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

Some of the bought & paid for media

I think a lot of the "left" bought into the "poor oppressed Palestinian" narrative, and are now forced to ignore the real world, or re-examine their position.

Those that are re-examining their position are likely to signal "pro-Palestine" until they firm up their discomfort with the reality of Hamas and their supporters.
Anyone I've encountered that are pro-palestine are also pro-lockdowns, pro-vaccine mandates, pro-bank account freeze, pro-internet censure, etc.
 
War is upon us whether we realize it or not. Maybe not a combat war but cyber war and propaganda war, it’s here.
We've been at war with them since 1945 (hell maybe even 1917). It may have been a cold war and there may have been a decade or two of optimism that it was over but it seems quite clear now that it was merely a temporary and informal armistice.

We have far too many Pollyannas in government and a healthy number in DND/CAF as well.

🍻
 
We've been at war with them since 1945 (hell maybe even 1917). It may have been a cold war and there may have been a decade or two of optimism that it was over but it seems quite clear now that it was merely a temporary and informal armistice.

Worth remembering.
 
CBC and how it plays politics. So if one just reads the headline and the first few paragraphs it looks like PP is being bad by not being there.

Then by the time most folks have lost interest it's mentioned that JT wasn't there either......

 
CBC and how it plays politics. So if one just reads the headline and the first few paragraphs it looks like PP is being bad by not being there.

Then by the time most folks have lost interest it's mentioned that JT wasn't there either......

One sometimes does wonder as to whether the editors actually read the articles before scribbling in the caption. Although with CBC you just know ...

🍻
 
CBC and how it plays politics. So if one just reads the headline and the first few paragraphs it looks like PP is being bad by not being there.

Then by the time most folks have lost interest it's mentioned that JT wasn't there either......

I can't imagine the CBC being overtly political while pretending to be unbiased...

shocked philip j fry GIF
 
…and apparently working towards giving herself and her fellow CBC executives millions of dollars of annual bonuses as they prep to cut hundreds of junior CBC employees.
I picked that up in the news this morning. Arrogant and condescending.
 
…and apparently working towards giving herself and her fellow CBC executives millions of dollars of annual bonuses as they prep to cut hundreds of junior CBC employees.
My mother, bless her soul, was a dressmaker at the CBC and a union shop steward. Notwithstanding that she and I would argue endlessly about my military conservative leanings and her obvious flirtation with communism, I tended to side with her wholeheartedly about the stupidity and delusional nature of CBC upper management. Everyone on the shop floor thought of them as a cocktail circuit crowd that had zero artistic or managerial talent. It made the view of the other ranks as to senior commissioned officers pale by comparison. Essentially the view was that the sum total of their leaderships capabilities revolved around keeping the Friendly Giant, Mister Dress-Up, Tommy Hunter and Hockey Night in Canada on the air. Not really a hard task seeing as there were no other networks on the air at the time. (This preceded both CTV and Global, and for that matter NBC or CBS, much less Fox out of Buffalo. ABC did have a station that showed Captain Kangaroo, Grey Ghost and American bandstand)

Anyway. Anyone want to take my bet that the CBC execs will definitely get their bonuses and the layoffs will continue?

🍻
 
CBC and how it plays politics. So if one just reads the headline and the first few paragraphs it looks like PP is being bad by not being there.

Then by the time most folks have lost interest it's mentioned that JT wasn't there either......

Trudeau is out of the House more than he's in. He said Wednesdays would be the day the opposition could question him about anything. Now all he has to do is show up.
 
I'm not sure if they permanently suffered any financial loss, but I think it served as a lesson to those companies that want to push their 'wokeness' on their customers.
I think it continued us down the path that people on the edges on both sides of the culture war insist that everyone (including companies) takes a side, and then derides them if they don't take theirs.

To be clear, I don't think this is a good thing.
 
The reason that journalism has gone downhill is the advertising model has changed and newspapers and broadcasters are not getting the advertising they used to and as a result are either shutting down newsrooms or the ones that remain are a fraction of what they used to be.
The advertising model is only one problem. The subscription model is another problem. They can be taken together as a single problem - re-balancing the proportion of revenue from each.

What's killing the journalism business is that so many journalists insist people should read the stories journalists want to write. That's the equivalent of vanity publishing at worst, or authoring the kinds of books that are destined for the 10-cent bin by the door at best. There isn't really room to break in with another echo-chamber agency; people who want that only have to subscribe to a couple of the existing major agencies to get their fill of daily blinkered self-reassurance. That leaves only non-echo-chamber journalism, and that means setting aside the preferences - especially the political and social preferences - of journalists.

There also isn't much carrying capacity for a fat layer of middlemen and administration.

The people working as independents (ie. without a lot of overhead) who also tend to write stories that set the teeth of the political establishment grinding (along with the teeth of people who for some reason are deeply invested in that establishment no matter how it behaves) are doing well enough.

I can't be sure what kind of broadcast information people like to consume. My preference is the kind of thing I once saw on a relative's subscription service: one guy, reading teleprompted/written copy about the critical points of the major issues of the day, recycling approximately every half-hour. No inane babble between two or more presenters physically present making stupid jokes or chatting about their pets; no pointless human interest angle based on an interview of one of undoubtedly thousands of possible sob-stories consuming 90% of the segment time. "Talkies" are information-sparse to begin with.

The sooner that the channels that waste time with chit-chat between the trained monkeys fail, the better. The sooner the agencies that don't focus on the bones of the major issues of the day fail, the better (CBC news include). All the resources they have tied up will be freed for other uses.
 
I think it continued us down the path that people on the edges on both sides of the culture war insist that everyone (including companies) takes a side, and then derides them if they don't take theirs.

To be clear, I don't think this is a good thing.
It works the same way as "vote-killer" issues versus "vote-winner" issues. Corporation executives ought to pay closer attention to human responses to political stances.

People tend to be more passionate about things that offend them, than things they might like. Taking an unambiguous position on a contentious issue means losing all the people who hate that stance, but not necessarily gaining the support of people who like that stance.

In business, it means you can lose part of your existing market share, but people not already using your product are not necessarily going to change brands just because you show fealty to their world view.
 
Back
Top