You should read some literature by Theodore Roszak, Clifford Stoll and Neil Postman. They all have varying degrees but still interesting insights of the effect of the information age.
The cult of information by Roszak
High tech heretic by Stoll
Technopoly by Postman
this thread's got too many words in it, i need a shorter quicker version!
Agreed! That's why I threw in some pictures.
The internet is indeed a place where information can be shared without any control. One might also say, that information can be shared without any accountability on the internet as well. Here in Canada, we have several councils set up to ensure integrity in journalism, adds, and general content that we receive via newsprint, radio, and television. If you have any specific doubts about the separation of Canadian media and the influence of government, you shouldn[HTML_REMOVED]#8217;t hesitate to contact the Canadia Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission of Canada, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Counsel of Canada, or the news outlet in question directly to voice your concern.
To infer that the government of Canada creates misinformation in the media suggests to me that you have probably never had a specific, legitimate, complaint against the freedom of press in Canada that you have voiced through the proper avenues of communication that we are very lucky to have here in Canada.
www.crtc.gc.ca
www.cbsc.ca
http://www.adstandards.com/en/One of the problems with the internet, is that news media hasn[HTML_REMOVED]#8217;t found a way to make a profit from it. When you watch a newscast, the revenue from the commercials pay the wages of the professional journalists who work at the news stations. On the internet, there is comparatively very little money being made on people viewing news content, so where does the money come from to pay the professionals? As a result, this leads to more personal opinions of people untrained in journalism, and less access to integral news outlets.
Furthermore, if you do a little research, you will see that the Canadian press is regarded as one of the most free in the world http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_en-2.pdf . This is something we should nurture, and strive for, not blindly criticize.
-Cody
Someone has been drinking the Asper Family kool-aid. Wow!
Speaking of research, how about you do a little reading of your own:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020213045856/http://www.fpjq.org/canwest/index.html
Granted, this was back in 2002. More recently, Canwest (The Asper Family Empire) has been doing their best to quash freedom of speech in other ways.
Quoted from Wikipedia Article on Canwest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canwest
Upon acquiring Southam's Newspapers from Hollinger International, Israel Asper continued Conrad Black's policy of 'blacklisting' influential Canadian world and military affairs journalist Gwynne Dyer's internationally published articles. This antipathy was prompted by Dyer's views on conflict in the Middle East and his opposition to neoconservatism, which run contrary to the ideological views of Asper and others on Canwest's board of directors then and today. Partially as a response to this, Dyer published a collection of his articles on the Middle East and related topics called "With Every Mistake" in 2005.
I am not by any means saying the Canadian press is perfect and without any bias. The two examples that you provided are evidence of it. Although, being 4 and 8 years old, they may not be the most relevant examples anymore. In fact, it is likeier that in the last 8 years, you have never actively taken issue with either of them.
With the avenues of grievance we have available to us, the Canadian press is as free as the Canadian people demand it to be. What you have done is provide two non-current examples of conflict of interest, and not explained what you have done to address them.
Hypocrite: someone who does not
this thread's got too many words in it, i need a shorter quicker version!
We're all headed to hell in a Louis Vuitton handbag and if you hear the iDrone next to you ringing don't answer, it's probably Jesus making another telemarketing call.
How can it be as free as the people demand?
The press can be free, without bias, because people have the ability to hold the press accountable for their content.
Free is free, no demands.
Free is[HTML_REMOVED]#8230;..not exactly free.
If journalists, directors, editors, and, broadcast engineers worked for free, then there would be no cost for news, and it would be free of potential influence from parent companies, and free to view. If this was the case, people would not have to watch with a critical eye, and hold news agencies accountable for accurate, un-biast news; there would be no demands. This however, is not reality. Reporting, editing, and directing are all necessary jobs to be able to accurately report news in any capacity.
Professional journalists get paid by advertising income, so the flashiest stories make the news.
With regards to flashiness, content has more to do with the people who watch the news than it does advertisers. The more people that watch a newscast, the higher rating it gets, the more commercial time spots cost. News in broadcasting is not a charity, nor is it a non-profit sector, it is a business. Like any business, the first goal is to make money so it can continue to be a business. News is a fine balance between giving people what they want to see, and giving people information that is relevant to them and society.
I am not saying that Canadian news is total crap, but I get a lot more information these days from the internet because I get what I want to learn about, not what advertisers want me to know.
This is completely inaccurate. Advertisers have no say as to the content of any newscasts. In fact, the people that watch the news have much more to do with what make it into your house at 6:00. All advertisers do is pay money for a time slot; it is the viewers that make that time slot more or less valuable.
There will always be a place for the professional reporter, but they cannot compete with what a network of millions of people can report.
What I am trying to say is million of people, in many cases, untrained, uneducated, and without any accountability can not accurately report. People can write what[HTML_REMOVED]#8217;s on their mind, but this is a far cry from news reporting.
The scary thing is, news only exists in Canada, in the capacity it does, because it is mandated in broadcaster[HTML_REMOVED]#8217;s license agreements in order for them to operate. It, in a sense, is a public service that the CRTC insures every Canadian has the right to. If Canadian broadcasters could run American idol all day, they would, and they would make ten fold profits over running a newscast. In fact, there is a push right now from CTV and Canwest Global to lessen the news content as required by their CRTC agreements.
It is your country, it is your news, and it is your responsibility. Educate yourself; get involved, the onus is on you and only you.
Sorry professor, your brand of propaganda doesn't play on my iPod.
From which corporation do you exact a paycheque?
Oh, and you started off saying there is no manipulation of the press in Canada. Now you say any manipulation is the fault of the people for not being better informed?
Sorry professor, your brand of propaganda doesn't play on my iPod.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I want to know what the point of the CanCon (Canadian Content) laws are when random viewers are increasingly downloading whole television shows and movies via bittorrent, or via legitimate sources. How would the government intend to enforce it if Amazon or Apple made settlement free peering arrangements with every major Canadian ISP and gave away movies for almost free?
I would propose that if the government intends the cancon laws as a method to prevent american cultural assimilation of Canada, particularly via television programs, that the cancon requirements be replaced with a "anything but american" TV requirement. Show subtitled or dubbed tv shows from germany, japan and india.
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes, it has not died out."
- The Daily Telegraph (1877)
Craigslist, et al killed e-bay and is killing newspapers now too.
Of course it did. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find people to kill using the newspaper?
finally getting some exercise, eh? Good for you!
All the Internet has done is massively expand information flow - input and output. It's done so to a greater extent than other changing technologies (eg phone, fax) but in the end, it's simply an extended network communication medium.
People who lack ability to assimilate, process and analyze big storehouses of information will be disadvantage; but then they've always been disadvantaged. People who can critically analyze and process lots of information will have extraordinary advantages - again, there's nothing new here. What's new is the degree to which people will win and lose due to an ability to process information.
What's new is what Darthyoga alludes to. The Internet is also an output mechanism in the sense that people can take action on that information because the unit costs of sending out information is so minimal (eg email blasts, a blog, viral videos etc). People who know how to use this medium and engage other people will win really really big.
I'm not quite as pessimistic as Bukkake. Sure there will be a tendency for limited attention span but i don't think the medium itself is to blame. I do believe that grassroots, niche interests enthusiast communities also win big using the Internet (eg freeride mountainbikers, lovers and protectors of frogs etc). What I mean is that there always were a lot of talkers and not a lot of do'ers. What the Internet does is allow the talkers to have a voice (Eg. all the keyboard NSMB warriors who always threathen to stake out trails to look for the mythical trail nazi - we wouldn't even notice their clueless posturing if they couldn't post about it.) . People who tend to take action will always do things with or without a "global computer network". All the Internet does is make the job of spreading a message easier and quicker.
well said
I mostly just use the internet to follow 50 cent on twitter and watch people fucking on red tube. I was unaware there was much else
this thread's got too many words in it, i need a shorter quicker version!
makes yer brain hurt don't it?
i'm a has been, trying to be a never was on the comeback trail.
All the Internet has done is massively expand information flow - input and output. It's done so to a greater extent than other changing technologies (eg phone, fax) but in the end, it's simply an extended network communication medium.
People who lack ability to assimilate, process and analyze big storehouses of information will be disadvantage; but then they've always been disadvantaged. People who can critically analyze and process lots of information will have extraordinary advantages - again, there's nothing new here. What's new is the degree to which people will win and lose due to an ability to process information.
What's new is what Darthyoga alludes to. The Internet is also an output mechanism in the sense that people can take action on that information because the unit costs of sending out information is so minimal (eg email blasts, a blog, viral videos etc). People who know how to use this medium and engage other people will win really really big.
I'm not quite as pessimistic as Bukkake. Sure there will be a tendency for limited attention span but i don't think the medium itself is to blame. I do believe that grassroots, niche interests enthusiast communities also win big using the Internet (eg freeride mountainbikers, lovers and protectors of frogs etc). What I mean is that there always were a lot of talkers and not a lot of do'ers. What the Internet does is allow the talkers to have a voice (Eg. all the keyboard NSMB warriors who always threathen to stake out trails to look for the mythical trail nazi - we wouldn't even notice their clueless posturing if they couldn't post about it.) . People who tend to take action will always do things with or without a "global computer network". All the Internet does is make the job of spreading a message easier and quicker.
Very well put. And I'd like to add that because of the speed with which the information can travel around the world, the perspective on one's own life could be changed in so far as that certain communities are just "a click" away and this can have a lasting effect on your own life - getting something started in your own community, meeting said community members etc. - kinda like the "Global Village" although this more or less seems to be a rather strange and not really fitting term, because just by surfing the internet and its vast and easy accessible information does not change the real world outside your window - meaning that just because we can chat with foreign people our attitude towards different values, ethics and viewpoints do not necessarily change.
Same as before - a person with an open mind and a curiosity towards life does not need the internet. And has never needed a lot of information, just a strong desire to do somethign about anything worth the trouble and extra miles.
"You don't learn from experience. You learn from reflecting on the experience."
- Kristen Ulmer
Forum jump:
