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

[CurioToo]

Um - I love having the power of the remote control!

Curious people may prefer to have a variety of opinions from which to pick - I would get bored easily if the news was prepackaged into one ideology which never varied daily - and never stirred my interest and/or my anger.

It would seem to me "opinion programming" is geared to inform all sides of an issue (not necessarily to promote one side or the other) to keep the public informed of several opinions or objectives.

What would be the point? I think people need to demand all viewpoints on the broadcast networks - I have long been against the powerful CBC and its power over the people and resent that government has any say in limited broadcasting information.

 

[Colpy]

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.

You admit the bias of the CBC, but see nothing wrong with that, because it agrees, I suspect, with your own views.

Yet. you wish to prevent the broadcast of opinion that does not agree with the accepted "norms" of small L liberal society.

Because, like most lefties, you have absolutely no respect for the people at large.......you doubt their ability to discern what is, and what is not truth, and you assume they will not seek a variety of opinion in forming their own world view.

In other words, you treat the people as a bunch of slightly retarded children, who must be guided through the pitfalls of opinion, protected from any ideas that might befoul their tiny intellects, and carefully led to that great truth, the wonderful superiority of the nanny state! Who will care for them cradle to grave, watching over them, making sure they don't get hurt, or confused by politically incorrect ideas.

What you want is political control of the airwaves, with only the views approved by the Ministry of Truth permitted.

What you ARE is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

This is SUPPOSED to be a free country. Ever hear of the concept?

 

[shelphs]

You admit the bias of the CBC, but see nothing wrong with that, because it agrees, I suspect, with your own views.

Yet. you wish to prevent the broadcast of opinion that does not agree with the accepted "norms" of small L liberal society.

Because, like most lefties, you have absolutely no respect for the people at large.......you doubt their ability to discern what is, and what is not truth, and you assume they will not seek a variety of opinion in forming their own world view.

In other words, you treat the people as a bunch of slightly retarded children, who must be guided through the pitfalls of opinion, protected from any ideas that might befoul their tiny intellects, and carefully led to that great truth, the wonderful superiority of the nanny state! Who will care for them cradle to grave, watching over them, making sure they don't get hurt, or confused by politically incorrect ideas.

What you want is political control of the airwaves, with only the views approved by the Ministry of Truth permitted.

What you ARE is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

This is SUPPOSED to be a free country. Ever hear of the concept?

You have clearly skipped over the point made - that opinion programming has no right to be on a station categorized as a news station. Bias in news is everywhere and I, naturally, disagree with it and think it need be as limited as possible. This is not what I'm talking about when I talk of opinion programming.

Opinion programming is a show hosted by a personality whose opinions are presented. Examples of such shows/hosts include Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Are these shows inherently bad, no, but they have far too much leeway to do bad because of their association to a news station and their lack of civic obligation.

I hold this position because opinion programming has no obligation to present facts or fact-based opinion. I, of course, agree that the more diverse the opinions presented is good, but irrelevant and confusing opinions based in nothing more than ignorance does not help public discourse, and the media, esp. that which is under the banner of news, has a responsibility to provide opinions that assists public discourse.

 

[Colpy]

You have clearly skipped over the point made - that opinion programming has no right to be on a station categorized as a news station. Bias in news is everywhere and I, naturally, disagree with it and think it need be as limited as possible. This is not what I'm talking about when I talk of opinion programming.

Opinion programming is a show hosted by a personality whose opinions are presented. Examples of such shows/hosts include Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Are these shows inherently bad, no, but they have far too much leeway to do bad because of their association to a news station and their lack of civic obligation.

I hold this position because opinion programming has no obligation to present facts or fact-based opinion. I, of course, agree that the more diverse the opinions presented is good, but irrelevant and confusing opinions based in nothing more than ignorance does not help public discourse, and the media, esp. that which is under the banner of news, has a responsibility to provide opinions that assists public discourse.

Opinion is absolutely essential on a news station, for a number of reasons..........

1. Opinion is inevitable. Those who choose the subjects to broadcast, formulate the information, and then write the news do not do so in a bubble. Everything you hear on the news is, to some extent, opinion. And I would suggest that the effect of journalistic opinion in regular news items is major, rather than minor...........I personally would prefer to KNOW up front the political leanings of the person or broadcaster involved, so I can apply my own intellectual filters. If you think any news cast is NOT opinion-based, then come talk to me.....I have swamp....er....prime real estate for sale in Florida.

2. Opinion makes viewers. Good Lord man, think this thing through..........if you did magically remove all opinion from newscasts, you might as well just beam it straight off to the next galaxy, because you can be damned sure no human being is voluntarily watching it. Why do you think Fox News is such a success? Because it deals in conflict, in brash ideas presented for consideration without apology, in other words it is engaging..........and that is good. Anything that politically engages the masses is good.........if you have a problem with Fox (and I'm talking as if I were an American, I am not) watch CNN. Even better, watch all the channels, make up your own mind what is truth and what is not.

3. Opinion is good. As long as there is a variety of opinion expressed throughout the airwaves, opinion is exceptionally healthy. And, I have to say, I find the right much more willing to allow dissenting voice than the left. Compare the Globe and Mail and the National Post, for example. This week I compared letters on gun control........the Post had both sides of the issue presented.......the Globe let no pro-gun letters through........and that is just so typical. If one read the Post, one could see argument from both side. The Globe presents only one side as truth...........That is perfectly OK, as long as we have another source to turn to that deals with the opposing view....

And therein, I suspect, lies your problem.

J'accuse.........like every other enemy of Sun TV (which, btw, no one has even SEEN yet!!!!!) your problem is that they might express views contrary to your liberal preference. I mean, I just love this new-found devotion of the left to pure news unadulterated by opinion!!! Truely, a road to Damascus conversion on their part, after decades of slavish devotion to the CBC......

It is hilarious.

And extremely transparent.

 

[shelphs]

Opinion is absolutely essential on a news station, for a number of reasons..........

1. Opinion is inevitable. Those who choose the subjects to broadcast, formulate the information, and then write the news do not do so in a bubble. Everything you hear on the news is, to some extent, opinion. And I would suggest that the effect of journalistic opinion in regular news items is major, rather than minor...........I personally would prefer to KNOW up front the political leanings of the person or broadcaster involved, so I can apply my own intellectual filters. If you think any news cast is NOT opinion-based, then come talk to me.....I have swamp....er....prime real estate for sale in Florida.

2. Opinion makes viewers. Good Lord man, think this thing through..........if you did magically remove all opinion from newscasts, you might as well just beam it straight off to the next galaxy, because you can be damned sure no human being is voluntarily watching it. Why do you think Fox News is such a success? Because it deals in conflict, in brash ideas presented for consideration without apology, in other words it is engaging..........and that is good. Anything that politically engages the masses is good.........if you have a problem with Fox (and I'm talking as if I were an American, I am not) watch CNN. Even better, watch all the channels, make up your own mind what is truth and what is not.

3. Opinion is good. As long as there is a variety of opinion expressed throughout the airwaves, opinion is exceptionally healthy. And, I have to say, I find the right much more willing to allow dissenting voice than the left. Compare the Globe and Mail and the National Post, for example. This week I compared letters on gun control........the Post had both sides of the issue presented.......the Globe let no pro-gun letters through........and that is just so typical. If one read the Post, one could see argument from both side. The Globe presents only one side as truth...........That is perfectly OK, as long as we have another source to turn to that deals with the opposing view....

And therein, I suspect, lies your problem.

J'accuse.........like every other enemy of Sun TV (which, btw, no one has even SEEN yet!!!!!) your problem is that they might express views contrary to your liberal preference. I mean, I just love this new-found devotion of the left to pure news unadulterated by opinion!!! Truely, a road to Damascus conversion on their part, after decades of slavish devotion to the CBC......

It is hilarious.

And extremely transparent.

You seem intent on misunderstanding the point of the topic, the substance of the argument.

The goal of all news outlets is to limit opinion; that is to say, facts need trump opinion. Nobody is arguing that opinion is not unavoidable in the news, but opinion should not be so prominent that it leads to misinforming the public through false information or selective broadcasting of information - ideally. The facts should be presented so viewers/readers can take said facts and form an opinion.

The example you provided about the difference in letters published by the National Post and the Globe and Mail on the gun control issue has nothing to do with this thread's discussion topic. (Ideally, each paper would provide both sides, and the fact that one did not is a show of bias, just as is the show of bias when one not only sees if different viewpoints are present but how well each side is articulated.) I'm not talking about the active news media of newspapers, nor am I talking about the opinion section of an active medium, I'm talking about the passive medium of television and the news/opinion programming format therein.

Studies have shown that television is a very manipulative medium because the mind connects with it not only on a rational level but also on a subconscious level. Television influences the mind through the tone of voice used, facial expressions, music, etc. It's a powerful medium in terms of persuasion, and that is why the opinion section of newspaper featuring John Doe's letter that expresses an opinion is in no way the same as a well-known host that people hear, people see, who has access to sounds effects, and is associated with and is featured on a news station. The latter has far more influence, and even though these influential hosts have great power, they are not obligated to present facts or factually-based opinions that are not deceptively selective, misleading, etc.

That is my point, that opinion programming is a power tool that has no responsibility to public discourse. I am not arguing nor debating if a diversity in opinion is good or bad in the media. Naturally, diversity is good. The issue is the responsibility of news stations and that I don't believe opinion programming (that is, shows on news stations that have no obligation to provide programming that has more fact than opinion) helps public discourse because it has a license/opportunity to harm it.

 

[Colpy]

You seem intent on misunderstanding the point of the topic, the substance of the argument.

The goal of all news outlets is to limit opinion; that is to say, facts need trump opinion. Nobody is arguing that opinion is not unavoidable in the news, but opinion should not be so prominent that it leads to misinforming the public through false information or selective broadcasting of information - ideally. The facts should be presented so viewers/readers can take said facts and form an opinion.

The example you provided about the difference in letters published by the National Post and the Globe and Mail on the gun control issue has nothing to do with this thread's discussion topic. (Ideally, each paper would provide both sides, and the fact that one did not is a show of bias, just as is the show of bias when one not only sees if different viewpoints are present but how well each side is articulated.) I'm not talking about the active news media of newspapers, nor am I talking about the opinion section of an active medium, I'm talking about the passive medium of television and the news/opinion programming format therein.

Studies have shown that television is a very manipulative medium because the mind connects with it not only on a rational level but also on a subconscious level. Television influences the mind through the tone of voice used, facial expressions, music, etc. It's a powerful medium in terms of persuasion, and that is why the opinion section of newspaper featuring John Doe's letter that expresses an opinion is in no way the same as a well-known host that people hear, people see, who has access to sounds effects, and is associated with and is featured on a news station. The latter has far more influence, and even though these influential hosts have great power, they are not obligated to present facts or factually-based opinions that are not deceptively selective, misleading, etc.

That is my point, that opinion programming is a power tool that has no responsibility to public discourse. I am not arguing nor debating if a diversity in opinion is good or bad in the media. Naturally, diversity is good. The issue is the responsibility of news stations and that I don't believe opinion programming (that is, shows on news stations that have no obligation to provide programming that has more fact than opinion) helps public discourse because it has a license/opportunity to harm it.

I have misunderstood absolutely nothing, despite your attempts to prettily dress up what is in essence an attempt at control of the media's message.

Your initial post was this:

[FONT="]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.[/FONT]

First of all, you (nor I) have ever seen Sun TV, so to judge it as "Fox News North" is an attempt at a smear just to start with.

"Pandering to ratings" is the very ESSENCE of democracy, what the HELL do you think an election is???? GEEZUS!

Once again, your scorn for the mass of the people is clear...let THEM make up their minds what it is they wish to watch.......

And yet again, you have no problem with TV manipulation of emotion and opinion in the political sphere.....as long as it is perpetuated by the lefties of the CBC. It is only when that icon to the truth might be challenged that you suddenly get all mushy over fairness and decency and some imagined dedication to what you so erroneously see as truth.

You lie. It is EXACTLY diversity of opinion that scares the hell out of you, that is obvious.

Why else would you promote the censorship of a TV channel that deals in opinion???????

You have heard of freedom of speech, haven't you?

That means access to the airwaves for people you disagree with. A shame that, huh?

 

[petros]

They chose a Socialist name but they are suppsed to be like FOX?

 

[CurioToo]

Shelphs

Standing back trying to see the news coverage from your point of view I wonder what it is you have to fear - that other people may disagree with your take on current affairs? That your opinions are being challenged? What is wrong with that? Are you perfect? Who is?

To have full confidence in what we believe there are two variables which come into play: That our beliefs are challenged and stand the test of time; and, that our beliefs commit positive (and reactive) thought among the people which ultimately create better cohabitation..

One of the most difficult lessons I had to learn when moving to the U.S. was the diversity of news in both paper and electronic. I spent many hours reading and listening to opposite opinions, what appeared to be "shocking dialogue" to my virginal ears, and yet they stirred
a system of sorting out for me which became a practice I still employ to this day.

Some commentary is so lame it is laughable, some is so far-sighted, it should be framed along with the Constitution, and yet even what I hear and read one year may be viewed in the alternative next year as society progresses to a point where the "conceptual idea" was tried out and failed miserably.

We humans have to be able to accept that we are not robots, nor clones all marching to the same band, and the wisdom of the human
creature and brain is that we are diverse - a system which has caused us war and dislike and all manner of sorting out who we
agree with and who we despise -but I think it is part of our evolution - throwing all the creatures on this planet together and letting them
try out what works and what doesn't.....

Some day..... we'll all figure it out but meanwhile the best we can do is keep an open mind, don't fear the diverse or different, and because you firmly believe in one set of seemingly brilliant ideas, does not mean a toot to others who are on the opposite side.

It's what is so beautiful about our world - we are learning to fight without killing each other - we are learning freedoms of speech and
thought - and allowing ourselves to grow and expand and argue and I think forums such as this are part of the whole schema for success. What may be "right" this year could eventually be discovered to be a really bad idea next time around.

None of us are perfect - and thank the gods for it.

 

[talloola]

anything like fox news in the u.s. would be harmful. They cherry pick who they have on their show
and what opinions are aired etc., keeps them far right, not good for the public.

completely open and non biased would be acceptable, but won't happen.

 

[shelphs]

I have misunderstood absolutely nothing, despite your attempts to prettily dress up what is in essence an attempt at control of the media's message.

Your initial post was this:



First of all, you (nor I) have ever seen Sun TV, so to judge it as "Fox News North" is an attempt at a smear just to start with.

"Pandering to ratings" is the very ESSENCE of democracy, what the HELL do you think an election is???? GEEZUS!

Once again, your scorn for the mass of the people is clear...let THEM make up their minds what it is they wish to watch.......

And yet again, you have no problem with TV manipulation of emotion and opinion in the political sphere.....as long as it is perpetuated by the lefties of the CBC. It is only when that icon to the truth might be challenged that you suddenly get all mushy over fairness and decency and some imagined dedication to what you so erroneously see as truth.

You lie. It is EXACTLY diversity of opinion that scares the hell out of you, that is obvious.

Why else would you promote the censorship of a TV channel that deals in opinion???????

You have heard of freedom of speech, haven't you?

That means access to the airwaves for people you disagree with. A shame that, huh?

The label Fox News North came about, from what I understand, due to the origins of the Sun TV News Channel, which has links to Rupert Murdoch and Fox. Kory Teneycke, the architect of the Sun TV channel, has even stated “Canada needs a Fox”. The connection of its roots is clear and to speculate it will be like Fox News is by no means unreasonable, actually, it’s likely considering the information available, and, as a result, the name Fox News North was born. To be clear, though, no one is saying it actually is a Fox News North, but suspicions exist that it may be. Time will tell.

The quote “pandering to ratings” was used in context with “above all else”; that is, factual, serious, and scholarly talk does not get ratings, but it is the most likely forum in which sober truths are realized. Networks have done things to liven things up and make the news more entertaining, and that is fine, but showcasing uninformed and opinionated people against one another is no way to present the news. That would be an example of pandering to ratings and valuing entertainment over information.

You draw conclusion from what, I don’t know, an imaginative mind and contentious spirit, I suppose. I never said nor think manipulation of emotion and opinion is okay from any side of the political spectrum. I do believe that opinion programming allows for greater manipulation, and once one station does it, others will surely follow. That does scare me.

[FONT=&quot]As for censorship, I am no advocate of it. Would I like to censor opinions, no, certainly not, and how you think that I might believe that is a mystery. I have repeatedly stated that I simply don’t agree with opinion programming existing on channels labeled news stations. Do you understand? And, again, I’m not talking about how opinion is unavoidable in news, as is seen on any news program in the country, I’m talking about a new format to television in Canada in which news/opinion programming exist together on one station. Censor the opinions, no. Simply have them presented somewhere else. That is all.[/FONT]

Shelphs

Standing back trying to see the news coverage from your point of view I wonder what it is you have to fear - that other people may disagree with your take on current affairs? That your opinions are being challenged? What is wrong with that? Are you perfect? Who is?

I guess I was not clear enough in my initial post; however, my thoughts on the subject are apparent if my following posts on this thread are read, and by reading them one would understand it is not diversity that I fear and certainly not anyone challenging my beliefs.

The news media and those that own it are in possession of a very powerful tool: information. News reports can be good, average, and bad. Good reports present facts and tell the whole story with as little opinion as possible. Bad reports mislead by not directly saying but suggesting erroneous ideas through language and selective storytelling. What I fear is not diversity but irresponsible news reporting.

The news outlets have a responsibility to present information as unbiased as possible, and since opinion programming has no obligation to present factually-based information or opinions, they have no place on channels that are categorized and a part of a news station. When news programs have debates and opinions are expressed, it is necessary for a moderator to be present

Diversity isn't feared, it's the exact opposite that frightens me, for a news station that follows the news/opinion programming format has an opportunity to provide a narrow, one-sided narrative and call it news, which Fox News does. I fear a Fox in Canada. Will Sun TV be a Fox News, only time will tell, and I surely hope it will not be such a grotesque thing as that.

My original post merely talks about the likely of Sun TV News following in Fox's footsteps due to the roots and origins of the station, which is made clear in the video provided. It is a reasonable fear considering the currently available information.

 

[CurioToo]

Shelphs

Thanks for your explanation. I haven't seen the Fox News North channel so I have nothing to compare it with what exists in the U.S.

I study all the three major cable news outlets which deal with news on a 24 hour basis (MSNBC, CNN and FOX). There are a few others and selective news programs by the major television corporations broadcast at morning, noon and evening hours (the old
way of seeing the news of the day).

I wonder why you are so adamant that the Fox company in Canada is erroneous - having never seen it I don't know whether you are a biased viewer or if there is real mis-information being broadcast.

Fox in the U.S. was charged similarly when it first signed on across the nation, however they have levelled the playing field, have guests from both sides of the political aisle and encourage debate programming as well.

I have also seen them do corrections to erroneous reporting from a previous newscast - but all the stations do that - and the viewing audience expects there will be many "breaking stories" which are displayed to grab the viewers' attention, and later when things are fleshed out have to be corrected and ironed out.

Of all the large networks one group who does not have a cable outlet in my area (perhaps they do in larger cities) is CBS, however the
news programming I have seen being broadcast from that group is offensive and often misleading. I would put FOX up against them
any day if one were auditing reality and fantasy television "nooz".

The one who seems to be most temperate is CNN - the original cable full time news outlet - and while they get a bit "exercised" during national elections - they seem to be able to handle reality pretty well.

 

[TenPenny]

If we have Fox, we have Al Jazeera. Variety is the spice of life, and I'm not aware of anything forcing anyone to watch a particular (or any) TV channel.

We are all adults, we should be able to watch whatever we want.

 

[damngrumpy]

I think we have to be clear that the stations should be called news, commentary and
entertainment. The reason news is not taken as serious today is that the media has
devalued news in favour of entertainment sections and endless commentary by the
people who failed at politics pretending they are experts. There are some who do of
course know the trends but they can't all be right. The more watered down the news
is the less value it has.
Fox News North, is super right wing, the CBC is communist, NBC has a left wing
slant. All these catch phrases are little more that labelling and people perceive they
are what they are, that does not make it true. The problem I find with these stations,
all of them, is that they don't have enough balance on the stories and issues of the
day. That is where the problem of perception comes from. If you are going to present
an issue, those on either side of the argument should be equally qualified.
When it comes to open line or commentary, a personality being accused of being a
communist by the right and a fascist by the left, is likely pretty much down the center.
After all we as loyal citizens and people with opinions we really don't like to hear what we
don't like to hear, I mean read some of these posts on these boards.
Oh I know, we dismiss some statements out of hand and usually for a reason. but there
are times when the debate becomes more about the debate that the topic we are
discussing. That is exactly what happens on so called 24 hours news stations these
days and we should be aware we are sometimes listening to opinions of the news and
not the news itself.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Opinions I can handle. It's the fake outrage I could do without.

 

[taxslave]

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.

You just get all that out of a textbook?
That is just not how it works. It is about getting paid

 

[TenPenny]

Opinions I can handle. It's the fake outrage I could do without.

Yeah, that's a turn off, the 'outrage of the day' as I used to call it.

 

[shelphs]

You just get all that out of a textbook?
That is just not how it works. It is about getting paid

I am aware of what is ideal and what is the reality, but just b/c reality is so far from the ideal it doesn't mean people should give up and allow it to worsen. This issue concerns the public, the masses and not the elite and special interest groups. This is something worth fighting for - the ideal or as close to it we can come.

 

[Trotz]

No.
As our Canadian theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out: "The medium (not the content) is the message". Hence, it does not matter if the content is a news caster or a bunch of cougars sleeping with men in New York (both have political messages hidden within); rather, the problem here is television is capital intensive and thus its ownership and distribution of content is heavily monopolized.


The reality being this forum wouldn't have been around 20-30 years ago, instead you would have "Public Debate" on a local television show and they would have edited out anyone they didn't like.

 

[CurioToo]

I would hope the modern electronic audience is advanced and educated enough now to discern what preferences he/she desires to be aware of and the operators of any outlets
who choose to be the "editors" of the material preferred. We are not idiots nor children and are capable to turning off or out if we are so bothered - but ....

The one audience group I am concerned about are the avoiders who refuse to hear/read/see the "other side" and continue to flame the fire of hate and/or resistance to understanding without giving any time
or thought (regardless of the message) who stand to remain inert and incapable of change.

Until we understand the "enemy" with logical reason - we have no hope of learning anything or justification of our own beliefs.

I would be very concerned about Canada (or the U.S.) if a network was forced from broadcasting because of "content" - as free speech is a freedom we should all protect - even the offensive styles.