FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Canada bans FOX-style "false or misleading news"





handfleisch
At least there's one north American country that understands how harmful to democracy it is to have a 24/7 overt propaganda network shoveling cow manure into citizens' brains

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-ditches-bid-to-allow-fake-news/article1921489/
Quote:
CRTC ditches bid to allow fake news

Public pressure, time lag since original '92 case prompt regulator to stand down

Canada's broadcasting regulator has abandoned its attempt to change a regulation that prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading news.

The decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission followed a meeting last week of Parliament's joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations, which ended its 10-year bid to get the regulation to comply with the law.

The committee was concerned that the regulation violated a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, which found that the Charter of Rights provision protecting freedom of expression meant a person could not be charged for spreading false information.

After ignoring the committee's letters for years, CRTC finally relented and said in December it would consider changing the regulation to apply only in cases when broadcasters know the information they are sharing is untrue and when it "endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public."

But the CRTC's call for public input on the proposal resulted in a tidal wave of angry responses from Canadians who said they feared such a move would open the door to Fox TV-style news and reduce their ability to determine what is true and what is false.

In the face of the outcry, the regulations committee, which is composed of both MPs and senators, met last Thursday and decided it would no longer pursue the matter with the CRTC. Some of the MPs on that committee, including Liberal chairman Andrew Kania, were not in politics when the issue was first discussed and said they did not agree with the decision of the committee 10 years ago to press the CRTC for the change.
jwellsy
Quote:
In the face of the outcry, the regulations committee, which is composed of both MPs and senators, met last Thursday and decided it would no longer pursue the matter with the CRTC. Some of the MPs on that committee, including Liberal chairman Andrew Kania, were not in politics when the issue was first discussed and said they did not agree with the decision of the committee 10 years ago to press the CRTC for the change.

ocalhoun
Freedom of the press includes the press you disagree with, or it is worthless.

(See recent court ruling in favor or Westboro Baptist Church.)


Now, mind you, freedom comes with responsibility.
I wouldn't be opposed to a news organization being fined for each example of provably false reporting.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Freedom of the press includes the press you disagree with, or it is worthless.
Completely agreed. And one can still get "false" reporting without Fox News to do that for everyone. The quality of news in Canada, in general, is on par with that of the US regardless of Fox News. The Globe & Mail is a bit better than most newspapers, but I remember that similar to the US when news broke about say an earthquake in any one city, that one TV News Station or Newspaper would put fatalities at 30, another at 46 etc. and not even temper it with an approximate. Pressure is high to get news stories out, but verification of stats and facts slow. I found the news reporting in Canada also focused on drama and intrigue more than your standard news factual pyramid (such as one would usually get with BBC) of putting all the who, why, when, how etc. most important facts in the first paragraph, and then the next important facts in the second paragraph, etc. BBC would rarely put something as fact if it had not been verified, and would say so. So I found myself watching mostly BBC International News in Canada.

When I first moved to Canada the worst part was when there was an accident and fatalities that the news cameras then would move into the emotional drama of someone crying, etc. trying to capture the person's grief on camera. That was usually when I clicked away from the story. Another irritation that I had to get used to was repeating the same news over and over and OVER again. As though the world had all of a sudden stopped at one point in news for a number of hours.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:

BBC would rarely put something as fact if it had not been verified, and would say so.




deanhills
@Dialogist. Smile Sorry, I know I'm a little dense, but I can't quite get the point of the photos. Can you do a little narration? Thx!
Dialogist
The BBC is the principal state-owned public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom. They are owned and servile to the government. They are a good (great) news broadcaster and usually regarded as the most reliable news handler in the world. However, they answer to the British government and whenever it says "jump", the response can only be "how high, m' lord?"



This image appeared on the BBC two or three days after the events of 7/7 (Supposed Islamic Terror Attacks on the London Tube). It shows 4 bombers making their way into the station carrying explosives. Despite the lesser known fact that 3 of the 4 bombers missed their trains to this rendezvous, it is widely believed that this image is a photoshop nightmare attempting to doctor in all 4 bombers at the scene of the crime - as 4 trains were bombed (it is widely believed that only one made it on time, the guy in the doorway, and the rest were added later). There's a lot of supporting evidence for this theory. There is (last count) 13 anomalies with this photograph. The main one being the railing behind the 3rd bomber actually being in front of his arm and stomach and part of his face. This is on some M.C. Escher, impossible object, Penrose Stairs shit. It is absolutely ridiculous. Of course once somebody discovered this and youtubed the hell out of it, this once famous single frame-still (no footage ever released) disappeared completely like somebody had pulled them all. It returned later and it had been altered yet again, this time, the railing had been 'bent around' the guy's arm slightly, possibly in a vain hope that nobody would notice the 'elegant subtle change' being that it is minor and maybe suggests that it is some sort of image echo or distortion or a stripe on his jacket? Who knows. Notice the original doctored photoshop peddled by the Met and BBC and also the later doctored Yahoo version (2 goes at it and still failing):



There's many other problems with it. The other 3 bomber's faces have been purposefully obscured, very similar to using the smear tool in photoshop, and also (in comparison with bomber number 1) a considerable amount of blur and pixelation has been detected. Look at 1 compared to 2 for example, completely different resolution. Bomber number 4 seems to have long hair. The faces that appeared in the newspaper showed no long haired men. There is a sharp 'nick' missing from 2's thigh. The post on the right adjacent with the phonebox runs straight and then when it meets number 4's leg, it goes all abstract and jagged, strangely mirroring the exact shape of his adjacent leg. The angles of the feet are all wrong. The balance of all 3 are all wrong. "Railing arm" also has no legs or shadow.

If you want the whole plate and how the BBC is implicit, this is the best documentary I've seen to date.













I'll not post the final 7th and last part because he looses the plot a little bit coming out of left field with a load of illuminati NWO paranoia, but it was a shame because the documentary itself is pretty solid. Give it a watch if you get time.
Bikerman
ROFLMAO.
Muad Dib's video is a pile of nonsense. Not ONE single verifiable fact - complete conjecture.

This character is a known nut-job, aka John Hill, a Yorkshire man, who has lived in Ireland for the past few decades. He has delusions and paranoid fantasies (he thinks Star Wars was dictated to Lucas by 'the force', for example).

He is currently awaiting extradition to the UK to face charges in concern with perverting the course of justice.


There ARE some inconsistencies in the full story (there always are in ANY complicated story like this), but most of those were cleared up pretty quickly. Hill simply saw his chance and launched his loony-tunes theory.

I'm astonished that so many people are so gullible - to believe this you have got to be pretty terrible at critical thinking - it is FULL of inconsistencies, highly implausible conjectures, unsupported allegations and sheer invented nonsense.
He is a poor-man's version of Alex Jones - the US 'New World Order' conspiracy theorist.

Most of his nonsense is refuted on the 7-7 truth site:
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html
Dialogist
I know he's not playing with a full deck, that's why I didn't post part 7. However, ad hominem asides for a minute, the CCTV still is clearly faked. Your man at julyseventh.co.uk doesn't even argue that as it seems almost a given, and he doesn't argue that the 7.40am Luton to King's Cross train, which the original Home Office report claims the accused caught, was canceled on 7th July 2005. He agrees with that and even says that the Home Office had to then change its story, possibly in direct response to our lunatic's loony-tunes theories? The fact of the matter is that if Mickey Mouse made that video, I'll still find these arguments solid. The Bus diversions, too, if that site is attempting to debunk this documentary, they need to try harder at not hopelessly failing (the only part of this man's video I personally did not accept was that the bomber's wife was forced to name her deceased spouse as a suicide bomber - the rest, mostly, was elementary to me and hardly surprising conclusions to arrive at), and lastly calling it a "trap" when asked 'if the completely blatantly obvious didn't happen, then what is more likely then?' is silly. Because it is not a trap. He's right. It's just Occam's razor. You say the story is complicated? It is now. Thank God some lunatic made a video showing the faithful devourer of misinformation how gullible they actually are. And I agree with you, he's clearly a nutcase but in light of the arguments, arguments which the official body has changed to accommodate, then so what? And shouldn't 7-7 truth be grateful? Even if he is nuisance? Put it this way, while the official story is still not true, it's truer than it was, when they were feeding us fairy stories about trains they never caught.

Quote:

He is currently awaiting extradition to the UK to face charges in concern with perverting the course of justice.


What is this concerning? This? Say it ain't so.
deanhills
@Dialogist. Thx for the detailed explanation. That does sound a bit like a conspiracy theory though doesn't it? I'm sure the BBC is not 100% perfect, as clips like that could get into its system quite easily, but since BBC is a highly regarded News Station, it would be that more likely that your more discerning viewer would discover clips like the one you picked up on, and if/when they do, BBC would immediately investigate and own up if necessary, or deny if there is no evidence for the claim. They seem to be complying with a very high standard of credibility.

For example, I remember with the last war between the Palestinians and Israel, BBC was always careful to say that it was not allowed into the war zones, and that its reports are based on other sources. There is also lack of sensation in its reporting. For the most part anyway.

My use of BBC has always been International News so the fact that it is toeing the Government line not as irritating as it might have been if I had lived in the UK. I don't really get a feeling of it toeing a party line however, but others from UK could probably be a much better judge of that.
Dialogist
Quote:

For example, I remember with the last war between the Palestinians and Israel, BBC was always careful to say that it was not allowed into the war zones, and that its reports are based on other sources.


The BBC are authorized on the Gaza Strip as any news broadcaster is, in that you are welcome to try, if you're either extremely dedicated or just have some sort of a death wish. Remember Alan Johnson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Johnston

It's more a case of Al Jazeera having better means and resources to infiltrate highly sensitive areas, not to mention, a higher number of ethnicity based staff too. For example, Bin Laden has approached them himself (apparently). Moreover, they have certain monopolies and financial legalities too. They have rights to certain areas/stories by being on the scene first with the paperwork. The news business, like any other business, is still a business.

Quote:

I don't really get a feeling of it toeing a party line however


With all respect, it doesn't really matter what you get a feel of. They are a state-owned broadcaster. They belong to the government and the government is way too savvy to not utilize this machine. It is similar to FOX yet worse, because FOX simply have a political/religious agenda due to its owners and subsidizers (not Murdoch - his politics and god is money and he's devout, he gets his money by kowtowing to investors, the BBC gets its money by government money - ie, the British taxpayer). It can be trusted for the best source of news (probably globally, although Al Jazeera and CNN are competitors) however, we must accept that money talks louder than the truth. The truth is cost effective and freedom of press is limited to those who have it. If the government wants somebody victimizing or something covering up or ill-informed, the BBC doesn't have a choice. It's not a moral organization and doesn't purport to be. It's just a media machine. I personally would prefer their article to anyone's. But I still would be mindful of who they belong and answer to.

Quote:

That does sound a bit like a conspiracy theory though doesn't it?


Of course. But there's different levels of conspiring. The guy who made that video, for example, is as "Irish as the worst", so to speak. Some folks go all the way and throw everything they can into the mix. Some just observe abuse of and manipulation of power. For example, I don't go down the shadowy cloaked hooded cult government meeting up with malign plans to control the world. But I do believe, as anyone who has followed the antics of American politics through Kennedy (magic bullet theory), Nixon(watergate), Both Bushes(Bay of Pigs/9/11), Clinton (Lewinsky), etc, that we've been fed a lot of lies (officially). Often the conspiracists were either correct, or not aiming high enough. The government is constantly conspiring in some form or other. So I think in cases of the guy who made that video, while I agree with Bikerman, I am also of the belief that if you throw enough pieces of shit at a wall, some of it is bound to stick, and our paranoid friend there raised some very interesting arguments (facts, at times) So while I'm not willing to go willfully down the illuminati road wearing the tshirt, I am interested in hearing arguments expressed logically or just well detailed ones that have to be so due to the nature of the man or the fact that they will always come into fierce opposition. I am, in that respect willing to hear an 'expert' talk on the paranoid side of things. The government on the other hand (and thus the BBC) is not going to tell me anything about this stuff. Why? Why do you think?

As far as the BBC kowtowing the government, I don't think that's any more of a conspiracy than a builder obeying his gaffer. You'll do what the boss says in all occupations or you are unpaid/unemployed/replaced. That's just the way of the world. That's hardly Roswell is it?
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
Quote:

For example, I remember with the last war between the Palestinians and Israel, BBC was always careful to say that it was not allowed into the war zones, and that its reports are based on other sources.


The BBC are authorized on the Gaza Strip as any news broadcaster is, in that you are welcome to try, if you're either extremely dedicated or just have some sort of a death wish. Remember Alan Johnson?
No, none of the media were allowed into the war zone at the time. I was specifically referring to the war at end of 2008. Alan Johnston was kidnapped before then in 2007.
Wikipedia wrote:
Israel and Egypt, the only two countries sharing borders with Gaza, have refused access to Gaza by foreign journalists since November 2008. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled on December 29 that journalists must be allowed access to Gaza at times when the main border crossing is open, but the military has not complied. A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in the United Kingdom said that Israel was restricting entry into Gaza because Gaza is a war zone, and that other countries would do the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_and_the_Gaza_War
Dialogist wrote:
It's more a case of Al Jazeera having better means and resources to infiltrate highly sensitive areas, not to mention, a higher number of ethnicity based staff too. For example, Bin Laden has approached them himself (apparently). Moreover, they have certain monopolies and financial legalities too. They have rights to certain areas/stories by being on the scene first with the paperwork. The news business, like any other business, is still a business.
I don't think Al Jazeera infiltrated the area. They may have had closer links and it may have been easier to get information from the inhabitants, but as far as I know the military did not allow any journalists into the area at the time. So the information they would have got, would also have been from "agents" rather than from the journalists themselves.
Dialogist wrote:
With all respect, it doesn't really matter what you get a feel of. They are a state-owned broadcaster. They belong to the government and the government is way too savvy to not utilize this machine. It is similar to FOX yet worse, because FOX simply have a political/religious agenda due to its owners and subsidizers (not Murdoch - his politics and god is money and he's devout, he gets his money by kowtowing to investors, the BBC gets its money by government money - ie, the British taxpayer). It can be trusted for the best source of news (probably globally, although Al Jazeera and CNN are competitors) however, we must accept that money talks louder than the truth. The truth is cost effective and freedom of press is limited to those who have it. If the government wants somebody victimizing or something covering up or ill-informed, the BBC doesn't have a choice. It's not a moral organization and doesn't purport to be. It's just a media machine. I personally would prefer their article to anyone's. But I still would be mindful of who they belong and answer to.
I don't agree. The standard of BBC news would be higher than those Commercial TV News Stations who have to please members of Boards and advertisers. If the TV Station were Government owned, and that Government had a high level of freedom of the press, such as one gets in the UK with the BBC, it would have a greater chance of being less biased than any of the commercial TV News Stations. The BBC standard of reporting is rarely sensational. It is usually self-restrained, and of much higher standard than Fox, Al Jazeera, CNN etc. One has to be a pretty good journalist, reporter and TV commentator to make it to BBC. And one has to continue to be really good in order to keep a job at BBC.
Dialogist wrote:

Quote:

That does sound a bit like a conspiracy theory though doesn't it?

Of course. But there's different levels of conspiring. The guy who made that video, for example, is as "Irish as the worst", so to speak.
I don't want to be argumentative here, but can't help myself as I have some really good Irish friends. You can find equivalent guys like these anywhere in the world.

Dialogist wrote:
So while I'm not willing to go willfully down the illuminati road wearing the tshirt, I am interested in hearing arguments expressed logically or just well detailed ones that have to be so due to the nature of the man or the fact that they will always come into fierce opposition. I am, in that respect willing to hear an 'expert' talk on the paranoid side of things. The government on the other hand (and thus the BBC) is not going to tell me anything about this stuff. Why? Why do you think?
Agreed 100%, don't shoot the messenger but study the message, but what was the logical part of his arguments then?

Dialogist wrote:
As far as the BBC kowtowing the government, I don't think that's any more of a conspiracy than a builder obeying his gaffer. You'll do what the boss says in all occupations or you are unpaid/unemployed/replaced. That's just the way of the world. That's hardly Roswell is it?
I don't agree with this. That depends on the person who is instructed to break clear rules and regulations of journalistic conduct and standards. I'm not saying BBC is above reproach, but I just can't see them risking their high journalism and reporting standards like that.
Voodoocat
Exactly what is "Fox TV-style news"? Most modern news organizations operate a strictly news oriented organization and a separate opinion/commentary oriented division. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. all have their separate commentary shows. Each of these organizations has a different bias, Fox leans to the right, CNN to the left, and MSNBC so far left that their ratings are embarassing.

Is Canada of allowing biased political commentary? Then they should ban NPR style news:

Quote:
Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the (O'Reilly) interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias ... by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005639/posts

If bias is the concern, perhaps most American media should be banned. According to a recent UCLA study:

Quote:
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

What is the real problem: bias in general or bias to the right?
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Exactly what is "Fox TV-style news"? Most modern news organizations operate a strictly news oriented organization and a separate opinion/commentary oriented division. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. all have their separate commentary shows. Each of these organizations has a different bias, Fox leans to the right, CNN to the left, and MSNBC so far left that their ratings are embarassing.

Is Canada of allowing biased political commentary? Then they should ban NPR style news:

Quote:
Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the (O'Reilly) interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias ... by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005639/posts

If bias is the concern, perhaps most American media should be banned. According to a recent UCLA study:

Quote:
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

What is the real problem: bias in general or bias to the right?


I could show you your mistake, show how your first source is ridiculous and how the second is wrong, and I could invite you to think about it. You would then ignore it and come back in a week with another wrong point with ridiculous links, right? Because you only want fake facts to support the right wing view. It's like when Ocalhoun says

Quote:
Freedom of the press includes the press you disagree with, or it is worthless.


It's not about what you "disagree with" and it's not about "bias", it's about saturation with blatant, democracy-corrupting lies 24/7. Canada prohibits it and last time I checked it was a functioning democracy that is way ahead of the USA in many respects (basic social cohesion, moderate politics, social services, etc. Hmmm maybe banning overt lies in the media works?)
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:

I don't want to be argumentative here, but can't help myself as I have some really good Irish friends.


I'm Irish. It's a self deprecating Irish colloquialism. We say it about ourselves in a quasi-complimentary true Scotsman type fashion.

deanhills wrote:

I don't agree with this. That depends on the person who is instructed to break clear rules and regulations of journalistic conduct and standards. I'm not saying BBC is above reproach, but I just can't see them risking their high journalism and reporting standards like that.


You seem to entertain a very naive view about professional integrity. It's not the first time I've noticed this from you though. Julian Assange springs to mind. I can honestly list about 20 brilliant artists (an integrity profession) who have sold out in some way for money. But you are not talking about artists, even. You're talking about gossips. They would float their grandmothers down the river for a bigger salary. There is no art, integrity or morals in the lies they peddle daily. They are pushers and pimps. They will sit there and tell you bare-faced lies and bad-tidings and even have the patronizing demeanor to alter their tone and facial expression to lead you down the primrose path more convincingly. They scavenge off your fear and prey on your paranoia. They are the devil. They have nothing for your soul but tarnish. And truth be told, if they did open with a sweet, sentimental tale of inspiration, you'd switch over to the news channel with a different story because a) you've already made a pact of negativity with them, and b) the other channel has an entirely different story about the same story. Says it all really.

Phil Donahue wrote:

To a journalist, good news is often not news at all.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
deanhills wrote:

I don't want to be argumentative here, but can't help myself as I have some really good Irish friends.


I'm Irish. It's a self deprecating Irish colloquialism. We say it about ourselves in a quasi-complimentary true Scotsman type fashion.
Embarassed Oops, sorry, I did not pick up on the humour. I'll definitely remember this from now on.

Dialogist wrote:
deanhills wrote:

I don't agree with this. That depends on the person who is instructed to break clear rules and regulations of journalistic conduct and standards. I'm not saying BBC is above reproach, but I just can't see them risking their high journalism and reporting standards like that.
You seem to entertain a very naive view about professional integrity. It's not the first time I've noticed this from you though. Julian Assange springs to mind. I can honestly list about 20 brilliant artists (an integrity profession) who have sold out in some way for money. But you are not talking about artists, even. You're talking about gossips.
This is most certainly not an accurate assessment. You were talking about gossips ... remember, the guy from Ireland? I saw it as a conspiracy theory as it completely lacked credibility. You then took the position that sometimes something does "stick" if it is repeated often enough. None of it based on fact. Your position then seems to be the one that is more connected with gossip than mine. There is also no comparison between the discussion we had about Assange and the BBC.

Dialogist wrote:
They would float their grandmothers down the river for a bigger salary. There is no art, integrity or morals in the lies they peddle daily. They are pushers and pimps. They will sit there and tell you bare-faced lies and bad-tidings and even have the patronizing demeanor to alter their tone and facial expression to lead you down the primrose path more convincingly. They scavenge off your fear and prey on your paranoia. They are the devil. They have nothing for your soul but tarnish. And truth be told, if they did open with a sweet, sentimental tale of inspiration, you'd switch over to the news channel with a different story because a) you've already made a pact of negativity with them, and b) the other channel has an entirely different story about the same story. Says it all really.
Phil Donahue wrote:

To a journalist, good news is often not news at all.
Shocked Exactly who are you taking about here? I thought we were discussing the BBC and the BBC allegedly toeing the Government party line?
kmankanda
They should ban them because they shouldnt be so falsifying ak aka unanielewa tupa mikono juu na useme mimi ni mkenya coz pahali tuko kenya hii tunadanganywa na bad news plus wikileaks kila wiki being incorporated kwa the usual mix of crap in the sys haha. ka hunielewi eitha we ni mlami au barbie au sonko mzil=to niko hapa kuchanga mapointi kisha niendlee. kazi ni kusukuma too. Hey, I am jus writing in my national lingua sorry I feel hhomesick.
deanhills
kmankanda wrote:
They should ban them because they shouldnt be so falsifying ak aka unanielewa tupa mikono juu na useme mimi ni mkenya coz pahali tuko kenya hii tunadanganywa na bad news plus wikileaks kila wiki being incorporated kwa the usual mix of crap in the sys haha. ka hunielewi eitha we ni mlami au barbie au sonko mzil=to niko hapa kuchanga mapointi kisha niendlee. kazi ni kusukuma too. Hey, I am jus writing in my national lingua sorry I feel hhomesick.
No worries kmankanda. Your post is probably the best one so far in this thread. Laughing Just kidding .... By the way, what language is this? Is it Swahili? And if you are homesick, which country are you in right now? Very Happy
Dialogist
wrote:

This is most certainly not an accurate assessment. You were talking about gossips ... remember, the guy from Ireland? I saw it as a conspiracy theory as it completely lacked credibility. You then took the position that sometimes something does "stick" if it is repeated often enough. None of it based on fact. Your position then seems to be the one that is more connected with gossip than mine. There is also no comparison between the discussion we had about Assange and the BBC.


Nah, that man is Northern English. The "Irish as the worst" thing was used as a metaphor for "grade-A conspiracy theorist" (as extreme as they come, 'as Irish as the worst'), that's why I said, parenthesis, so to speak, parenthesis. But that's besides the point. He can't "completely" lack credibility if he speaks certain facts. There's only like a handful he does speak, and he builds quite a fantastic story around them, I admit (and with my personal opinions about it being less fantastic than the official story aside), facts don't belong to anyone. He doesn't have patent on them and neither do the government. I said, being that he's so extreme in his conspiracy theories, and doesn't even stop to draw breath while throwing the raincoat-mafia kitchen sink at it, he is sooner or later going to stumble across a truism, even by accident (and I would trust nobody more to fumble upon that pot of gold than a "Lady Diana Murdered, Moon Denier"). And the law of averages in his case was just my initial hypothesis. What has become actuality is that he did hit on something. The official story was changed after many (some before him too) were up in arms about that canceled train (a canceled train which in fact practically guarantees that all four men were not originally in the BBC punted fake photoshop bearing that time-stamp which makes that quartet rendezvous literally humanly impossible). So it is not a case of "repeating it enough". One merely needs to say it once, I guess the burden of proof was already accepted by the Home Office though. That's why they brought out "Official Story (The sequel)" and did yet another crappy photoshop job on that still frame.

There's more similarities with the Assange issue than maybe you'd care to admit. I am comparing the careless, self-centered, dishonest journalism in both. Funnily enough, you seem to support both. These people are lying snakes out for number one. They are both sensationalist gossips, snitches and leeches and I have nothing but contempt for them.

deanhills wrote:

Exactly who are you taking about here? I thought we were discussing the BBC and the BBC allegedly toeing the Government party line?


You thought we were talking about them "allegedly" toeing the government line? No, we are talking about a state-owned (for the 3rd time of mentioning that small fact) definitely toeing the government line. This is the only terrestrial free-to-air TV channel in the world that does not have commercial breaks. Do you know why that is? Because the corporation is entirely funded by the TV license fee, that the government insists you pay, and when we speak of police states, we're talking about vans parked outside your home with espionage type radar devices, tapping, if you will. And do you know what else? "We do not have a TV" doesn't make any difference. So joe public is hustled down for this lie money, and you want me to believe that this government-whipped propaganda machine who promulgate fake stories, peddle fake pictures and do so making the lied-to pay for it all is a moral organization. Even if (and I stress it's a big "if") they came out and spoke nothing but truth, they'd still be extorting those (like me and Paul Simon, who can "gather all the news I need from the weather report") for the privilege. The BBC is a government controlled, public extorting, falsehood-pushing racket. You'd get more morals in your Yahoo Mail inbox from that Nigerian prince who's family just died in an accident and wants to share his inheritance. At least those lies cost you nothing if you simply just
ignore them.

And furthermore, vestibulum suscipit velit quis odio pharetra ac aliquam ante ornare. Phasellus condimentum nisi id sem lobortis vitae fringilla lorem aliquam. Mauris tellus nibh, mattis vitae volutpat sed, adipiscing eu urna. Aenean id felis urna. Etiam sed mauris a lacus sagittis sagittis vel id justo. Donec at augue nibh. Nulla facilisi. Nunc ullamcorper adipiscing imperdiet. Vestibulum sodales sagittis metus ut porttitor. Duis fermentum cursus accumsan.
catscratches
Dialogist wrote:
This is the only terrestrial free-to-air TV channel in the world that does not have commercial breaks.
No, it's not. Sweden has a similar system, as does Denmark and several other countries.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
There's more similarities with the Assange issue than maybe you'd care to admit. I am comparing the careless, self-centered, dishonest journalism in both. Funnily enough, you seem to support both.

I really don't like stereotyping like this Dialogist. It depends what you are talking about SPECIFICALLY, whether I agree with Assange or not. EXACTLY who are you referring to in addition to Assange? The BBC? You're now trying to compare a private individual and the BBC Corporation? Aren't you comparing a single orange with a fruit salad here? Twisted Evil
Dialogist wrote:
deanhills wrote:

Exactly who are you taking about here? I thought we were discussing the BBC and the BBC allegedly toeing the Government party line?
The BBC is a government controlled, public extorting, falsehood-pushing racket. You'd get more morals in your Yahoo Mail inbox from that Nigerian prince who's family just died in an accident and wants to share his inheritance. At least those lies cost you nothing if you simply just
ignore them.
And your evidence for this is ...... ?

Dialogist wrote:
And furthermore, vestibulum suscipit velit quis odio pharetra ac aliquam ante ornare. Phasellus condimentum nisi id sem lobortis vitae fringilla lorem aliquam. Mauris tellus nibh, mattis vitae volutpat sed, adipiscing eu urna. Aenean id felis urna. Etiam sed mauris a lacus sagittis sagittis vel id justo. Donec at augue nibh. Nulla facilisi. Nunc ullamcorper adipiscing imperdiet. Vestibulum sodales sagittis metus ut porttitor. Duis fermentum cursus accumsan.
Did you make this up? Shocked Twisted Evil
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:

Did you make this up?


It's called Lorem Ipsum. It is a sort of quasi-Latin dummy text that typographers and web designers use to fill an area of body with a random block of text so they can assess different typefaces and layout compositions. I did it because kmankanda typed a load of bollocks and I do it so frequently myself anyway that I wondered if anyone would notice (and whether or not I'd still get fri's for it lol). It doesn't really mean anything but it is still completely on topic concerning the integrity of the BBC, CNN and their ilk. Not because it is nonsense, but because it is filler, air time, procrastination, ambiguity, evasiveness, etc. See Noam Chomksy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously

He used that sentence to give a semantically correct sentence that isn't false, but it is completely meaningless. The book was all about how the government uses the media to distribute vast amounts of information which is constant, in real time, ever updating and constantly coming, only that...it tells you absolutely nothing whatever. Which is the objective. The Japanese earthquake for example, has been turned into Armageddon recently. I have family there, so I have first hand account of this being lies. The reason they are piling that story on as thick as humanly possible and blowing it out of all proportion (quite literally now, with nuclear explosions and fallout imminent) is because the British government knows it if it acts on its words about Gaddafi and Libya, not only does it lose one of its biggest despot secret allies, it will also have a wikileaks dilemma on its hands about the real reason they released that lockerbie bomber, so while it would be lucrative to kiss up to a normally pacifistic France for Europe, kissing up to the US is always first priority. So what to do? Attack Libya and thus expose your dirty dealings publicly or do nothing and piss off both France and the US?

Solution: Use the Japan situation as a distraction until Gaddafi's armed forces have killed all the oppressed rebels. Bravo BBC!
menino
News corporations have a responsibility to tell the truth to the public - that is their job.
But most news networks nowadays think about selling the news, and to get more ratings.

I do hope that propaganda networks cease to exist, but monarchy's and governments sometimes do have some form of control.
I used to think that CNN and BBC were really good news networks, but at some point of time, I saw a bias to the news reported, and they take sides.
Al Jazeera showed some promise to being unbiased, and showing the news as it was supposed to be shown, but again, they showed bias to the sides they were choosing, even in their news.
deanhills
menino wrote:
Al Jazeera showed some promise to being unbiased, and showing the news as it was supposed to be shown, but again, they showed bias to the sides they were choosing, even in their news.
Good question would be how unbiased any news corporation could be, as when a journalist reports on any given story, it is obvious that there would be some form of bias involved. Just the simple fact that the journalist has to make a choice of including certain facts and excluding other facts because there is a limitation of number of words to be used, must make for some bias that is not necessarily aimed at influencing anyone. But may have the effect of doing that.
Dialogist
Bikerman wrote:

Good question would be how unbiased any news corporation could be, as when a journalist reports on any given story, it is obvious that there would be some form of bias involved.


He has a quota just like any journalist. He works for people who pay his wages. While it may seem heoric to see reporters ducking in shell fire, they are getting paid by a company do so and whatever comes back, no matter how personal, stylized or individual, will fulfill that quota or he is not doing his job. One could argue that ignoring the quota (which is already predefined before he even arrives) would be just as unethical as not doing so. Either way, he's made a choice to put food on his table. The money that provides that is from the employer he works for, the money they have to pay him or her comes from where? And up the hierarchical ladder of authority, control, vested interest and manipulation we go. This is how you decide whether the task he is performing is ethical, true or even worth anything. He's just a pawn in the game. If he reports something unwanted, you don't get to see it. If he doesn't report something that has been specifically asked for (quota) then you don't get to see or hear that either (from him, somebody else will 'get' the $tory).

gandalfthegrey
Freedom of the press is meant to protect a diversity of opinion, something which at least the American media has greatly lost.

When multi-national corporations and right-wing billionaires own the media, we lose that diversity. When they outright lie, we don't need to protect that right to mislead. The court system calls it slander in civil court.

Media theorist Marshall McLuhen predicted all this media insanity, and how it is threatening our freedom, democracy and our ability to make clear and rational decisions.

You have been brainwashed to the point that you don't realize that their is a world outside of your television or computer screen. Oooo the person on the committee is a Liberal.
Andrew Kania is a Liberal Member of Parliament. In Canada, Liberal is not a dirty word. It is a political party. In fact it is one of the most successful political parties in the world, having governed Canada for over 70% of the time since its founding as a country.
deanhills
gandalfthegrey wrote:
You have been brainwashed to the point that you don't realize that their is a world outside of your television or computer screen. Oooo the person on the committee is a Liberal.
Andrew Kania is a Liberal Member of Parliament. In Canada, Liberal is not a dirty word. It is a political party. In fact it is one of the most successful political parties in the world, having governed Canada for over 70% of the time since its founding as a country.
I think everyone is brain washed in the way you describe, even those who think they aren't. Some of our behaviour has become so automatic, we aren't even aware to the point that we have been brain washed. The only way that we can minimize that is probably to stop exposing ourselves to anything to do with the media a 100%. Smile
eday2010
handfleisch wrote:
At least there's one north American country that understands how harmful to democracy it is to have a 24/7 overt propaganda network shoveling cow manure into citizens' brains


Not really, since the CRTC still allows CNN to be carried by cable and satellite providers.
handfleisch
eday2010 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
At least there's one north American country that understands how harmful to democracy it is to have a 24/7 overt propaganda network shoveling cow manure into citizens' brains


Not really, since the CRTC still allows CNN to be carried by cable and satellite providers.


you're not equating CNN with FOX, are you?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
you're not equating CNN with FOX, are you?
They're both international .... together with Bloomberg, they're the only ones from the US I can get on my Nilesat Satellite for now. Since I have to subscribe, I don't have Fox News, but neither do I watch CNN or Bloomberg. To be truthful,I much prefer the European style of broadcasting or news articles on the Internet from Times.com or New York Times. I also like PBS, but unfortunately of course can't subscribe from where I am.
Related topics
What are you listening to now?
China Against the Internet
The Democratic Agenda
[Resolved] Object Orientated PHP errors
What is your favorite network?
Montreal College Shoot out
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
Left-Wing Extremist Media
White House excludes "whining" Fox News from inter
Help NPR beat FOX
Being absolutely sure
MSNBC, the 'anti FOX' news.
Conspiracy theory - 9/11
Frankenstorm Sandy
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.