My friends at Avaaz.org keep sending emails exhorting me to sign a petition to prevent the SunTV news channel from polluting Canadian airwaves with “false news”, “poisonous propaganda” and “outright lying”:
Dear friends across Canada,
In 48 hours, public protections against false news coverage could be destroyed. The CRTC may pass a huge loophole to the “fair and balanced” rule that currently prevents media from outright lying to the public.
Canada’s broadcast journalism standards are an impediment to the new “Fox News North” (Sun TV) network being set up by Prime Minister Harper’s cronies, which promises to mimic Fox News — the poisonous US propaganda network. The CRTC rule change, which allows false news to be blasted across Canadian airwaves, comes just as SunTV is about to launch.
We can stop this — last year, we prevented Harper cronies from pressing the CRTC to fund “Fox News North” with public money. Now, we have just two days to raise another national outcry to save the standards of Canadian journalism, and our democracy.
It’s difficult to believe that anyone would fall for such tripe but – they do. To summarise:
- The sky is falling
- A SunTV news channel will be the end of democracy in Canada – just as Fox News brought down democracy in the US.
- Fox News is a poisonous propaganda network. That’s why it’s so popular.
- We have to save the standards of Canadian journalism. That’s why the CRTC permitted the usually anti-American and frequently anti-Semitic Al Jazeera news network to start broadcasting in Canada.
- It’s a devious plot concocted by Harper cronies.
- The sky really is falling.
That all sounds fair and balanced.
What is the real problem? The left hates competition from the right because it knows that the right makes more sense.
“last year, we prevented Harper cronies from pressing the CRTC to fund “Fox News North” with public money”
Then why are we funding the CBC?
It is a propoganda network – but I am not worried about it, because I think the culture of Fox News will make it a failure in Canada.
I agree, Kate – I’m not worried either. I only watch Fox when I’m on the treadmill at the gym (and have no control over what I’m watching), but I found it fascinating last week how quickly Fox began shaping a “meta-narrative” concerning the meaning of Mubarak’s depature consistent with their ideological perspective. While the other networks were still just reporting the situation on the ground, Fox was interviewing “talking heads” and asking leading questions.
Although SunTV will doubtlessly be popular with a small minority of Canadians (except maybe in Alberta), if the American Fox News model is followed very closely, I believe they will doom themselves to failure or insignificance. It will be interesting to see if they adopt a model more consistent with Canadian values and perspectives. Regardless, I have no problem with approval.
That’s my “wailing and gnashing” for today (since I’m considered a left-wing socialist on this blog).
Contorl the message and you control the people.
This is something that the left wing and dictatorships have understood for a very long time now. The right however find the very notion of controlling the message to be outright disgusting because it is a basic violation of one of our most fundamental democratic principles, that being freedom.
Warren,
…more of an elitist gadfly.
Peace,
Jim
I am devestated by your name calling. I must go pamper myself in all my elitist trappings.
AMP – do you really believe that? Maybe you should consider the possibility that it is merely that you agree with the right, and not the left. There are many examples of right wing news outlets that contort the message.
The difference here is that the “left” are calling for this news outlet to be banned. In short they are calling for government controlled censorship. This is not the same as “news outlets that contort the message”. If we are going to allow left wing news outlets (ie. the CBC and the Toronto Star) we should also be willing to allow right wing news outlets.
Warren,
A cold brew, a comfortable chair and Fox News works for me.
Peace,
Jim
The first two sound good, but the third would cause financial stress. I’m not elitist enough to be able to afford to keep replacing TVs that have had things thrown through the screen.
No-one would be forcing you to watch it. So save yourself the expense of replacing TVs and watch something else.
Oh. I guess that raises an interesting point. No-one would be forced to watch it. But just having it available is a problem for the left wing. Is the left wing so week that they are fearful of the availability of right wing news outlets? Seems that they are.
So I guess you don’t think I’m part of the “left wing” then. That’s a relief.
Warren,
If you were open minded (like me), you’d only yell at the TV.
Peace,
Jim
I couldn’t bear to be so liberal.
So is Sun TV living up to expectations? I’m hearing it referred to as Foxy TV North.
Or, as Michael Coren said, “Sun TV, Good Lord, why are some men threatened by beautiful, intelligent women?”
I can’t quite hear the gnashing from here, but judging by the wail – yes.
All the more power to them, I say. Let the market decide.
They haven’t smoothed out their daytime format yet. Early days.
Caldwell and Levant are worth the effort.
I have long noted that very many Canadians consider the whole left-wing perspective not “a perspective” at all, but the truth. It blows me away. Anything, therefore, that deviates from this is considered “a lie”.
Try finding a school in Canada that is not left-wing, for instance…..they are very few and far between. My husband and I had hoped for years to send our children to one, but alas…. Our fellow Canadians do not even so much as know what we are talking about when we describe schools without a left-wing bias. We would even settle for a school with an objective view — not to be found hereabouts. Even the Ontario Catholic schools pick up and promote every passing flavour-of-the-month lefticism.
Where is everyone’s grey matter?
Concerning the new Sun channel, I haven’t seen it yet, just read about it. I have to wonder why the right-of-current-centre (and the centre is not fixed; it changes with time) must be portrayed, with some exceptions, as being uneducated and lowbrow, as Sun seems to have in mind. Funny, that used to be what liberals and democrats were considered to be at one time. See how it changes? Is it the whole Sarah Palin style out of the U.S. that has many on the left thinking the right is composed of yahoos? National Post readers, anyone? To me, the left-wing types simply breathe in the common and predictable drivel, but like to present an upper middle class image, while the real thinkers these days come out of the right. I know that the Sun channel has Ezra Levant, but why should he have to be in the same category as the Sun Girls?
If you are going to complain about stereotypes, it would do well if you didn’t indulge in them yourself. Many people who vote left (myself included) do so after considerable thought and research, and dislike the “there is no leading edge I wouldn’t willingly impale myself on” mentality as much as you do.
Incidentally, did you notice Harper’s insistence that he won’t reopen the abortion issue? So much for the Conservatives being pro life.
Kate,
I consider the Conservative Party to be conservative in terms of fiscal matters only. Socially conservative, they are not. As I noted before, Canada has become so left-wing since the Trudeau era that even the Conservatives are not really conservative anymore. There is no representation in this country by any major party for a socially conservative stance.
Yes, I did notice Harper’s insistence that he will not re-open the abortion issue. This disappoints me, but it is not unexpected. He will pull in more “centre” voters this way, and the real conservatives be damned — they have no one closer to their values to vote for, so Harper will likely still get their vote by default. It’s about political strategy rather than about values, unfortunately. I have no political heros in Canada, so please do nort assume that I am a heavy supporter of Harper, and criticizing him will criticize me.
And sorry, Kate, but I have had to wade through years and years of drivel from scores of people in many facets of life — drivel that came from left-of-centre ideas — and although I gave it (and them) every chance to prove itself and then some, it never did. In fact, it (and they) did quite the opposite. I would be a fool not to learn from so much life experience, all telling me the same thing.
One recent example (apart from the obvious Climategate and ensuing left-wing global warming crash) is the Greg Mortenson fiasco, over his U.S. charity and accompanying bestseller books. I had reason to have to review those books some years ago, when they first appeared. I gave them a thumbss-down, and spoke my piece — that they were a mixture of fantasy and fraud, but that Mr. Mortenson was spinning exactly the kind of yarn that people wanted to hear, and so this nonsense was pulling in the funds in a very large way. Reminded me of those many books on the market about how to start a niche business in information products — write and publish a book on your topic, get speaking emgagements, use good Public Relations techniques, start a nonprofit organization and install yourself as the CEO. Mr. Mortenson followed it to the letter. I smelled a rat long ago, and said so. I was castigated and told how negative I was. I am going to go back now and confromt such naysayers with, “I told you so!!”. So you see, it isn’t stereotyping (and are the left-wing types free of this?), but being able to see through the fantasy early on, and saying so. It is an objectivity skill that should be taught in every school.
Yes, I’m not very happy about that, needless to say.
I don’t think any political leaders from the major parties are prepared to take a stand on abortion – I wonder if that says as much about Canadians as it does about our leaders?
I know. I’ve been spoiling my ballot for a few years now, over the abortion issue. I couldn’t bring myself to vote NDP because of the abortion issue – and I won’t vote Conservative because I don’t think that a Conservative government will adequately care for our social safety net. I haven’t voted Liberal because I think the Liberal party sways with the wind and will say whatever they need to say to gain power. Now that it’s become quite clear that no party is willing to take a stand on the abortion issue, I am seriously considering going back to voting NDP – but I may just spoil my ballot yet again.
All that says to me, Jane, is that you believe the left wing stereotypes, and you don’t believe the right wing ones. If all I had to judge right wing folks by was Fox News, I’d believe some pretty awful things. Maybe you’ve done the same thing in reverse.
Not so, Kate. I “walked among you” in several ways for many years, because I had no alternative. I took a good, long, objective attempt at all of the left-wing perspective. It only re-affirmed what I had already noted since childhood. Actually, I prefer to consider myself an individual who makes decisions based upon a heavy-duty weighing of the issues, rather than a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. The Conservative stance may often reflect mine, but I do not move my goal posts because a political party does, or does not. My own logic and values and experience are what guide me. Is there an “Individualism” Party?
Kate, have you read Melanie Phillips’ work, or that of Theodore Dalrymple? How about Thomas Sowell? Barbara Kay? I could recommend many others as well. I have never seen Fox News, by the way. I know what is believed, in stereotypical fashion, about the right-wing in the U.S., however; this does not tally in the least with my experience of those who refuse the left-wing perspective of life. Do you know of Hillsdale College in Michigan, for instance?
Why on earth would you assume I am trying to insult you?
Forgive me if I doubt the “objective” bit. You wouldn’t say things like
if that were so.
Exactly. I have the exact same experience with Canadian, bible believing Christians who are politically left wing. (Not with the revisionist church – they are not always one and the same thing). Why is it that you can fling stereotypes of what you consider to be the other side around with gay abandon, and yet take umbridge when others do the same?
Surely you don’t mean the liar Melanie Philips of the British Daily Mail? She who tub-thumbed for Dr Andrew Wakefield and his faked results about the MMR vaccine?
Jane, I am finding the traditional categories of “conservative” and “liberal” increasingly unhelpful – although people will still continue to use them. When Christians use the term “conservative” they are often thinking in terms of Judeo-Christian morality. This is a category that makes little sense for many Canadians (probably the majority) and people talk right past each other. I’m surrounded by a lot of American conservatives – Christian and fiscal. Most who I know personally hold reasonable and informed views. Even if I disagree in some areas, I can have a decent conversation with them. I have encountered some extremists, however. I can pretty much guarantee that some of the people I’ve encountered would consider you a “flaming liberal” or maybe a communist.
Oh, it’s the “walk-away-when-the-going-gets-tough Mike B, again, is it?
Funny, I only read and posted on this site to begin with because David’s comments resonated with me. With the views just expressed (above), I am uncertain why Warren and Mike B. amd Kate are here at all. Would all of you not be more comfortable on another sort of site? And if yours is an example of the much-vaunted “tolerance” that is the leading virtue of the left-wing types, God help us all.
I had a long reply written out, and in “preview”, but then I deleted it. I do not need to justify myself — as I am sure none of you think you must do either — and I am beginning to wonder why I am wasting my time trying to explain concepts that all of you need to discover on your own through further thought and experience. I wish you the best in doing so. I cannot do that for you.
Thanks, David, for some interesting content, and wry humour. My fellow commentors here are giving me no more than the “same-old-same-old” that I can get in the daily Globe and Mail, or CBC, or from any undergrad at a standard Canadian university. No thinking outside the box; no freshness of thought. Terribly predictable. Enough. The drivel ushered in diring the late 60s and 70s is old hat now. How about some truly progressive notions, such as turning all of this silliness on its head?
Just a parting bit of advice Kate — you do not hold the monopoly on virtue, though your words and attitudes communicate that you are convinced you do. That alone is sad.
Have a happy and blessed Easter, one and all.
Jane, to be perfectly honest, I’m mostly here for amusement. What’s the fun in everyone agreeing with each other? Blogs of that sort usually don’t have a long life anyway. I would be seriously deluded if I thought I was accomplishing anything more noble. And David would doubtlessly be disappointed if his “provocative” posts didn’t stir up controversy.
Indeed he would.
Wow. That’s got to be just about the most arrogant blog comment I’ve read in a very long time.
Seconded. Especially from I-won’t-debate-this-any-more Jane.
I watched the first day’s offerings. Very different from what one gets from most of our Canadian TV. Peter Worthington was brought in and I was keenly aware that he was rattling his sword in his scabbard as he quietly warned the Left not to attack Sun TV nor its staff, or they would have the mighty weight of the Sun’s media empire’s to face. So one presumes the HRCs, the weapon of choice of the Left, will be quiet. It’s war alright and the Right is on the march.