Is opinion programming on all-news stations good or bad for Canadian democracy

[shelphs]

[FONT=&quot]The Canadian Sun News TV channel has been dubbed Fox News North and it is to have debuted on January 1, 2011. The station has been designed to duplicate the Fox News 24-hour news channel format of news/opinion programming, which is a type of programming that has never been done before in Canada.

Stations that are labeled "24-hour news channels" should not have news/opinion programming in which a host is featured and his/her political opinions are not only known but celebrated and continually presented and constantly defended by the host and guests.

The news/opinion format that includes opinion personalities in place of moderators is destructive to democracy in how it panders to ratings above all else. Though it would be nice to have highly entertaining and lively news, it is not a necessity; rather, relevant, unambiguous facts, and informative opinions are far more valuable than the bickering of polarized and, usually, uninformed people.

I support Sun TV News if it does not reflect the above negative attributes that accompany news/opinion programming, but how likely is it that the new news network will put meaningful and unambiguous reporting ahead of ratings and entertainment?

How similar is the Sun TV News Channel going to be to Fox News? If Sun TV's origins are any indication...
YouTube - Canada's Sun TV News Channel...Fox News North?
[/FONT]

 

[Chiliagon]

sure, it's fine but that doesn't mean that people are necessarily going to watch it. unless they can show and prove that they won't be bias towards one particular govt party and never slag on them or criticize them, those people who see it as Fox North will not give it a chance and it will eventually fail.

 

[TenPenny]

Without opinion programming, what would there be on CBC?

 

[shelphs]

I'm very willing to give it a chance and actually very eager to have clips or who features, programs posted online. I'm interested in how it will conduct itself.

 

[Chiliagon]

there are tv shows and Hockey!

 

[eh1eh]

Sensational media is counter productive.

Why you no vote Chilli?

 

[Chiliagon]

I did vote. I didn't see it the first time.

 

[eh1eh]

Without opinion programming, what would there be on CBC?

Oh I don't know, Fox News Op Ed?

 

[TenPenny]

Oh I don't know, Fox News Op Ed?

Op Ed meaning, opposite to the editorial page. In other words, another page of opinions.

 

[Tonington]

Without opinion programming, what would there be on CBC?

All Mansbridge all day long...the channel with paint drying 24/7 will have some real competition!

 

[Colpy]

[FONT=&quot]

Stations that are labeled "24-hour news channels" should not have news/opinion programming in which a host is featured and his/her political opinions are not only known but celebrated and continually presented and constantly defended by the host and guests.


[/FONT]

OMG!!!!!

You want to ban the CBC?!?!?

Seriously......give your head a shake.

 

[shelphs]

News reporters have an obligation to be as unbiased as possible and to help moderate and stimulate discussion and hold guests responsible for what is said by questioning them and make a conscious effort to ensure factual and non-misleading information is being used. Does any station do this perfectly, certainly not, but that is the dream, and if one is to compare the level of bias between Fox News and CBC News, the latter has far more journalistic integrity.

It would be highly complimentary to describe opinion programming as pseudo-news. It is a framework in which "news stations" that adopt it can be very biased and promote a narrative, a political, sociological, etc viewpoint. It seems counterproductive to democracy, for unfiltered information is so very vital within a democratic state.

Anchors are generally good unbiased reporters. The difficult job is hosting a program in which guests appear. The best moderator I'm aware of to date is Steve Paikin. If you want to see how it does done, watch his show The Agenda.

 

[Colpy]

News reporters have an obligation to be as unbiased as possible and to help moderate and stimulate discussion and hold guests responsible for what is said by questioning them and make a conscious effort to ensure factual and non-misleading information is being used. Does any station do this perfectly, certainly not, but that is the dream, and if one is to compare the level of bias between Fox News and CBC News, the latter has far more journalistic integrity.

It would be highly complimentary to describe opinion programming as pseudo-news. It is a framework in which "news stations" that adopt it can be very biased and promote a narrative, a political, sociological, etc viewpoint. It seems counterproductive to democracy, for unfiltered information is so very vital within a democratic state.

Anchors are generally good unbiased reporters. The difficult job is hosting a program in which guests appear. The best moderator I'm aware of to date is Steve Paikin. If you want to see how it does done, watch his show The Agenda.

Baloney

First of all, the entire use of the phrase "Fox News North" is absolute BS, a blatant smear attempt against a station that no one has ever seen, an attempt by the left to discredit a world view that might not fit their particular and specific version of Pravda. (Truth)

CBC is in no way neutral. It uses pollsters with Liberal Party connections, it smeared the old Reform Party in newscasts just before elections, it treats intellectual property differently when the conflict is with the CPC or the Liberal parties, it rids itself of the politically incorrect, and loves the lefty intellectuals of the journalist world.............and this is especially insiduous coming from a broadcaster that lives by sucking cash out of our government.

Make no mistake, the CBC was inspired by the BBC........which inspired one of its employees to use it as the pattern for the Ministry of Truth........in his great novel, .

At least with Fox News (which I do not watch), my understanding is that you know what you are getting.........

As many views as possible in the public forum is a very good thing.

I eagerly await Sun TV News.

 

[wulfie68]

As many views as possible in the public forum is a very good thing.

That says it all.

Ideas should not be stifled because of their ideological or geographical origin, instead, they should be discussed/debated and adopted, modified or discarded based on their merit. Sadly, for the most part, this is not the case in modern Canadian politics.

 

[darkbeaver]

Another TV channel. How many thousands of channels of useless **** are there already? I'm sure it will be well received by the remaining brain dead who haven't already been completely stupified by hahahahah "unbiased as possible" ahahahahahahhhhahha inane discussion about Sarah Palins boobs. Will it harm democracy? Of course not, it's already dead. journalism is dead long live journalism

 

[TenPenny]

At least with Fox News (which I do not watch), my understanding is that you know what you are getting.........

Okay, and so how are you surprised by the CBC?

 

[Tonington]

At least with Fox News (which I do not watch), my understanding is that you know what you are getting.

So you're implying that you don't know what you're getting with CBC? So what was the rest of this post? You apparently know what you get with the CBC as well, or at least you have an opinion about it. :lol:

 

[shelphs]

That says it all.

Ideas should not be stifled because of their ideological or geographical origin, instead, they should be discussed/debated and adopted, modified or discarded based on their merit. Sadly, for the most part, this is not the case in modern Canadian politics.

Naturally. Agreed. And this is not the case in any State that I'm aware of, and opinion programming certainly isn't going to make matters better, for it opens a path that is in direct contradiction to how things should be done: "issues should be discussed/debated and adopted, modified or discarded base on their merit."

Political debate is about polarization, about conforming those already leaning to one side to an idea presented by the side they already lean toward, and if careful attention and focus is made on the debate itself, one quickly sees it is frivolous, though it's, for the most part, based in truth, the relevant truth is rarely even discussed. For example, the corporate tax cuts: Liberals say the cuts will equal 6 billion in tax losses whereas the Conservatives say the cuts will create corporate investment and job creation and produce more spending that can be taxed and losses will not be so severe.

In truth, both sides present plausible positions, but how plausible is each? That is what the debate should be about, but it is instead focused on one side being right and the other wrong and plausibility is not the theme of the debate.

[FONT=&quot]The debate should be about speculation, for how much money would be lost or gained in taxes resultant on corporate tax cuts is speculative. And instead of discussing real data and historical instances in which either party’s speculative analysts were correct and thereby give credence to their argument, the two parties meaninglessly argue over opinion of speculation while the majority of Canadians don't even truly understand what the argument is about. They blindly side with the party to lean toward. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]And opinion programming, this sort of programming that is unapologetic about its clear and obvious bias to one side of the political spectrum is to help the people understand issues in this sort of an atmosphere?

[FONT=&quot]Source: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2011/01/crazy-or-dumb-do-the-math.html[/FONT]

 

[Colpy]

Okay, and so how are you surprised by the CBC?

So you're implying that you don't know what you're getting with CBC? So what was the rest of this post? You apparently know what you get with the CBC as well, or at least you have an opinion about it. :lol:

Yep. I know what I'm getting from the CBC.......and I watch CBC almost exclusively when I am looking for news.

You're missing the point, however. If CBC is OK, especially on my dime, how much more acceptable is an opinionated private broadcaster?

A LOT, IMHO.

 

[shelphs]

Yep. I know what I'm getting from the CBC.......and I watch CBC almost exclusively when I am looking for news.

You're missing the point, however. If CBC is OK, especially on my dime, how much more acceptable is an opinionated private broadcaster?

A LOT, IMHO.

Though CBC has a clear liberal-mindedness, its stories include factually based information and opinion, and, I'm sure, this is why you trust it for your news; however, "an opinionated private broadcaster" has no obligation to present fact or non-misleading programming when such programming is labeled opinion programming.

And this is why I don't believe opinion programming should be able to be housed by a 24-hour news station, because, as the name indicates, it's categorized as a news channel. I don't have any problem with the programming itself, but I disagree with it being on a news station.