Stephen Taylor pulls together a very good post on the “all about me” performance of CBC’s Keith Boag last evening.
Boag tries to link the frustrations of his job with “government accountability”. Canadians voted for change in the way that government contracts are awarded, lobbying is conducted, and the way that whistleblowers are protected. They voted for accountability in the way government works. Canadians did not vote for the Boag’s easy access to the most sought-after video and sound bite.
Precisely.
Be sure to read the comments – CTV’s David Akin weighs in.
Lay seige upon the leftist fortress that IS the CBC…
It may be time for Rupert Murdoch to open a Canadian FOX NEWS bureau.
Shake up the current left leaning corporate circle that is Canadian mainstream media.
Ah, another day, another round of p’ing and moaning from the black-helicopter, conspiracy theory crowd.
Can we cut it out with the constant whining about the MSM?
Prime Minister Harper has, since taking office, had extremely positive news coverage on every file except for two:
1) His effort to reduce media access. That has generated a few stories, and not that many.
2) The Emerson and Fortier appointments — WHICH HARPER HIMSELF has admitted he expected to get kicked in the pants over. Well, he did, and it’s over now.
On everything else — on his trip to Afghanistan, on the accountability act, on the way he has performed in Parliament, on the throne speech, on his discipline and ease in his new role — he has deservedly received an avalanche of glowing reviews from the press.
So for some of the folks on this site who see a conspiracy theory lurking behind every shadow and every street corner, please grow up!
When your side’s in power, the I’m-a-poor-marginalized-loser routine starts to wear a little thin.
It is simply wrong for Canada to have any state-sponsored media. It destroys any possibility of that media being able to support its role as a pillar of society.
If the CBC is funded by the state, then clause 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to exclude the CBC.
Tony 4:09 The point is if I were a CBC viewer wanting to find out about the new governments new legislation and tuned in, I would have received a Keith Boag prima donna whine. He might think that was news, the rest of us don’t.
Tony, I don’t consider myself part of the “black-helicoptor crowd” (whatever that is). I also don’t think that most of the media has it in for the Tories. However, I urge you to try this experiment. Watch the CBC for a number of evenings and listen closely to what Mansbridge, Boag etc. are saying and the way they say it. I think you will find that there is a clear anti-Conservative bias there. I can list numerous examples but urge you to try it for yourself.
Paul:
You may have a point. The CBC leans left, as do other public broadcasters in places like Britain and the U.S. So does the Toronto Star.
And Canada also has a right-leaning series of popular tabloids — the Sun papers. And there’s the No. 1 TV network, CTV, that’s been extremely favourable toward the Tories of late. And the CanWest papers aren’t exactly a bunch of raging commies, either.
The point being that we’ve got a diversity of opinion and views out there, and it gets a little boring to hear people on this site drone on every day with their latest MSM conspiracy theory — some of which contradict each other — and use their obsessive hatred of the CBC as proof of it.
We’re damned lucky to live in a country with a variety of sources of information, in a democracy where we can get left- and right-leaning parties elected (now that the conservatives finally stopped splitting theor vote) — so why are some people on this site talking like they’re living in some kind of totalitarian state where it’s high time for a media crackdown?
Especially when — as I tried to point out in my last post — Harper is generally getting excellent press coverage.
It makes no sense and it’s getting a little annoying.
Paul from Vancouver. If you think people like Tony have the capacity to listen objectively to the CBC and determine bias, well, you must also believe in unicorns. Tony defends the CBC because it reflects his mind set, ergo he will find no bias. The CBC reinforces his perspective perfectly so how could that be perceived as bias?
BTW, which one of us has this “black helicopter”? I want a ride.
exactly tony , all kinds of coverage . the point is the media is doing all the whining because there has been a change in the way its done . i’m not whining about the media . i think its funny .
I don’t think that the favorable news coverage Harper has received has been due to the media; it’s been due to Harper.
The press can’t ignore that the public likes what Harper is doing. The press can’t hide the fact that the military liked his visit to Afghanistan; that the police liked his ‘get tough’ attitude towards criminals; that Quebecers liked his openness to decentralization of powers, etc, etc.
The accountability act has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the media. It has to do with the government and the electorate. Period. It has to do with the right of the electorate to have full knowledge of how the gov’t is spending their tax dollars. This relationship of accountability has nothing to do with press coverage of that relation. Nothing.
Therefore, Boag was unprofessional in attempting to link a gov’t-citizen relationship as necessarily connected to a gov’t-press gallery relationship. The two are unrelated.
The press in Canada IS biased towards the left; the various news channels are all versions of left-perspectives. The Sun, as a tabloid, is sneered at by the elite media. There is no television station with a ‘right’ perspective.
Again, the fact that Harper has been receiving favorable press is due only to Harper. Not to the Press. They are doing their best to pillory him, but, there is little ‘meat’ for them to chew on.
ET…….WOW…..you have said what I couldn’t have, and is probably 100% the truth!!!!
Now……if we could just get Fox News Canada… 🙂
ET writes: “…the favorable news coverage Harper has received has been due to the media; it’s been due to Harper.”
Bingo. Thank you for proving my case that the media, in general, covers politicians fairly and reports positively on… well… positive performances.
Harper does well, Harper gets good coverage.
My point exactly.
“black helicopter”?
Is that the beanie on my head with the propeller turning when pointed to the wind?
Yep, there was no fear mongering during the election with “Soldiers with guns, in your cities, in Canada.”
PM Stephen Harper was portrayed as “unfit for office”, etc. one could list off a litany of negative portrayals as the MSM became Liberal choir members/cheerleading squad.
Then you get the “jilted press” complaining about “access” and “freedom of the press”. Oh spare me, they would have just been delighted to have seen PM Stephen Harper fall on his sword; rather than their hero PM Paul Martin. A survey of the “Mop and Pail” during the election should illustrate this very well.
As I recall PM Paul Martin was more “electable, prime ministerial” (whatever that disjointed notion might be) and a slew of other descriptors.
In the words of former fisheries Minister John Crobie, to suggest there was no MSM media bias is plain “codswallop”!
I gather Tony wasn’t paying attention during the recent election campaign. If there has been some correction in the MSM of late, it is probably the influence of blogs, like this one, among others that have poked holes in LIEberal balloons, only to spew their vapid and noxious gases across the political and media landscape.
I’m always amazed that people still buy newspapers or watch tv news, news magazines or morning shows these days. No depth, no analysis…just surface and bias. Read, discover, discuss but count more on yourself and your conversations to make up your mind.
(The only cbc i like is radio 2, but it was much better during the strike.)
Can we call it corporate media instead of msm?
Kind of, sort of, on topic link:
Conservatives� promised measures not included in the �Federal Accountability Act� or watered down to make them ineffective
steve in bc:
I gather that is why we have a House of Commons to take debate, refer to committee, to listen to constituents, to hopefully get legislation that makes some sense, rather than act as a seive.
Is the legislation balanced on the first go around probably not. After some honest debate it might be.
‘Journalists’ on the Hill are whining like crazy since their party got voted out – it’s fantastic. Their very comfortable ‘news-making’ arrangement has been shaken up and now they’re in a bad mood! Looks good on those whiners!
Except that we are still forced to pay those whiners – so they do have the last laugh, but hopefully that will change. Let them whine on someone else’s dime.
I can’t agree with Tony. I have no issue with a leftist TV news station per se – I do however have a problem with a leftist TV station that I am forced to pay for with my tax dollars. Especially as I don’t even own a TV. That’s a bit of a pain.
As for everyone else complaining about Boag – why not do something about it? The CBC Ombudsman can be contacted here:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
P.O. Box 500, Station “A”
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6
e-mail: ombudsman@cbc.ca
Keith Boag and the report that followed about secrecy may be in violation of the CBC’s code of “Journalistic Standards and Practices” specifically section 3.5.3 – which you can see below
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/accountability/journalistic/balance.shtml
This is the problem with people on the right (myself included), we complain, but we complain to each other and never to the state itself. If CBC had a consistant right-wing bias, you would bet that the lefties would put down their homeopathic patchouli bongs long enough to file formal complaints with the cbc ombudsman, the nearest hate-crimes tribunal and probably the UN.
Actually, Tony, I haven’t proven your point. All I said was that it was difficult for the media to portray Harper in a bad light, because of the FACTS that he is doing an excellent job – and that his actions are being well-received by various sections of the public.
The fact remains, that the Canadian media is primarily focused within the ‘left’ perspective, and, as others have pointed out, gave Harper a negative slant during the election, and, whenever they can, continue to try to qualify him negatively.
The media’s problem is that, ‘quantitatively’, they cannot portray him negatively, because actual facts (the military voices, the police voices, the Quebec voices)- which can’t be hidden, are approving Harper.
Qualitatively, there is no doubt in my mind that they would like to portray him negatively, but, there is little ‘meat’ for them to use as a basis. So- they resort to trivia: whether he hugs his children; his dress during Afghanistan; his weight. They attempt to denigrate him by their focus on these trivia. Just for comparison – did they do this with Chretien or Martin?
I think that Harper is trying to remove the media from their handmaiden role as Propagandist for the Government – which they certainly were during the days of the Liberals – and return them, if possible, to their proper role as ‘reporting data/facts’.
This means more work on their part. Rather than being handed the propaganda mush from the Minister or whoever – which they can then spread – , they are handed only – the document; or the act or the data. They must then analyze this, and come up with their own conclusions. They haven’t done this for a long time; under the Liberals, the conclusions were handed to them by the Ministers.
So, it’s a different relationship, and the Press isn’t used to being treated as mere ‘purveyors’ rather than as collaborators in the manipulation of the people.
According to my undertanding of the new Federal Accountability Act, it’s not a black helicopter, it’s a transparent helicopter.
Media sucked up to Paul Martin because he was in power. There are now a number who will suck up to Stephen harper because he is in power…not all are complaining.
Why? Because they need sccops and inside info and they got used to it in the past because they knew everyone, Libs in power for many years.
The media didnt really start treating Harper really well till his poll numbers made him competitive and PM ran such an incompetent campaign that they couldnt help themselves.
As for why are reporters complaining…hey its their job to get access….without access they dont do their jobs very well. Here is the hidden message the Tories are sending to editors…change your members of the PPG and we’ll relax a bit. Keep the same old crew of stenographers…Van Dusen/Boag included and we’ll freeze em out.
All the reporters will be mad because they’ll have to leave their comfortable lives and friends they know…tough your a reporter, you should be happy in Ottawa and happy somewhere else doing your job.
Change is good, the government changed so should the people covering them. There are very few permanent reporters in Washington.
JVD I hope you like London, because thats your next assignement.
I stated this at Taylors site, and I’ll just say here, it is not for the CBC to report commentary, their job is to diseminate newsm, not opinion, news.
If they want to include commentary, it should be stated, and both sides of an issue get a crack at telling their side.
Not some interpretation by a journalist, packed into the tailend of 60 second soundbite. If the people reporting news at the CBC have a hard time with the concept of unbiased, balanced news delivery, then they should go get jobs at other PRIVATE broadcasters.
Hans…”After some honest debate it might be”…good point…as long as we are all involved in the debate and learning what all sides are saying.
ET:
They attempt to denigrate him by their focus on these trivia.
Isn’t that what also happened to Kerry in the U.S. election? All those stories about him going windsurfing, or drinking latte, or speaking French? It sounds to me more personal than ideological.
I really have no problem with media bias — left, right or otherwise. I just wish the media (medium?) in question would be willing to admit it. I’m a conservative. If someone asks me what my bias is I tell them. I’m not ashamed of it. It’s a fact. By no stretch of the imagination can anyone be completely “unbiased”, “impartial”, “independent” (indepedent of what exactly?) or whatever monicker reporters, bloggers or whoever attempt to label themselves with to take on false airs of nobility, altruism or reliability. So if the news outlets and reporters would do an honest self-assessment they’d be doing their readership and themselves, ultimately, a very big favour. The CBC can be as biased as they want IMHO, I just wish they’d do it without my coerced financial support.
Avenger – Kerry had nothing to offer, ideologically, and he, himself, offered himself up as a ‘windsurfer, latte-drinking postmodernist sophist’.
Hans and Steve in bc – I don’t think that a policy necessarily must satisfy all parties, and all perspectives. To attempt such an inclusive action would move the policy into ‘being everything for everyone’, which is to say, actually being nothing, in its ambiguity.
I think a political ideology operates somewhere on a line between ‘left’ and ‘right’. This is valid, for the left usually supports the group, the collective; the right usually supports the individual. A robust society is neither one nor the other, but a balance of both the group and the individual.
But, one and the same act, cannot be both. So, some rules will support and privilege the individual, and some support the group. One and the same act can’t be both (I’d be interested to learn about it, if such exists).
The NDP seem to consider that a valid society operates only with a group-perspective; the Liberals and Bloc are similar. I think the Conservatives under Harper are doing an excellent job of ‘networking’ these two different and valid objectives. In that sense, so far, the CPC is a strong gov’t.
I find it quite astonishing, the amount of work, the innovative paths, and the decisions that have been made in the mere two months since Harper has come to power. Contrast that with Martin’s two years – when all he did was flip in the wind of varied public opinions, and fling money-promises at varied voter-groups. Quite the difference.
Seal meat. On the CBC.
In Canada, er Ottawa. There must be a law against this? Call the UN in to investigate.
Invite, to the dinner, BB, PP, Pam, Sir & Ms. Vegan, Keef Boag, & Alfonso as sommelier. Lights, camera, …. scrum… Joe Morselli sends his regrets…
Oh, & Duffy will pronounce the blessing. +
MP joins sealers as largest Atlantic hunt opens
Last Updated Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:05:12 EDT
CBC News
The seal hunt off the northeast coast of Newfoundland started Wednesday, with a member of Parliament among those taking to the ice.
Labrador MP Todd Russell intends to bring seal meat back to Ottawa to serve to fellow parliamentarians. (CBC)
* INDEPTH: The Atlantic seal hunt � FAQs
Todd Russell, the Liberal MP for the Labrador riding, travelled to the hunt in a small boat from Mary’s Harbour, a community in southern Labrador.
“It’s just something that’s right to do,” said Russell, who has an aboriginal sealing licence through his membership in the Labrador M�tis Nation.
* RELATED: Pelts, Pups and Protest: The Atlantic Seal Hunt
“I couldn’t find [a] better way to support the people that I represent than to be out there with them in some concrete way, in some way that they could understand,” Russell said before the hunt began.
Russell, who hunted seals with his father years ago, said he intends to bring back several meals of seal meat back to Ottawa. CBC
Bottom line here folks is that the media had gotten so used to having a press conference every time a Liberal Cabinet Minister passed gas. The Liberal party governed bu sound bite, not effective policy. Choosing to govern this way led to a culture of entitlement within the PPG itself. Now they are like addicts going through withdrawl because they are not getting their daily fix of so called policy soundbites. Individuals like Keith Boag have forgotten how to do their jobs cause they were at the trough with the Liberals, except they were given sound bites instead of plain envelopes stuffed with cash. Get over yiourselves and start doing your jobs…no one outside of the PPG cares about how hard it is doing your job…….try mine for a few weeks!
tony, get off this blog if you’re tired of hearing legitimate complaints about the consistent bias of the CBC: the Boag, I’m-Peter-Mansbridge-and-You’re-Not, Julie Van Dusn’t, et al.
The point you seem exruciatingly thick about getting is that the CBC is paid for by taxpayers’ dollars. CTV isn’t, nor is the Toronto Star, etc.
If you’re a privately owned and operated broadcaster you can air anything you want. BUT, if you are funded by the taxpayer and your mandate is to provide balanced coverage of issues of importance to all Canadians–which, BTW, is the CBC’s mandate–then you damn well better provide balanced, unbiased reporting on a pretty regular basis, something CBC announcers and reporters seem chronically incapable of doing.
Now do you get it?
so, where’s David Akin’s comment?
“(The only cbc i like is radio 2, but it was much better during the strike.)”
Agreed.
Sun Media, the Star, CanWest, CTV or any other private media can take any opinion they want. CBC does not have that right because we all are forced to pay its reporters. They have to be balanced and objective, plus have commentary and editorializing clearly labelled as such.
I echo the comments above, to send well-documented complaints to the ombudsman, who is employed to protect our money.
Gum/Gum Registry @$1.29 per cud report out? Where?
Smell the rotten eggs? Hydrogen sulfide? Or, is it Dingwall’s halitosis? +
Dingwall report out now and we find out all those Liberal cabinet ministers lied to Canadian taxpayers and in fact they fired Dingwall and he didn’t resign so Canadian taxpayer not only has to pay big settlement but also have to pay Dingwall’s legal fees.
I think Liberal Party of Canada should be held responsible and pay all this money since they blatantly lied to the Canadian people. +
voy.com
Stephen — You are right at least with respect to the Vancouver Sun. They did not give Harper any sign of support until the week before the election when one columnist (Barbara Yaffe) came out in support, and the day before the election when the editor endorsed Harper. The latter, I think, only because it seemed the numbers were showing a CPC victory — judging by their attitude up until then, it sure seemed like band wagon jumping.
Case in point: there have been 59 journalists appointed to the unelected, unaccountable Senate for Life pogey for “jobs well done”.
Three Governor Generals were from the CBC.
How many Ambassadors, etc. on the public purse were appointed as “big thanks” to this so called objective fifth estate???
Perhaps there are a few (Boag for one) who feel they put in their time, gave the Liberals their election successes, played down the corruption stories to demonize the right on cue who now feel they will be cheated from their entitlements.
Thinking about your implied challenge, ET, it does ocurr to me that clauses 2(c) and 2(d) of the charter support and priviledge the individual and the group. In short, freedom of association and peaceful assembly.
And, indeed, that is exactly the way it should be. One of the biggest problems we always face are cases where association and assembly are not free, but rather are mandated by the state under threat of force.
Which brings us back to the CBC: we are forced to associate with it.
The liberals have turned into such complete nincompoops that the media have designated themselves as the loyal opposition, who are entitled to their entitlements.
Global CanWest is so obviously anti-CPC it isn’t funny. Remember Kevin Newman’s sneak attack question about abortion he did on Harper? Kevin Newman is another lazy SOB who is far too in love with himself. Global CanWest – the Enquirer of TV news.
Whoever asked above (I don’t have enough time to run back and check!) David Akin’s comment is on Stephen Taylor’s blog, not SDA, Kate was just letting us know.
Boag was so obvious last night that even my husband noticed the whining bias and he NEVER pays that much notice to their silliness!
New Kid – I second that on Tony, especially since he doesn’t like being “barfed” on. If he’s heard of TO, maybe he could try FO.
However it is Kate’s blog!
The PPG have not learned that they are dealing with an intelligent, no nonsense prime minister who is prepared to deal with them in a clear, concise manner, answering whatever question is asked. However, over the last several years the journalists i.e. Van Dusen and Boag have become lazy and relied on the Liberal spin to create their stories. That is no longer the case and the Prime Minister of Canada expects members of the gallery to do their homework and come to the news conferences prepared and with serious questions. Yesterday the churlish Julie Van Dusen wanted her question answered. What was that pressing question? What is Harper going to do with Shapiro? Here we have a government introducing a major piece of legislation reforming how government operates and the only question Van Dusen wants to ask is about Shapiro. How does this inform the public of what the government is doing with this new legislation? They get an opportunity and they show Harper they really aren’t serious about the issue being discussed. This b.s. that the press is representing the public interest is pure bull.The PPG has been used to the scrums with non answers from which they could spin their stories. That isn’t the case with Harper. The answers are articulated well without spin. So until the PPG grows up, asks serious questions they are not going to get the cooperation of the PMO. With the performance of Keith Boag last night, he is asking for a CTRC investigation into the actions of the network. The public does not care about the PPG they are a bunch of crybabies who don’t like change.
Re: “The answers are articulated without spin” quoted by Helen above…
Hold on there! I wouldn’t go quite that far…Harper is a politician and politicians spin…period. To hold Harper up on such a pedestal and suggesting that he doesn’t (or isn’t) participating in spin smacks of blind partisanship. I have only ever voted Conservative and will never vote Liberal as long as they uphold Trudeau’s memory as anything other than that of a bast*rd, but I don’t think the country is served by blind partisanship.
Harper is doing a very competent job, I have infinitely more faith in the Conservatives than the Liberals, I support everything they have proposed to date (in this election, that is…and perhaps excluding the daycare issue, as I would have preferred something like a tax rebate of $1,200 after presenting receipts – but then, we shouldn’t forget about the stay-at-home parents), but I will not blindly trust them. As quotes in other posts on other topics, “trust but verify” should remain the position.
How about this instead “The answers are articulated clearly with little apparent spin”.
Some media is worse…for you,
Fox = 666
F is the 6th letter of the alphabet
O is the 15th, 1+5=6,
X is the 24th, 2+4=6
I’m happy, for now, with simply noting that Mr. Harper’s “answers are articulated clearly.” We citizens can judge the spin, at least if we can understand the answers.
Compare to Mr. Martin’s: funamentally, and let me be clear on this, this is very very important, the fact of the matter is that, fundamentally, and this is a Canadian value, and it’s fundamentally important.
Or recall when on 2003-03-24, Mr, Chretien was asked how he would know if Iraq had failed the UN weapons inspections. He said, “A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.”
Canada’s not out of the dark woods, but it looks like she may have found a flashlight.
“And Canada also has a right-leaning series of popular tabloids — the Sun papers. And there’s the No. 1 TV network, CTV, that’s been extremely favourable toward the Tories of late. And the CanWest papers aren’t exactly a bunch of raging commies, either.”
Tony, CTV is clearly a Liberal outfit – to the extent that members of their executive team litereally worked on the last Liberal campaign.
This is a widely accepted fact.
Try and get a Sun newspaper in Vancouver. The Vancouver Sun is CanWest. In fact all the local papers are CanWest. There’s diversity of opinion for you.
enough
Hey enough,
Now you know one of the reasons I do not trust the media in any way. If you didnt guess I live in leftcouver. I remember when it used to be a good place to live.
Vitruvius – I’d say that the second clause of the Charter affirms INDIVIDUAL rights – the individual is free to speak, think, associate with, etc.
We don’t get into group rights until Clause 15 – which is, in my view, deeply flawed. [Actually, I consider the whole Charter an aberration; it is primarily devoted to establishing bilingualism].
At any rate, Section 15 (1) locates the individual within a group (race, nation, ethnic, colour, religion, sex, age, mental and physical disability). It says – ‘equality under the law’ without discrimination according to group membership.
But, Section 15(2) instantly removes this equality, by asserting ‘affirmative actions’ agendas, which DO discriminate (i.e., differentiate) according to one’s group membership, and DO afford privileges or remove privileges, according to that membership.
Hmmm.
And Section 27 affirms the ‘multicultural heritage’ – which also locates the individual within a group.
But, this deeply flawed Charter, which has only one agenda, bilingualism, is not my point.
My point is that a LAW, as legislated by parliament, is usually geared to one or the other ‘set’ (the individual or the group’).
Faramir – yes, Kevin Newman has his biases. I recall him once informing viewers that their Global poll had shown that ‘most Canadians consider the US to be a ‘rogue nation’..and..something about Bush being evil.
Well- I went ballistic. I know enough about surveys to know how invalid they can be, how they depend on ‘leading questions’..and I know that the phrase ‘rogue nation’ would have had to be supplied by the surveyor, not the respondent.
I wrote nasty letters to the CRTC, parl’t, Global etc.. They actually phoned me, rather worried, because of the cc’s to gov’t.
By the way – ‘bias’ is not the same as ‘having a specific conclusions’. ‘Bias’ means an ‘ignorant conclusion’. But, if I come to the conclusion that the CPC party is better for Canada, that doesn’t mean I’m biased. My conclusion isn’t based on ignorance but on facts, on reason, on logic. Having a specific conclusion isn’t ‘bias’.
Fox = 666
F is the 6th letter of the alphabet
O is the 15th, 1+5=6,
X is the 24th, 2+4=6
Posted by steve in bc…
S is the 19 letter of the alphabet
T is the 20th
E is the 5th
V is the 22nd
E is the 5th
The total of these numbers is “71”
7 – 1 = *6*
repeat three times: Steve! Steve! Steve!
666
See what I mean?
Steve in BC: mark of the beast.
c =3
b=2
c=3
hmmmm2x3=6
3×2=6
2×3=6 O MY GAAWD
Easy, ET, I know what the charter says. I was just trying to point out that to the degree that a statutory clause supports both individuals and collectives, surely it is one that states that individuals should be able to freely form collectives.
If some anarchist wanders by and postulates that humans should not be free to support collectives, I have a problem with that just as I do with authoritarians postulating that I am not free to support a collective.
I think Steven Den Beste put it well when he noted a few years ago that everyone appreciates the value of collective behaviour to some degree, the problem is collectives don’t scale well.
Sorry, I dropped a negative there, pardon me while I interrupt with a substantive correction. I meant to write: just as I do with authoritarians postulating that I am not free to *not* support a collective.
Agreed, Vitruvius. My view is that humans require both individualism and collectivism. Not one or the other – but both. It’s a fine dance, however, to keep these two opposites interactive and with neither dominant.