carlfense Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 A lot has been made of the contrast between how the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation handled the events yesterday in Ottawa, and how our own cable news networks handle practically everything. . . . Imagine that. There was no Political Powerhouse panel to explain how this might have an impact on the Harper government. There was no aging M.P. representing Yellowknife hollering that this never would have happened if they'd only have built the dang pipeline, and no young opposition M.P. speculating about how this never would have happened if they'd secured the border with Quebec the way he and his ghostwriter had suggested in his recent book. There were no former generals on the dodge, speculating sadly that the shootings may indicate "a new stage" in the war on terror. There was a deplorable lack of political opportunism, and a dreadful dearth of doomsaying. There was no fancy logo. No heroic music adapted from a movie trailer especially for the occasion. There was only Mansbridge, the calmest guy in the hemisphere, who went almost two hours without a break at one point, telling us what we knew and (more important) what we didn't know, adding some historical perspective from his long career, and occasionally tossing it to one of his colleagues, who would do the same. And then, when there clearly was no more news coming, they all signed off. http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Voice_Of_Experience 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 You mean they aren't supposed to over report and go on and on and on about how if only we had no guns in our society and if we didn't have people who loved guns in our society this would have never happened and all these people would be happily living ever after? Yep....that sounds pretty nice. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 You mean they aren't supposed to over report and go on and on and on about how if only we had no guns in our society and if we didn't have people who loved guns in our society this would have never happened and all these people would be happily living ever after? Yep....that sounds pretty nice. Or tying him to ISIS because of his religion? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Or constantly reporting on how because of the horrible conditions of some minority (that I'm sure somehow he belongs to) it's societies' fault that he was so distraught with his lot in life that this was his only outlet for his emotions. I think we are in agreement that it would be nice to live in a land where the media doesn't over blow and over analyze every tragedy that happens. Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 A lot has been made of the contrast between how the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation handled the events yesterday in Ottawa, and how our own cable news networks handle practically everything. . . . Imagine that. There was no Political Powerhouse panel to explain how this might have an impact on the Harper government. There was no aging M.P. representing Yellowknife hollering that this never would have happened if they'd only have built the dang pipeline, and no young opposition M.P. speculating about how this never would have happened if they'd secured the border with Quebec the way he and his ghostwriter had suggested in his recent book. There were no former generals on the dodge, speculating sadly that the shootings may indicate "a new stage" in the war on terror. There was a deplorable lack of political opportunism, and a dreadful dearth of doomsaying. There was no fancy logo. No heroic music adapted from a movie trailer especially for the occasion. There was only Mansbridge, the calmest guy in the hemisphere, who went almost two hours without a break at one point, telling us what we knew and (more important) what we didn't know, adding some historical perspective from his long career, and occasionally tossing it to one of his colleagues, who would do the same. And then, when there clearly was no more news coming, they all signed off. http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Voice_Of_Experience Part of the reason for that could be the fact that the freedom of speech guidelines in Canada look nothing like they do here. 2 Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 Part of the reason for that could be the fact that the freedom of speech guidelines in Canada look nothing like they do here. This is true. Link to comment
strigori Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Once upon a time ago our news looked very similar. When the old anchors (who are mostly dead now) were behind the desks, there was not the sensationalism we see now. Fox started it, and everyone else followed along chasing the ratings dollars. Maybe we should amend things where any program that will call itself "News" is forbidden from any advertising during the program. Link to comment
notherplace93 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Once upon a time ago our news looked very similar. When the old anchors (who are mostly dead now) were behind the desks, there was not the sensationalism we see now. Fox started it, and everyone else followed along chasing the ratings dollars. Maybe we should amend things where any program that will call itself "News" is forbidden from any advertising during the program. Hey, I'm no fan of Fox, but if we really wanna go back to what started sensationalism a.k.a yellow journalism, go all the way back to the late 1890's, read about the U.S.S. Havana and how we basically started a war with Spain based entirely on a series of conjecture articles that indicated Spain as being responsible for the ships sinking. Link to comment
strigori Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Once upon a time ago our news looked very similar. When the old anchors (who are mostly dead now) were behind the desks, there was not the sensationalism we see now. Fox started it, and everyone else followed along chasing the ratings dollars. Maybe we should amend things where any program that will call itself "News" is forbidden from any advertising during the program. Hey, I'm no fan of Fox, but if we really wanna go back to what started sensationalism a.k.a yellow journalism, go all the way back to the late 1890's, read about the U.S.S. Havana and how we basically started a war with Spain based entirely on a series of conjecture articles that indicated Spain as being responsible for the ships sinking. Have you seen our news now? The cable news channels spend more time on conjecture than news, and it is not close. Link to comment
presidentjlh Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Once upon a time ago our news looked very similar. When the old anchors (who are mostly dead now) were behind the desks, there was not the sensationalism we see now. Fox started it, and everyone else followed along chasing the ratings dollars. Maybe we should amend things where any program that will call itself "News" is forbidden from any advertising during the program. Hey, I'm no fan of Fox, but if we really wanna go back to what started sensationalism a.k.a yellow journalism, go all the way back to the late 1890's, read about the U.S.S. Havana and how we basically started a war with Spain based entirely on a series of conjecture articles that indicated Spain as being responsible for the ships sinking. Have you seen our news now? The cable news channels spend more time on conjecture than news, and it is not close. It's always been awful. We only remember the Edward R. Murrows because they were such exceptions. Link to comment
Recommended Posts