Tuesday, July 13, 2010

This Editorial Brought to you by...

From The Globe's recent article on Kory:
"Yet Mr. Teneycke rejects the suggestion that Sun TV is designed to further Conservative fortunes. Being a house organ for the Tories would not make commercial sense, he said. He promised there'd be a clear line between editorializing on the station's talk shows and news gathering by its journalists – although, he added, reported stories would be more “populist in orientation.”

Today's editorial from Sun Media.

18 comments:

  1. I'm still not clear why so many smart people are afraid of a new news channel. Fox News is the most popular choice of all Americans yet there is a Black Democratic President. I know its hard to believe, but, most people can see the BS coming out of the CBC and the Star and, most will be able to see any BS coming out of the new 'fox' north channel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just because we mock stupidity does not mean we fear it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Never seen anyone yet, never met anyone yet who wasnt afraid of something before they mocked it or ridiculed it, other wise, why mock it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. So you're saying, people only mock when they're afraid? Wrong definition my friend.

    Mocking is done out of derision. So call us elitist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are many reasons why people mock and ridicule, fear or phobia is just one. But normally its just arrogance and a lack of self confidence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But normally its just arrogance and a lack of self confidence.

    But I thought it was fear... I'm so confused.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "sigh"...I never said it was only fear, and, I never said it was only arrogance or a lack of self confidence...never. Never called anyone those names either..never. Just said, dont know why so many smart people are afraid of something they havent seen or heard yet. Dont know why so many smart people are mocking something they have yet to see or hear yet either. Thats alls I said.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes..that's mockable. I'm hoping they wont tie the hands of these reporters, if they do then you'll see an exodus.

    ReplyDelete
  9. But when someone expresses opposition to same-sex marriage, that IS done out of fear, right? Can we still use that one?

    ReplyDelete
  10. But when someone expresses opposition to same-sex marriage, that IS done out of fear, right? Can we still use that one?

    Or stupidity, please yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One could argue, in a very reductionist way, that opposition to forms of media and social policy (same sex marriage) may be motivated by the same emotions, but I think it is fair to say that what governs the positions and motivations around questions of journalism are distinct from what surrounds SSM.

    Questions of communication (read media) are more concerned with theories of discourse and information and how this results in social interactions and manifestations of political will. The key thing is that media is a shifting balance for a myriad of reasons beyond simple personal and human philosophy, elements which play a far greater role in questions of same sex marriage.

    Thus, given the lessons of history, while media is awash in variability, there tends to be a common understanding of basic elements inherent in dissemination of information and discourse. The opposition is not of fear but a loathing to the absurdity of people who prescribe a whole panoply of tenets to what media and communication should be even though such pronouncements are really motivated by personal political preference rather than a concern with theories and practical realities of media and discourse.

    Smart people, I would suspect, are somewhat knowledgeable and aware when retail driven media tries to cast itself as superior in substance only because it is in supposed opposition to whatever the 'status quo' may be. In that sense, it deserves some mockery and suspicion. With the rise of hostile media syndrome (and thus disconfirmation bias), media will simply balkanize into ideological fiefdoms while always trying to convince its audience of their objective journalistic acumen, a trait which is becoming more relativistic. So, really, there isn't so much fear as a sober acceptance of how media will regrettably continue its cycle of peaks and troughs. There will always be concern about how far will go with its infotainment, but I would not characterize that as fear.

    As for SSM, well, we have had it for some time now, and society is not crumbling because Chad and Todd would like to be miserable together as well :). So, it is safe to say that fear was pretty well irrational and unfounded. One would have to question his ability to maintain a marriage if he thought that same sex married couples were somehow undermining it. It could very well be that when you liberalize almost all aspects of human life, it shouldn't be terribly surprising that people will take the liberty to assess the worth of being in a marriage, a choice, by the way, that women practically have had only recently in modern human history. In a way, neoliberals who are also neoconservatives sometimes, like many political philosophies, try to have their cake and eat it too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't have any problem admitting I "fear" SunMedia. It's not wide-eyes terror or anything, it's a concern that with a focus on infotainment, as jkg says above, SunMedia begins setting the topic of discourse. For most of the week their editorials were the focus of a large chunk of internet discussion (and I'm guilty of playing a tiny part in that).

    The people that read the Sun don't see through the bullshit. If they did, they wouldn't read the Sun. When the Sun becomes more political and even more overtly partisan, backed up by internet crazies and talk radio morons, the stupid, those easily influenced by loud noises and shiny things, and not having enough education to know better, are mobilized.

    ReplyDelete
  13. He promised there'd be a clear line between editorializing on the station's talk shows and news gathering by its journalists...

    ...according to which Sun TV "journalists" shall first gather the news and then deliver it over for the editorialising torquing of angry rednecks and shrill bottle-blonde anorexics.

    On the plus side, the dawn of Sun TV shall be an historic moment for white people.

    ReplyDelete
  14. On the plus side, the dawn of Sun TV shall be an historic moment for white people.

    At last, someone who speaks for me. It's about time we white males had our voices heard.

    ReplyDelete
  15. backed up by internet crazies and talk radio morons, the stupid, those easily influenced by loud noises and shiny things, and not having enough education to know better, are mobilized.

    That is the rub of this whole circus. If you even suggest that perhaps, people who are amenable to such theatrics lack serious metacognition or lack the education to make knowledgeable critiques of what they consume, you are immediately labelled as an elitist. This demonization is very typical of the Canadian neocons, since it is better to suggest in a false sense of equality than to entertain the notion that perhaps opinions can exists on a scale of validity and plausibility. I cannot remember how many times students of neoconservatism demonize their enemies as moral bigots (you know, the same constituency who are apoplectic about multiculturalism) or that those who do not like Sarah Palin simply embody an intellectual condescension that would render them incapable of understanding her.

    There is a distinct irony with this approach: This egalitarian appeal when it comes to matters of opinion runs absolutely counter to the defense of emergent hierarchies (dictated by the market or otherwise) by those very same people in all other subject matters. It is somewhat of a cognitive dissonance, since I would be hard pressed to find such people to accept that alternative modes of economy would be equally viable let alone concede that they simply do not understand them. Thus, they would concede their critique is rendered irrelevant. After all, any Hayekian or 'child prodigy' of neoliberal think tanks will be happy to expound all the ills of other economic theories with such self-assured definitiveness and would laugh at the suggestion they are too out of touch with what they are critiquing.

    This strange perversion of post-modern thinking is more widespread than people like to admit. You can imagine the shock and disbelief when I point out to said neocons that the logical framework they employ is highly analogous to what hipster neo-luddites employ when critiquing certain advancements in science, medicine, or technology.

    It underscores one thing I have seen: The constant preoccupation with appealing to the mean. Paleo-conservatives used to defend civilization's intellectual achievements as well as the institutions that yielded them, but with the rise of "citizen scientists" and pathological distrust for intellectualism, it is as almost as if though it has become a fashionable middle-class sport to 'question everything' regardless of context or weighing of evidence.

    Case in point: A former colleague of mine was offended that her former place of work, the Fraser Institute, was labeled humourously by me as a "belief tank" as opposed to a "think tank." I made the jovial distinction by pointing out that any "think tank" of whatever stripe would never be scholarly compelled to release a paper that would run counter to their organization ethos. In effect, the tank is not "thinking" but "believing," except with 'research reports,' which predictably would stay on message. She was not amused, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ...the Fraser Institute, was labeled humourously by me as a "belief tank" as opposed to a "think tank."

    Heh. I call them "dink tanks", but chacun à son goût.

    ReplyDelete
  17. For the most recent example of this (to me, I haven't checked the news yet this morning) is Bernier's idiotic defence of the census changes covered by BCL. The outrage is all the "special interest groups" fault. It's funny, I can't think of anyone more "special" than the handful of paranoid nutters that actually wanted this sort of change.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shiner said...

    For the most recent example of this (to me, I haven't checked the news yet this morning) is Bernier's idiotic defence of the census changes covered by BCL. The outrage is all the "special interest groups" fault. It's funny, I can't think of anyone more "special" than the handful of paranoid nutters that actually wanted this sort of change.


    Then by all means urge your leader to bring down the government ASAP and let's have an election on this issue.

    ReplyDelete