1
   

Canadians want Fox News Now!

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 06:44 pm
Abbott hoed into the Canberra press gallery today - interesting discussion about it this am on Media Watch.

The processes of the political press gallery and the milieu in which they, and the pollies, move, fascinate me - such an insular little world - so intense and active and sort of tropical in its teemingness.

Abbott says that a "left-wing" press cannot understand the processes of a conservative government. Our dear little centrist to slightly left press gallery must have been amused to be called left wing - I doubt if some of them really understand the term.

The program also discussed how the press eventually reacted to Latham's refusal to play the media game - regarded them all as simple infotainment peddlars, no time for them as journalists. Fair enough assessment of most - but not, I would have thought, Grattan and Kelly, for instance.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 07:11 pm
Another little comment on infotainment.

I was listening to an interview with an Australian reporter in Iraq. His group had received special praise, or an award or something, for their war coverage, and his comments were fascinating.

He said that he and his crew had been offered the chance to go and get some background stuff somewhere - I missed what and where cos I tuned in too late.

Whatever it was, it was not to be filmd, so they took off in what they stood up in, laptops and such, voice recorders and still cameras - NOT the big camera that would have enabled live film feeds etc.

Anyhoo, as events transpired, they did not return to their base for a couple of weeks, so reported most of the war sans clothes, toiletries, and main camera.

He said this was fantastic! (Apart from the clothes and toiletries).

Because - they were relieved of the need to do a damned live feed to their headquarters every night - and of having to com up with hot footage for the evening news.

This meant the "infotainment" demands were gone - and they could concentrate on really finding out what was going on, talking to locals, real news - not the pap and exciting stuff that television "news" demands.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2005 08:17 pm
OK everyone. I want you to follow me through this one, because it is truly a classic.

I have kind of given up on convincing certain people about how this right wing media machine functions. A lot of the folks we are talking with don't even believe it exists, quite aside the covert and disingenuous way it functions, and how it is linked back and forth, etc. So I thought I'd go back to Just Wonder's original post and do some research on the author of the piece (claiming Canadians wanted fox now) and on the publication she was carried by. Here's the first paragraph...
Quote:
The Canadians are checking in. Canadians are logging on to the Canada Free Press website in droves, and it's largely courtesy of Fox News. Liberally quoting Rachel Marsden's insightful column about Fox News versus the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), I wrote a column, Thursday about what a dramatic improvement the more professional Fox News would be over leftwing slanted, taxpayer-funded CBC in balance-deprived Canada. The letters that poured in within the first day after the column affirm my belief that mainstream Canada wants Fox NOW.


That name Marsden sounded familiar, so I went looking for her. I found her website. Take a peak... http://www.rachelmarsden.com/

Looking a bit further, this dilly comes up...
Quote:
Woman Guilty of Harassing Man in Canada
Updated: Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2004 - 11:22 AM

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) - A former U.S. think tank employee has pleaded guilty to harassing an ex-boyfriend, former Vancouver radio personality Michael Morgan.

The judge gave Rachel Marsden a conditional discharge with one year of probation, meaning she can avoid having a criminal record if she has no other run-ins with the law over the next 12 months.

"I promise that I'll never be back before this court for the rest of my life. You have my word on that," Marsden told Judge Bill Kitchen in court Tuesday.

At the time of her arrest two years ago, Marsden worked for the Free Congress Foundation, a think tank in Washington, D.C. She resigned months later when her employer learned of the harassment charge.

She was also forced to resign last May while working under the name Elle Henderson in the constituency office of a Conservative member of Canada's Parliament.

Under the terms of her sentence, Marsden, 29, is free to return to the United States. She cannot write about Morgan or his family on the Internet, a condition imposed because she has her own Web site.

Marsden was charged with harassment after she persisted in telephoning and sending e-mails to Morgan, now 54, for almost a month after he ended their relationship.
LINK

Now, the thing is, aside from the bit about working under a false name, this was her second harrassment case to hit the press. The first involved a swim coach at SFU in Vancouver (where I got my degree, as it happens). In this case (it was a biggy in the Vancouver papers because of the sex element...and finally, blatham twigs on why this name is so familiar!) she charged coach Liam Donnelly with harrassment and the university initially found in her favor, even though he provided all the sexual emails and pictures she had sent him as enticements. He was later exonerated.

Following that case, a Canadian conservative and business-funded think tank, The Fraser Institute, did its own review of this case. Their take on the episode was as regards how 'politically correct' the university had been in dismissing Donnelly. Of course, she wasn't an up and coming right wing pundit then. Item 4 of their findings...
Quote:
SFU officials had in their possession materials that included numerous instances where in her evidence and submissions Marsden had contradicted herself, showing at least that she was unreliable and most likely indicating that the entire case was manufactured.
LINK

But now, she's on Dennis Miller and Bill O'Reilly and she's a political pundit. On a recent radio show, her guest was...
Quote:
TBA: Ann Coulter - Political commentator and author of How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)


We'll note that Rachel had been listed at GOPUSA, but they pulled the page down.

So, that's whose "insightful" column is praised in the original piece Just Wonders posted up front on this thread. That piece was written by one Judi McLeod. Here's a bit from Judy...
Quote:
The United Nations, which has a finger in every global pie, and ambitions to take over the World Internet, is inching its way towards calendar reform...
Take a peak at this one too...OCCULT UN

Anyway, our new friend Judi is apparently the founding editor of Canadian Free Press. The CFP have precious little data available regarding who they are (and where their funding comes from). But if you type that name in google, you'll get hundreds or thousands of linked right wing sites and columns. Dollars to donuts, and I'll try to get more info, they are funded as so many of these sites and publications and think tanks are funded.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 05:31 am
MG:-

Looks like I had the lot weighed up correctly with my superficial analysis of one paragraph.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 06:38 am
blatham wrote:

In any case, the Columbia Journalism Review did a report on a particular element of the CBC story...ie the role of the blog world in pointing out how the CBC story was weak and the documents undependable. It's a very good piece. I'll link it first, then the second link is to letters received in response to it. Talk about culture capture.
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/1/pein-blog.asp
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/1/letters.asp


I'm confused, Sir. Did you mean to say CBS, not CBC?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 06:51 am
Where is Ms JustWonders anyway? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 07:01 am
blatham wrote:
OK everyone. I want you to follow me through this one, because it is truly a classic....


It truly is! Laughing
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 07:09 am
JTT:-

She is sticking herself back together.Again.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 08:16 am
blatham wrote:
spendius wrote:
If different points of view are allowed,even encouraged,it basically means that they are unimportant.In Islamic societies they simply have a different standard concerning what is important.
For example-the trivia forum is as clean as a formica worktop by English standards.
Any presented view is harmless to the elite.


There's a lovely book titled "The Optimistic Child", based on a broad study of children against the criterion of optimism/pessimism. Two interesting conclusions which arose from this study were:
1) the optimisticly inclined child was more likely to be successful
2) the pessimisticly inclined child was more likely to be right.


This book and study design was written by a pessimist. So his or her bias is reflected in his conclusions.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 08:35 am
Lola:-

Being "right" is anathema to an intellectual.And they titter a lot.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 08:43 am
timberlandko wrote:
Indeed FOX and Air America - and the nascent Gore/Hyatt cable/satellite TV enterprise, INdTV, are fully comparable in every respect other than the market success enjoyed by FOX. It remains to be seen what will come of Gore's latest gambit.

And, yes, Lola, I'm familiar with the concept of monopoly, and I'm pleased to see the beginning of the crumbling of the Democratic Party's 70-plus-year monopoly of American politico-economics.


Sorry Timber, I've been too busy with a deadline to keep up my reading on this thread. I've scanned it just now, so I may have missed something. But would you explain to me what you mean here? How exactly do you see FOX and Air America and INdTV as comparable in every way? The ways they are similar is not my concern. I'm talking about their differences. FOX is called "news" whereas, now I may be mistaken, but it's not Air America News is it? Air America is not a TV network is it? Is it INdTV News? Let me know because if it isn't, that makes them very different indeed. And different in a defining way.

I'm also confused about your comparison of Murdoch and Clear Channel and your assumption that we think it represents a conspiracy, and the one you refer to above, the "Democratic Party's 70-plus-year monopoly of American politico-economics." Are you making comparisons between two unlike entities? Unless of course you're suggesting the "70-plus year monopoly" was a conspiracy of some sort. Surely Timber, you wouldn't be so foolish as to place yourself in with the Roswell conspiracy theorist bunch.

Quote:
Of course it is, msolga - Murdoch is the Anti-Christ, the real Damien. Well, thats not exactly true - he's merely the frontman for a vast extraterrestrial conspiracy now very near to realizing its goal of dominating this planet in order to exploit its resources and enslave its inhabitants.

Its OK to tell you earthlings this now, since by this point, we're unstoppable. That Roswell thing back in '47 gave us a little scare, but we managed, thanks to the cooperation of the Trilateral Commission and The World Bowling Congress.

It was us who set you up the bomb. All your base belong to us.

Resistance is futile.


You know, I only read a bit of your responses in which you labeled msolga a conspiracy theorist. Likening her to the Roswell bunch. That wasn't fair. And I have to agree with msolga and dlowan.......you can be a condescending know-it-all sometimes. I know you were just joshin, but joshin is a excellent method for projection, with humor as a facade. As dlowan pointed out, neither msolga nor dlowan has mentioned a conspiracy in relation to FOX in this discussion. So who's the conspiracy theorist here? There's no negative in the unconscious, you know.

Try to stick to the point, will ya? No name calling. It's a violation of the TOS. Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 08:44 am
JTT wrote:
blatham wrote:

In any case, the Columbia Journalism Review did a report on a particular element of the CBC story...ie the role of the blog world in pointing out how the CBC story was weak and the documents undependable. It's a very good piece. I'll link it first, then the second link is to letters received in response to it. Talk about culture capture.
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/1/pein-blog.asp
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/1/letters.asp


I'm confused, Sir. Did you mean to say CBS, not CBC?


Call me sir again and I'll slap you silly.

Yes, I did mean to say CBS.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 08:47 am
spendius wrote:
Lola:-

Being "right" is anathema to an intellectual.And they titter a lot.


We pride ourselves on our titters.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 08:48 am
"they" being intellectuals, anathemas or those who are "right"? right or wrong being right is something to titter about.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 09:05 am
when it comes to titering, I'm all aglow.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 09:19 am
and do you shine!

Hide my light under a bushel? NO! I'm gonna let it shine..........let is shine let it shine let it shine.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 09:23 am
All the glitters is not gold.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 09:27 am
I'll take more care if I can.

Ints titter at righteousness.(see "noggin contents")
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 09:27 am
Quote:
There's no negative in the unconscious, you know.


I've been informed that no one knows what this means but me. So I'll give an example:


If person A says to person B, "I know you think I want to kill you" but person B hasn't mentioned killing. This means.........what?

1. person A can read person B's mind
2. person B is paranoid
3. person A is thinking he'd like to kill person B (figuratively of course)
4. I'd like a Ham sandwich

This is a test.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 09:28 am
so then, I titter too........but not self righteously. Never that!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 10:31:37