For reasons that escape me, I received an email fron Ricken Patel, Avaaz.org saying:
We’ve got them on the run! When 80,000 of us signed a petition refusing to be forced to pay for “Fox News North” (aka SunTV) on our cable bills, the Sun media empire threw everything they had at us – smear pieces in their newspapers, threatened lawsuits, and SunTV frontman Kory Teneycke even admitted insider knowledge of a criminal sabotage of our petition!
Sorry to break it to you, Rick, but I like Fox News South and would welcome the SunTV channel in Canada. I’m about as likely to sign your wretched petition as I am to stick a corkscrew up my nose.
If I were not already convinced, this from Margaret Atwood would do the trick:
THE ACTUAL PETITION
“As concerned Canadians who deeply oppose American-style hate media on our airwaves, we applaud the CRTC’s refusal to allow a new “Fox News North” channel to be funded from our cable fees. We urge Mr. von Finckenstein to stay in his job and continue to stand up for Canada’s democratic traditions, and call on Prime Minister Harper to immediately stop all pressure on the CRTC on this matter.” THE VERBS ARE “APPLAUD,” “URGE,” AND “CALL ON;” NOT “BAN,” “SUPPRESS,” AND “CENSOR.”
The “Fox News” comparison is from the Sun’s own CRTC Application # 1. Is it “American-style hate media?” You judge.
The CRTC refused Sun TV News’ request for a special licence that forces all cable and satellite distributors to offer the station, thus generating almost automatic income. Application #2 — almost the same deal as #1, but for three years — will be considered. The Sun says it needs this special deal for its “business plan.” Should it get one? Should anyone? Can I have one too?
AM I A PROPONENT OF “CENSORSHIP”?
Nope. Read the petition again.
Now Konrad von Finckenstein has said he isn’t under pressure (unlike his fired CRTC deputy), and will judge Application # 2 on its merits. Good!
REAL CENSORSHIP INCLUDES
Book burning, murdering, jailing and exiling writers, and shutting down newspapers, publishers, and TV stations. If you are against this, support PEN International and Index on Censorship.
Calling the Avaaz petition “censorship” is beyond cheap.
Calling something censorship that is censorship isn’t cheap, it’s accurate. Rather than let the great unwashed decide for themselves whether the new channel is “American-style hate media” by being given the chance to watch it, a liberal elitist would take it upon herself to act as nanny and tell us we can’t have “Fox News North”. Instead we’ll just have to put up with the current Canada-style drivel media that meets Margaret Attwood’s approval – and is paid for by our cable fees, not to mention our taxes in CBC’s case.
Although I wouldn’t burn them, I dislike Margaret Atwood’s novels as much as she dislikes Fox News; to plagiarise a remark by Malcolm Muggeridge about Edna O’Brien, I’d rather be a minor character in a Jane Austen novel than a major one in a Margaret Atwood novel.
The only American news source that gives both sides of the story is Fox.
The lame stream media spew liberal bias with every breath.
Their values are not my values.
Peace,
Jim
Jim, even many of the highly consevative, right wing Americans I work with every day wouldn’t lavish praise on Fox in nearly so generous terms.
Warren,
Hardly lavish praise.
If not Fox, where do you go on the tube for a conservative narrrative? MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS? None of them even have a conservative anchor.
During the day I love Meagan Kelly and late afternoon Cavuto. Brett Baier has the best panel on TV with Steve Hayes, Juan Williams and Charles Krauthammer and -O’reilly is must see.
With a PoliSci background and being retired, I’ve turned into a news junkie.
Peace,
Jim
Jim, I don’t care abut a “conservatve narrative”. I care about accurate and unbiased reporting of the news – whether I like it or not. In this regard, I don’t think Fox is any better than the rest (and the conservatives I work with don’t have an particularly high view of Fox). One is hard pressed to find any such source. Sensationalization and entertainment to keep ratings up seems to be the priority.
And that’s why you come here.
Good point. Although there are times when it seems that you want to be taken seriously.
True. I don’t think that humour and being taken seriously are incompatible, though.
Not that I would claim to be in the same universe, but read James Thurber.
Warren,
There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. The most one can expect is that a glimpse of the bias isn’t buried by the spin.
With respect to your statements on “sensationalization” and “entertainment”. Instead of generalizing, please give me examples, not third party gossip.
Peace,
Jim
I, and I know many others, view someone like Glenn Beck as an entertainer; not a serious purveyor of news or editorial opinion. It’s all about the ratings.
And why would the fact that Beck is entertaining nullify the veracity of his reporting or the value of his opinion?
You think dull=true?
I get news from many sources that would not be considered MSM in my (likely hopeless) quest to understand what is really going on in the world around me. One source, TYT (The Young Turks) takes great (maybe perverse) pleasure in showing clips from Glenn Beck (and others) foaming at the mouth about some hot-button issue. They then show clips from the past where he raves on from a completely opposite perspective. I’ve seen far too many of these to accept that it’s just the occasional honest mistake.
I often read comments on Fox News online stories. Any site that attracts such a large volume of weirdos and vicious hate mongers is suspect in my books. Any voice of reason is quickly beaten to a pulp.
You could say much the same of almost any popular news site that allows unmoderated comments.
Oh no! the Glenn Beck boogie man.
Beck bills his show as “The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment”.
He explicitly states that he is neither a reporter nor a journalist.
For me, the first E greatly overshadows the second E. I suspect he is well aware that there are many people who swallow what he says as the gospel truth, and he takes pleasure in shaping public opinion. And Fox gives him his platform.
This is an aside, but I’ve wondered in recent weeks how tolerant the Christian right would be of his comments calling the US back to “God” if his political opinions were leftward leaning? I suspect that there is a strong “halo effect” at work and that many Christians who are willing to cut him a get deal of slack on his religious perspective would tear him to shreds if they didn’t agree with his politics.
If he were leftward leaning he’d be lecturing people on the evils of Islamophobia not calling them back to God…. or “God”.
And the left would lap it up.
I think Ted Koppel makes some valid observations:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html
Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Do I detect a whiff of ad hominem? Or maybe tu quoque?
Defective nostrils.