Do you trust Canadian mass media


Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2

Kevin Nealon and global are THE WORST PROPAGANDA MACHINE IN CANADA TODAY who the hell owns that media company anyway

I thought Kevin Nealon was the SNL newscaster...whereas Global is owned by the Asper family...
 
Jay
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I used to read a particular newspaper. I stopped getting it. I didn't like the way it was presenting the news. I looked elsewhere. So should you if your not satisfied, and besides you have the CBC.

Judging from this, Jay, I would say that you've missed the point entirely...yet again...

If all news sources in an area are owned by one company, how can you expect to have a news source that does not comform to the outlet owner's agenda? There would be one news available...perhaps under different names, but all owned by the same company...and all telling the same story...

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

Get it???

If you read my posts Vanni you would see I "get it"

I don't want ppl writing laws that further restrict freedom of expression/speech nor laws that further restrict free enterprise.

Do you get it?


Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

Judging from this, Jay, I would say that you've missed the point entirely...yet again...

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

Get it???


Cut the shit Vanni. Either learn some manners and respect or don't bother discussing things with me....

get it????
 
Jay
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

But in a democracy the media should be constantly challenging those in power...not just the political powers, but those behind them. A press that doesn't do that is no press at all.

Have I mentioned Can-West lately?


I understand why you feel that way Rev, but

1.) Do we write laws to enforce that ideal?

2.) Do you really think the CBC does this constantly?


Have a good day all.
 
Reverend Blair
#34
Quote:

1.) Do we write laws to enforce that ideal?

If we write laws that protect us from press monopolies that will encourage more voices. The competition will bring us closer to that ideal. Remember competition, Jay? It's what you right-wingers used to claim was a good thing.

Quote:

2.) Do you really think the CBC does this constantly?

Yes. On its radio programs, in its satires, in its documentaries, and in its regular news programs. They don't go lightly on the Liberals. Their panel discussions have representatives from all four elected parties or from the left, centre, and right.

If they have a bias as a broadcaster, it is one that leans too much towards corporatism. If anybody should be complaining, it should the left.
 
peapod
#35
Vanni

I read your post and followed those links. It reminded me of someone I use to read and have begun to re-read again.


Pyramidal New World Order

Four buildings towered vast and white above the grimy landscape. They were startingly different from any other objects in sight. They were enormous pyramidical sructures of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. So completely did they dwarf the surrounding architecture that from the roof of VICTORY MANSIONS you could see all four of them simultaneously. They were the homes of the four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. the Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty.

At the apex
of the pyramid
comes BIG BROTHER.


Below BIG BROTHER comes the Inner Party
(the High), its numbers limited to six millions
or something less than 2% of the population of Oceania (the brain).


Below the Inner Party
comes the Outer Party (the Middle) which may be justly likened to (the hands).


Below that come the Dumb Masses
(the Low), who are habitually referred to as
'the proles', numbering perhaps 85 percent of the population (the body).


The slave populaton of the equatorial lands,
who pass constantly from conqueror to conqueror, are not a permanent or necessary part of the structure.

The rules of the Inner Party are held together by adherence to a common doctrine. In a Party member not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated. A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts.

The Outer Party was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government.

The Party taught that the Proles were natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals, by the application of a few simple rules.

There is far less to-and-fro movement between the different groups than happend under capitalism or even in the pre-industrial age. Between the two branches of the Party there is a certain amount of interchange, but only so much as will ensure that weaklings are excluded from the Inner Party and that ambitious members of the Outer Party are made harmless by allowing them to rise. Proletarians, in practice, are not allowed to graduate into the Party. The most gifted among them, who might possibly become nuclei of discontent, are simply marked down by the Thought Police and eliminated. But this state of affairs is not necessarily permanent, nor is it a matter of principle. The Party is not a class in the old sense of the word. It does not aim at transmitting power to its own children, as such; and if there were no other way of keeping the ablest people at the top, it would be perfectly prepared to recruit an entire new generation from the ranks of the proletariat.

The two aims of the Party are to:


(1) - extinquish once and for all the possibility of independent thought, and


(2) - conquer the whole surface of the earth.

There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is:

(1) - how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking. And the other is:

(2) - how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning before hand

I think George Orwell was alot better at predictions than nostradamus or dionne warrick..
 
Jay
#36
"Remember competition, Jay? It's what you right-wingers used to claim was a good thing."

We still do Rev, itís the left that has a problem with free markets, free speech, competition and private property.

I like competition, do I like the government forcing it, I'm not so sure.

I don't seem to be under the same horrible circumstances you ppl are in over there. We have all sorts of media in Ontario.

Perhaps you guys should start another media outlet and deal with it that way; you have every right to do so. Ontario does just fine without new laws.

It is needless law writing, and as I have stated a few times, you have the CBC so no one has a monopoly on news. You should be happy with that and quit placing further restrictions on ppl.


What if you had these new laws, and you restricted someoneís right to expand their media outlets, and then the market had a hole in it and the guy who fills it thinks just like the guy you were trying to prevent from getting this so called monopoly, what is next? More laws? "No more thinking a particular way, we already have someone coming from that angle" ?
 
Reverend Blair
#37
Quote:

We still do Rev, itís the left that has a problem with free markets, free speech, competition and private property.

That's not what the records indicate.

Quote:

I like competition, do I like the government forcing it, I'm not so sure.

You just said monopolies are fine.

Quote:

I don't seem to be under the same horrible circumstances you ppl are in over there. We have all sorts of media in Ontario.

Check who owns them.

Quote:

It is needless law writing, and as I have stated a few times, you have the CBC so no one has a monopoly on news. You should be happy with that and quit placing further restrictions on ppl.

The CBC is not a private media outlet. Besides, the radical right is trying to do away with it.



Quote:

What if you had these new laws, and you restricted someoneís right to expand their media outlets, and then the market had a hole in it and the guy who fills it thinks just like the guy you were trying to prevent from getting this so called monopoly, what is next?

That's the way it goes.

Quote:

? More laws? "No more thinking a particular way, we already have someone coming from that angle" ?

Did I say that? No, I didn't.
 
EagleSmack
#38
When you tell a left wing liberal nut to start his own media they scream that it should be funded. Just like talk radio here in the US. Liberal talk shows do not work because they have to answer questions and get called on their lies. Liberals do not like opposition. They like to spew their garbage w/o fear of having to answer to it.

This forum is a perfect example. Everything is fine as long as you agree with them. Once you disagree you are insulted and your opinions and facts are dismissed because it is counter to their baloney. You can't even discuss things in a civil manner because you are jumped on. There is no middle ground with people filled with so much hate for the US and Bush. That is why he gave Kerry a beating because these folks are so condecending to opposing view points and just refuse to listen. That is why Rev. Knucklehead wants new laws to stifle the opposition. Information is power and they know it. The well informed masses is a dangerous thing for the left... ask their hero Stalin.

Me personally... I'm game... I will fling insults right back. No liberal is going to get a free run me.
 
Jay
#39
Quote:

That's not what the records indicate.

The records eh?


Quote:

You just said monopolies are fine.

Some are, I gave examples.


Quote:

Check who owns them.

It isn't a problem as I stated. I know who owns some of them, but it isn't a problem parliament needs to address. I get my news from all sorts of places. I have internet too.

Some times I go over to the other site you write for and read that stuff too.



Quote:

The CBC is not a private media outlet. Besides, the radical right is trying to do away with it.

Your right, it isnít private, and therefore I have a hard time considering it part of the ďfree press.Ē

Maybe we can strike a deal, you get to keep the CBC, but no writing restricting laws, and any in existence are torn up?



Quote:

That's the way it goes.

Yes and the current state of affairs is also the way it goes.



Quote:

? Did I say that? No, I didn't.

No it is implied by the line of thinking being used.
 
Reverend Blair
#40


Why the hell would you think you are even vaguely qualified to comment on the Canadian media?

You don't get to drag this one off topic, Eagleslack.
 
EagleSmack
#41
***Edited...OFF TOPIC***
 
Jay
#42
"There you go with your censorship! "

He merley wishes for you to stay on topic.
 
peapod
#43
Do you see how much of a hypocrit you are?


No actually what I see is a selfish, greedy small minded person, who's only concern is how the world around them effects themselves. I see someone that does not gives a rats ass about the turth, it might interfer with his pocketbook. I see someone who scorns his country because he did get all the golden eggs he wanted.
Hey smack you forgot one thing tho...."no matter where you go, there you are" How lucky america is to have you, mmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if times get tough for america, will you be crossing the border back into this country again?? The old shapeshifter trick.

Again, you are not a canadian nor have you ever been. And you can smack that all the way to the bank.
 
Reverend Blair
#44
Quote:

The records eh?

Go and check who voted for what in the H of C. Read the speeches. It's all there, Jay.

Quote:

Some are, I gave examples.

Do you realize that you are fulfilling what Marx saw as a necessary step on the path to communism? Are you a Marxist, Jay?

Quote:

It isn't a problem as I stated. I know who owns some of them, but it isn't a problem parliament needs to address. I get my news from all sorts of places. I have internet too.

Some times I go over to the other site you write for and read that stuff too.

Most people get their news from television and newspapers though.

Concentration of ownership may or may not be a problem where you are. It's not a big problem here in Winnipeg (yet) either. It is a problem in Saskatchewan though, and it's a huge problem in BC. If you've been reading Robin Matthews articles at Vive you should have at least a peripheral understanding of that.

Canada consists of more than your little piece of Ontario, Jay.
 
mrmom2
#45
oh rush limbaugh dosn't lie either does bill orilley ones a drug addict and the others a pervert oh thats why there right wing its some sort of prerequesite
 
mrmom2
#46
oh rush limbaugh dosn't lie either does bill orilley ones a drug addict and the others a pervert oh thats why there right wing its some sort of prerequesite
 
peapod
#47
very good dude

Perhaps you could explain what a hypocrite is to eaglesmack.
 
EagleSmack
#48
EDITED...STILL OFF TOPIC

Some guys are just too dim to get it.
 
peapod
#49
 
mrmom2
#50
The eagle loses his beek again!
 
EagleSmack
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by peapod

Do you see how much of a hypocrit you are?


No actually what I see is a selfish, greedy small minded person, who's only concern is how the world around them effects themselves. I see someone that does not gives a rats ass about the turth, it might interfer with his pocketbook. I see someone who scorns his country because he did get all the golden eggs he wanted.
Hey smack you forgot one thing tho...."no matter where you go, there you are" How lucky america is to have you, mmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if times get tough for america, will you be crossing the border back into this country again?? The old shapeshifter trick.

Again, you are not a canadian nor have you ever been. And you can smack that all the way to the bank.

Peabrain... I'm not Canadian.
 
peapod
#52
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh mulituple monkier.....your words ring the perverbal bell :P another calling themselves mendinia called me peabrain awhile back....mmmmmmmmm could you be the same person...or maybe your kind lack imagination???

Medinia, yes the lovely nurse rachett. :P .

I have a black touque, I can arch one eyebrow at a time, I have a big sly grin....as if you say...hey I know what you are all about...bring it on oh starched one....ehm...you can call me murphy...
 
Twila
#53
You say cencorship like it's a bad thing. Not all censorship is bad. In fact, most prefer it when self censorship is practiced. Although my dad simply referred to it as thinking before you speak.
 
tibear
#54
Surely, we can all agree that it is frustrating when Ms Pea has the ability to censor someone's topic for being "Off Topic" yet she is constantly permitted to simply put up her "smiley faces" which are completely off topic.

But it shows the type of administration that is permitted on this board. Many posters don't follow the guidelines set up for this forum, they complain and cry foul when someone disagrees with them. And if all else fails, they edit a post and chatised the posters with meaningless icons.
 
Jay
#55
Pea is just having fun with the smiley faces thatís what they are there for.

I have only seen one time where she jumped the gun with an edit, and I think since then she seems to be more careful.

It isn't our job to do the dirty task of edits, and take the heat for it. I'll only complain when I see flagrant favoritism.

Besides you don't have to pay any attention to her.
 
EagleSmack
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Twila

You say cencorship like it's a bad thing. Not all censorship is bad. In fact, most prefer it when self censorship is practiced. Although my dad simply referred to it as thinking before you speak.

But hey... if the opposition will not censor themselves

"WE LIBERALS WILL DO IT FOR THEM IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH!"
 
peapod
#57
Albatross!


A man in an ice cream girl's uniform is standing in a spotlight with an ice cream tray with an albatross on it.
MAN (loudly): Albatross! Albatross! Albatross!
PERSON (approaching): Two choc-ices, please.
MAN: I haven't got choc-ices. I only got albatross. Albatross!
PERSON: What flavour is it?
MAN: It's a bird, innit? It's a bloody sea bird... it's not any bloody flavour. Albatross!
PERSON: Do you get wafers with it?
MAN: 'Course you don't get bloody wafers with it! Albatross!
PERSON: How much is it?
MAN: Ninepence.
PERSON I'll have two, please.
MAN (loudly): Gannet on a stick
 
Reverend Blair
#58
It wasn't Peapod doing the edits, it was me. I will continue to do so as long as Eaglesmack refuses to stay on topic.
 
Hard-Luck Henry
#59
Hey pea. Bit out of place, but funny, nonetheless
 
Jay
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

It wasn't Peapod doing the edits, it was me. I will continue to do so as long as Eaglesmack refuses to stay on topic.


I thought so, but with you and Tibear living in the same city, I thought he may have insider info.
 

Similar Threads

3
Mass Media Reform
by mrmom2 | Apr 21st, 2005
11
Mass media mind control
by peapod | Jan 20th, 2005