[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

llama66 llama66:

That's Capitalism. If you can offer a product better, why shouldn't you? Newspapers have done little or nothing to adapt to the sea change in information technology that has happened over the last 20 years. Adapt or die.

Quite true. But then again, how do you adapt against Google et. al., when you were running with pretty slim margins for the last 60 years? (And Google is perfectly willing to take all your hard work and make advertising revenue from it)

Good way not to is to bail out the industry. Hard times lead to innovation.

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Heard a report too that Canda's subsidies for corporate players exceeds our defence budget.

Why not spread a little lettuce to keep the citizens informed?

I think we all know I'm not a fan of Corporate Welfare.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

Good way not to is to bail out the industry. Hard times lead to innovation.

But losing a free press is a pretty hard time, especially given the atmosphere of distrust being sown.

llama66 llama66:

I think we all know I'm not a fan of Corporate Welfare.

I quite agree. However, I don't see much of a short or long term solution.

Except, to slash the corporate welfare, double the defence budget and keep a free independent press running.

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

llama66 llama66:

Good way not to is to bail out the industry. Hard times lead to innovation.

But losing a free press is a pretty hard time, especially given the atmosphere of distrust being sown.

llama66 llama66:

I think we all know I'm not a fan of Corporate Welfare.

I quite agree. However, I don't see much of a short or long term solution.

Except, to slash the corporate welfare, double the defence budget and keep a free independent press running.

But by virtue of providing money to the press, can it be called free and independent anymore?

As I've said earlier, It's not for the government to dictate to the people what they should believe and what they shouldn't. That's for the reader to determine.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

But by virtue of providing money to the press, can it be called free and independent anymore?

As I've said earlier, It's not for the government to dictate to the people what they should believe and what they shouldn't. That's for the reader to determine.

It's an old argument, that is solved by 3 letters. C-B-C.

Just look how quickly they are to roast whatever government is in office when they screw up, and you have your answer.

Reporters and journalists are also asking these questions, but not 'if' they will be independent, but 'if they will be perceived' as independent. They themselves will change nothing about how they operate, but their job will be to convince the public that nothing has changed.

[llama66]

And CBC is slanted as hell. I don't need all the media taking that left slant. You need that right slant to balance out the equation. When you think about it the "Alt" media predates the internet anyway.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

And CBC is slanted as hell. I don't need all the media taking that left slant. You need that right slant to balance out the equation. When you think about it the "Alt" media predates the internet anyway.

Hehe, yea a lot of people think the media should be 'balanced'. However, there is no pillar of journalism that stresses that. Journalism is about 'truth', not 'balance'.

If a reporter were to interview Victor Orban, should they dedicate half their piece to all the good that comes from him starving asylum seekers, or should they just tell the truth about it?

[MeganC]

raydan raydan:

Why are we even subsidizing media... any media?

Because "1984" was a user's manual.

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

llama66 llama66:

And CBC is slanted as hell. I don't need all the media taking that left slant. You need that right slant to balance out the equation. When you think about it the "Alt" media predates the internet anyway.

Hehe, yea a lot of people think the media should be 'balanced'. However, there is no pillar of journalism that stresses that. Journalism is about 'truth', not 'balance'.

If a reporter were to interview Victor Orban, should they dedicate half their piece to all the good that comes from him starving asylum seekers, or should they just tell the truth about it?

But..but.. I thought Journalists had professional integrity.

[PluggyRug]

llama66 llama66:

But..but.. I thought Journalists had professional integrity.

Like these guy's....

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

llama66 llama66:

And CBC is slanted as hell. I don't need all the media taking that left slant. You need that right slant to balance out the equation. When you think about it the "Alt" media predates the internet anyway.

Hehe, yea a lot of people think the media should be 'balanced'. However, there is no pillar of journalism that stresses that. Journalism is about 'truth', not 'balance'.

If a reporter were to interview Victor Orban, should they dedicate half their piece to all the good that comes from him starving asylum seekers, or should they just tell the truth about it?

But..but.. I thought Journalists had professional integrity.

They do. They investigate and report the truth, as best as they can determine what the truth is.

The ones who don't verify these things usually come with a disclaimer.

https://www.quora.com/Did-you-know-Fox- ... ference-is

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

They do. They investigate and report the truth, as best as they can determine what the truth is.

The ones who don't verify these things usually come with a disclaimer.

https://www.quora.com/Did-you-know-Fox- ... ference-is

But they don't report "the" truth. They report "their" version of the truth.

Let the market decide the truth on how we want our news.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Heard a report too that Canda's subsidies for corporate players exceeds our defence budget.

Why not spread a little lettuce to keep the citizens informed?

Informed? Or inculcated? Keep in mind this was a gift that the media never asked for. And in a world where optics can mean everything, giving out $600 million to various media outlets less than a year before an election is really horrid optics. Particularly when you add it to the rest of the highly questionable shit Groper's already done.
And picking Unifor to act on the panel is pure unadulterated bullshit. It is so wrong on so many levels.

Rodriguez can yap all he wants about how transparent the process will be but we've seen how transparent the Groper govt is and quite frankly, I have absolutely ZERO reason to believe or trust Rodriguez. Quite frankly, a slab of DUC material is more transparent than the Groper govt has proven itself to be.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

They do. They investigate and report the truth, as best as they can determine what the truth is.

The ones who don't verify these things usually come with a disclaimer.

https://www.quora.com/Did-you-know-Fox- ... ference-is

But they don't report "the" truth. They report "their" version of the truth.

Let the market decide the truth on how we want our news.

They report the truth as they can verify it. What they can't verify, they don't report. I've written many times, if you think the CBC isn't reporting the truth as they know it, show us.

If the markets decided, then why does Fox News exist? I don't want my only source of news to be a group dedicated to spreading disinformation, because that is what sells the most. Here's an example of how Fox News will re-write an interview to be the exact opposite of the interview. (starting around 6:00)



And how does a market decide on 'truth' if they are not told the truth to begin with?

[Strutz]

A complete waste of money that is much needed in other areas.

I see it as buying political support.