Warning; We are not a politically correct site. Don't like us? Don't read.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The more menacing way that politicians control journalists...Canada.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s blacklist of journalists she doesn’t like has been suspended in the face of national condemnation. But it may return: Notley has asked a retired newspaper editor to make recommendations about “the government’s media policies.”

In Canada though, governments don’t have media policies. The only accreditation necessary is found in the Charter of Rights with its guarantee of a free press. Notley’s desire to regulate journalists — whether through sheriffs and Department of Justice letters, as she did last week, or through high-priced advisers, as she’s trying next week — smacks of banana republic socialism.

But even if Alberta’s NDP government backs down from attacking journalists it doesn’t like, there’s a larger problem in Canadian media: governments sponsoring journalists they do like.

The CBC is the obvious example. In the recent federal election, the NDP and Liberals battled for the hearts and minds of the CBC’s journalists. Thomas Mulcair started the bidding with a promise of a $115 million annual CBC bonus if he were elected. Not to be outdone, Trudeau upped the ante to a whopping $150 million. The politicians were brazen: they were offering the journalists who cover them a success fee if they were elected.  It’s only human nature that the hundreds of CBC journalists who were working on the election would think about what that cash would mean. Not a week goes by without news of deep cuts in Canadian media and $150 million a year would save a lot of jobs. Forget about the natural ideological affinity between the left-leaning CBC and Trudeau. This was about bread and butter.

We don’t have to speculate as to whether journalists were influenced by this legal bribe. The Canadian Media Guild, the journalists’ union that dominates the CBC as well as The Canadian Press newswire, formally registered as a “third-party” campaign group with Elections Canada, similar to U.S. SuperPACs. Every unionized journalist covering the election was contributing part of their own salary to an anti-Harper election effort. Of course, CBC election reports didn’t disclose this conflict of interest.

It’s a soft form of corruption, when politicians pay the journalists who cover them.

It’s not just CBC journalists who are corrupted by being politicians’ pets. Journalists at private media are, too. As they nervously polish up their LinkedIn resumes, they can’t help but notice that the only major, national news organization still hiring is the CBC — just this week it posted a want ad for a newspaper-style editor for “features and columns.” How many private sector journalists are tailoring their own work now to mirror the editorial line of the CBC where they hope to be in six months?

And then there are hundreds of private sector journalists who top-up their income with appearances as freelance guests on CBC radio or TV.  It’s a soft form of corruption, when politicians pay the journalists who cover them. It’s the carrot, compared to Rachel Notley’s stick.  But the CBC hasn’t just editorially compromised itself. In the age of the Internet, its very existence undermines its private competitors.

In the past, private TV and radio stations overcame the CBC’s government-funded advantage with government gifts of their own, granted by the CRTC. For example, in 1997, the government ordered every cable company in English Canada to carry CTV Newsnet, and every cable subscriber to pay for it, whether they wanted it or not. CTV is on the dole, too. All TV and radio companies are. In return for protection.

But newspapers were free — no government licences needed, no government competitors to crowd them out. Until the Internet converged all these worlds into one. How could newspapers and magazines, the hardest-hit media companies today, compete on the Internet against a CBC that dumps all of its subsidized TV and radio content online for free?  The CBC is conscious of its artificial advantage, and sometimes rubs it in. When the Calgary Herald first attempted to implement a subscriber paywall, gleeful CBC journalists in the city took to Twitter boasting that unlike the Herald, their content was free. No it isn’t — they just take their fee from taxpayers by force. And there’s no CRTC for newspapers with the power to order every Canadian to buy newspapers whether they want them or not.

When new technologies disrupt the old, it’s called creative destruction; candles are replaced by light bulbs. There’s a lot of that going on with the Internet. But there’s also a lot of government favouritism going on too. That’s not just deciding which companies live and die. Just as much as Rachel Notley’s machinations, that sends a signal to journalists about what they have to say editorially, if they want to survive.
Source and credits.
Canadian news networks, whether the cbc, ctv, glogal, tvo, so on, make it damn obvious they try to "GUIDE" people on how to think, who to support, and will demonize anyone who does not follow their idea of democracy.
We had an opposing news network, sun news, but the crtc in their one sided decision, refused to give them the same privilege they do with the cbc and others, get this; you could get the opra channel, but not Sun news, it was only on ppv, which none of the other news network where obliged to do, so they had to close it down because they couldn't financially compete. 

The best way to get the truth in Canada, is to look it up online, newspapers are still in some way, somewhat unbiased, (some), but the TV networks, totally pro-left.
I remember watching tvo's the agenda, "women spend their money on their kids, men spend it on themselves", and not one opposing word from its host steve paikin. I was so disgusted I blocked the station.
TVO's the agenda, how can one be unbiased and allow such a statement to go unchallenged unless one agrees with it? (All men bad...OK, we get it)

Sure, these "network" will always refer to online info as, ridiculous, but if one is smart, one goes after as many opinions in order to get the full story, depending on only one site, can give you the wrong idea.
Online info is a direct challenge to the main stream media's propaganda attitudes, that's why they try so hard to demonize it.
There are still many who offer straight up news, national post, opposing view points like the rebel media.
You don't have to like them, or agree, but in order to have an open opinion one has to see what all are saying.

What we must do, if we really want reality and the truth is to look up as many as we can, and make up our own minds, otherwise we are nothing more than...
Controlling what people think through it's media is a path to reversing the freedoms we inherited from our grandparents...something we will eventually regret.
Freedoms are not protected by the few or it's media but defended by the people.

No comments: