George Walker Bush

[genocidal]

How am I being at all vague? I didn't say the government controlled it. I didn't say they constantly prop up the government. I said it's government-run because they foot the bill. You can bet that there are things that PBS and the CBC simply will not run because of this. The idea that making a law saying a government owned news station must be fair is laughable, and it's even more laughable that people cite this law as a reason why it is fair.

We clearly have different ideas about the media's position so this argument really can't go much further. I do agree with you that framing your news stories as "this is happening BUT x, y, and z are also happening/have impact on this/etc." is good. But I'm not of the mind that this automatically equates with journalistic integrity. Story selection, guest selection, and a host of other ways news outlets can influence how they convey their message are equally and often more important than "showing all sides." "Showing all sides" is useful in some cases, but it's just as easy to criticize that as it is to criticize a station spending 2 minutes on 25 stories per hour.

[Troll King]

How am I being at all vague? I didn't say the government controlled it. I didn't say they constantly prop up the government. I said it's government-run because they foot the bill. You can bet that there are things that PBS and the CBC simply will not run because of this. The idea that making a law saying a government owned news station must be fair is laughable, and it's even more laughable that people cite this law as a reason why it is fair.

We clearly have different ideas about the media's position so this argument really can't go much further. I do agree with you that framing your news stories as "this is happening BUT x, y, and z are also happening/have impact on this/etc." is good. But I'm not of the mind that this automatically equates with journalistic integrity. Story selection, guest selection, and a host of other ways news outlets can influence how they convey their message are equally and often more important than "showing all sides." "Showing all sides" is useful in some cases, but it's just as easy to criticize that as it is to criticize a station spending 2 minutes on 25 stories per hour.

If you compare the coverage from the CBC to privately-owned Canadian news sources, you'll find the coverage to be similar. Ask Canadian viewers about the content they're seeing from CBC's chief news rival, CTV, the top-rated news network in Canada, and you'll find the CBC doesn't avoid stories that don't reflect well on the government. It also has to follow the same journalistic guidelines as other media outlets.

Again, you have to look at other factors including the fact it's not the only news outlet in Canada, and it is in active competition with them for content as well as ad revenue. Again, it's not like the image you're thinking of from totalitarian regimes where the government news outlet is the only source of news.

It's well and good for you to pooh-pooh the idea of government owned media with theories of it sweeping news under the rug, but look at the actual situation you don't find that happening.

[Jeenyuss]

cbc radio 3 is pretty great.

[genocidal]

If you compare the coverage from the CBC to privately-owned Canadian news sources, you'll find the coverage to be similar. Ask Canadian viewers about the content they're seeing from CBC's chief news rival, CTV, the top-rated news network in Canada, and you'll find the CBC doesn't avoid stories that don't reflect well on the government. It also has to follow the same journalistic guidelines as other media outlets.

Again, you have to look at other factors including the fact it's not the only news outlet in Canada, and it is in active competition with them for content as well as ad revenue. Again, it's not like the image you're thinking of from totalitarian regimes where the government news outlet is the only source of news.

It's well and good for you to pooh-pooh the idea of government owned media with theories of it sweeping news under the rug, but look at the actual situation you don't find that happening.

Again, I was NEVER comparing the CBC or PBS to totalitarian regime propaganda media - so why the hell do you and Cops keep bringing it up? I guess you just don't see my point. I'm not saying they don't criticize the government either, so I don't know why you said that. Just because you criticize the government in a news story doesn't mean you don't have a slant shown in what you cover, the inflection of your coverage, etc towards a particular entity.

I am not, and have never been, speaking about totalitarian propaganda media. But there are ways of having biases while following whatever silly guidelines there are about journalistic integrity. I believe that everything is biased - there is none of this bias and no bias media bullshit.

People read what they want to read based upon how the media's views are aligned with their own. You think FoxNews is more biased than other news sources because they have a conservative slant. Izor thinks MSNBC, New York Times, and CNN show a liberal bias because his views don't correlate with theirs. Nobody is wrong here, it's just different.

[Cops]

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.

I didn't realize I wrote that, and I didn't mean to word that like I did. You're right, I re-read that sentence and it's completly off. I still think we have a wider range of broadcast media and have a better set of journalists at the helm of our stations.

Thanks to Kolar, he did my leg work for me and found the link that talks about freedom of press in different countries. Canada isn't at the top but we have a lot more leeway to report on stories than say an American station has. That's nothing to do with the actual station, it has to do with the amount of control the government has over our media. It's kind of funny that a publically funded news company such as the CBC has less control from the government than say a privately owned news corporation in the U.S. Not only does the government have more control over what the average American sees they also have to bow down to corporate sponsors who also control what you see and hear. This matters when it comes to doing stories about health, sure (insert company name here) produces unsafe food, but hey they're a major sponsor and we can't survive without their money. How independent do you really think that is?

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

If you compare the coverage from the CBC to privately-owned Canadian news sources, you'll find the coverage to be similar. Ask Canadian viewers about the content they're seeing from CBC's chief news rival, CTV, the top-rated news network in Canada, and you'll find the CBC doesn't avoid stories that don't reflect well on the government. It also has to follow the same journalistic guidelines as other media outlets.

Again, you have to look at other factors including the fact it's not the only news outlet in Canada, and it is in active competition with them for content as well as ad revenue. Again, it's not like the image you're thinking of from totalitarian regimes where the government news outlet is the only source of news.

It's well and good for you to pooh-pooh the idea of government owned media with theories of it sweeping news under the rug, but look at the actual situation you don't find that happening.

Not once has the CBC not been critical of the Canadian government. I think my main problem is that just because Canadians foot the bill, as he says means that the government has control over what comes out of the CBC. Which couldn't be farther from the truth. It's also kind of shitty to assume the type of coverage and programming the CBC covers without actually watching it.

There's just one big assumption that if the government helps fund media then it's automatically bias and not worthy of being considered news. You have to look closer at what laws protect that news company and the actual credibility it carries. In my mind CBC is king shit when it comes to credibility.

[froedrick]

What's funnier is FOX is owned by an Australian. gg.

[Zerzera]

Again, I was NEVER comparing the CBC or PBS to totalitarian regime propaganda media - so why the hell do you and Cops keep bringing it up? I guess you just don't see my point. I'm not saying they don't criticize the government either, so I don't know why you said that. Just because you criticize the government in a news story doesn't mean you don't have a slant shown in what you cover, the inflection of your coverage, etc towards a particular entity.

I am not, and have never been, speaking about totalitarian propaganda media. But there are ways of having biases while following whatever silly guidelines there are about journalistic integrity. I believe that everything is biased - there is none of this bias and no bias media bullshit.

People read what they want to read based upon how the media's views are aligned with their own. You think FoxNews is more biased than other news sources because they have a conservative slant. Izor thinks MSNBC, New York Times, and CNN show a liberal bias because his views don't correlate with theirs. Nobody is wrong here, it's just different.

Then there is no need to state that the station is government funded. In democratic countries like Canada, the public funded stations would be as open as commercial ones. So their bias would be well traceable for anyone that has interest. I can see how citizens of a free country would jump on the statement you made, it just reeks of insinuation.
In less free countries, press that's not government funded can be under much more influence (intimidation, lawsuits) of government than the Canadian public stations.