenced, and eventually the truth gets out, notwithstanding our information gatekeepers in the media.
chet

Watts concludes with this summation (which should put our shameless agdenda driven media to shame):

"Antarctica is by far the largest mass of ice on Earth, containing approximately 90% of the world’s supply. By contrast, the Arctic and glaciers make up the remainder, yet they get all the facetime.

The fact that Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica is trending up and has been regularly hitting record highs in 2010 should give any rational person a moment’s pause. It might even provide the basis for some healthy skepticism of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative."

I posted this on another thread, and the response was not to address the sources Watts linked to, but to attack him personally.

Some don't seem to like the light of day shining upon the facts. The "wrong" facts that is.
Holly Stick

I had forgotten about that; but that article puts a much uglier light on Provea than Well's post does. It's all part of Harper funding anti-progressives in Latin America.
Leo

So you agree with Hugo's media reform of shutting down any media that said anything negative about him?
Holly Stick

Did I say that somewhere?
Leo

You label Provea anti-progressive, why? They are a rights and democracy group reporting on what is going on. Chavez has been on an expropriation binge – private companies, universities, farms, media.

"Unable to create any prosperity, even after 12 years in power and a trillion dollars in oil cash, Chavez still resorts to crude medieval plunder to bring any spoils to his supporters."

Chavez is well on his way to making Venezuela into another Zimbabwe – dictators have a habit of doing that.
Orson Bean

"You label Provea anti-progressive, why?"

It's quite simple, really. In Hollyworld, left-wing + anti-American=progressive.

Chavez is left-wing and anti-American. Ergo, he is progressive.

Provea has been critical of Chavez. Ergo, it is anti-progressive.

See how simple that is?
Holly Stick

"You label Provea anti-progressive, why?…" Because I read the article I linked to Leo. You and Orson should try that sometime. It says things like this:

"…The simple truth is that the current government in Ottawa supports the old elites that long worked with the U.S. empire. It opposes the progressive social transformations taking place in a number of Latin American countries and as a result it supports civil society groups opposed to these developments."
Orson Bean

I read the article, and anyone with critical reading skills can see that it's biased, one-sided crap. It implies that anyone who has a problem with Chavez must be a lackey of the evil imperialists. The situation on the ground is just a little bit more complex and nuanced than that.
Leo

But I did read it, then looked to see who authors the articles. Pretty much all social political activists who are anti-capitalism, American, Isreal, etc. Orson Bean's equation was very simple but accurate.

Chavez has set himself up to rule by decree, control the media – he considers Kim Jong il a role model. That is scary. But who do you believe? Peace.

FYI some background on Provea from a different point of view. http://www.alekboyd.com/2005/04/sins-of-eva-golin…
Holly Stick

Chavez is democratically elected. No wonder the elites hate him.