Thursday, June 24, 2010

Yoohoo! Kory!

In which Spector just makes shit up.

I can't imagine the frustration real journalists at the CBC are experiencing at all these jealous baboons flinging their feces. I'm sure an apology is forthcoming... with a suitable number of qualifiers of course.

11 comments:

  1. Good for you... some of the con-bots are already hitting the airwaves calling for the flashmobs w. pitchforks to burn down the treasonous mothercorp, thanks to Spector

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aw, we shouldn't be too hard on Mulroney's former Chief of Staff for thinking it was a mistake to finger the Chinese: as far as he knew, it's only German arms dealers who are lining our pols' pockets!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The hilarious thing about Spector's column is his claim "CBC sat on the explosive interview for weeks, if not months" based on the suggestion that the interview was conducted in the spring... TUESDAY WAS THE FIRST DAY OF SUMMER!!! The man is completely off his rocker.

    I find the increased volume of insults hurled at the CBC distressing. A public news source is one of the best things we have going for us and I fear it's approaching the edge. What can you do when defending yourself against charges of bias are just further evidence of your bias?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The depressing part about this is that those who already have a hostile view of CBC will wish away this clarification with non sequiturs and innuendo as per usual (well look at the donor history of the CBC's board of directors!!). Don't address the fact that the remarks were exclusively Fadden's. It will be just another clarion call for KoryTV er I mean SunTV news.

    Dan Gardner should really do another piece on the new psychological phenomenon known as "hostile media syndrome," the reverse of confirmation bias. It seems to me that the new definition of bias is any news report that is unflattering to the neo-Conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems to me that the new definition of bias is any news report that is unflattering to the neo-Conservatives.

    Yep, so if the CBC is unbiased it conflicts with the CPC member belief that it is biased, ergo the CBC is biased. Can't win.

    I still don't understand what exactly the CBC's angle was supposed to be, even if Spector wasn't writing fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Like or love the CBC..it's still not worth $1 billion/year to run.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like or love the CBC..it's still not worth $1 billion/year to run.

    Yeah it is. If a useless 72 hour conference in Toronto is worth funding for a $1 billion, a well-financed news office and good cultural programming most certainly is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Shiner,
    Have you ever come across a McGill University study examining the reporting done by the CBC in the two elections prior to 2008? I cannot seem to find it, but I was told a study was done. It showed that in both of those elections, the incumbent (the Liberals) received higher negative reporting than the other parties. To me, that is obvious, since they were the incumbent. Nevermind that even Rex Murphy at the time conceded the point that the RCMP investigation into Goodale's income trust was the straw the broke the Liberals' back. Anyway, I may be dreaming this, but I would be interested to see just what type of research on media bias has been done in Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  9. oh Nvm, I found at least a summary. The CBC actually did their own commissioned study to find out that they did a balanced job!

    At least McGill is independent enough:

    http://www.mcgill.ca/files/misc/CumulativeReport.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  10. jkg,
    Can't say I have. Though in yesterday's NP, Richard Strusberg said their own study suggests the same thing, the government in power always gets more coverage, for obvious reasons.

    Haven't read their study, but I'm sure it's interesting. Not that the peanut gallery cares about things as elitist as "studies".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Looks like we were posting at the same time.

    I question the use of content analysis studies given the subjective nature of positive and negative coverage. I think it's better to test the current affairs knowledge of media consumers. It's tough to get accurate info for this kind of thing, but there have been some good US studies that show, for instance, that FOX News fans have trouble with basic facts from recent news.

    ReplyDelete