• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Media Bias [Merged]

The good professor appears to contradict himself, in my opinion.

Early on he says this:

"...I’m not sure press freedom is actually at stake here. No one is required to answer anyone’s questions. Freedom of the press is about making sure the government doesn’t restrict journalists; it doesn’t guarantee that reporters land interviews."

Then he says this:

"We should want, indeed demand, that our elected leaders face the most challenging, even the most adversarial, line of questions. Answering to a free press is a fundamental feature of basic democracy."

What am I missing here?

My understanding of "freedom of the press" is a press free from undue influence of the government in what, how or when they report things. (items of National Security and secrecy notwithstanding). 

I agree with his first statement.  I find his second statement to be a very nice ideal, one which would likely improve the average person's 'trust' in politicians (in long-term, general terms, putting them somwhere above lawyers and used car salesmen on those annual 'trust' surveys.  I understand the problems that would plague the communications staff of politicians in the short term if they did indeed go about answering those kinds of questions).  But I don't see what it has to do with a 'free press'.

 
The American journalist AJ Liebling said, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

It's actually an important principle. The media, the journalists, are nothing special; they have no special role to hold politicians to account and so forth. In fact, another wit, one who did own the presses, quipped that the only role of journalists is to fill up the empty white spaces between the advertisements.

But, and there's always a 'but,' isn't there? the media does have an important role in a free society: it gives us 'access' into our political, legal, social and economic processes, and, ideally, informs us about them and the issues of the day.

I think, however, that it's important to separate what Ezra Levant does, infotainment and what e.g. David Akin and Mercedes Stephenson do, reporting. (I will use those two as examples, again, because they know some of us, here on Army.ca, and some of us know them either person ally or professionally.) I think Prof Macfarlane's definition of "freedom of the press," the press, the Akins and Stephensons of the world, being 'free' from government control (but not from government influence, which is why government's a have e.g. press secretaries and communications directors and so on) is adequate. Freedom of the press does not apply to e.g. Ezra Levant; he's not in the 'ress' business; he's a 21st century version of the 16th and 17th century pamphleteers.

The media, in truth, has no right of access to politicians. But, Prof Macfarlane challenges politicians to use or exploit the media in order to influence us by answering the tough questions. So, I don't think he's actually contradicting himself.

But: I will repeat that I think M. Trudeau is uncomfortable with hard questions; my guess is that he is a very, very nice, personable young man with an adequate brain, but he lacks depth or "bottom" as the Brits would say, in policy. Lightweight was the word I used and I stick with it. If that's true then his campaign team's strategy of ignoring hard questions and, now, ignoring one whole media agency, is a good one. The press is still as 'free' as it ever was, but M. Trudeau is not answering.

 
Actually, freedom of the press is a sub-category of the freedom of expression enjoyed by all.

The Canadian Charter of Rights states (Article 2):

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

[I underlined].

Sure, everyone has the right not to answer journalists questions, but for a politician to refuse to do so usually caries consequences. Who hasn't heard the good'ol "We attempted to obtain an interview with XYZ, but they declined to be interviewed on TV".

I don't see the contradiction MARS appears to see in the Prof.'s article: To me, when he says "Answering to a free press is a fundamental feature of basic democracy.", he is talking about a fundamental feature for the politicians., not for the press. Politicians, in our democracy, answer to the citizens and therefore, in view of the place of the press (note that I didn't say role, but "place") in the communication of information in our modern world, they should feel compelled to use that channel of communication with the citizens every time it is offered.
 
I think John Ibbitson has it about right in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/its-over-crtc-netflix-and-globalization-have-won/article20784448/#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

t’s over, CRTC. Netflix and globalization have won

JOHN IBBITSON
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 25 2014

John Ibbitson is a CIGI senior fellow, an award-winning writer and leading political journalist in Canada. Currently on a one-year leave from The Globe and Mail, John is researching, writing and speaking on Canadian foreign policy at CIGI while he works on a new book.

I am listening to Szymanowski’s Second Violin Concerto and thinking about Netflix and the end of Canadian culture as I used to know it.

And not just Canada’s. Any government that seeks to protect its national culture from the forces of globalization will fail. The digital universe is too powerful.

For this country, the beginning of the end came last Friday, when a Netflix executive told the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that it can go to hell. Or words to that effect.

The CRTC is considering whether to fence in the American-owned video streaming service. Commission chair Jean-Pierre Blais became agitated during a hearing when a Netflix executive refused to reveal how many Canadian subscribers it had and other data.

The CRTC’s chairman was right to be upset, not simply because an American corporation displayed frank contempt for a Canadian regulatory agency (though that is a thing, isn’t it?), but because at that exact moment the CRTC ceased to have any meaning as a regulator of culture. It’ll be gone in a few years, at least in its current incarnation, and Mr. Blais knows it.

And if he doesn’t know it, he should join me in listening to this violin concerto, which is another bell tolling the CRTC’s fate.

I’d barely heard of Karol Szymanowski, an early 20th-century Polish composer, when a friend told me he is so devoted to the Second Violin Concerto that he plays it before any long journey, so that he’ll have it in his head during the trip.

That’s enough reason to give the concerto a try. And there are so many ways to do it. I could, if I were very, very old, order a compact disc from Amazon.ca, the Canadian offshoot of the American online department store. But a CD? Really?

iTunes has it of course, including the critically preferred version with Thomas Zehetmair on violin and Simon Rattle conducting the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra. But last week I signed up for a free trial of Spotify, which is to music streaming as Netflix is to video streaming, and which has just arrived in Canada. Spotify has a classical music category. So what do they have by Karol Szymanowski?

Multiple versions of the violin concertos, including Zehetmair and Rattle. Multiple versions of the four symphonies. Multiple versions of the Stabat Mater (another personal favourite of my friend). Two different versions of the opera, King Roger. The complete piano music and string quartets, assorted other chamber music, ballets, lieder and then I gave up scrolling.

So why do I still have a music library?

When radio and then television came along in the 1930s and 50s, the federal government created a regulator to assign frequencies to different stations, to avoid confusion. But Ottawa couldn’t leave well enough alone. To protect Canadian culture from American competition, it created a state broadcaster, and compelled private broadcasters to include Canadian content and to contribute to a fund that subsidized Canadian music and television.

But then the Americans invented the Internet, and for years now it’s been clear that Canadian cultural protectionism is over. If Mr. Blais really does try to rein in Netflix, the popular backlash will only hasten the CRTC’s demise.

And just imagine what would happen if the CRTC were to impose Can-con restrictions on YouTube. Impossible, you say? Michael Geist, using information obtained from The Globe and Mail, analyzes a similar, but less noticed, conversation between Mr. Blais and a Google executive.

Stephen Harper knows what’s at stake. What’s more, the Prime Minister detests the socialist, import-substituting anachronism of a state broadcaster, cultural subsidies, quotas and protectionThere is only so much you can do in a mandate, and dismantling the Wheat Board monopoly was a higher priority for the Tories than dismantling the CRTC, but Mr. Harper understands how important video streaming is to viewers, which is why he explicitly declared that he will permit no tax on (by which he means interference with) Netflix.

Critics fumed that such remarks undermined the integrity of the CRTC hearings. Yes, they did. Why do you think he made them?

It’s not as though many people really care any more about protecting local culture, at least outside Quebec. Even the most fervent Canadian nationalists can’t get enough of House of Cards and Sherlock and Ted Talks and Orange is the New Black and Borgen. (Don’t ask me how I watched the first two seasons of Borgen even though I don’t have cable.)

And if you proposed to anyone under 50 that Netflix and Spotify and YouTube and every other service that streams content onto smartphones and tablets should be licensed and taxed, with the money going to subsidize Canadian videos of Canadian dogs balanced on Canadian skateboards coasting down Canadian streets, dammit – well, you wouldn’t, would you?

It’s over. Globalization has won, in culture as in every other contest. Canadian cultural industries will have to compete in the marketplace along with everyone else. It’s simply a question of when the last protections are dismantled. It won’t be long.

Along with other CIGI experts, Mr. Ibbitson is contributing at www.cigionline.org/blogs, where this post was originally published.


What this means for mainstream media is:

    1. Uniquely Canadian TV content is dead, unless it appeals to, at least, an American or British audience. CBC TV is, or might as well be, dead, too.

    2. There will still be French Canadian TV ... I think.

    3. There still can be, and I believe will be vibrant, original Canadian radio: think Ideas, Tapestry and Writers and Company, for example, all on CBC Radio
        and all with respectable audiences in  Canada and in the USA.

    4. There is, still, some, limited, role for local TV News, public affairs and talent programmes. My guess is that Toronto and Vancouver can still produce
        some original local programming - 'reality TV' and talent programmes are incredibly cheap to produce, and Montreal can still produce original, local French TV.

    5. Canadians who already produce popular, profitable global programming - early childhood and educational programmes come to mind, but there are others, including e.g. some home handyman shows,
        will likely still be in business and will still be making money.
 
Perhaps NetFlix was following the CBC's lead when it came to answering the CRTC's questions?  ???
 
Not really true, but it shows the level of frustration that many people have with the mainstream media and journalism, in general:

ByjpErKIMAAiQZ-.jpg
 
The media don't always get it back asswards ...

Bymk8VwIEAApGY0.png


:salute:  :nod:  :salute:  ;D  :salute:  :nod:  :salute:  ;D  :salute:
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I think John Ibbitson has it about right in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/its-over-crtc-netflix-and-globalization-have-won/article20784448/#dashboard/follows/

What this means for mainstream media is:

    1. Uniquely Canadian TV content is dead, unless it appeals to, at least, an American or British audience. CBC TV is, or might as well be, dead, too.

    2. There will still be French Canadian TV ... I think.

    3. There still can be, and I believe will be vibrant, original Canadian radio: think Ideas, Tapestry and Writers and Company, for example, all on CBC Radio
        and all with respectable audiences in  Canada and in the USA.

    4. There is, still, some, limited, role for local TV News, public affairs and talent programmes. My guess is that Toronto and Vancouver can still produce
        some original local programming - 'reality TV' and talent programmes are incredibly cheap to produce, and Montreal can still produce original, local French TV.

    5. Canadians who already produce popular, profitable global programming - early childhood and educational programmes come to mind, but there are others, including e.g. some home handyman shows,
        will likely still be in business and will still be making money.

If you strike out the word "Canadian" in point one, creators of unique programming will continue to thrive and prosper, regardless of their location. A talented videographer in Ulanbator can leverage the global reach of Netflicks just as easily as one in Saskatoon. Indeed the one in Sakatoon has much better chances: access to studio quality equipment at consumer prices, a common language and very similar culture to the largest English speaking audiences in the world, and access to high speed Internet to distribute the product.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
...
Now Ezra Levant gave what I would guess, I have not watched it, a typically Ezra Levant rant about Justin Trudeau ~ that is to say, bombastic, edging on being libelous, in poor taste, with scant respect for accuracy, etc ~ in his commentary programme. That's what Ezra Levant is: a commentator. he is not a journalist in the way that, say, David Akin or Mercedes Stephenson (both of whom are known to members this site) are journalists, he doesn't report the 'news;' he is not even a 'journalist' in the way that, say, the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson or Lawrence Martin, both highly opinionated, are journalists, he doesn't address big, national issues; he is of a newer, shriller, highly partisan variety that originated in the UK tabloids but has been transformed by US TV.

But M. Trudeau's campaign team has decided to boycott all of Sun Media, "until the company [Québécor Inc.] resolves the matter." Here is the text of the message sent out by M. Trudeau’s spokesperson Kate Purchase"

          “On Monday of last week (September 15th 2014), a segment on Sun News Network program ‘The Source’ crossed the line by airing a personal attack on the Trudeau family that was offensive and breached
            any reasonable measure of editorial integrity.

          “We have raised this issue with the appropriate people at Québécor Inc., the owners and operators of Sun News Network, and have asked that they consider an appropriate response.

          “Until the company resolves the matter, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau will continue to not engage with Sun Media.”

The Twitterverse is all aflutter; the media, generally, dislikes Ezra Levant and his style of journalism, but they also respect his right to express his views and most of the journalists' tweets that I have seen, regardless of their views pro or con, begin with the fact that M. Trudeau was, already, ignoring Sun Media ... see above.

An important point is that Québécor Inc. is the largest media company in Canada, and is especially strong in Quebec. I wonder how M. Trudeau's team will square that circle.
...
My opinion:

    1. Ezra Levant is a bombastic buffoon who did, indeed, cross a line ~ a "good manners" line, at least. But he need not apologize, he is an entertainer, a clown, he's supposed to be a bombastic
        buffoon, it's his role. But someone, and I suggest The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., C.C., LL.D, Chairman of the Board of Québécor should offer a corportae apology to M. Trudeau for Ezra Levant's
        bad manners ~ not for speaking out, but for simple bad manners; and

    2. I think Justin Trudeau, personally, and his campaign team, professionally, also crossed a line. First, M. Trudeau ignores questions which he finds inconvenient or uncomfortable (in my opinion he
        ignores questions for which he does not have a scripted answer, he's an intellectual lightweight who cannot think on his feet and is going to be a weak, poor prime minister). Second his team have made a strategic blunder:
        they have made M. Trudeau look weak and petty ~ I think he is weak but I do not believe he is petty.

Now, it appears, according to a story in the Ottawa Citizen that Prime Minister Mulroney has "reached out," through the media itself, to Team Trudeau in an effort to calm the waters.

It seems to me than an apology is due ... for uncivil commentary, but as has been noted M. Trudeau was already boycotting Sun News because real (and quite civil) journalists were asking tough questions. He, Justin Trudeau, owes an apology to all Canadians for being unwilling or unable to address issues that mater.

(Further, we discussed the issue of civility here, on Army.ca, a couple of years ago ...)
 
Frankly, if the Young Dauphin and his team are unable to deal with Ezra Levant and the Sun News team, imagine how well they would do against Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. Most of the third world thugs in silk suits would also walk right over the Liberal team.

I think I see the shape of the next set of attack ads.....
 
Further to the Netflix / Google story:

LINK

CRTC to Netflix: Since you won't co-operate, we'll ignore you
Netflix and Google refuse to hand over figures about Canadian content on the web

Canada's broadcast regulator is hitting the "delete" button on Netflix and Google, telling the online video services their submissions at hearings into the future of television will be ignored.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission wrote to the companies Monday, saying it will remove presentations made by the two companies from the public record.

As well, any information or statements from the companies would not be considered in the CRTC's conclusions on whether television industry regulations need to be changed.
 
Old Sweat said:
So what?

It's like Custer saying forget about the Indians.


Yes, indeed.

Brian Gable has it right in the Globe and Mail:

web-tueedcar30co1.jpg

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/summer-fling/article20282346/#dashboard/follows/
 
Breaking: the CBC reports that "Quebecor has agreed to sell all 175 English-language newspapers it owns under the Sun Media banner to Postmedia, the owner of the National Post ..." This seems to not include the Sun News TV enterprise.

Given that both Postmedia and the Sun papers are, broadly, aligned, politically, this will not make much of a difference on that front. But it might raise some interesting questions about Pierre Karl Pelideau's political intentions.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Breaking: the CBC reports that "Quebecor has agreed to sell all 175 English-language newspapers it owns under the Sun Media banner to Postmedia, the owner of the National Post ..." This seems to not include the Sun News TV enterprise.

Given that both Postmedia and the Sun papers are, broadly, aligned, politically, this will not make much of a difference on that front. But it might raise some interesting questions about Pierre Karl Pelideau's political intentions.

Wow.  That sure came out of left field (or right field as it were)
 
Back
Top