George Walker Bush

[froedrick]

Actually, the American media is a lot more independent from their government than the Canadian media.

Government Media has to answer to the people. A democratic nation would not accept a government funded media if it was blatantly biased to one side. Whereas Privately funded media can almost do whatever they want without serious repercussions. But really who cares?

[Cops]

Actually, the American media is a lot more independent from their government than the Canadian media.

You don't understand why the CBC exists or the relation it has to our government. If you don't understand this, then don't take an opinion on it.

Government Media has to answer to the people. A democratic nation would not accept a government funded media if it was blatantly biased to one side. Whereas Privately funded media can almost do whatever they want without serious repercussions. But really who cares?

CBC isn't government run media. That's a line of horse shit, and if anyone's trying to sell you that then call them on it. CBC is A LOT more balanced then any piece of corporate shit show America has.

Haha goddamn kidding me? Just because your government's media outlet pushes a liberal-leaning agenda doesn't mean you have a broader perspective - it just means you're up your own ass a lot more.

This in itself is why you don't understand what CBC is, it's not a government run media. To say that implies government has control over it. The government has almost ZERO control over The CBC.

Countries are rated on their freedom of the press, and predominately Canada always lists higher than America.

The CBC doesn't push a Liberal agenda. If you had access to it and actually watched it you'd know that it's quite possibly one of the BEST outlets for media in the entire world. I have access to MSNBC, CNN, FOX, but tell me this. Do you have access to any of our media? No. My comment about Canadians having access to a broader spectrum of media is dead on. On average a Canadian is no more or less informed than any American. Look at the key words I've been using, 'access' 'allows us'. Just because our media piled on with all the American media we self indulge in doesn't mean we allow ourselves to see a broader perspective. What I generally like about CBC is that they take you to places you'd never go and tell you stories you would never hear on any other run of the mill news program. Being a journalist isn't about sound-bites and 3-4 second clips, it's about telling stories and giving a voice to the voiceless. So when you attack CBC's credibility, it's kind of a bitch-slap in the face to those who hold journalist integrity to the highest of standards.

The average person doesn't trust sites that have information but zero credibility. So even for independent journalists in any country it's hard for people to break out of the norm and find alternative sources of information.

[Squeezer]

You don't understand why the CBC exists or the relation it has to our government. If you don't understand this, then don't take an opinion on it.



CBC isn't government run media. That's a line of horse shit, and if anyone's trying to sell you that then call them on it. CBC is A LOT more balanced then any piece of corporate shit show America has.

We still have PBS. Besides most of our generation gets their info online now, not from TV. And most of us are smart enough to see how slanted it is.

[Cops]

We still have PBS. Besides most of our generation gets their info online now, not from TV. And most of us are smart enough to see how slanted it is.

Granted I like PBS, and to some extent I like CNN (not all the time). I think MSNBC is too left and FOX is so far right they fell off the map. Media convergence has paved the way for new outlets of media, this is where people are seeking the best form of information.

If you look at where people get their information Broadcast is still predominant with print slowly dying. Internet sites are definitely on the rise however.

Listen all I'm saying is, that by my experience and giving the benefit of the doubt, most Americans are not stupid and are not so self absorbed as people would have you believe.

No one is going to make me believe this, it's not true.

Many Americans do have a clue about Canada and keep themselves informed about Canada, and to say that Canadians obviously know more because our media is better and we care more seems to be a bit like tooting our own horn

I think people generally keep themselves informed about Canada. To what extent, I have no clue. I never said Canadians knew 'more' rather, we have 'access' to a broader perspective of media. When I say we have 'access', I mean that for someone like myself who has basic student budget cable I still get a lot of media, not just Canadian media but also American media. I'd argue that it's 50/50. Obviously not everyone takes advantage of that fact, and like I said before I whole-heartily believe Americans keep themselves informed on the world just as much as any other nation.

My argument isn't against the American people, more so the media which surrounds them.

[Cops]

This needs to be brought out of my clutter post

What I generally like about CBC is that they take you to places you'd never go and tell you stories you would never hear on any other run of the mill news program. Being a journalist isn't about sound-bites and 3-4 second clips, it's about telling stories and giving a voice to the voiceless

For instance Somalian Pirates are raiding ships for food and supplies, preventing the UN-World Food Bank Program to deliver much needed resources to Millions of hungry people.

This story is looked at, scripted, shot, and edited. Within a minute and thirty seconds the story was told and they're onto the Californian Forest Fires. These are two stories covered either last night or today by most news stations. Name me some stations that dug deeper and told the story about the women and children starving to death? Where's their story? CBC told it, that's it.

[Squeezer]

I think people generally keep themselves informed about Canada. To what extent, I have no clue. I never said Canadians knew 'more' rather, we have 'access' to a broader perspective of media. When I say we have 'access', I mean that for someone like myself who has basic student budget cable I still get a lot of media, not just Canadian media but also American media. I'd argue that it's 50/50. Obviously not everyone takes advantage of that fact, and like I said before I whole-heartily believe Americans keep themselves informed on the world just as much as any other nation.

My argument isn't against the American people, more so the media which surrounds them.

The noise that comes from the media does surround the American people but keep in mind we have the same freedom of information and broadband speed at every library, university and McDonalds in this country. I get full access to all the porn, al Qaeda information and anarchist cookbooks I want. Plus I get cable (pretty much means sunny and espn :/).

My internet may be monitored more than yours but that guy we just elected plans on not only enforcing net neutrality, but also making all legislation accessible to anyone with a connection. He's already begun by asking Bill Clinton to release the information on funding for his library.

[Cops]

download illegally > go to jail do not collect $200

Plus I think a great deal of information is coming from the internet, which we all have access to.

[froedrick]

This needs to be brought out of my clutter post



For instance Somalian Pirates are raiding ships for food and supplies, preventing the UN-World Food Bank Program to deliver much needed resources to Millions of hungry people.

This story is looked at, scripted, shot, and edited. Within a minute and thirty seconds the story was told and they're onto the Californian Forest Fires. These are two stories covered either last night or today by most news stations. Name me some stations that dug deeper and told the story about the women and children starving to death? Where's their story? CBC told it, that's it.

Saw it on CNN for over 20 minutes.

[genocidal]

This in itself is why you don't understand what CBC is, it's not a government run media. To say that implies government has control over it. The government has almost ZERO control over The CBC.

CBC is owned by the Canadian government - that means it's government-run media. They pay the bills, how in the hell can you say they have "almost ZERO control" over it? Just because it seems to you to be a good source of information does not mean the government doesn't control it.

Countries are rated on their freedom of the press, and predominately Canada always lists higher than America.

I'd be interested in some sort of documentation on this. Not saying you're wrong, just interested.

The CBC doesn't push a Liberal agenda. If you had access to it and actually watched it you'd know that it's quite possibly one of the BEST outlets for media in the entire world. I have access to MSNBC, CNN, FOX, but tell me this. Do you have access to any of our media? No. My comment about Canadians having access to a broader spectrum of media is dead on. On average a Canadian is no more or less informed than any American. Look at the key words I've been using, 'access' 'allows us'.

I said they push a liberal-leaning agenda, and from what I've read that is not incorrect. The idea of "unbiased" news sources is both a misnomer and unique to late 20th century North America. European media is based upon the assumption that they are all biased - you read whichever news outlet you align with knowing their biases. This "fair and balanced" bullshit is not only a FoxNews appeal - every media strives to portray themselves as unbiased. First of all this is impossible, but I guess it makes for better ratings if you just say you're unbiased.

Just because our media piled on with all the American media we self indulge in doesn't mean we allow ourselves to see a broader perspective. What I generally like about CBC is that they take you to places you'd never go and tell you stories you would never hear on any other run of the mill news program. Being a journalist isn't about sound-bites and 3-4 second clips, it's about telling stories and giving a voice to the voiceless. So when you attack CBC's credibility, it's kind of a bitch-slap in the face to those who hold journalist integrity to the highest of standards.

That's all fine and good that you think the CBC has achieved a higher level of "journalistic integrity" (whatever that means), but it doesn't necessarily make it so. In-depth coverage of, for example, genocide in Darfur may seem to be about giving voice to the voiceless but what does that inherently mean? That nobody would know about Darfur unless the CBC runs their sensationalist media regarding the injustices of the world? It's not like Canada has sent troops in to stop it or anything. It's about stoking empathy in people and not so much about informing them.

I don't see how in-depth coverage is objectively better than brief coverage of a range of issues (I'm not saying one is better than the other, simply that they're two different animals). PBS does the same type of shit, but that doesn't mean it's good. It's government-run, and despite their distance from politics' immediacy they still have an agenda.

It's noble that the CBC and PBS seek to inform but giving 1 hour's worth of coverage to some tear-jerking news story about starving children doesn't mean they're any more informative than CNN/MSNBC/Fox. In fact, I would argue that the latter is more informative about American culture because it's precisely what people want to see in their news that drives these outlets.

[Cops]

Saw it on CNN for over 20 minutes.

re-hashing the same footage with experts saying the most redundant shit isn't telling anyone's story. CNN isn't awful, don't get me wrong. The thing is that if you want to tell someones story you have to let them tell it themselves.

[Cops]

CBC is owned by the Canadian government - that means it's government-run media. They pay the bills, how in the hell can you say they have "almost ZERO control" over it? Just because it seems to you to be a good source of information does not mean the government doesn't control it.

The government has limited control in my country. It's a crown corporation, there's a huge difference between a crown corporation and a state owned business. To say they out-right control the CBC is false and misleading. It makes people assume that the government has the authority to influence their stories.

I'd be interested in some sort of documentation on this. Not saying you're wrong, just interested.

I'm re-locating the site/fact, but I will do my best tomorrow to find this for you.

I said they push a liberal-leaning agenda, and from what I've read that is not incorrect. The idea of "unbiased" news sources is both a misnomer and unique to late 20th century North America. European media is based upon the assumption that they are all biased - you read whichever news outlet you align with knowing their biases. This "fair and balanced" bullshit is not only a FoxNews appeal - every media strives to portray themselves as unbiased. First of all this is impossible, but I guess it makes for better ratings if you just say you're unbiased.

That's all fine and good that you think the CBC has achieved a higher level of "journalistic integrity" (whatever that means), but it doesn't necessarily make it so. In-depth coverage of, for example, genocide in Darfur may seem to be about giving voice to the voiceless but what does that inherently mean? That nobody would know about Darfur unless the CBC runs their sensationalist media regarding the injustices of the world? It's not like Canada has sent troops in to stop it or anything. It's about stoking empathy in people and not so much about informing them.

I agree that there is no such thing as being unbiased, however some news stations are inherintely more bias than others.

As far as politics go, I don't agree with the current direction my country is headed. But then again I don't think you really want to make this about what your country has or hasn't done and what my country has or hasn't done.

I don't see how in-depth coverage is objectively better than brief coverage of a range of issues (I'm not saying one is better than the other, simply that they're two different animals). PBS does the same type of shit, but that doesn't mean it's good. It's government-run, and despite their distance from politics' immediacy they still have an agenda.

It's noble that the CBC and PBS seek to inform but giving 1 hour's worth of coverage to some tear-jerking news story about starving children doesn't mean they're any more informative than CNN/MSNBC/Fox. In fact, I would argue that the latter is more informative about American culture because it's precisely what people want to see in their news that drives these outlets.

Fine, you think long format stories which are essentially 5-10 minute mini-documentary's are a waste of time. The truth is that it isn't just about creating a 5 to 10 minute tear jerker. It's about history, culture, tradition, war, politics, and everything else under the sun.

Telling a story isn't suppose to be one-sided, and when you edit stories to a format of 1:30 seconds you don't show the bigger picture. If you want to report on the fact that Muslim women in Afghanistan are getting acid thrown on them while they go to school, you're labeling that society as prehistoric and awful. I'd still write the story and put it to air, but it's important to note that the women's right movement has been gaining strength in some of these countries. That's why shit-heads are trying to scare little girls into not going to school.

How is that fair and balanced? How have you shown the difference in the culture and the possible progress the government or society has made? What long format stories do when constructed effectively is teach people a bit of understanding. Not everything is black and white, not everyone believes the same thing I do.

You also lose sight of the fact that countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran who harbor terrorists and extremists still have people that are normal good hearted people. When all you do is report on the bad then your stories shine a 'certain' light on 'certain' countries. I'm not saying these countries don't do terrible things or that there isn't radicals in these countries. What I am saying, is that when you cast a rain cloud on someone then it's no surprise opinions and beliefs are formed around these countries.

[Kolar]

I'm re-locating the site/fact, but I will do my best tomorrow to find this for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporte..._Freedom_Index

[froedrick]

'll stay out of the culture-war that's going on but from my experience we're a lot more informed on America and American politics in general

No one is going to make me believe this, it's not true.

I think people generally keep themselves informed about Canada. To what extent, I have no clue. I never said Canadians knew 'more' rather, we have 'access' to a broader perspective of media.

My argument isn't against the American people, more so the media which surrounds them.

THIS IS WHAT I WAS ARGUING, YOU ANSWERED IT BY SAYING YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT I SAID IS TRUE, AND THEN YOU CHANGE YOUR ARGUMENT. GAH. Frustrating.

You will never make me believe Americans are less informed than Canadians.

[gran guerrero]

fuck canadia and amerika

get back to gays and abortions

[Troll King]

The CBC is a publicly-owned corporation, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being government controlled. It's journalistic independence is enshrined in law and it doesn't serve as the mouthpiece of the ruling government.

That may be the case with government-owned news organizations in less democratic countries but not in a democracy like Canada. The easiest way to see proof of this is that Canada's government has shifted back and forth between various incarnations of the Liberal and Conservative parties, yet the CBC's political leanings (I'm not saying it's not biased; all news organizations have an inherent bias, publicly or privately owned) have remained fairly consistent no matter who is in charge.

As another example, you can look at CBC shows such as the Royal Canadian Air Farce, This Hour has 22 Minutes and the Rick Mercer Report. For those who don't know what these are, they are sort of like the Canadian equivalent of The Daily Show or the Cobert Report, (and no, they aren't ripoffs of those American shows; the news-formatted This Hour debuted 3 years before the Daily Show premiered and long before Jon Stewart and the show's current format arrived, while "Canada's Stephen Cobert", Rick Mercer had his spin-off two years before the Cobert Report. Meanwhile Air Farce began as a radio show in 1970). Those Canadian shows are on the publicly-funded CBC, yet I find they are more balanced than Stewart or Cobert in their satire and criticism of the government.