Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html)

I like this part:

Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987.

This is the type of censorship the left would like the bring to the United States. Hard to call your regulations "freedom"... it is more in line with Russia .

I'm just not that content with allowing the government to be the arbiter of truth.

Thank you. Tom. I am a proud Canadian.

Yeah, while I'm not a huge fan of Fox News (or any news, I'll be honest), it seems silly to keep it out simply because it's right wing.

Hello s:

That's not why it's being kept out. It's because they LIE!

excon

... it seems silly to keep it out simply because it's right wing.Apparently you didn't bother reading the article nor the quote I put in the post. Nice going!

Whoops, I didn't mean for anyone to take my comment as negative. What I meant is that *I* don't trust any news, regardless of whether it comes from the right or left. Fox News in particular is a total nuthouse and its influence terrifies me more than many of the others. I'm definitely not "tsk tsking" Canada!

I am... and we have at least one person making comment here in support of this type of censorship of the press who claims to revere the 1st Amendment guarantees.
What's next ? Canada beating up reporters like the Chinese ,the Egyptians ,or the lefties in Wisconsin ?

What's next ? Canada beating up reporters ...
Why, who's beating up reporters?

I am... and we have at least one person making comment here in support of this type of censorship of the press who claims to revere the 1st Amendment guarantees.
What's next ? Canada beating up reporters like the Chinese ,the Egyptians ,or the lefties in Wisconsin ?

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news.

Tomder, how is this censorship or do you like being spoonfed misleading information ?
The First Amendment doesn't give you the rights to spread falsehoods or pass off misleading information as truth..
Unless you are referring to Freedom of the Press.

Mind you I suppose they could always have Fox Makebelieve and have it on Comedy Central.

Yes we have a number of "newspapers" like that in the UK, but everyone knows not to believe what they publish.

Fox News is as credible as The Onion.

yes we have a number of "newspapers" like that in the UK, but everyone knows not to believe what they publish.
I think the important thing for everyone to remember is it doesn't matter where you are: if you live in a free country you will be able to access all the misleading baloney published. That's the beauty of the internet.

The flip-side is conscientious persons are then able to fact check what they read with further research. I think what some people display is a disregard for the ability, nay, the duty of a citizen to double check information resources. Result: one is merely regurgitating lies (exhibit A: Tea Party).

Does that mean Fox News shouldn't exist? Does it matter? I firmly hope and believe that we shall ultimately know them by the fruit they bear (exhibit A: Tea Party).

What saddens me is places like North Korea, where people truly don't have the freedom to decide what is truth and what is not.

Okay-that's about all the soap-boxy pseudo political ranting I can manage for one day. I try to keep it at a minimum.

I am ...and we have at least one person making comment here in support of this type of censorship of the press who claims to revere the 1st Amendment guarantees. Hello again, tom:

If you mean me, I said nothing about curtailing their right to lie.

excon

Let's forbid politicians from lying, whaddya say?


Tasha Kheiriddin: RFK Jr. blasts Harper, Sun TV. ‘A wizard of bigotry and belligerent religiosity ‘ (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/01/tasha-kheiriddin-robert-f-kennedy-jr-vs-sun-tv-news/)

What is it with Americans who insist on commenting on Canadian issues about which they know, er, nothing? The latest about of delusional profundity comes from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in an article entitled, “Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all.”


As America’s middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades — against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News — fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators today announced they would reject efforts by Canada’s right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

Note to Mr. Kennedy: Fox News is already here… you can subscribe to it in Canada, as long as you buy the right cable package. The only exception is for subscribers of Videotron, which does not offer the channel, so Quebec remains largely Fox-free. Ironically, it is the owners of Videotron – Quebecor Media – who are bringing the channel Mr. Kennedy is actually complaining about to Canadian airwaves: Sun TV News.

But it gets better. To hear Mr. Kennedy describe it, the only thing standing between Canadians and journalistic Armageddon is our law against dissemination of “false and misleading news”:


The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1988. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves.

Actually, it’s not that provision that makes Canada’s airwaves an alleged paragon of civility. Our version of the “fairness doctrine” is enshrined in the Canadian Broadcasting Act.

Section 3(1) (I) (iv) mandates that broadcasters,


“provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern”

While Section 3(1)(d) states that


“the Canadian broadcasting system should

(i) serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada…

(iii) through its programming… serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstance and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society…

In other words, broadcasters in Canada are obliged to provide differing views, but since the acceptable view is already defined as the left-leaning Trudeauvian vision of things, good luck establishing a station, network, or program devoted solely to questioning these sacred cows from the right.

Of course, figuring this out would imply actually reading the Act, which Mr. Kennedy no doubt has little time to do, between beating up polluters, teaching students about the evils of corporate America, and writing misleading articles. His comments remind me of the disinformation-dressed-up-as-film that was Sicko, Michael Moore’s 2007 opus on health care, in which Mr. Moore claimed to find no evidence of long wait times in Canadian emergency rooms.

But objectivity was never Mr. Moore’s forte. And it isn’t Mr. Kennedy’s either. As a closer, consider his description of Prime Minister Stephen Harper:


Harper, often referred to as “George W. Bush’s Mini Me,” is known for having mounted a Bush like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.

Wow, that’s balanced! And accurate! Maybe the U.S. should bring back its Fairness Doctrine, to oblige Mr. Kennedy to be civil like us good ol’ Canadians, eh? Just a thought.

National Post

At least Kennedy is still free to slander and lie.

The american Fox News does indeed get some limited airplay if you have the right digital package. The article is about establishing a Fox-style "news" show.

Curley , when I hear the Fox Lied mantra being chanted by drones I recall Pontius Pilot's famous biblical question 'what is truth'?Spun through the narrow filters on the lefty lens I'm sure all that happens on Fox is a lie.

I will remind all that the top ranked shows on FOX allow alternate points of view very much in compliance with the old so called 'fairness doctrine.' Hannity ,O'Reilley , Van Sustren et al all debate people with opposing points of view . MSNBC does not with the exception of Chris Matthews.

When I see this Canada dictate I just have to wonder which special interest is being paid off . I can't believe these Canadians are proud of the fact that they refuse to air alternate points of view . Given that they elected a fairly conservative PM I guess most of the people aren't pleased by this bureaucratic dictate.

I will remind all that the top ranked shows on FOX allow alternate points of viewHello again, tom:

I'm not talking about points of view. I'm talking about LYING. Since I don't LIKE Fox, I point my finger there. I'm not naïve enough, though, to believe that libs don't lie too. That, however, takes nothing away from the fact that FOX lies..

Here's the most recent example I can think of. I'll certainly get the tapes if you insist, but maybe, after all these years, you'll take my word for it... You SHOULD.. Megan Kelly on her show said she watches ALL the shows on Fox and NONE of them EVER made reference to Nazi's, Hitler and those guys... Of course, there are TONS of those references emanating from Fox. Now, that's just one lie. I'm sure there are others.

excon

Curley , when I hear the Fox Lied mantra being chanted by drones I recall Pontius Pilot's famous biblical question 'what is truth'?Spun through the narrow filters on the lefty lens I'm sure all that happens on Fox is a lie.

I will remind all that the top ranked shows on FOX allow alternate points of view very much in compliance with the old so called 'fairness doctrine.' Hannity ,O'Reilley , Van Sustren et al all debate people with opposing points of view . MSNBC does not with the exception of Chris Matthews.

When I see this Canada dictate I just have to wonder which special interest is being paid off . I can't believe these Canadians are proud of the fact that they refuse to air alternate points of view . Given that they elected a fairly conservative PM I guess most of the people aren't pleased by this bureaucratic dictate.


Hi Tom,

I don't think the issue us just about opposing points of view. The right can put forward a position they know to be false and misleading. In other words it doesn't accord with the facts. The left could respond to their claims by putting forward equally misleading and false information. Thus we have two opposing points of view which are false and misleading.

Think back to NK's post on Fox and the health care debate. As I said then the media has a responsibility not to deliberately put forward information they know to be false and misleading. In Australia journalists are required to follow a code of conduct. Within the television industry there is also a code of practice. This sounds a bit like 'overkill' but the media have a responsibility. Even though we have regulations in place, a government run T.V. station and a government run radio network we still have freedom of speech. I know it doesn't seems possible, but it is.

We/you have freedom of speech. This does not mean that we should say whatever we like- whenever we like simply because we can. A person could run into a crowded station and shout, FIRE, simply because freedom of speech allows it.

From your point of view, when it comes to the media, are you for unrestricted freedom of speech?

Regards

Tut

Hi Tom,


We/you have freedom of speech. This does not mean that we should say whatever we like- whenever we like simply because we can. From your point of view, when it comes to the media, are you for unrestricted freedom of speech?

Regards

Tut

Tut you have to understand that in their screwed up view of the world you are are not entitled to stop someone yelling fire! You are not entitled to insist that what you are told does not contain lies and untruths. Their system permits every con artist in history to ply his trade with impunity

TUT ,the fire in the theater example is tiresome. Everyone knows the issue there is public safety.
Canada continues to slip further from freedom of the press according to 'Reporters Without Borders' and it is being applauded here as a good thing . I find that amazing.

Well hope you all are content watching Keith Olberman's countdown to obscurity on the Al Gore Network disseminating his version of the truth .

Megan Kelly

Lol what she says sure does threatens the free world !

Their system permits every con artist in history to ply his trade with impunityHello again, clete:

Freedom does have some downsides. But, it's better than the government deciding who can say what. At least WE think so.

excon

TUT ,the fire in the theater example is tiresome. Everyone knows the issue there is public safety.
Canada continues to slip further from freedom of the press according to 'Reporters Without Borders' and it is being applauded here as a good thing . I find that amazing.

Well hope you all are content watching Keith Olberman's countdown to obscurity on the Al Gore Network disseminating his version of the truth .


Hi again Tom,

Yes, but I was interested in your position in relation to the media and freedom of speech.


Tut

I think FOX has an abolute right to their editorial positions . That is what this really is all about .

I think FOX has an abolute right to their editorial positions . That is what this really is all about .Sure but it ain't news reporting.

Prove they lie during their news content .

I think FOX has an abolute right to their editorial positions . That is what this really is all about .Hello again, tom:

It IS what this is about... But they call themselves Fox NEWS, and much of what they deliver is NOT news, but, as you say, it's editorial OPINION... That's fine. But, the problem is they DON'T distinguish their NEWS shows from their OPINION shows. Consequently, people can't tell the difference... In fact, Glenn Becks public thinks that what he says is actual REAL NEWS, and NOT his opinion. Even if they wrote a teeny tiny disclosure that sped across the bottom of the screen informing the viewer that the speaker is speaking his OPINION... But they don't.

That's a LIE by ommission.

excon

prove they lie during their news content .
It's a pretty popular case:
The Media Can Legally Lie (http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html)

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

prove they lie during their news content .Hello again, tom:

That's a good question... If I could tell who was delivering what, then I could answer... Actually, FOX has some pretty good journalists... Greta, Major Garrett (who's gone now), and Shepard Smith. I KNOW that I'm getting news when I'm watching their shows...

But, here's were it gets funky... Is Megan Kelly and opinion show or a news show? How can you tell?

excon

I think FOX has an abolute right to their editorial positions . That is what this really is all about .


Hi Tom,

I take this to mean that Fox can say whatever they like whenever the like.

No one should have to prove that Fox or any other network is lying. A code of conduct puts the responsibility on the Networks. In other words, the networks need to demonstrate they are telling the truth.

Doesn't having to prove the networks are lying (a very difficult task) result in the right and left competing to see who can come up with the biggest misleading statements?

I know this statement is also tiresome, but "All freedom and no responsibility?"

Tut

No one should have to prove that Fox or any other network is lying

What ? So where is the basis of the charge that would deny them access to competing in the Canadian market place? What you have here is the equivalent of a bureaucracy in government being the arbiters of the truth . It's no better than Torquemada's inquisition,or the Soviet politboro .

The fact is that the overwhelming reporting of the news is slanted towards an editorial point of view... and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that . In the true free market of ideas ,the consumer is the arbiter of truth ,not some government agency. It is not a free press otherwise. Canada does not have a free press ,and the Canadian here applauds that .
To the Americans here I leave you with the words of Jefferson
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

And the words of the biggest defender of the Constitution James Madison .

"The security of the freedom of the press requires that it should be exempt, not only from previous restraint of the executive, as in Great Britain; but from legislative restraint also; and this exemption, not only from the previous inspection of licensers, but from the subsequent penalty of laws."

The fact is that the overwhelming reporting of the news is slanted towards an editorial point of view...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that . In the true free market of ideas ,the consumer is the arbiter of truth ,not some government agency. It is not a free press otherwise. Canada does not have a free press ,and the Canadian here applauds that .
[/I]


Hi Tom,

The free market of ideas doesn't work for Wikipedia so why would it work for anything else?

I don't think you are a fan of Wikipedia, yet it makes use of the free market of ideas. There are some interesting things in Wikipedia, but there are some things which are very inaccurate as well. What chance these inaccuracies will eventually right themselves via the invisible hand?

The economic idea of the ,'invisible hand' claims that the consumer pursuing their own self interest will provide general benefit. You seem to expressing a similar idea when it comes to free market ideas. The free market of ideas will produce veracity through a process of competition?

As you know Wikipedia doesn't have a editor as such. It makes use, and has made use of millions of people contributing to the publication. The process may have tightened up recently but basically anyone and edit and re edit any entry. And continue to do so if they wish.

Contributors who largely take on an editorial role are anonymous therefore don't need to take responsibility for what they produce. The hope is that the consumers pursuing their own self interest will come up with a accurate and factual encyclopedia.

Do you think there is such a thing as an accurate crowd decision when it comes to the media? If both sides of the media continue to post inaccuracies will we eventually get to the truth? If you think this is possible then I would like to know how.

Regards


Tut

I don't think you are a fan of Wikipedia, yet it makes use of the free market of ideas. There are some interesting things in Wikipedia, but there are some things which are very inaccurate as well. What chance these inaccuracies will eventually right themselves via the invisible hand?

Knowing that I don't use Wiki as a primary source.

The economic idea of the ,'invisible hand' claims that the consumer pursuing their own self interest will provide general benefit. You seem to expressing a similar idea when it comes to free market ideas. The free market of ideas will produce veracity through a process of competition?

The economic idea of the ,'invisible hand' claims that the consumer pursuing their own self interest will provide general benefit. You seem to expressing a similar idea when it comes to free market ideas. The free market of ideas will produce veracity through a process of competition?

As you know Wikipedia doesn't have a editor as such. It makes use, and has made use of millions of people contributing to the publication. The process may have tightened up recently but basically anyone and edit and re edit any entry. And continue to do so if they wish.

Contributors who largely take on an editorial role are anonymous therefore don't need to take responsibility for what they produce. The hope is that the consumers pursuing their own self interest will come up with a accurate and factual encyclopedia.

Do you think there is such a thing as an accurate crowd decision when it comes to the media? If both sides of the media continue to post inaccuracies will we eventually get to the truth? If you think this is possible then I would like to know how.


Assuming I see something blatantly false or misleading ;according to their alleged model ,I could edit the content .

I don't even mind anonymous editorial . That model served the US founders well ,as does the flow of information and opinion in the ether .The revolution in Egypt was largely mobilized by an anon.posting on Facebook.

But that is not the FOX model . It is very easy to find both the backround and editorial position that each Fox contributor has .


This whole posting is hilarious .Back in the infancy of broadcast media ,the public placed tremendous trust in the absurdity that the word of anchor of the major broadcasts networks was unimpeachable truth. When Walter Cronkite told America that the Vietnam war was lost ,suddenly the public opinion shifted. Only later in his life did we learn that even Uncle Walt filtered content through a lefty prism.
The heir to his anchor desk tried to use blatantly false information on GW Bush in an attempt to influence the 2004 Presidential elections.

I understand that this is the reality of the press and I am quite content with that as long as there is no exclusion from the market place because of slant.Dan Rather's deceit was easily exposed by the blogsphere. There is room on broadcast television for right slant like Fox ;left slant like MSNBC ,and all positions in between . If al Jazeera can make a go of it in the American market then they should go for it . I make no distinction. Let the market decide.

The problem in Canada and here is that Fox is dominating the cable market . That rubs the leftys the wrong way so they go to their fall back position... use the government to control content . BAD IDEA!!

The problem in Canada and here is that Fox is dominating the cable market . That rubs the leftys the wrong way so they go to their fall back position....use the government to control content . Justin Bieber dominates the popularity charts too I bet you think he's great! Fox does what sells: package the fears of the old conservatives and sell it back to them. You can keep your precious Beck, I personally think he's either unhinged or he's whored himself out for the money, either way Fox decides to give him a large platform and promotes him.
I'm OK with our government denying a license to a broadcaster that wants to define themselves as a news channel but wants to make sure they don't have to tell the truth. In the same way that, as you would have it, I don't my child to die of tainted meat to discover that I shouldn't buy from that unregulated butcher. Often the "free market" is not the answer.

There is a physical harm in tainted meat. There is no harm in hearing a different point of view.
But hey ;no problem !Keep the blinders on .

Hello, again:

I have a different question... In the US, there has ALWAYS been people on the extreme right. They've just never had a platform before FOX. Does the popularity of FOX indicate that their views are accepted, or does it indicate their power to persuade?

excon

There is no harm in hearing a different point of view.
Hello again, tom:

Do you think the state radio of Kim Jong mentally Ill offers a different point of view? Could it be that propaganda is simply "a different point of view"?

excon

There is a physical harm in tainted meat. The deregulation of the banks by the republicans caused no physical harm either but look what it caused.

The american Fox News does indeed get some limited airplay if you have the right digital package. The article is about establishing a Fox-style "news" show.

The title of your thread is "Cool: Fox News Will Not Be Moving Into Canada After All." They're already there, so now it's about a 'Fox-style "news" show?'

What is a " Fox-style " Fox-style " show" anyway? One that more often than not welcomes more than one point of view?

This is how the NORKS are getting the truth. The SKs are floating baloons over the DMZ with "supplies " Included in the supplies are pictures of what is going on in the Levant and Mahgreb . Rumor is that there have been clashes between the people and the Kim goons .

But you won't hear that from the media in North Korea... you barely hear it from the press from the free world .

The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - N.Korean Forces Crack Down on Protesters in Border Town (http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/02/24/2011022400582.html)

South Korea Prods North by Dropping Leaflets Telling of Mideast Protests - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-25/south-korea-prods-north-by-dropping-leaflets-telling-of-mideast-protests.html)

If there was a free press in North Korea the regime would fall. Seems to me that the entrenched in Canada may have the same motive.

The deregulation of the banks by the republicans caused no physical harm either but look what it caused.

You see your limitations when you count on one viewpoint. Do you know that there is a Pentagon report that didn't make it into the mainstream coverage that suggests there could've been a Soros style attack on the US economy in 2008 ? Of course you don't .

Sorry, Steve, the title was indeed wrong. Huff edited their title also.

What is a " Fox-style "news" show" anyway?
The upcoming SUN TV News channel wanted change in a regulation that prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading news.

What is a " Fox-style "news" show" anyway? One that more often than not welcomes more than one point of view?Hello again, Steve:

Here's what they do, in order to offer more than "one point of view". They'll take a premise, like eating broccoli is good for you, and mention there's "another point of view" that broccoli kills you. Then, in the name of fairness and balance, they'll ALL sit around a table with their brows furrowed, discussing broccoli, giving EQUAL weight to the ABSURD notion that broccoli kills...

That's NOT a different point of view. That's elevating a nonsensical argument. The viewers are told that they heard both sides. They DID, actually - the sane and the insane.

The problem with that is that SOME people will actually think the insane argument has merit because FOX gives it equal time. That's propaganda wrapped up in the notion of fairness - and YOU buy it.

excon

.. a Soros style attack on the US economy in 2008
LOL!


http://www.mdshooters.com/images/smilies/tinfoil.gif

Ex, you're mistaking MSNBC for Fox.

You're saying EVERY liberal, moderate, libertarian or whatever guest or contributor that comes on takes a dive on purpose for Fox news.

All of Fox's libs the tank for the GOP, eh?

LOL!


http://www.mdshooters.com/images/smilies/tinfoil.gif

Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses by Kevin D. Freeman (http://www.scribd.com/doc/49755779/Economic-Warfare-Risks-and-Responses-by-Kevin-D-Freeman)

Knowing that I don't use Wiki as a primary source.

Assuming I see something blatantly false or misleading ;according to their alleged model ,I could edit the content .

I don't even mind anonymous editorial . That model served the US founders well ,as does the flow of information and opinion in the ether .The revolution in Egypt was largely mobilized by an anon.posting on Facebook.

But that is not the FOX model . It is very easy to find both the backround and editorial position that each Fox contributor has .


This whole posting is hilarious .Back in the infancy of broadcast media ,the public placed tremendous trust in the absurdity that the word of anchor of the major broadcasts networks was unimpeachable truth. When Walter Cronkite told America that the Vietnam war was lost ,suddenly the public opinion shifted. Only later in his life did we learn that even Uncle Walt filtered content through a lefty prism.
The heir to his anchor desk tried to use blatantly false information on GW Bush in an attempt to influence the 2004 Presidential elections.

I understand that this is the reality of the press and I am quite content with that as long as there is no exclusion from the market place because of slant.Dan Rather's deceit was easily exposed by the blogsphere. There is room on broadcast television for right slant like Fox ;left slant like MSNBC ,and all positions in between . If al Jazeera can make a go of it in the American market then they should go for it . I make no distinction. Let the market decide.




Hi Tom,

The Fox model is the same as the Wikipedia model minus the anonymity.

Wikipedia, Fox , Facebook isn't anything except a plethora of opinions. You are right it is a flow of information and that is all it is. The question I am asking is how can a collections of opinions( anonymous or otherwise) say anything let alone get to some type of information of a factual nature.

It is just a hope the flow of collective information will somehow be filtered by the collective wisdom of the consumer? If not, then how does this work in reality? I am yet to find anyone who can explain how this process works other than the influence of some mystical, all wise invisible hand.

When I see this process working in reality I see is the principle of bivalence in operation(I can definitely see it in this forum). There is a lack of middle ground. Any middle ground is edited out of ignored. There is a tendency on the part of the consumer to see every statement in as either true or false. In this forum are we moving toward any type of factual information that we can regard as being 'true'? This type of plethora doesn't seem to allow for it.

Again my question is, "How does the process of negation (continual editing of information flow ) arrive us at 'the truth'?

Anyway, Tom I have to go now because I need to front the government media goons
Apparently my political comments in the media are not in line with the Australian Government position.

Tut

Hi Tom,

The Fox model is the same as the Wikipedia model minus the anonymity.

Wikipedia, Fox , Facebook isn't anything except a plethora of opinions. You are right it is a flow of information and that is all it is. The question I am asking is how can a collections of opinions( anonymous or otherwise) say anything let alone get to some type of information of a factual nature.

It is just a hope the flow of collective information will somehow be filtered by the collective wisdom of the consumer? If not, then how does this work in reality? I am yet to find anyone who can explain how this process works other than the influence of some mystical, all wise invisible hand.



Wikipedia is somewhat vetted by the collective information of the consumer. Fox is vetted by the "opposing" point of view that they invite to comment. I'm not sure if the comparison is entirely fair to Wikipedia ;)

I am satisfied that any charge you level against the Fox group can equally be applied across the board. Show me a single arbiter of truth and I'll show you an absolute authoritarian.

Wikipedia is somewhat vetted by the collective information of the consumer. Fox is vetted by the "opposing" point of view that they invite to comment. I'm not sure if the comparison is entirely fair to Wikipedia ;)

Hi Southamerica,

Some people might say the comparison is not fair to Fox. Nonetheless there is an important similarity operating here.

Each person who contributes to Wikipedia is there for their own gain.
This 'gain' might be a desire to accuracy. The entry they want to edit might be an afront to their beliefs. It could be they just want to feel as though they have something worthwhile to contribute. There could be any number of reasons, but they all could be summed up as promoting individual gain.

According to the invisible media hand ( derived from the invisible economic hand) this type of indulgence results in something in something greater than the promotion of individual gain. The individual is led by an invisible hand to promote an end, being no part of his original intention. In the case of the media this process should lead to truth and accuracy.

In the cause of Fox I think they would want to promote the invisible media hand idea. And this seems to be the case in reality. Fox actively promotes their editorial position. As you point out they invite individuals or individuals who represent groups in society to put forward the opposing view or to be critical of their editorial position. Fox seems to believe they can say whatever they like and their guest can do the same.

Here we have something akin to the invisible hand at work. Fox has some vested interest in promoting their political position and they would no doubt say they are not under any obligation to prove the truth and accuracy of their claims. By the same token would seem as though the opposition is not under any obligation as well.

For some reason, this 'free-for-all' is not seen as a problem. Any individual, corporate or group gain is diminished in favour of some type magical or mythical consumer wisdom eventually getting to the truth.

Naturally, I have problems with this idea.


Tut

I am satisfied that any charge you level against the Fox group can equally be applied across the board. Show me a single arbiter of truth and I'll show you an absolute authoritarian.


Hi Tom,

I agree, there is no single arbiter of truth. I am critical of the whole 'invisible media hand' idea, not just Fox, but any media that believes in such a philosophy. In other words, I am critical of how you think we can arrive at some semblance of truth.

See my post below.

Tut

All I know is that suppression of information ,regardless of how bogus you think it is ,will not lead to the truth... it will only lead to the tyrants version of the truth.

Today the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that one of the most obnoxious hateful groups in the country had the abolute right to spew "hate speech" against the homosexual community at the funeral of the bravest of the brave Americans ;our fallen soldiers . As much as I despise this group ,I have to concure with the majority opinion of the court.
In the court of public opinion this group gets the contempt and discredit it richly deserves . It is not up to the government to say that they have no right to demonstrate and express their version of the truth.

all I know is that suppression of information ,regardless of how bogus you think it is ,will not lead to the truth ...it will only lead to the tyrants version of the truth.



Hi Tom,

I don't recall anywhere I said the truth ought to be suppressed. Perhaps you could find my posting promoting this idea. However, I think you will be wasting your time going back over my posts.This has never been my position at all. Yes, suppression of any information leads to a tyrants version of the truth.

I think the misunderstanding is over the role of government involvement in the media. What I have suggested is that government can have a role as a neutral umpire when it comes to the media. Other interest groups and the media itself can have a neutral role as well.

For example,when I talk about our national television network as a fully funded government operation I am only limiting my comments to the government as providing the funds. There is a very good reason for this. The government only provides funds, it has no input into how and what information should be disseminated. Believe it or not.

Tut

The government only provides funds, it has no input into how and what information should be disseminated. Believe it or not.



If I use the US version of state controlled media as an example I'd have to say no I don't believe it.
Our version of it fired one of their contributing pundits for daring to speak outside of the state approved doctrine .

But the good news is that all you have to do is type in 'Juan Williams fired' into your search engine to read the story and analysis from hundreds different persons and perspectives... Then you decide (as the slogan at FOX says ).

If I use the US version of state controlled media as an example I'd have to say no I don't believe it.
Our version of it fired one of their contributing pundits for daring to speak outside of the state approved doctrine .

But the good news is that all you have to do is type in 'Juan Williams fired' into your search engine to read the story and analysis from hundreds different persons and perspectives ..... Then you decide (as the slogan at FOX says ).

I agree with tut, Tom, our state owned media is fearless and authoritative, but we know that in the US money rules. We even have a program called Media Watch which challenges the print and television media. We recently had the spectacle of a media mogul resigning from a Board on a matter of integrity. Where would you find that in the US? What I find strange is you say you are free but there are many places freer in the world than you, why should we listen to your propaganda?

You don't have to . That's what choice is all about.

Looks like Fox "News" is at it again:

RClJ6vK9x_4

Lots of palm trees in Wisconsin?

Pathetic, but then again they know their demographic.

Now who's being deceptive ? O'Reilley clearly said before the clip on you tube that the video B-roll loop showed 'violence ' from all over the country... not just in Madison.
The full sement is available on the net... you should take off your blinders first before viewing .

O'Reilley clearly said before the clip on you tube that the video B-roll loop showed 'violence ' from all over the country ...not just in Madison.
So why didn't they show the Madison "violence" video during the discussion on the incidents in Madison?

I think it's amusing to watch you guys cheer this decision... on the internet. See, you want the freedom to say whatever YOU choose to say, to present things from YOUR point of view, to post bias from other supposed news sites (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/), but Fox News should not have the same rights.

Hypocrites.

No one is blocking web sites, where did you get that idea? We simply have standards on what passes as a news channel. Why are you so mad?

No one is blocking web sites, where did you get that idea?

Who mentioned blocking web sites? Not me. You don't find it ironic that you're using an informational forum you think should be free to cheer the loss of freedom to another informational? I do.


We simply have standards on what passes as a news channel. Why are you so mad?

Amused=mad?Is Canadian English that different? So Huffpo passes as a legitimate news source. Bwa ha ha!

So Huffpo passes as a legitimate news source. Bwa ha ha!Did you want links from elsewhere? Would that change your view?

Says the arbiter of approved sources? LOL.

Says the arbiter of approved sources? LOL.Kind of a weird thing to say considering you just recently posted this:

See, you want the freedom to say whatever YOU choose to say, to present things from YOUR point of view, to post bias from other supposed news sites (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/)


Apparently the source matters to you quite a bit.

Apparently you can't see the forest for the trees.