Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Why You Need Trusted News Sources

Recommended Posts

While it can't be denied about the comments on twitter, and the lawyers investigation, having Daddy's money pay for it all just makes them good candidates for republican senator or supreme court judge....

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/covington-boys-video

Click the hotlinks to see the videos.

And it also helps to hire top notch spin masters...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/how-conservative-media-transformed-the-covington-catholic-students-from-pariahs-to-heroes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Fox is now in charge of the hen house. Stand by for the slaughter !

8F6FBF24-615F-4CD9-8A14-D62F8D4615D3.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting contrast in Headlines on the same story.

From Global

February 1, 2019 9:37 am

Small majority of Canadians disapprove of Trudeau’s handling of China relations

head-e1366223352543.jpg?quality=60&strip By Andrew Russell National Online Journalist, Investigative  Global News
 
From the National Post
Majority of Canadians think Trudeau is doing bad job handling tense relations with China: poll
 
From the Epoch Times
Survey Shows Canadians Unsatisfied With Trudeau’s Handling of China Tensions
 
Lastly from the Toronto Sun
LILLEY: Trudeau under fire for messing up relations with China
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmmm

CBC should be embracing Netflix

CBC head needs to chill, embrace binge-watching

  • Calgary Herald
  • 2 Feb 2019
  • CHRIS SELLEY
img?regionKey=rqiEBpiRyzRkBQVERmYE6Q%3d%3dSEAN KILPATRICK / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES Catherine Tait, president and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada, gave a speech this week comparing Netflix’s presence in Canada to the “cultural imperialism” of French Africa.

CBC CEO Catherine Tait said something truly insane on Thursday, and we owe her a debt of gratitude. It’s so rare that Canadians reach consensus on matters pertaining to Mother Corp. With Hockey Night in Canada now a Rogers production, there’s nothing left at CBC that really unites (anglophone) Canadians around their wireless sets — and even then, we were bitterly divided over the question of Don Cherry.

We can all agree, however, that Tait’s comments at a TV industry conference in Ottawa were bananas. “I was thinking of the British Empire and how if … you were the viceroy of India you would feel that you were doing only good for the people of India,” she said. “Or similarly, if you were in French Africa, you would think, ‘I’m educating them, I’m bringing their resources to the world, and I’m helping them.’ There was a time where cultural imperialism was absolutely accepted.”

No word of a lie, she was talking about Netflix’s presence in Canada.

Tait conceded that “it is probably the most exciting time in terms of screened entertainment.” But what horrors might lie ahead? “What happens after imperialism and the damage that can do to local communities?” she asked. “Let us be mindful of how it is we as Canadians respond to global companies coming into our country.”

One struggles to imagine how anyone would arrive at the connection, let alone think it wise to articulate it in public. It seems foolish even to dignify it with a critique, but it’s particularly striking that subscribing to Netflix is a voluntary action — unlike, say, the French invasion of Algeria. Or getting mowed down by British soldiers. Or contributing to CBC’s annual subsidy.

It’s ridiculous and offensive on any number of levels. But it also bespeaks someone in a very important position who seems to be almost psychedelically out of touch with the corporation and the public she is supposed to work for.

To the vast majority of Canadians, including those who support the CBC, the idea that Netflix represents any kind of threat — and should thus be taxed or forced to carry minimum amounts of Canadian content or otherwise regulated, as various groups urge — will just seem irretrievably bizarre. Whether or not it’s a good idea, CanCon only works in a restricted market where channels broadcast specific things at specific times. Back in the day you might just find yourself bored enough to watch or listen to something you didn’t really want to, and it might just be Canadian.

No one watches anything on Netflix that they don’t want to — no one single, anyway — so there’s no earthly reason to put stuff there if people don’t want it. The irony, though, is that there’s a ton of Canadian content on Netflix, precisely because people want to watch it. And as University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist explained in a blog post on Friday, Netflix makes it very easy to find: Not only are there direct links to Canadian TV shows and films, but it algorithmically detects a user’s preference for CanCon and recommends other titles.

Goodness, just look at all the Canuck shows: Baroness Von Sketch Show, Workin’ Moms, Mr. D, Kim’s Convenience, Schitt’s Creek, Intelligence … hang on a tic, those are all CBC shows! How did those imperialist Silicon Valley pigdogs get their filthy hands on it? Because as more and more Canadians cut the cord, Netflix is a perfectly logical place for CBC and the production companies it works with to showcase their work — not just to Canada but to the world. In short, there doesn’t seem to be any problem or threat here at all, to anyone — just success, and the opportunity for more.

If Tait’s in search of real problems at CBC, she needn’t struggle to find them. Perhaps most notably, the TV news offerings are basically indistinguishable from the commercial broadcasters’ — so what’s the point of them? Indeed, as I’ve argued before, CBC is long overdue for a comprehensive mandate review, and there is no time like the present.

The Liberals in Ottawa are obsessed with media these days, to the point that they want to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars to struggling news organizations. Whatever you think of that idea, it makes no sense at all without first examining in detail how the CBC colossus fits into that marketplace. If the Liberals want a stronger public broadcaster, as they say, then they should launch a comprehensive review of everything it does and how it does it — especially since senior management seems unable to distinguish success from failure and opportunity from a 19th-century French military campaign.

THE IRONY, THOUGH, IS THAT THERE’S A TON OF CANADIAN CONTENT ON NETFLIX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a little CBC game my wife and I play in the car.

The notion is that CBC radio never (ever) is transmitting anything an average person would want to listen to when you tune into it.

I say are you ready for CBC? Then she says yup. I press the station preset we listen for 10 seconds and burst out laughing. I don't remember it ever failing to amuse. I know.... country folks eh?

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually there are several CBC radio programs I anticipate and listen to regularly;  Quirks and Quarks, White Coat/Black Art, This is That, Vinyl Cafe and really like Under the Influence.  The news and midday leftist programming and interviews not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the trusted nature of statistics and media reporting.... a Leger pole conducted for a Quebec gun control group concluded that 78% of Quebecers were in favour of the provincial long gun registry. 

With the registration deadline come and gone, more than 75% of the long guns remain unregistered and individual towns (mostly rural) are passing resolutions against the initiative. In short, with JT at the helm, and the press bought and paid for, polls are of no more value to Canadians than the media is. 

Meanwhile in the US, Liberal media defend the ridiculous notion that physical barriers are useless. There may be good reasons for not building a wall.... or building one in high traffic areas only or other approaches that have merit. But, if your position is that physical barriers don't work and therefore should not be used, I just stop reading. Look around at any secure location you can find, you will likely see a fence as part (yes part) of the security mix. In some cases, the fence/wall integrity is so tight that you could argue internal monitoring and alarms are useless because they have never been needed.  

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infowars, and Alex Jones,  gets slammed as being completely irrational and beyond the lunatic fringe but the story below is more succinct and verifiably true than anything in the MSM.

Media whipped up fake race-baiting narrative over tragic murder

The investigation into the shooting of a 7-year-old girl in Houston, Texas that civil rights activists and left-wing media sites asserted was a white supremacist hate crime took an unexpected turn when it was revealed that the gunman was a 24-year-old black man.

https://www.infowars.com/white-supremacist-shooting-of-7-year-old-black-girl-gunman-turns-out-to-be-black/

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must Read Article!!

 

CBS’ Lara Logan Calls Out Liberal Media Attackers BY NAME In ‘Hannity’ Interview: ‘I Am Not Owned’

"If there are any independent journalist out there ... then we pay the price."

“ In this country, 85% of journalists are registered Democrats – that’s just a fact," said Logan. "No one is registering Democrat when they’re really a Republican. So, the facts are on the side that you just stated: most journalists are Left, or liberal, or Democrat, or whatever word you wanna give it. How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage? When they simplify it all and there’s no gray. There’s no gray. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not — there’s something wrong."

 

 

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43756/cbs-lara-logan-calls-out-liberal-media-attackers-amanda-prestigiacomo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly a violent encounter IMO, in fact it looked (to me) as if they already knew each other.... she appears to have a twinkle in her eyes. If only all assaults were as easy to manage and the reporter describes it as an "altercation." To me, it looked more like she just wanted to dance with him.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/woman-assaults-man-wearing-maga-hat-at-mexican-eatery-claims-shes-the-victim

It seems you can now believe nothing and can take nothing at face value. Most coverage now reminds me of the old Soviet era news agency TASS. It looks like a badly staged response to other leftist scams 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interview Fox refused to air revives issue of media ownership: Don Pittis

Wise media consumers know there are many ways to cover a story, but a covert recording of Fox News interview is a useful reminder.

Video the U.S. network didn't intend viewers to see is a hot property on the web

 
don-pittis.jpg
Don Pittis · CBC News · Posted: Feb 25, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: an hour ago
 
rutger-bregman-author-and-historian.jpg
While Fox News did not air it, historian and author Rutger Bregman released his own amateur video of the interview, recorded in a Netherlands studio. (Rutger Bregman)
1167 comments

People who view the shaky recording of the interview, embedded below, between a Fox News host and a Dutch historian will not be shocked the U.S. network failed to air it.

Besides the profanity from show host Tucker Carlson, the points raised by Rutger Bregman — who shot to global prominence after comments on taxes at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month — are in dramatic conflict with traditional Fox coverage.

The fact we are not surprised demonstrates that we've grown used to the idea that despite claims of impartiality, news outlets have strong biases. But Bregman's comments, and the fact that the network tried to suppress them, also raise an old issue in the discussion of media freedom — that who owns the media matters.

What Bregman did at Davos, an annual gathering where the rich rub shoulders with the famous to ponder poverty and climate change, was certainly a subject worthy of news coverage.

It was a classic example of the kind of "man bites dog" story that journalists love, where one of the tame panellists invited to a gathering of the world's richest men unexpectedly spoke truth to power.

Ignoring the Davos panel moderator's questions, Bregman instead linked poverty to the fact that rich people don't pay enough in taxes, comparing the lack of discussion on the subject at the forum to attending a conference of firefighters where no one would talk about water.

"Just stop talking about philanthropy and start talking about taxes," he told the audience despite protests from one of the gathering of billionaires. "We can invite Bono once more, but we've got to be talking about taxes. That's it. Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit, in my opinion."

rutger-bregman-at-world-economic-forum.jAt a panel titled The Cost of Inequality, Bregman sidestepped the Davos moderator's question, instead saying the solution was for rich people to pay more tax. (Twitter)

For Fox, the story was irresistible. An upstart chiding the Davos elite — U.S. President Donald Trump, a Fox favourite, did not attend this year — for flying in private jets to talk about climate change and ignoring the fact they didn't contribute their share.

And if that's where the interview had stopped it is very possible that Fox would have aired it. 

But just as he did at the World Economic Forum, Bregman had a surprise in store for his host. Clearly a smart cookie who had done his research, Bregman turned the tables, perhaps because he knew he had his own recording, and refused the self-censorship that would have increased the chances his interview would make it to air.

Making Fox the news

Bregman, author of the bestseller Utopia for Realists and How We Can Get There, lit into not just the Davos elite but Fox, its billionaire owner Rupert Murdoch and the Fox hosts, who he described as millionaires in the pay of billionaires. 

In the interview the news channel decided not to run, the historian and author repeated his comments that Davos billionaires had studiously ignored the obvious question of the importance of higher taxes on the rich. But he extended those observations to include Fox itself.

"I'm just saying what everyone around the world is thinking," said Bregman in the recording he released, pointing out that polls show a majority of Americans, including Fox viewers, want higher taxes on the rich. "But no one is saying that at Davos just as no one's saying it on Fox News."

The reason, he said, is simple, that the people at Davos and Fox have been bought by the billionaires.

"What the Murdochs want you to do is scapegoat immigrants instead of talking about tax avoidance," said Bregman in a comment that seemed clearly intended to make the Fox host blow his stack.

"And I'm taking orders from the Murdochs? Is that what you're saying?" asked the Fox host.

But of course that's not the way media owners exert their influence. What they do instead is hire like-minded publishers who hire like-minded editors, and so on.

As Bregman points out, the host didn't need to be Rupert Murdoch's finger puppet. He came ready-made from his association with the anti-tax, anti-government Cato Institute, which is itself funded by wealthy donors.

Little guy strikes back

Part of the fun of Bregman's release of the Fox interview is that it felt like the little guy striking back using social media.

But it was also a reminder of an issue many of us may have forgotten, that despite the supposed clout of social media, it is the surviving media giants controlled by rich people that still have the power to set the news agenda. 

From the Wall Street Journal controlled by Murdoch, Bloomberg controlled by Michael Bloomberg, the Washington Post controlled by Amazon's Jeff Bezos, and Canada's richest family, the Thomsons that controls both the Globe and Mail and Reuters, is it any wonder we don't get front pages filled with stories outraged that billionaires don't pay enough tax?

Like French economist Thomas Piketty before him, while portrayed by some as a radical, Bregman is not anti-capitalist. He is a firm believer in the economic system that has made the Netherlands the largest net contributor to the European Union.

Like Piketty, Bregman says if capitalism fails to redistribute wealth that will lead to its downfall. But you probably shouldn't  expect to hear that message promoted on Fox.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nolte: CNN’s Trump Hatred Results in Double Digit Rating Collapse

Last place CNN’s already humiliating ratings nosedived by double digits last week.

Even more than usual, some ten days ago the far-left CNN launched a 24/7 jihad against President Trump, going so far as to question his mental health, his patriotism, blaming him for a mass murder in New Zealand, and serial lying about his response to Charlottesville. But this unhinged hate campaign obviously turned off a considerable number of Americans.

When compared to this same week last year, CNN lost -16 percent of its primetime viewers and -17 of total day viewers; young people ran away screaming: In the advertiser-coveted 25-54 age demo, CNN shed an incredible -31 percent of those viewers during primetime and -29 percent in total day.

 

CNN’s numbers look especially bad when compared to its direct competition during this same time period.

Fox News, which nearly triples CNN in primetime viewers and more than doubles CNN in total day viewers, held almost perfectly steady with a one percent increase in primetime viewers and one percent decrease in total day viewers.

In the 35-54 age demo, Fox dipped -13 and -12 percent in primetime and total day, respectively.

MSNBC, which doubles CNN in primetime viewers and nearly doubles CNN in total day viewers, held its losses to single digits: eight percent in primetime and six percent in total day. MSNBC’s demo losses mirrored those of CNN.

To put things in more perspective, in all of cable TV during primetime, Fox News hit number one, MSNBC number three (ESPN was number two), and CNN bottomed out at eleven.

During primetime, as you can see above, CNN cannot even average a million voters in a country of 330 million during a never-ending news cycle that is always turned up to 11.

Here are the stark numbers:

Primetime Total Viewers/Demo Viewers

FNC: 2,387,000 / 401,000

MSNBC: 1,868,000 / 309,000

CNN: 939,000 / 253,000

 

For all of MSNBC’s flaws, and there are many, at least Democrats are not played for fools by that far-left outlet. Unlike CNN, which insults its audience with its laughable pose as objective, MSNBC makes no secret of its left-wing biases.

And for all of Fox’s flaws, and there are many, the fair and balanced network draws a sharp line between its opinion and news programs.

CNN, however, is a total **bleep** show of shrill neuroses, fake news, full-blown lies, violence,and unbridled hate. Watching CNN is like watching an ex-husband seethe about his ex-wife all day and all night. There’s no insight from CNN, nothing interesting is ever passed along, and it certainly isn’t informative. CNN has not broken a consequential story in over a year — at least not one that didn’t turn out to be fake news.

Total Day Total Viewers/Demo Viewers

FNC: 1,374,000 / 243,000

MSNBC:  1,041,000 / 169,000

CNN: 640,000 / 170,000

 

Also, CNN is horribly produced. Politics aside, when compared to MSNBC and Fox News, the overall production of CNN is just terrible. The last place outlet’s look and presentation is both dull and repetitive.

Another massive problem at CNN is its lack of stars. There is no one to build an audience around, no anchor anchoring its primetime. MSNBC has Rachel Maddow, who single-handedly saved the network. Fox News has Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson in the opinion column and the great Brett Baier’s Special Report, which remains the best straight news show in all of TV.

CNN has no one.

My guess is that CNN put Jake Tapper at 4 p.m. in the hopes he would draw people in that would remain throughout the night, which was a great idea in theory. The problem, though, is that this once widely-respected newsman has been snake bit by CNN chief Jeff Zucker, which turned Tapper himself into poison, most especially ratings poison. Tapper is now just another lying, deceitful CNN virtue signaler — a real shame that has come at a real loss.

Chris Cuomo’s move to CNN primetime, at the expense of one of Anderson Cooper’s hours, was always a terrible idea. Cuomo is not terribly bright, is way too enamored with violence, holds some troubling views about child sexuality, and just doesn’t wear well. After a couple of viewings, Fredo’s debate style is exposes him as a one-trick pony. There’s no depth there, just his memorized, left-wing talking points.

Cuomo’s done nothing to lift CNN’s primetime woes, which remain insurmountable at this point. The network is a national laughingstock and only a total housecleaning could begin to repair the damage.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/03/20/nolte-cnns-trump-hatred-results-in-double-digit-rating-collapse/

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching it all unfold is tremendously entertaining because the entire thought process is unfathomable.

Liberals in general (Democrats in particular) seem completely oblivious to the steep cliffs that border the mountain path they are walking on. They are unable to read the signs and adjust to changing circumstances outside the confines of their own agenda and I doubt they could track a blind buffalo through mud. The country is hungry for reasonable alternatives and they are so totally and completely AWOL that I'm now betting on the buffalo. In fact, he should run as an independent.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Looking at the MSNBC web page, they are not exactly fans of Trump either.  Perhaps just more muted?

https://www.msnbc.com/

https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/deadline-white-house/watch/the-loser-vs-the-narcissist-1461210691690

 

  •  
  •  
For all of MSNBC’s flaws, and there are many, at least Democrats are not played for fools by that far-left outlet. Unlike CNN, which insults its audience with its laughable pose as objective, MSNBC makes no secret of its left-wing biases.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in our own backyard:

 

“If you weren’t careful, you might have missed it: a brief 160-word item, tucked deep inside the budget, labelled Supporting Canadian Journalism.

//

Only if you turned back further still, to an annex marked Tax Measures: Supplementary Information, would you find the details.

What you would discover, if you did, was how a bad idea in principle was likely to be infinitely worse in practice.

//

There are any number of objections to the government getting into the game of propping up failing news organizations: that taking money from the people we cover will place us in a permanent and inescapable conflict of interest; that it will produce newspapers concerned less with appealing to readers than to grantsmen; that it will not only leave us dependent on government, but without standing to oppose such dependence in others; that it will solve none of our problems, but only encourage us to put off dealing with them; that it is all so bloody unnecessary.

//

You say something like this is already in place, in broadcasting? Yes it is. I’m not sure the CBC is really an advertisement for the wonders of subsidized newsgathering. But that’s not the point. Maybe there’s a place for the CBC, or something like it, as one offering among others. The point is, if this goes through, everything will be subsidized: print, broadcast, the works — a whole industry of CBCs. If you were searching for a way to kill the news business, you couldn’t do a better job.

 

 

These are excerpts from an Andrew Coyne article:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-its-when-you-read-details-of-media-bailout-that-the-chill-sets-in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LARA LOGAN’S RESPONSE TO MUELLER REPORT IS AN INDICTMENT OF AMERICAN MEDIA

Journalist Lara Logan said Saturday that the response to the Mueller report was striking because of what was not happening: there were no blaring headlines boldly proclaiming the vindication of President Donald Trump.

WATCH:

 

 

Logan, during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” Saturday, argued that if the Mueller reporthad resulted in indictments or charges of any kind, that would most certainly be the top story in every paper. (RELATED: Former CBS Reporter Lara Logan Hits Media For Becoming ‘Propagandists’)

My question is this: If charges had been brought against the president, then the headlines would all be screaming about, you know, victory, right, for the left. Vindication. This proves that what the left has been saying is right. Now, no charges have been brought but I don’t see screaming headlines that say this vindicates the president.

The former CBS correspondent also argued that she found coverage of the whole investigation to be problematic, noting how often it was mentioned that Mueller had indicted people close to Trump — but only adding as an afterthought that the indictments had nothing to do with the president or ties to Russia.

There is something else that bothers me with much of the reporting on this from the beginning is that you keep seeing high-up, featured prominently in many articles, this line that ‘six members of the Trump campaign have been indicted by the Mueller investigation’ — but you don’t read in the same space right there, nobody writes ‘although none of them were charged with conspiracy with Russia,’ the central question of the Mueller investigation. That always comes way, way, way down further in the reporting.

Logan explained that, as a journalist, there was “a very simple fix.” She explained, “You can say six people were charged, but none of those charges had anything to do with conspiring with Russia. That gives — that doesn’t mislead the reader or the viewer, right? Because it’s very clear what people were charged with and that it’s not related to conspiracy or to the central focus of the Mueller investigation.”

As a journalist, I find it disappointing that people will create one impression with their reporting, correct it later and then claim that they have been honest and objective,” Logan concluded.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/23/lara-logan-mueller-indictment-media/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this