Editorial Opinion

[Brad Sallows]

The bottom line for me is a simple question: what sort of person would want to outsource his critical thinking to some person or organization with an unknown agenda?  It's not hard to distinguish fever swamps from reputable sources, or to detect bias, or to evaluate whether a journalist is knowledgeable about the subject or is one of Ben Rhodes's "average reporters"*.

The interesting thing about these metadata sources is that they essentially act like information gatekeepers. 

*"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing."

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The whole thing is just a series of "private projects,"

What I mean is the difference between "some guy" operating out of his house with the occasional assistance of a handful of unpaid contributors, and a (hypothetical) organization with a few hundred employees devoted full-time to analyzing the (voluminous) content produced every day by 50 to 100 major media organizations.  The former isn't credible.

 

[Furniture]

When it comes to news that is about "heated" topics I prefer to read a news source that has some distance from the topic. A perfect example for me is when I want news about America I'll go to the BBC, the BBC has less incentive to play to any particular market in America. When I want something even more distant I'll read the Straits Times, or Australian news.

 

[McG]

We are fortunate that, in general, Canada does not experience the degree of polarization that the US does.  A guess: it's because we have a parliament and use FPTP to decide elections.  A faction that can command roughly 40% of the popular vote can win a majority and execute its will without the gridlock of the US system (unity between the legislative branch and the executive branch, irrespective of the quirk of who is head of state).  Because most people can experience "their team" running things for a few years, every few years, with anything egregious done by one parliament easily overturned (unless it clearly has broad public support) by a succeeding parliament, electoral defeats and intervals out of power are not perceived as the end of the world.

The US also uses FPTP to decide elections. I would argue that, contrary to your theory, it is an aggravating (if not driving) factor in polarization because to partisans (who see it as a competition between teams into which everyone can be neatly sorted) it is an all-in win or loose competition, and once your are down to just two or three "big tent parties" it becomes far easier for those parties to fight the divisive wedge issues than to attempt broad appeal to the population.

... but this is probably a discussion for a different thread.

 

[FJAG]

A former insider's view of Fox News

Former Fox analyst Ralph Peters: Fox viewers have 'utterly skewed view of reality'

CNN by Brian Stelter  @brianstelter  August 20, 2018: 2:57 PM ET

Many people believe, as Ralph Peters does, that President Trump was a "gift to Fox," and "Fox in turn is a gift to Trump."

The difference is that Peters worked at Fox News for years.

Peters, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel, was a Fox military analyst until March, when he resigned and burned the proverbial bridge. In a letter to his colleagues, he accused Fox of "assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law."

Peters' statements shocked the TV news industry at the time.

On CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday, he had more to say. "People that only listen to Fox have an utterly skewed view of reality," he said. He described the relationship between the president and his favored news network as a "closed loop," but that was hardly Peters' most strident critique of his former employer.

"Fox isn't immoral, it's amoral," he said. Later in the interview, when Reliable Sources aired clips that show Fox News hosts defending Trump's decision to strip former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance, Peters was asked if he thought his colleagues at Fox are "proud of their performance."

"The polite word is 'prostitutes,' so I'll just leave it at that," Peters fired back.

. . .

See rest of article here:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/20/media/ralph-peters-president-trump-fox-news/index.html

[cheers]

 

[daftandbarmy]

A former insider's view of Fox News

See rest of article here:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/20/media/ralph-peters-president-trump-fox-news/index.html

[cheers]

You could probably say the same about the CBC, except it's bias is heavily skewed to the Left.... and it's fully funded by taxpayers.

 

[mariomike]

If Fox is someone's only, or even primary, source of news, how can it not be dumbing?

Fox may be all some can afford.

I'm with Bell Fibe TV.

The "Starter" package has Fox.

But, if you want to upgrade to CBC News Network, CTV News Channel, BBC World News, BBC Canada or CNN, etc. you have to pay a premium.

 

[PuckChaser]

Fox may be all some can afford.

I'm with Bell Fibe TV.

The "Starter" package has Fox.

But, if you want to upgrade to CBC News Network, CTV News Channel, BBC World News, BBC Canada or CNN, etc. you have to pay a premium.

You get Fox because its the channel Fox, not Fox News. Fox News is a premium news service like the ones you listed. A better comparison is Fox is in the starter package along with CBC, Global, City, CTV, CBS, and NBC, all of whom have nightly and 6 PM news coverage to vary your prospectives.

 

[FJAG]

You could probably say the same about the CBC, except it's bias is heavily skewed to the Left.... and it's fully funded by taxpayers.

I could and I do.

My latest rant against the CBC is that while it shows The Great British Baking Show it cuts out the "Technical Challenge"--the middle of three challenges in each episode--to make room for all the bloody commercials. In the UK and on PBS it's a commercial free 1 hour show. Yet the tag line on the CBC website is "Bakers attempt three challenges ...".  ullhair: I have to go to CBC's web site in order to watch the missing part.

Absolute sacrilege and rubbish. Someone should hang. I expect more for my precious tax dollars.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

You get Fox because its the channel Fox, not Fox News. Fox News is a premium news service like the ones you listed. A better comparison is Fox is in the starter package along with CBC, Global, City, CTV, CBS, and NBC, all of whom have nightly and 6 PM news coverage to vary your prospectives.

My mistake. You are right.

Fox News Channel #507.

 

[Xylric]

It's interesting that the best source of news I have is people who are currently enrolled in a journalism program - they have yet to be infected with some of the various ideological plagues going around...

 

[jacksouth]

It's interesting that the best source of news I have is people who are currently enrolled in a journalism program - they have yet to be infected with some of the various ideological plagues going around...

Ahh yes, the ones who still have hope in their eyes!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

CNN-Breathless reporting, the pace of their reporting compared to BBC is like the Bersaglieri vs a Highland unit

 

[daftandbarmy]

CNN-Breathless reporting, the pace of their reporting compared to BBC is like the Bersaglieri vs a Highland unit

'You can get away with a lot as long as you wear a suit.' Gordon Gecko

 

[Fishbone Jones]

JM,

As your post and subsequent conversation didn't add anything topical to the thread, it was removed. It is stored in the Grave if it needs further consideration or reposting.

Cheers

 

[Petard]

Almost a decade ago, this very topic generated a lot of discussion on the Officer Indoctrination course I attended at CMR, as part of the syllabus on media relations for CFR types

At one point we hosted two news producers, one from CBC the other from CTV.

The one from the CBC focused on the production of documentaries, and how they tend to go a bit more in depth than a typical news bite, but consequently some subjectivity inevitably creeps into the analysis.

The CTV producer, on the other hand, covered the production of typical half hour news presentation during a peak TV time (6 and 11). One of her comments that stood out was that, in the end, the entire presentation is framed in a way to appeal to certain demographics, in order to hold their attention to get to a particular sequence of commercials. The lead news, usually, was unavoidable, and much as time allowed was factual, in her view, as can be at the time. It is the later stories that tended to be tweaked more. It was also her view that news pieces are so short they can only really make people aware of the story, and if someone really wants to know what is going on they'll need to read, yes read, several articles on it, and a few books too. Something she acknowledged people are less and less likely to do.

By and large we found the CTv producer to be more honest about what they're trying to do, and the CBC guy was pretty self righteous about them being independent and more likely to provide an unbiased view of major events. Near the end of his presentation though, he gave an example of news covering a military blunder,  the USS Vincennes shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 in July 1988. He thought the news article he used was fair in its presentation of known facts, on what was an egregious mistake no matter how you look at it. There were some Navy pers in the audience who happened to be in the audience, however, who had been on a frigate in the same area. They pointed out some glaring omissions in the article. To which the CBC producer responded, time is always a constraint when presenting a story, and the news piece he was using was from the time it occurred. Much like what the CTV producer was getting at, he also noted people are far too impatient to go into much depth, or follow a story up unless it directly affects them.

I'd say that's even more true now, with people getting (reaffirming) their understanding of events via meme's and comments on social media.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One TV station in Vancouver was so bad for editing interviews that our Commissioner refused to do anything but live on the air interviews with them. What I found in the 90's was; reporter on scene collects story, phones story in where it was transcribed. Story goes to Editor who modifies story for length, clarity and impact. During that process, many important details fall to the wayside or are changed. Typically now the reporter writes their own, submits and it goes through the editor checks.

 

[beirnini]

Fox News has repeatedly gone to former Justice Department official Robert Driscoll to comment on the Russia investigations, but what viewers don't hear is that he's also the attorney for Maria Butina, the suspected Russian spy charged with criminal counts.

Source

 

[mariomike]

OP:

Posted here and not with the Politics cartoons, because:

a) apparently comments cannot be made in the cartoon tread;

Guess I'll do likewise.

If concerned about personal safety in Canada,

The top 10 MOST DANGEROUS cities in Canada 2018:
https://www.iheartradio.ca/virginradio/edmonton/trending/the-top-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-canada-2018-1.8543815

Toronto's 2018 statistics would include the van attack on Yonge St. It was the deadliest attack of any kind ( terror or non-terror ) in the city's history.

Adjusted for population, the GTA’s murder rate is below that of the Vancouver area and Edmonton.

That's the residential population only. To that, add the tourist population,

Toronto is the leading tourism destination in Canada. In 2017, Toronto welcomed over 43.7 million visitors.
•A record 15.5 million were overnight visitors
•28.2 million same day visitors
•International travellers to Toronto: ◦5.1 million overnight visitors came from international destinations
◦2.9 million overnight visitors came from the U.S.
(Source: Tourism Toronto, 2017).

That is Toronto only. Does not include the GTA.

To see how Canadian cities compare,

Violent crime severity index by census metropolitan area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Violent_crime_severity_index_by_census_metropolitan_area

For reference from other discussions,

Those interested in where violence happens should be drilling down to specific neighbourhoods and communities.

There are 140 neighbourhoods officially recognized by the City of Toronto, and upwards of 240 unofficial neighbourhoods.

That is City only. Does not include the Greater Toronto Area ( GTA ) Regions of Halton, Peel, York and Durham.

If you live and work in an area long enough, you become familiar with your neighbourhood.

From the "Toronto's Statistical Crime" discussion,

Toronto is still ranked one of the safest cities in the world taking into account its geographical size, population and demographics. There’s no shortage of sources backing up this data.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/video-toronto-still-one-of-the-safest-cities-in-the-world-tory/
July 2, 2018

Canada: Toronto ranked 32 in the country for “most dangerous city”
https://www.macleans.ca/canadas-most-dangerous-places/
2018

https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/toronto-progress-portal/world-rankings-for-toronto/
2018

http://safecities.economist.com
(Attachment)
2018

http://dailyhive.com/toronto/canada-most-dangerous-cities-2018

In Canada, not even top 10 “Finally, despite seeing its crime rate rise from the prior year, Toronto is ranked 124th, with a CSI score of 59...”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto Updated: within last 30 days

Toronto

Total shootings/occurrences 2016: 407
total shootings/occurrences 2018: 208

https://www.narcity.com/news/here-are-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-canada-right-now-ranked-by-the-crime
2018

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-most-violent-cities-in-the-world-latin-america-dominates-list-with-41-countries-in-top-50-a6995186.html
2016

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp
Canada doesn’t even make the list.

https://safearound.com/danger-rankings/cities/
2017

Super-quick search. Shall I go on? I stated plainly there are several sources. Note I didn’t accuse you of arguing your “feelings” when you didn’t cite any sources to back up your initial Toronto-is-a-OMG-we’re-going-to-die city.  :

It’s a big city with big city problems, but those problems are significantly smaller/lower than many other areas.

 

[Jarnhamar]

changed my mind