|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 11, 2020 12:47:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 15, 2020 13:02:40 GMT -5
Good find Dis.
Atlantic and Gaurdian are far left. WaPo, NYT and Politico do have right wing opinion pieces but their language bias and trigger words is definitely left.
NPR is not center, they are left.
Bloomberg is center but the are all in on Trump derangement.
New York Post is right, not rabid right.
Biggest influencer of all on the right is Breitbart.
Would you believe that at one time, I use to subscribe to Toronto Pravda Star, Sunday NYT and Economist? I was even a card carrying Liberal. Go figure.....
The change was....when one is reading bias confirmation because nothing else is available it only reinforces the bias. Then as the internet opened other publications, I became acutely aware of the bias that was forced fed as "truth". Article after article, choice of words and outright leaving out or mis-information ate at the core of my beliefs. The more why/who/where I dug, the worse the lie those publications became. From 10 year subscriber of the Star to outright hating it's existence in a span of 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 15, 2020 21:27:49 GMT -5
... but their language bias and trigger words is definitely left. We're seeing exactly what the editor wants us to see and we're reading what they want us to read ... I probably started reading the "Globe and Mail" regularly many years ago ... if I saw any complimentary papers lying around I'd scoop the G&M first ... as far as that goes, I used to read the National Post because I found it more comprehensive than what I was used to ... the Sun newspapers are good for sports and sunshine girls ... but, you know, I find them a bit sensationalist at times ... The organization "The Rebel" news seems to mirror ... it's so far right even the Tories have distanced themselves from it ... Ezra Levant's personal soapbox and I have him blocked on Twitter ... Doesn't surprise me in the least ... Ich represent the "mushy middle" or as I term it the "swing vote" ... all of the parties need their core (members?) but they need a good chunk of the swing vote in order to win, as well ... case in point; here are the people I've voted for in the past: * Ed Broadbent, * Stephen Lewis, * John Turner, * Jean Chretien x2, * Stephen Harper x2, * Jack Layton, and * Jasmeet Singh. I support social programs but I would also like to keep as much of my money as I can, as well ... by the way, Stephen Harper used to belong to the "Young Liberals of Canada" ... It's extremely effective, yes ... 'fake news' isn't a Trump original, though ... as you already know, it's always been around ... George Carlin used to really gave the media the gears in some of his performances ... and he was bang-on the mark every single time ... they're on YouTube ... locally, we don't subscribe to the Whig-Standard newspaper here in Kingston ... it's a small paper that reflects the community ... limited on interesting news, good for local events, etc ... the local TV station belongs to Global and we don't mind their broadcasts at all ... we'll watch it every night at 11 PM and that's really the only news station we watch ... I used to watch CBC for the political panel that was facilitated by Peter Mansbridge ... Mansbridge is gone but the panel stayed on ... used to like watching Rex Murphy but he moved on from CBC (some conflict of interest thing) and now has a podcast, which I find quite boring ... I haven't watched CTV News in many years and, as such, I have no opinion on it ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 15, 2020 23:33:06 GMT -5
I support social programs but I would also like to keep as much of my money as I can, as well ... by the way, Stephen Harper used to belong to the "Young Liberals of Canada" ... I could see his "Young Liberals Of Canada" roots from his policies. Pretty much all his policies where obvious to me and not much different from what I would do as prime minister. He's a bit younger then me, but the liberal to conservative path is pretty clear to someone who went the same path. For me, Harper is/was the best conservative leader, nee, best Canadian leader. Period. He simply buried his social conservatism and ran from the middle. Everywhere I went outside Canada and the topic became political, I got unsolicited compliments about Harper. The only comments I got about Trudeau was...that he's good looking. I see myself as a social liberal and uber economic conservative ...with a large scoop of Canadian Nationalist on top. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 16, 2020 13:52:57 GMT -5
I support social programs but I would also like to keep as much of my money as I can, as well ... by the way, Stephen Harper used to belong to the "Young Liberals of Canada" ... I could see his "Young Liberals Of Canada" roots from his policies. Pretty much all his policies where obvious to me and not much different from what I would do as prime minister. He's a bit younger then me, but the liberal to conservative path is pretty clear to someone who went the same path. The first time I voted for him was for personal gain because he offered a pension split for servicepersons ... without this, I would have paid through the nose on taxes every year ... the second time I voted for him we'd already been to the polls in Kingston for civic, provincial, and federal elections and it was the coalition that brought me back to the polls, so I made the decision that I wasn't going to vote again for another four years ... Harper is an economist and folks forgot that ... what they didn't forget was his lack of transparency and that, along with tripping over the immigration 'issue' probably cost him another election ... what cost him my vote was the way he 'balanced' the books for the election by taking a lot of benefits away from the veterans and also by selling controlling shares to Canada Wheat Board to the Saudis ... as an aside, at one point I really thought he'd have made an excellent president, while I thought Obama might have made a decent prime minister ... by the way, the best finance minister I've seen in my day was Paul Martin (no, I didn't vote for him as PM) ... the worst is Justin Trudeau (well, he's not a fin minister, but) ... Having lived in Germany for five years I can tell you that if you ask a German to name one PM of Canada, more often than not, they'll say Pierre Trudeau ... the lass I was talking with in Nevada a few years back thought it was "cool" to see Justin Trudeau on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine ... at least the photo wasn't a selfie, I guess ... Right on ... traditionally I see myself as a socialist who fully supports social programs, but as I was saying, I want to retain as much of the money I've earned over my lifetime as I can ... that shouldn't belong to anyone else ... I'm a Canadian Nationalist, yes, but so long as my wages are/were garnished, I retain the right to call out my government(s) ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 16, 2020 14:54:55 GMT -5
Harper is an economist and folks forgot that ... what they didn't forget was his lack of transparency and that, along with tripping over the immigration 'issue' probably cost him another election ... what cost him my vote was the way he 'balanced' the books for the election by taking a lot of benefits away from the veterans and also by selling controlling shares to Canada Wheat Board to the Saudis ... as an aside, at one point I really thought he'd make he'd have made an excellent president, while I thought Obama might have made a decent prime minister ... by the way, the best finance minister I've seen in my day was Paul Martin (no, I didn't vote for him as PM) ... the worst is Justin Trudeau ... funny thing about the difference between Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau . . . there isn't any . . . well, there is a bit of one . . . I said at the beginning that the only difference is that JT has good hair and a personality. transparency . . . tell me about that. controlling . . . tell me about that too. don't know anything about veterans benefits but I have no use for any marketing board (which is where Scheer gained his votes and lost my support). wrt finance minister Paul Martin: the best line I ever heard was from Marg Delahunty of "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" who reminded him that he wasn't really a Liberal when he was finance minister. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 16, 2020 15:23:44 GMT -5
Harper is an economist and folks forgot that ... what they didn't forget was his lack of transparency and that, along with tripping over the immigration 'issue' probably cost him another election ... what cost him my vote was the way he 'balanced' the books for the election by taking a lot of benefits away from the veterans and also by selling controlling shares to Canada Wheat Board to the Saudis ... as an aside, at one point I really thought he'd make he'd have made an excellent president, while I thought Obama might have made a decent prime minister ... by the way, the best finance minister I've seen in my day was Paul Martin (no, I didn't vote for him as PM) ... Harper "lack of transparency" is a leftist rallying cry that has no real basis. The left media wanted to do exactly what they are doing with Trump, build a hate narrative. They can't do that if you can't drill holes into his cabinet and try to find something to pin on him. So they pinned "lack of transparency". As if our current moron is that transparent. ....the worst is Justin Trudeau ... Wait and see just how worst it's going to get. Start downgrading your spending habits to survival mode right now. The GST increase and taxes will make you cringe. Sixty billion here, hundred billion there, another 50 billion for whatever ails you...then watch those hundreds of billions to buy mortgages and keep the housing market afloat. Trudeau along with the former Ontario Liberal cabal, the perfect people for DebtRus...... Having lived in Germany for five years I can tell you that if you ask a German to name one PM of Canada, more often than not, they'll say Pierre Trudeau ... the lass I was talking with in Nevada a few years back thought it was "cool" to see Justin Trudeau on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine ... at least the photo wasn't a selfie, I guess ... You're just jealous because he hasn't graced you with his presence with a selfie!  Right on ... traditionally I see myself as a socialist who fully supports social programs, but as I was saying, I want to retain as much of the money I've earned over my lifetime as I can ... that shouldn't belong to anyone else ... I'm a Canadian Nationalist, yes, but so long as my wages are/were garnished, I retain the right to call out my government(s) ... Be careful about the "nationalist" thingy because some want to make it spin it as a dirty word. After all, political correctness is all about defining and controlling the language. To which I want to wear a t-shirt that says, I AM A CANADIAN NATIONALIST in front and "GFY if you don't like it" in back. Imagine the shame we must bear because we are proud, believe in and support Canada.....  Lastly...... Don't worry about your wages getting garnished or keeping your money. Nope. They will just evaporate in value. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 16, 2020 15:32:46 GMT -5
funny thing about the difference between Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau . . . there isn't any . . . well, there is a bit of one . . . I said at the beginning that the only difference is that JT has good hair and a personality. transparency . . . tell me about that. controlling . . . tell me about that too. don't know anything about veterans benefits but I have no use for any marketing board (which is where Scheer gained his votes and lost my support). wrt finance minister Paul Martin: the best line I ever heard was from Marg Delahunty of "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" who reminded him that he wasn't really a Liberal when he was finance minister. Disagree on the difference between the Harper and Trudeau. In a year from now, you will know what it means to have a drama teacher versus an economist running the country. Hint...you wont like it, particularly if you are retired to about to retire. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 23, 2020 19:55:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 23, 2020 20:46:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobs_HABit on May 24, 2020 17:19:18 GMT -5
No. Poor liberal media all up in arms about a video from 18 months ago. Methinks they doth protest too much. Wonder if there are any current news events with the current bunch of fools that the media could focus on. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 25, 2020 15:06:08 GMT -5
Well, the clip caused a stir on social media ... here's a well-written column that addresses quite a bit ... oddly enough I remember thinking that one of the reasons Harper lost the election was because of his party's strategy ... Stephen Harper vs. the Media,
round infinity plus twoAndrew MacDougall: Harper's take on his 2015 loss may have missed the mark, but there is also more truth to it than the Canadian media would like to admit By Andrew MacDougall May 25, 2020 Andrew MacDougall is a director at Trafalgar Strategy, and a former Head of Communications to Prime Minister Stephen Harper An old clip of Stephen Harper slating the Canadian media and its supposed role in his loss in 2015 is once again making the rounds online and, judging by the reaction on Twitter, it’s not only Mr. Harper who hasn’t quite come to grips with his demise. The journalists who covered him haven’t recovered either. Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star responded to Harper’s tart clip by bemoaning his “grudge-laden soul.” Veteran National Post columnist John Ivison labelled the former prime minister’s take “bollocks,” while Chantal Hébert, star of English and French print and television, shared the clip with the rather tasty comment “when Stephen Harper derails.” And then there was Global News chief political correspondent David Akin, who felt compelled to deliver a vigorous defense of journalism in response to Harper’s cobwebbed comments. And the list went on. And why all these dirty looks? While on tour promoting his 2018 book Right Here, Right Now: Politics in the Age of Disruption, Mr. Harper offered a précis of his election loss to Dennis Prager, a darling of the muscular U.S. right-wing Internet ecosystem, whose ‘PragerU’ videos regularly rattle up millions of views. And as the two men discussed conservatism in Canada and the United States, Harper offered up his somewhat loose and rather paranoid interpretation of the media’s role in his 2015 defeat. Harper first set the scene, explaining that the February 2015 implosion of Sun News Network before the election deprived him of his only natural media support. As a result, there were virtually no centre-right journalists left in any outlet in the country, including only a ‘tiny’ bit of right-wing radio across the land. He then claimed that all three major television networks in (English language) Canada were to the left of the BBC. But it was what followed from Harper that really lit Canadian journalistic fuses. There were “many reasons” he lost the last election, Harper explained, but one of them was that the media “would not cover my announcements.” They would not cover “any gaffes of my opponents.” They “scrubbed it out” of their coverage, he added. Feeling his oats, Harper then accused the media of “coordinating their coverage” and of not running any ads that depicted Justin Trudeau in an unfavourable light. The media, Harper claimed, censored the Conservative campaign right out of the coverage. Now, there is a lot of bullspit in this take, a lot of which I also heard during my tour of duty, but there is also more truth than anyone in the Canadian media would like to admit. First, the crap. The media absolutely did cover Harper’s announcements. Indeed, that was arguably part of the problem. Anyone remember the extensive coverage of the so-called ‘snitch line’ for barbaric practices made by cabinet ministers Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander? That got a lot of ink. The problem with the 2015 Conservative platform was that there weren’t enough newsworthy announcements to drive the coverage, especially in contrast with Trudeau’s pledges on deficit-spending (whoops!), electoral reform (whoops!), pot and the environment. Dogged throughout by the spectre of Mike Duffy, the only time the Conservative campaign really cut through was when Harper announced the conclusion of negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership (which Harper then did much to derail by getting sidetracked on niqabs during a subsequent interview with the CBC). Nor did the media “coordinate their coverage”. There might be a lot of bias and groupthink in the Canadian media—an entirely separate issue—but they come by it honestly, not through collusion. Harper was most likely referring to the limited questions he offered up to reporters, a move that forced reporters to discuss their questions in advance, something they wouldn’t do if they were each guaranteed a go. (This is something, by the way, that still happens under Trudeau, even if it isn’t matched by Harper-like levels of caterwauling from the media.) Then there are the smaller quibbles. The press, for example, still had conservative voices in 2015, as evidenced by the wall of Conservative endorsements in the last days of the election. And while it’s true the day-to-day grunts in the Parliamentary Press Gallery might not have been sympathetic to Harper, that was likely a function of the by-then nearly 10-year war over access between the two parties, and the general desire to cover something new, i.e. a new government, rather than any censorious urge. Now the truth. The greatly diminished reporting corps in Ottawa is, if not overtly hostile to conservative views, largely unsympathetic to them, owing to a shared experience that is increasingly urban and left-of-centre, especially as the gallery gets younger. And while this might be the broader direction of travel in Canada, it is not everyone’s direction, something the rise of outlets like Rebel Media teaches us. The decline of the regional press in Ottawa is another contributing factor to the big-city feel of modern Canadian media, something that will only get worse as more outlets go under and the taxpayer-funded CBC’s influence grows. And as views that don’t meet the current orthodoxy go unacknowledged, they turn up in more virulent form in less salubrious places. And while Harper didn’t make these arguments explicitly, it is clear they influenced his commentary to Prager. There is, as Harper noted, no Canadian equivalent of U.S. talk radio. Being a resident of Britain—although not the one Harper was referencing—I would also agree that all three Canadian television networks are pegged to the left of or, at best, at the BBC’s level. The rather docile coverage of Trudeau in the age of COVID-19 feels like another proof point. While the BBC and other British outlets, including the right-wing tabloids, are busy kicking the stuffing out of Boris Johnson and his government, it feels like Trudeau is the recipient of a lot of benefit of the doubt. Part of this is surely the provincial responsibility for health in Canada but the failures on borders and other federal issues like public health guidance on masks deserve more outrage and scrutiny than they’ve received. More ... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 3, 2020 20:13:48 GMT -5
I remember watching CTV in 2015, the night after the election the talking airhead said....verbatim...."with the Liberals in power, we finally have civility in Parliament". I had to play replay it a few times to make sure I actually heard this level of biased garbage. Now tell me again that the media is not anti-Conservative or anti-Harper. Now, we get a nightly dose of trumptrumptrumptrump, who really means very little to Canadians and hear nothing, not a single piece of skeptical reporting on the late handling of the pandemic, the pure clown handling of masks and our clown shoveling money out the door like...like he is buying votes. Even as something basic and in our face as the Liberal government deliberately ordering the wasting of multiple BILLIONS of dollars of fraud in CERB to unqualified recipients....has the compliant and well greased lefty media talking about.......trumpytrumptrump. Look, squirrel..... Or how about the defining silence from the left media of the clown effectively usurping Parliament and democracy under the excuse that it's "full parliament is not feasible because of the pandemic". Meanwhile every morning, the greased media is focusing on the clown latest money shoveling act, soft-balling some questions and ignoring any news or people who don't meet the narrative. Parliament is where Canadians are represented, where OUR democracy is in full view, not the clowns front door. I guess that $600,000,000 does buy media friends..... ~~~~~~~~~ Link....THIS is Canadian news, not Trumps latest farts.... 'Do not impose a stop pay': Federal workers ordered to ignore cheating in CERB and EI claims nationalpost.com/news/do-not-impose-a-stop-pay-federal-workers-ordered-to-ignore-cheating-in-cerb-and-ei-claims |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 13, 2020 17:12:06 GMT -5
Harper is an economist and folks forgot that ... what they didn't forget was his lack of transparency and that, along with tripping over the immigration 'issue' probably cost him another election ... what cost him my vote was the way he 'balanced' the books for the election by taking a lot of benefits away from the veterans and also by selling controlling shares to Canada Wheat Board to the Saudis ... as an aside, at one point I really thought he'd make he'd have made an excellent president, while I thought Obama might have made a decent prime minister ... by the way, the best finance minister I've seen in my day was Paul Martin (no, I didn't vote for him as PM) ... the worst is Justin Trudeau ... funny thing about the difference between Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau . . . there isn't any . . . well, there is a bit of one . . . I said at the beginning that the only difference is that JT has good hair and a personality. transparency . . . tell me about that. controlling . . . tell me about that too. don't know anything about veterans benefits but I have no use for any marketing board (which is where Scheer gained his votes and lost my support). wrt finance minister Paul Martin: the best line I ever heard was from Marg Delahunty of "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" who reminded him that he wasn't really a Liberal when he was finance minister. when I think of marketing boards, dairy and eggs come to mind. They aren't directly a benefit to consumers, but I wonder what their true cost is if you factor in everything else. There are still small family dairy farms in Canada (though they too are selling out to other individual farms) so the product is not as concentrated in fewer hands. I don't like centralization for many things. Too much control in just a few hands who are often out of touch with their customers, or obsessed with making more money. One hidden cost, for example, is that you don't hear of any Covid breakouts on small farms. Big processing plants? You bet. That's just one benefit that isn't measured when we consider more, smaller producers (which marketing boards support). As I age I'm finding that I'm getting more disillusioned with individuals or companies who basically steal from everyone else. They obtain licences or 'rights' from the general public (thank you, politicians) for no where near what those rights or licences are worth. Isn't it Nestle that buys water in Canada for a pittance and sells it in bottles for huge markups? It's someone, anyway, but the point is that fresh water is not a plentiful resource. Canada has a lot of it so maybe we don't realize it's worth, but why are we subsidizing companies that buy our water by letting them have it so cheaply? They want it, fine. Pay up. We'll need those funds. How about mining or oil companies that don't clean up afterward? Haven't the feds just delegated hundreds of millions to clean up well sites which companies benefited from? Why are taxpayers paying the bill? We simply didn't charge nearly enough in royalties to start with. That's what I mean by hidden costs and there are so many of those in our lives. If we added environmental costs to what the bean counters include, most project costs would go way up and might not be economic, but so what? Someone is reaping the benefit of those costs not being included and its not you and I. End of rant. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 14, 2020 11:22:33 GMT -5
I remember watching CTV in 2015, the night after the election the talking airhead said....verbatim...."with the Liberals in power, we finally have civility in Parliament". I had to play replay it a few times to make sure I actually heard this level of biased garbage. Now tell me again that the media is not anti-Conservative or anti-Harper. I've tried finding this quote with no luck at all ... if you have a link please post it, HA ... this is a gem ... I've noticed that COVID-19 isn't always the lead story now ... case in point, CBC's lead story earlier today was about Atlanta ... To me, it's similar to the prorogation of government and, TBH, I didn't have a problem with Trudeau doing this if only to show that parliament is following the rules, too ... what I do have a problem with is that Trudeau refused to assemble but still ignored social distancing to pose for a taking-the-knee photo op ... likewise, I had a problem with Doug Ford ignoring the stay-at-home rule so as to get a photo of him loading PPE in jeans and t-shirt ... IMHO, both of these men, at one point or another, have put their personal agendas ahead of their professional obligations for personal gain ... still, it would have taken some work but if Trudeau had wanted to assemble parliament he could have found an out-of-house way to do ... To the Right it was a bribe, to the Left it was a bailout ... it depends on which version we buy into ... besides, if it was a bribe then Trudeau lost on it ... he went from a majority gov't to a minority ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 14, 2020 11:37:34 GMT -5
... what doesn't surprise me is how Left CBC is ... ... what did surprise me is that most of the NDP's support comes from Sun Newspapers ... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 14, 2020 13:29:14 GMT -5
From left to right...
CBC....CTV...Globe&Mail....no center...NP...Sun
The Sun on one end is as rabid as the CBC with the difference in that it's not getting over a billion from taxpayers to dominate the media landscape.
The media KNOWS that they influence opinion so in the US their media is finally dropping any pretense that they are "journalist" and going full bore social and political propaganda.
When the New York Times fired an editor because of an article that represents a right point of view, there is no denying or going back. Funnier still was most of the left justifying the firing. Articles in many of them are now writing that in the "era of social justice" they have an obligation to shape opinion. Note the word "obligation".
In Canada, our media has not gone full bore stupid like the US, but bet everything you have that it will be shifting. Make no mistake about that.
Did you know the current saint was a career criminal? I didn't and found out by someone who mentioned it in NP, just before his post was moderated. What happened to him is absolutely wrong, but the complete wipeout of anything about his career criminal past by ANY media is stunning. At best we got "he changed his life" but not even a hint of his multiple jail sentences. MLK he's not. Again, there is no denying that his death was tragic and brutal.
The issue here...is a massive and incredibly dangerous to have that much unified one think in the media AND search engines. This should be absolutely terryfying to all of us. Bar none. Including the left. But it's not. And it will get worse.
It isn't registering to the vast majority that without free speech and without LAWS ENFORCED for free speech, no mater how vile, no matter how uncomfortable, to let the media and mobs control free speech, we are wiping out the core value of our civilization. To the point where it can wipe out our civilization. We are willingly bringing 1984 on us....and worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 14, 2020 19:53:16 GMT -5
Dis,
It was in their 11 pm broadcast.
CTV actually hired a left leaning editor to pander to the left. CTV use to be more news oriented but was losing viewers so they bent left AND targetting left stories to get eye balls. They aren't trumpetytrumptrump 5 minites a night by accident...or because of news value.
As for Harper and suspending parliament. I saw it as a necessary and short term evil because the Three Amigos were hell bent on bringing down his government. It was a well defined time period and other then buying some time, he did not benefit like our little Prince is doing by hogging all the media for his 11 oclock clown show.
The other day he put on another little show about how evil the other parties are because they wont let him shovel money. Why doesn't he stand up in parliament and say that? Instead he is acting like a petty little dictator shutting off his opposition while putting on a show.
I'm not suprised that too many Canadians can't see the obvious usurping of democracy. Parliament is where democracy is centered and all voices are heard, not the daily 11 oclock one man clown drama show under a tent.
It too earily similar to dictators like Saddam spitting out speaches from their balcony. Minus the occasional firing of a Kalasnikov for attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 16, 2020 13:54:19 GMT -5
From left to right... CBC....CTV...Globe&Mail....no center...NP...Sun The Sun on one end is as rabid as the CBC with the difference in that it's not getting over a billion from taxpayers to dominate the media landscape. The media KNOWS that they influence opinion so in the US their media is finally dropping any pretense that they are "journalist" and going full bore social and political propaganda. When the New York Times fired an editor because of an article that represents a right point of view, there is no denying or going back. Funnier still was most of the left justifying the firing. Articles in many of them are now writing that in the "era of social justice" they have an obligation to shape opinion. Note the word "obligation". In Canada, our media has not gone full bore stupid like the US, but bet everything you have that it will be shifting. Make no mistake about that. Did you know the current saint was a career criminal? I didn't and found out by someone who mentioned it in NP, just before his post was moderated. What happened to him is absolutely wrong, but the complete wipeout of anything about his career criminal past by ANY media is stunning. At best we got "he changed his life" but not even a hint of his multiple jail sentences. MLK he's not. Again, there is no denying that his death was tragic and brutal. I assume you are referring to George Floyd. His past was discussed but one has to go far right. Glen Beck & Candace Owens had this discussion & it got retweeted by Trump. In a situation like this, when he is arrested on suspicion of passing a conterfeit bill, why does it matter. If he had a violent history, it might explain the behaviour of the police. Otherwise, it just serves to diminish the victim. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 16, 2020 14:07:58 GMT -5
I assume you are referring to George Floyd. His past was discussed but one has to go far right. Glen Beck & Candace Owens had this discussion & it got retweeted by Trump. In a situation like this, when he is arrested on suspicion of passing a conterfeit bill, why does it matter. If he had a violent history, it might explain the behaviour of the police. Otherwise, it just serves to diminish the victim. He does have a violent history including five years for home invasion and aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (gun). Plus 3-4 stints for cocaine and 9 arrests. I thought that it was a far right smear job and had a hell of a time finding his record. Google did their best to bury it. What happened to him was utterly inexcusable no matter what. I have no issue with protesting his death. Rioting and destruction is something else. What I have an issue with is how well it was buried by the media and Google. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 16, 2020 14:56:03 GMT -5
I assume you are referring to George Floyd. His past was discussed but one has to go far right. Glen Beck & Candace Owens had this discussion & it got retweeted by Trump. In a situation like this, when he is arrested on suspicion of passing a conterfeit bill, why does it matter. If he had a violent history, it might explain the behaviour of the police. Otherwise, it just serves to diminish the victim. He does have a violent history including five years for home invasion and aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (gun). Plus 3-4 stints for cocaine and 9 arrests. I thought that it was a far right smear job and had a hell of a time finding his record. Google did their best to bury it. What happened to him was utterly inexcusable no matter what. I have no issue with protesting his death. Rioting and destruction is something else. What I have an issue with is how well it was buried by the media and Google. I Googled "George Floyd criminal record" and got a lengthy and fair Snopes article as my first hit. www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/To summarize, he had not been in trouble with the law since 2007, or 13 years ago. He had 9 convictions: * Four for having less than 1g of cocaine on him (or, you know, what Ozzy Osbourne has for lunch) * One for "failure to provide police with ID" * One for "trespassing" * Two for theft under $500 * And the last, the violent home invasion in which they appear to have been looking for somebody else. He confessed to that crime, plead guilty, and served almost his full, five year sentence, before being paroled with a just a couple of months left in it, in 2013. He was no angel, but a bleeding heart could make the case that a good chunk of his arrests would not have resulted in jail time for somebody with a different background. Or even arrests. Six arrests for low-level possessions of cocaine, trespassing, and refusing to provide ID. The latter of which isn't even a crime in Canada. Two more arrests and jail time for petty theft under $500. 8 convictions for non-violent, arguably minor, offenses, followed by one violent crime. Which he confessed to, was punished, and served his time. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 16, 2020 15:08:23 GMT -5
I found this same Snopes article on my 1st try as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 16, 2020 15:29:06 GMT -5
You do now...and i also found it on Snopes today but a week ago i got NOTHING when i put in...george Floyd criminal record.
I had to keep refining as
...is a criminal..was a criminal...etc.and multiple variations.
I got endless hits that the cop wss a criminal but not Floyd.
Be honest here, did you know before i brought it up? I didn't and only got suspicious when it was mentioned by a poster in NP. Two minutes later his post was gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 16, 2020 15:38:04 GMT -5
You do now...and i also found it on Snopes today but a week ago i got NOTHING when i put in...george Floyd criminal record. I had to keep refining as ...is a criminal..was a criminal...etc.and multiple variations. I got endless hits that the cop wss a criminal but not Floyd. Be honest here, did you know before i brought it up? I didn't and only got suspicious when it was mentioned by a poster in NP. Two minutes later his post was gone. I did know he was a criminal, as I kept hearing it tossed back and forth in the ongoing culture wars. I did not know what his crimes were until I Googled it to write my post. "Can you believe the Right says he's a criminal??" "Can you believe the Left denies he's a criminal??" This was all on social media platforms, primarily Twitter and Reddit. I did not read, nor look into what his crimes were, as I feared it would result in a bunch of back-and-forth, competing articles, spin, and justifications, from both sides. I also didn't think it mattered. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 16, 2020 15:56:55 GMT -5
You do now...and i also found it on Snopes today but a week ago i got NOTHING when i put in...george Floyd criminal record. I had to keep refining as ...is a criminal..was a criminal...etc.and multiple variations. I got endless hits that the cop wss a criminal but not Floyd. Be honest here, did you know before i brought it up? I didn't and only got suspicious when it was mentioned by a poster in NP. Two minutes later his post was gone. I did know he was a criminal, as I kept hearing it tossed back and forth in the ongoing culture wars. I did not know what his crimes were until I Googled it to write my post. "Can you believe the Right says he's a criminal??" "Can you believe the Left denies he's a criminal??" This was all on social media platforms, primarily Twitter and Reddit. I did not read, nor look into what his crimes were, as I feared it would result in a bunch of back-and-forth, competing articles, spin, and justifications, from both sides. I also didn't think it mattered. I'm on neither platform. My first instinct was that it was a smear campaign. Then started with Google search ...which i got nothing but also that there wasn't a bunch of articles attacking right wing "conspiracies" was a big hint that it was true. Getting back to my point, while TODAY you and i also found the Snopes writeup, it wasn't showing up in searches last week. Another thing why today and not last week...because it's Snopes. They lean left and while mostly true, they will also "soften" the facts. Last week, the sites i found put all the facts online including court records. It's well within reasonable suspicion that Google finally let the search "find" snopes. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 16, 2020 16:29:29 GMT -5
I found this same Snopes article on my 1st try as well. Check the Snopes date..June 12. Floyd died May 25. The only link that popped up last week was a site called "gameindia" which put up his records. Don't know anything about them so it was bag of salt time. BUT not a single "defensive" article to refute his record was a hammer head hint that it was true. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 16, 2020 19:23:05 GMT -5
Here is a test for anyone who thinks that Google is neutral.
Fox is a Trump supporter. Fine. They are by far, the most watched news outlet in the US. They have hundreds of articles a week. There are also dozens of newspaper sites t hat support him.
Google Trump and let me know if you can find Boston Herald, Fox, Washington Times or any well known right leaning media in even the remotest balance. IF, IF you find one article from FOX, that would be one in 10-20 pages.
You want more proof of their bias?
To get exception to a search, you put a minus sign in front of a name. So it you don't want article by let's say CNN, you just put -CNN. No search results will come up from CNN.
Out of curiosity I wanted to see how many exceptions I can put together and if Fox will ever show up. ALL the left leaning sites I can think of were eliminated....
trump -npr -angeles -seattle -axios -salon -voice -reuters -insider -washington -rabble -kos -bbc -move -ABC -atlantic -ctv -newsweek -cbc -cbs -vox -tmz -msnbc -mother -cnn -york -vogue -quartz -factcheck -verge -cbc -cnbc -guardian -toronto -post -insider -vanity -beast
After eliminating every known center-left to left leaning news/propaganda source, only then one can get articles from Fox or Boston Herald (right leaning) BUT you will get a flood of such amazing well known sites like....KCRG, WCAX, NDTV, Morning Consult, WTOP, WWBT, DesMoines Register, WQTV, PopularMechanics, WFMZ. Who are they? Nobodies. Absolute nobodies but they still flood the searches to minimize any news outside the desired slant.
How long before Google push The Toronto Sun and National Post to their back pages?
Google claims with a straight face that they are not biased, they are just reporting "reputable" news sites. Who determines that? THEY DO. And who are their "reputable sites"? Go the very top, to the first post Dis made, all the ones on the left of that chart are their "reputable sites". Circular logic at it's very finest.
Which goes back to my issue with this. Floyd, Trump, whatever, do YOU want someone determining what you can read? Do YOU want someone to shape the information you are getting? Ooops...too late. Google is already doing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 23, 2020 8:33:26 GMT -5
One more for you, fellas ... please see, Media Bias/Fact Check ... just type in the media outlet you want to know about in the search feature ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 6, 2020 21:31:59 GMT -5
The CBC "news" lies and lies and lies...having a liberal government in power allows them to lie with impunity.
Tonight, again they had to have that five minutes of trumpitytrumptrump. So they wanted to show that the cases of testing are rising even though the deaths are decreasing. The lie was that they show a graph of decreasing US deaths and flatten it at 500 deaths per day. They even have deaths in the chart. IN FACT, a five year old can look at the latest figures in worldometer and it's down to HALF that. US had 378 yesterday, 262 the day before, 265 the day before that.
This isn't the first time or the second, In fact, EVERY night they have the trumpitytrumptrump or Republicans did this of that, WHATEVER suits the agenda with spin, half the information or large doses of misinformation.
Hello Pravda and the Iraqi Ministry of Information.
The issue here is not the news on the devil, he does enough to warrant it, but the outright spin, lie, twist and omission that they will gleefully present as "news", without any need or even regard to be factual. Actually, the opposite.
THIS is no longer about having a left bias, which they always had, this is about shaping the "news" outright to skewer and shape Canadians opinion.
Why not? Who is going to stop them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 22, 2021 9:29:44 GMT -5
... I checked out about half of them using " Mediabiasfactcheck.com" to verify them ... ... and the match up ... the bottom chart is most current ... |
|
