My own belief is a trust in Blogs as time and time again they have exposed lies and propaganda and turned the MSM and the establishment on their heels.

The current CHRC fiasco is probably the best example and someone will make a lot of money describing how it happened so fast.

When one thinks that within 1 year (little longer actually) a few bloggers could take all the broadsides, HRC investigations, anti-semetic labels and SLAPP suits by a select chosen few - well my hat off to them and my wallet is likewise open - subject of course to what is in it.

Hopefully their (The Canuck 6) war chests are overflowing and fair winds fill their sails from here on in.

It is nice to be a proud Canadian and Westerner again. Thanks Kate et al.

End of Rant.

After an absolutely disgraceful display of favoritism by CNN/CBC during the US election it is my hope that they will fail and fail miserably. It would appear they all took their training overseas during the cold war. Despicable and deplorable. If you as an individual want to step up the financial heat you can do your small part. Don't buy whenever possible products advertised on the CNN/CBC channel, and email the company and let them know what you are doing and why. You would be amazed just how touchy companies are about this type of thing and the number of replies you will receive from them.

Well, of course a lot of the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of so-called "journalism" schools and their "professors". Pretty much the whole lot of them are border-line Marxists who believe the state must control the thinking of the proles. The truth is that the intellect of the average "prole" is light years ahead of the average "journalist".

It seems that the systems that develop and communicate our 'zones of existence' are changing.

By this I mean that we, as humans, have the ability both to reason and to imagine, and then to communicate the results of these activities.

At one time, the MSM focused on the results of reason, i.e., facts, and left the results of the imagination, i.e., fiction, to the 'hoi polloi'. This has led the MSM to its assumed self-identity as The Purveyors of Truth, and its equally assumed description of the readers/viewers as a hapless ignorant mass.

But the MSM don't realize that a tectonic shift has occurred. They, the MSM, have moved into the domain of the imaginary, of the fictional, of the unvetted and subjective ignorant perspectives. And the blogging world has moved into the realm of fact and reasoning.

Quite the change. The MSM, assuming itself as Emperor and Holder-of-The-Truth is now dethroned, and truth and powers rests with...The People.

Further to John Luft's comment. My daughter had the misfortune of spending a year in journalism shcol and I still feel anger and disgust at some of the stories she told me. She refers to that time as a year of Marxist brainwashing.

Anything "Obama" comes on MSM?

I just mutter "O-crap" and move along.

Unless it's from someone with credibility.

I wonder if they're trying to mindnumb people so that they are fed up and miss the important stuff?

. . . and how much of the MSM revenues come from auto ads ??

. . . and how much will the auto ads be reduced as the Big 3 melt down, dry up & drift away on the winds of change ?

Sucks to be GM, Ford or Chrysler and it really sucks to be the New York Times

Hasta la vista, babies

Further to John Luft's comment. My daughter had the misfortune of spending a year in journalism shcol and I still feel anger and disgust at some of the stories she told me. She refers to that time as a year of Marxist brainwashing.

I think that Howard Kurtz's article is good but optimistic. "Obama's days of walking on water won't last indefinitely. His chroniclers will need a new story line. And sometime after Jan. 20, they will wade back into reality." The MSM has invested too much money and credibility to allow Obama to fail. They will do all they can to ignore and downplay all of his mistakes. The newspapers will be filled with fluff pieces on his greatness. Conservative criticisms will be countered with liberal friendly experts who will give us the correct interpretations of negative events.

"journalism" is a bastard with many fathers.

One is that journalists are English majors with zero skills at anything beyond crafting BS into sentences.

Another is that journalist go into the "profession" not to inform but to "change the world." That is entirely the wrong reason to be there. They have no business changing a damn thing. There job is to report facts. Period. If they change anything they're incompetent, honourless hacks with no integrity or ethics.

Another is that they pretend to be a guild whose "profession" requires re-education in the university system from the likes of Professor Miller who has shown what amounts to "ethics" in journalism.

The state of media stock is a reflection of the quality of those businesses. The degradation follows that of their staff.

From the article:
"Obama is a figure, especially in pop culture, in a way that most new presidents are not," historian Michael Beschloss says. "Young people who may not be interested in the details of NAFTA or foreign policy just think Obama is cool, and they're interested in him. Being cool can really help a new president."

Obama is only a figure in pop culture because the MSM have made him out to be that.

Young people think Obama is cool only because the MSM have told them he is cool, not because they have concluded this themselves or could give a reason why they think he's cool.

If Obama turns out to be the worst President in U.S. history the MSM will tell these Obambots that times are good and that Obama is cool and they'll believe it even if the entire society around them is unraveling like a cheap sweater.

The Lamentation of "not bode well", aka "Greg Elmer, Bell Globemedia Research Chair, Ryerson University, Toronto".

Here is the Pecking Order: "researchers, political historians, and reporters."".

The proof is da proof of da Prof's bona fides:

"Greg's most recent articles have appeared in the scholarly journals New Media & Society, Screen, Convergence, and Topia."
...-

"Conservatives yank their election ads from Youtube

I was surprised to learn through a graduate student at Carleton University that the Conservative party have pulled all of their political ads and videos from their Youtube channel. There are no videos on the party website either. This does not bode well for researchers, political historians, and reporters."
http://manu.rcc.ryerson.ca/~gelmer/?p=100

MSM journalists are admitted Liberals. Partisan ones. Liberals think people are stupid and must be controlled. The modern MSM is based on this model.

I must ask though, I'm going to pay money to read the words of people who think I'm stupid and are trying to control me? There is a way to check!

Lessee, New York Times stock today is... ooh, making a NEW 52 week low again today of $6.99! Three or four days in a row now, kids. Not looking good for Gray Lady shareholders and bond holders. Going to zero real quick.

The "people are stupid" business model is incorrect my friends! Reality check reveals people will not pay money to be treated like idiots.

What this says about those men and women determined to ride that model down in flames I will leave to you, the reader. ~:D

" It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news-and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened. "

I always wondered why ALL media seemed to run a story in the same manner.

If there was a story, it was a story for all.
If ignored, all ignored it.
If a statement was taken out of context, they all took it out of context.
If it was total BS, they all BSed.

Toe the Reuters, AP, Thompson line or lose the feed ?? Sure seems like it.

Seems that too many Editors and Journalists are modern day Hippies.

They think that Capitalism is the root of all evil. The end justifies the means. Any means. (Even a Hoax such as Global Warming)

The modern day Hippy/Leftists uses the same tactic the hippies of the seventies did. (some of them are CEOs today)

Hitch-hike in the Capitalist's vehicle that Capitalists built, while driving on a Capitalist built highway, to a meeting in a building that Capitalists built so that the Hippy can ... you guessed it - PROTEST CAPITALISM !!

Strange that they don't ever protest how badly Socialism/Communism has always failed in the past. No infrastructure to get there in, I guess.

Sigh...I guess I should take up pamphleteering again.

They aren't going to go back to the Old Ways of reporting facts; they'll redouble their efforts to make news and opinion indistinguishable. They think that'll make their product attractive. They've invested a generation of journalism students in that dogma.

When I was at university, I noticed that the least intellectually endowed students gravitated toward journalism and psychology. It's really no wonder the quality of their work is so poor.

I was in the US on election day and made the statement: ‘What you have now is a better PR director."

Obama IS articulate and there are several things I like about his status as president-elect.

1) No longer can race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say that the black man has no opportunity in America. One has just been elected to the top office in the US. Black victimization dead. Good.

2) W is pulling out the rug on the withdrawal from Iraq issue. They're taking out troops faster than originally scheduled, have signed an agreement with Iraq on all the issues. Yet, the crickets are chirping in the newsrooms across America. Your move, Obama.

3) I like the fact Obama is a happily-married man with two children. I like the example this shows and follows his words for more personal responsibility among black Americans. Now, the severely normal blacks have an example they can be proud of.

4) His articulation of ‘change,' for those who cared to listen, was a call for more personal responsibility, not freedom from responsibility. Those who voted for him expecting radical social change to fringe groups will be sorely disappointed. Just check out the rude and violent reaction of the gay extremists, who make the label ‘gay' seem laughable. These people are angry and it's nobody else's fault but their own.

5) The appointment of Rohm Emanuel as chief of staff will ruffle plenty of feathers. He's strongly pro-Israel and his father has a history as a militant Zionist. That will not sit well with the marxists.

In short, the expectations of all the radicals I saw celebrating the victory in the US will soon come crashing to reality.

And, Obama the lawyer who sued CITI will meet with some resistance from the lenders. All they have to say is ‘you forced us to lend money to people who had no jobs and no means to repay. We won't be making that mistake again.' And the American public may finally understand.

Look, the assumption made by pretty much everyone here -- and elsewhere in the blogosphere -- is that the declining economic fortunes of the media are a direct reflection of public disgust with news coverage. But take a look at the business of news and it quickly becomes apparent that the primary problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the news. It simply doesn't.

Try: http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/katzenjammer/archive/2008/11/15/no-it-s-not-the-quot-bias-quot.aspx

And before leaping to denounce my Marxist agit-prop, please have a look at: http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/katzenjammer/archive/2008/11/14/those-filthy-stinkin-journalists.aspx

Phantom

"""""The "people are stupid" business model is incorrect my friends! Reality check reveals people will not pay money to be treated like idiots.""""

=============================================

sadly you are wrong with this statement

liberals (and some red torys) don't mind being lied to, it's expected, and that is why the msm has gotten away with it for so long. Hopefully the internet will convert so of these fools to truth seekers.

No one has greater contempt for "journalists" than I but a big part of their inadequacies as described by everyone above comes down to simple economics. Journalism, except for a few stars at the top, is a low paying job. The smart people become, doctors, engineers, lawyers, plumbers - the ones who can't cut it go into journalism.

Since reporters often deal with famous people their egos become much larger than their meager abilities warrant. I find it extremely funny when some journalist is opining about the serious issues of the day when this person has no training or experience in business, economics, politics, history, foreign affairs, military, marketing, science, technology, statistics, ....

We don't care what you think you unintelligent, uneducated morons - just give us the facts.

"The state of media stock is a reflection of the quality of those businesses."
+

Can't entirely disagree.

CanWest Decomposition Watch
67 cents
http://ottawawatch.blogspot.com/2008/11/canwest-decomposition-watch_18.html

GYM, external reality check indicates liberals and red tories may not mind lying, but won't pay to be lied -to-.

Support, NYT just hit ANOTHER brand spankin' new 52 week low a couple minutes ago of $6.98. Leaving open the question, who are the idiots still holding this turkey? If I knew how to short stocks I'd be shorting the hell out of that thing.

Stick a fork in 'em, they're done.

Personally I think its hysterical watching the MSM flop on its collective face.

They have created the monster that’s consuming them, by misleading and flat out lying to the public.

It is amusing that for fact finding, and the TRUTH so many people now go to the web for honest information.

robins111, its like a flight of chickens the size of B-52s coming home to roost ain't it? Squadron after squadron coming in lower and lower, then SPLAT!

Sadly for Obama, the media and the people that glorify him will eventually turn on him like rabid dogs. They always do.

"Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."

Its hardly limited to editors and reporters. Many of the denizens of SDA agree that the general population is too stupid to think for itself. Isnt that why Obama won? Nobody smart could possibly have voted for him.

Interesting clip about how the MSM kept Obama's background in the dark while highlighting the McCain/Palin ticket.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/223033.html

This was not a question of voters' intelligence, since they were almost spot-on about the Republican side, but the people questioned did not even know the Democrats controlled congress.

There's a quote from Winston Churchill -which I unfortunately can't find at the moment- to the effect that a five minute conversation on politics with the average voter will disabuse one of a belief in democracy.

What that ties into is the absolute social need for competent and unbiased public education and competent and unbiased MSM.

That we have neither of these explains to a large extent why the West as a whole is in the self-inflicted moral depression, a social lassitude that it's in.

The invisible hand of the market is doing a good job of strangling the obsolete main stream media. And the second commenter, Western Canadian, has a good idea about how to tighten the garotte around their aristocratic necks: let their advertisers know that their patronage is driving away your dwindling disposable income.

Anything "Obama" comes on MSM?
I just mutter "O-crap" and move along.

Maybe that should be "Oh shit!"
(Hey, I just thunk up an idea for a T-shirt...)

Obama?
Oh shit!

Colin writes: Sadly for Obama, the media and the people that glorify him will eventually turn on him like rabid dogs. They always do.

....................

I cannot agree; they didn't for Trudeau and they didn't for Kennedy....none of the Kennedys, even the swim champ.

Watch Brokaw and another clown put on dunce caps and drop their pants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIBskOExUQE; & full video
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9330

Seems the only pre-requisite for Liberal Journalism is No Love of One's Country.
,

I'll share an email I received from Michael Harris, who I beleive "writes" for the Ottawa Citizen. I gave him a blast for repeating the lie that Sarah Palin thought Africa was one country. Do you wonder why "journalists" are losing their influence?

___________________________________________

what a pathetic attempt at communication. you are quite the boyo to be talking about graciousness. your note is pure ugliness. as for your judgeship of intelligence, i am very grateful that you believe caribou barbie is more intelligent than i am. very relieved indeed. now please direct your next toilet flush to the nutbar right wing cry in the beer web site of your choice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas LaBelle [mailto:thomas_labelle@shaw.ca]
Sent: Fri 11/14/2008 7:22 AM
To: Michael Harris
Subject: Remedial Geography

Well congratulations you have joined the herd (if you weren't always a card carrying member). That would be the slavering, ink dripping sycophants for Obama herd in case you have any doubt. It's been officially acknowledged that the story about Ms. Palin's 'Africa is one country' meme was made up by one of your Barack loving colleagues. You got your man now try to be good winner. I'm willing to bet that Governor Palin is not only more gracious than you (not to mention better looking) but actually much, much more intelligent. She almost dragged McCain's dumb carcass over the finish line and all you've done is ... well what have you ever done?

Sincerely
t labelle

Notice that he makes no attempt to refute the fact that he spread a lie under the banner of objective journalism. Because I called him on it, I'm the bad guy. Read it and weep.

>"Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."

Dim said:
Its hardly limited to editors and reporters. Many of the denizens of SDA agree that the general population is too stupid to think for itself. Isnt that why Obama won? Nobody smart could possibly have voted for him.

Wrong. Faulty equivalence.

The MSM thinks it's own readers(it's paying customers) are too stupid to think for themselves.

The SDA and it's commenters/denizens do not think those who reader SDA are too stupid to think for themselves.

Obama's numbers were roughly the same as Kerry's numbers in'04.

Obama won because Republicans, the smart people, stayed home and let Obama win.

Fritz

I have made a similar statement regarding a different occupation; but, was crucified at SDA because it is one of the groups cherished by conservatives. That being said, I agree with your statement.

Everyone insists that others are stupid until they agree with them. At that point, the others suddenly are soooo smart.
The point is that we hope that "journalism", as it claims, intends to edify rather than manipulate these ... er ... we dummies.

"Its hardly limited to editors and reporters. Many of the denizens of SDA agree that the general population is too stupid to think for itself. Isnt that why Obama won? Nobody smart could possibly have voted for him."

Dim

Once again your preconceived bias has led you to make stupid statements. It is us (conservatives) that believe the general population(individuals) IS best suited to make decisions. That is where almost everyone here and you disagree. It is leftarded ideology that thinks that the population needs to be lead, indoctrinated and protected from the big bad human nature monster. Wealthy elites misleading poor and lazy people into thinking middle class people and entrepreneurs are the the cause of their woes.

We conservatives don't want others making decisions for us, we want small gov't and more personal responsibility, because we know that only individuals can best asses what is best for the individual, not some "elite" poking his head in our business, and fingers in our wallets.

oops

needs to be *led* not lead.

Kate:

This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."

I might add it is also endemic among politicians to belittle the electorate as well not trust them. "Beer & Popcorn" People who should not be allowed to exist or work, without the Saints of government. I see no halos, only pitch forks in the polities hands.

It looks an awful lot like both live in the same areas, have kids in the same school, go to the same clubs & generally have the same opinions towards the "Little people" as the folks they end up shilling for. Big Unions, Big Government & political correctness gone loony. No wonder most don't even fight for free speech anymore. They are part of the elite.

Its quite astounding to me that there are still lots of writers with integrity, if not an understanding of the average person. I mean there is so much pressure & political prizes for conformity of opinion.

You pegged em good Kate. A Righteous post.

During the last election Taliban Jack went on John Gormley Live and proceed to tell an enormous whopper of a lie about how there hasn't been one single acre of land reclamation at the Alberta oil sands. Within seconds Gormley producers looked it up and proved Jack-ass Layton to be the outright liar that he is. The MSN never picked up on this huge story of a party leader being caught in such a HUGE lie. Strange. Before 1994 and the wide spread use of the internet it would have taken several hours, if not days, to disprove Taliban Jack. The political left use to get away with lies like this everyday!
The internet is revealing the truth about the left, and that is slowly destroying the movement.

When blogs are just commenting or re-retailing a journalistic news item, perhaps I could sympathise with the MSM. But, Totten and Yon have shown how bloggers can be real journalists, much more so than the MSM.

Also, bloggers can bring live action to events, such as the HRC disgraces, or the hurricane in New Orleans.

So, I used to fear that the sources of news would dry up if the likes of Reuters, or AFP, stopped earning money doing what they do. But I've decided these institutions have institutionalized an incredibly biased political view into their "news" items, and I have no fear of sources of news drying up.

Bloggers are like a thousand fact checking monkeys.

Western Canadian @10.36,

I don't watch either political channel, so I don't know what isn't advertized on them. Perhaps someone can produce a list...No, wait; that would mean someone actually watching those channels.

Rupert Murdoch says "It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened. Today, editors are losing this power.."

He's right about the internet, but he's thinking as a newspaperman who wants the industry to survive. Even IF editors/producers are no longer the high priests who have an exclusive right to determine what information does and doesn't get out to the public, they had more of an effect on the results of the last US election than they had ever had before -- their abnegation of standards became a massive source of *power* that more than counteracted the blogosphere and search engines.

Back when editors/producers had something like exclusivity in determining what information the public had access to, they were a lot more professionally and morally duty-bound to cover both sides a story. At the very least, there was a lot more neutrality and evenhandedness in political coverage.

In a sense it doesn't matter that current media behaviour is disgusting, or that it's malpractice, or that it's functionally a joke, because there are millions of people who are either not online or, if they are, don't generally go to political blogs. Those people, who aren't particularly politically aware, who just occasionally had CNN or NBC on as background noise, or who read Time magazine, ended up NOT knowing some truly salient details about Obama that would have certainly effected their choice of who to vote for.

The American MSM might be harming themselves in the long run by violating longstanding principles of credible journalism, but in terms of this potentially disastrous election it really didn't matter a whit how bad their bottom line was, or how their stocks were performing, and it didn't matter what *informed* people thought of them because there were millions of people who were mindfully given a false propaganda version of Barrack Obama, and those people made the difference. When it gets to the point where the media can, by withholding information, choose the POTUS -- the most powerful position in the world -- their corruption is not a liability but a powerful weapon. The absolute falseness of information doled out by Pravda, for example, may have been contemptible in every way, but all those Russians without outside sources of information simply had no way of finding out what wasn't told to them.

Last night in Readers' Tips commenter "boots" linked to this video that shows clearly the enormous effect of the media choosing what information to broadcast/publish or not broadcast/publish. The enormous power of the MSM is writ large in the form of President-Elect Obama.

The greatest difficulty now facing the MSM is based in credential creep. Every profession/trade wants to increase its acceptability by increasing its credentials even though if it is serving only to destroy the trade/profession.

In times past we were far better served by writers and editors that were by today's standard 'uneducated'. They worked their way up the ranks by perfecting their talents in operation not university. Their writing was praised or panned and they learned as a result.

Now they simply graduate from a mockery of a school and feel entitled to spew their nonsense, reader's be damned.

*
hey, kate... got your "not waiting for the asteroid" graphic handy?

*

[quote]Back when editors/producers had something like exclusivity in determining what information the public had access to, they were a lot more professionally and morally duty-bound to cover both sides a story. At the very least, there was a lot more neutrality and evenhandedness in political coverage. [/quote]

EBD,
Yes! and then came Cable News... The Networks had great plans for the combined News Division, but along came Princes Dianna's death and 24/7 "Cult News" was born. The Cult News methodology, driven from the production deck, has spread from Cable to the MSM. The Soap Opera production elements are all that matters to MSM, talking heads be dammed. News is not News if doesn’t fit into the "News Magazine" theme. I think an understanding, of their weakness, was used to the “ones” advantage.

The days of Hard News will/must return

Indiana Homez,

"Once again your preconceived bias has led you to make stupid statements. It is us (conservatives) that believe the general population(individuals) IS best suited to make decisions. That is where almost everyone here and you disagree."

You caught me, dude. As Oz points out, SDA voters don't think Americans are stupid. Only Canadians, though I am sure if I delve deeper, we can find some anger directed at the stupidity of the American voters as well.

Here, from your colleagues on the "right".

"A large majority of Canadians are morons."

Posted by: CJ at October 10, 2008 4:26 PM

"they think Canadians are stupid, and I fundamentally agree with that assessment!"

Posted by: RW in Big C at October 10, 2008 4:13 PM

"Canadians as a species as dumb as dog shite"

Posted by: Tanker at October 10, 2008 9:15 PM

Yeah Indiana Homez. My preconcieved baises. Shockingly based on the statements of the nutter right. Hate to break it to you, but I agree with you - I value the individual and his opinions. Some people here don't. Shoot me for saying it. If refusing to behave like the hard right makes one a leftard, then I am guilty. I prefer to think of myself as center-right, but these terms don't mean much anymore do they?

Just one question, Oz - what was the difference between the turnout for 2004 and 2008? I suspect Republicans voted as usual - wasn't that the entire point of the Palin candidacy? Perhaps its time to blame it on Ann "Vote for Hillary over McCain" Coulter?

You caught me, dude. As Oz points out, SDA voters don't think Americans are stupid. Only Canadians, though I am sure if I delve deeper, we can find some anger directed at the stupidity of the American voters as well.
~Dim

I didn't point out that SDA voters don't think that Americans are stupid.

I pointed out that SDA and it's commentators didn't think the general reader of SDA was stupid, you excepted of course, Dim.

The MSM thinks it's OWN READERS are stupid and treats them like idiots.
(and then finds it strange that people won't buy their copy)

SDA treats it's readers, even you Dim, with the respect they earn as individuals.

And YES most Canadian voters are stupid and the government aids and abets that stupidity by funding sports as a diversion.

Dim

People say stupid things. Lizzie May said something along those lines and unfortunately she was crucified, ridiculous. I said on this site that under those circumstances no body is qualified to run for PM, because I'm sure everyone has said something along those lines before. "People are stupid". There I said it!

Perhaps what you don't understand is most people around here feel that the general public has been mislead by the MSM, and being that the MSM is the main source of media for the average person, this is a major concern (look for BO to "bail out" MSM organizations. Payback!). I think most people here think that if the average person was informed wrt Barak Obama and some of the issues the so called "rightwing news" uncovered, they would have voted very differently.

Although the election looked like a KO, if you look closely at the #'s you can see that the margins were very tight in many important swing states; therefore, it is very plausible that the aforementioned MSM had major influence on the election results, considering most of the MSM have no qualms admitting the bias after the election. This is evident when in our own CBC coverage of the election the anchor said "Great news, another swing state has gone to Obama".

And NO, you are not center right. I have noticed that many people on the left prelude their statements with something along the lines of: I usually vote Conservative but..., or I'm a conservative but...
I have concluded that the left overwhelmingly know that their ideology is crap; but, they still must justify voting for those parties because they personally benefit from government handouts(bribes), or work in unions, or have a social agenda that the government subsidizes, or in Ontario's situation they prefer to maintain the balance of power in their region. Since they can not make rational arguments for their socialism (history has shown it to be a failure), they must start with a "but" statement and then go into a "tit for tat" argument.

I'll prove it. What party did you vote for in the federal election? If it wasn't Conservative, make a rational argument for voting Lib/NDP and don't forget no "tit for tat".

Oz,
SDA is not part of the newsmedia, mainstream or otherwise. It does not report news. It merely finds juicy tidbits from other sites. The range of these issues is remarkably narrow, and with a very heavy tilt to the right, which is fine, because it is a blog.

Right. So you re arguing that people are stupid because some of them say stupid things, and because some of them trust the MSM. It's a valid argument, but I would challenge it on the very simple basis that people have the option to look further - that they don't is their fault, not the MSM's.

"I think most people here think that if the average person was informed wrt Barak Obama and some of the issues the so called "rightwing news" uncovered, they would have voted very differently."

I daresay the newscoverage was far more skewered in the 2004 election. This time round, they were relatively gentle on McCain but harsh on Palin (for the two months that she was around). Last time Chaney and Bush got blasted by the MSM. Why did it not have the same impact then? I think you give the MSM too much power. The blame lies less with the MSM and more with a floundering Republican party that has all but deserted its conservative values under Bush. Put the blame where it belongs.

"And NO, you are not center right."

You would be well advised not to comment on my political orientation. I voted absentee - for the Tories.

I am a right-winger insofar as conservative principles are concerned. I do not subscribe to the hard right view that you and your colleagues try to pass off as "right". It is, as is the case with all fringes, nonsense. Go back to the basic principles of conservativsm. Thats what the Republicans need to do. That is what Harper is trying to do. And that is what SDA is trying to destroy, by being the right's equivalent of the angry rabble-rousing left. It is not I who engages in tit for tat, it is the hard right here, which imitates the hard left tit for tat.

Conservative principles will, as always, survive this attempt to redefine them by making them mirror images of the left. I am a conservative, not a nutter-rightist reactionary. Real conservatives are principled and decent, the hardline branch is neither, though it does serve a useful purpose as, well, useful idiots - the kind that will willingly accept anything that the Conservative party says to them.

"Go back to the basic principles of conservativsm. Thats what the Republicans need to do. That is what Harper is trying to do."

agreed

"And that is what SDA is trying to destroy, by being the right's equivalent of the angry rabble-rousing left."

For example?

"Real conservatives are principled and decent"

True

", the hardline branch is neither, though it does serve a useful purpose as, well, useful idiots - the kind that will willingly accept anything that the Conservative party says to them."

B.S. Does that "hardline branch" BS consider fiscal conservatism? Is someone right of you regarding fiscal issues not decent?

Dim sez:
"Oz,
SDA is not part of the newsmedia, mainstream or otherwise. It does not report news. It merely finds juicy tidbits from other sites. The range of these issues is remarkably narrow, and with a very heavy tilt to the right, which is fine, because it is a blog."

Wrong.
In the summer of 2006 Paris was burning.
Muslims were rioting and burning 2000 cars every single night. This went on for 2 weeks with ZERO MSM coverage, not even Fox news.

Guess where it was covered every single day it happened.
(one guess only)

I have disagreed with your comments, Dim, because you draw an equivalence between how the MSM treats it's readers(who purchase their copy) with how many SDA commentators(and SDA's readership is growing while the MSM's customer base is rapidly dwindling) view the average Canadian voter.

There is no commonality between subsets.

SDA readers are informed people while MSM kool-aid drinkers are misinformed and misdirected.

SDA respects the readers of SDA while the MSM disrespects it's readers.

SDA gives it's readers good information and a real time opportunity to comment on the information and issues.

The MSM gives it's reader false information, spins the information that is true while posing as unbiased, blacks out news that explodes the MSM bias, and generally misinforms while expecting the consumer to remain mum and pay for it's copy.

Valiant attempt at spin Indiana, but when I say the hardline branch will buy anything the Conservatives say to them, I don't mean it in literal terms in the context of this government. All I am pointing out is that the hardline branch is full of blind ideologues who will wave the conservative flag regardless of what the party does as long as it pays lip service to their values. In thier eyes the conservatives can do no wrong, and in them, the conservatives have voters they can always rely on. Useful idiots. Captive votes, if you will.

Fiscal conservatism is very much a part of conservatism that I support (through smaller government etc), but I don't see any point in discussing or explaining my views of conservatism. I am not criticising the hardline branch for supporting Harper - they are bound to. I am just wary of blind ideologues who vote conservative because of its name, not its policies. There is a difference between supporting Harper because you know what his policies are, and how aligned they are with conservatism, and supporting Harper because he is standing under a banner that reads conservatism(because conservatives are good and liberals are bad). The hardline elements tend to be the most misinformed and conspiratorial. On both sides.

"Guess where it was covered every single day it happened."

I was in England, so I wouldn't know, but the folk here were doing a terrific job of covering it. That said, the MSM,and American media in general, is known for being America-centric. They didn't notice the riots? Okay, but for what its worth, they don't notice anything about the rest of the world most of the time. You have a better shot with CNN International, BBC World etc, the latter being my favored source for breaking news. BBC world caters to a wider audience than CNN America (what you get across North America) - its range of reporting is much wider and more indepth. CNN International isn't half bad either. Fox News, even the international version, remains as America centric as the rest. Now dont get me wrong - the BBCs editorial staff is as biased as the rest, but in terms of purely breaking news and access to politicians while reporting these events, it is one of the best.

"SDA readers are informed people while MSM kool-aid drinkers are misinformed and misdirected."

Not condescending at all.

"SDA respects the readers of SDA while the MSM disrespects it's readers."

Kate and the moderators allows a lot of dissent, and full credit to them on that account, but the rest of the stuff here reeks of blatant condescenion, the kind you posted above.

As for good vs false information - well I disagree. More often than not, facts are facts regardless of how you report them. The MSM focuses on Palin. SDA focuses on some joker named Kinsella - a liberal of some sort who ought to be flattered by the attention. Both are playing to their markets - theres nothing balanced or unbiased about either.

I'm not a partisan; but, I recognize that partisans play a very important role in our system. It is the partisans that affect change within the party wrt policy and leadership. It is the nonpartisans like myself that get a free ride and get to pick and choose at election time, or earlier if you're a member. If a party heads the wrong direction, it is the partisans that must do the hard work to redirect the ship; whereas, the nonpartisans can simply jump ship for whom ever suits their needs today. This is evident with the surge in Green party votes. Rather than trying to move the Liberals from within, many decided to jump to the Green's, which accomplishes nothing productive( except being able to stand on a soapbox and claim their not partisan hacks). Jumping ship is much easier than writing an MP and trying to affect change that way.

That being said, that makes you and me no better than the people who will follow and cheer the Conservatives regardless of the position on a particular issue. Often these people accomplish more politically overall because they were willing to compromise in some areas to move forward in others. This is exactly what PMSH has been doing.

Yes, Dim in England, I can be condescending.

They(the Americentric MSM) didn't notice the riots? Okay, but for what its worth, they don't notice anything about the rest of the world most of the time.~Dim
(how condescending are you?)

Wrong.
The MSM noticed the riots, they chose not to tell North Americans, who depend on them for news*, about a major ongoing news event.
* hooked on kool aid

You say the riots were well covered in England?
Is that the same England that lies on one end of a large tunnel to France? What do you suppose the daily traffic through that tunnel is, eh?
How could an event like the Paris Car-B-Qs that occurred on a daily basis, be happening at one end of the tunnel and not be noticed on the other end?

Indiana Homez,

That is an interesting intepretation of the roles, I must admit. One I have never considered, but one which certainly rings true to a degree.

I am however, wary of believing that partisans are good because of that function. Truth be told, political parties still have to cater to the majority, and while the change may take longer, it will come, or else the party will fail. Yes they are agents of change, but they are also aggressive and vindictive, which makes them, in a nutshell, divisive and prone to spreading divisiveness - a sort of us versus them mentality that rarely bodes well within a country. I noticed the fairly prominent Dennis Praeger declare that red America was irreconcilabe with blue America and the two would have to part ways sooner or later. Such statements can only emanate from the fringe, and they are rarely constructive. Hence my assertion that I am a center-rightist, as opposed to out and out partisan right. I beleive that a democracy can cater to competing visions, but invariably you have the Pragers (whos article on townhall attracted in excess of 400 posts, most of them agreeing with him) and the loony left (the ones who declare that they will leave the US for Canada if Bush wins, for instance). Partisans are ultimately divisive. They have to be. Part of being a partisan is being confident of one's own superiority to all others- not very good for democracy.

Oz,

I am not. It has been my good fortune to live in different parts of the world (I watched the first gulf war on CNN in Asia). American news is America-centric, and if you ever leave North America, ask the local opinion on it. There is nothing condescending about saying it is America-centric. It just is. That is there market, extended daily weather forecasts and all. So be it.

BBC World and CNN International are staples across the world - both are almost always available at every hotel I have stayed at(minus a couple of govt blackouts on the BBC in China). They have a global market that relies on them. As a result, they have resources everywhere. CNN and BBC have reporters globally. NBC et al don't. Even FOX doesn't. Its about where you put your resources. BBC and CNN I put them everywhere. CBS and all don't. How is this condescending? It is merely a statmnt of fact.

"Wrong.
The MSM noticed the riots, they chose not to tell North Americans, who depend on them for news*, about a major ongoing news event"

THey cater to a market. If they think the market doesn't care. They don't broadcast it. Its hardly new. I remember watching Bill Clintons address to the Indian Parliament in 2000 on BBC World in Canada. None of the American majors thought it was worth broadcasting to an American audience. BBC thought it was worth broadcasting globally. The market demands what it does. The MSM caters to it. When it doesn't, the market takes care of it, which is why these corporations are floundering. And so be it. Condescending? Hardly.

I don't think you know much about the riots. Your statements surrounding htem are incoherent at best. For what its worth, BBC world was broadcasting those images all over the world, for the duration of the event, and while I know you hate the MSM, if you had looked, you would see. CBC broadcasts BBC Worlds 6pm news daily, and PBS broadcasts it at 6Pm and 1130pm daily. Well thats what it used to be when I last checked a couple of years ago. Your ignorance is, well, your own fault. The news was there. Its your own fault that you never noticed. And no, your failure in this regard can not be attributed to my condescension.

Great post, I found it on ZoomIt.ca... Anyway I don't think it matters much what the major media conglomerates think - people are going to get their info from many sources, and if they don't really trust something they are going to be smart enough to look into it.