I don't understand the whole story about the Brian Mulroney saga.
All I'll say is there was something crooked down by the Prime Minister?
The media will find out???
You just don't treat the media in a arrogant way!!!!
Stay tuned.....
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hi Charles,
Love the posts, but I think you're bring a bit naive here. The vast majority of main stream media is an affront to honest journalism.
If the M$ media reacts to this with attacks - you can be sure it's all a part of a ritualized dance, where their corporate masters manipulate us into putting the issues out of mind.
Now, they will skewer a politician if it suits their purposes - but do you really think they're the kind of sleuths who would bother to track down true corruption?
When enough evidence leaks, then you'll see your news stories - spun appropriately for their target audience (i.e. various pseudo strains of sheeple - branded at birth as liberal or conservative).
Why would we trust these people to tell us the truth? How many times have they ever broken a cover-up that really mattered?
Oh - maybe I'm being too conspiratorial - I'll just go read what Irving has to say about it.
So then just where do you get your "news" anonymous 11:33? And if all that is in the main stream media is suspect do you just automatically believe your sources? Are they actually always right or are you really just so many (on the left and right) that really only believe what you already want to believe anyway? The truth is good...as long as its your truth?
I gauge the news (to "get" it implies uncritical acceptance) through comparing what was said versus what turned out to be "true". You're correct in that my opinions will drive what I perceive as ultimate truth.
The Iraq war is a great example - when main stream media trumpets WMDs, Iraqi Freedom and irrational timetables and budgets to justify an oil war - I think many of us begun asking whether they were fooled or simply complicit once the truth met the light of day.
On the other hand, much "truth" is certainly cultural and hard to decipher.
When the final chapters are written on Afghanistan, our media will do their damnedest to spin a brave story of liberation to justify the trauma and death among our soldiers.
Perhaps on some cosmic truth scale, the negatives here (thousands of dead Afghanis, collusion with warlords, explosion of drug trade) far outweigh the good we'll do. Despite this, our Nationalistic instincts will require our media to console us. This paper-overing of past errata is also a good measure of honesty in journalism.
At a local scale, when you compare the reality of New Brunswick (rampant switch to service industry, barriers to competition, crony capitalism, massive emigration) to the cloudy spin delivered by Irving - the obvious conflict of interest should be enough to raise concern for rational thinkers.
My only solution has been to seek out information from secondary sources (i.e. the CBC / government reports). With the rise of politics on the internet, I hope to hear more from independent bloggers on the state of New Brunswick.
Overall, I disagree that this is a matter of opinion - more a matter of what facts are allowed to come out. How can you possibly hope to come to an informed opinion when the information is fed to you piecemeal through a corporate filter?
Thus, I have no truth or belief - only questions and evidence. If I wanted to chose blindly to trust certain sources, they certainly wouldn't be those with agendas radically opposed to admitting fault or accepting responsibility.
4 comments:
Hi Charles,
Love the posts, but I think you're bring a bit naive here. The vast majority of main stream media is an affront to honest journalism.
If the M$ media reacts to this with attacks - you can be sure it's all a part of a ritualized dance, where their corporate masters manipulate us into putting the issues out of mind.
Now, they will skewer a politician if it suits their purposes - but do you really think they're the kind of sleuths who would bother to track down true corruption?
When enough evidence leaks, then you'll see your news stories - spun appropriately for their target audience (i.e. various pseudo strains of sheeple - branded at birth as liberal or conservative).
Why would we trust these people to tell us the truth? How many times have they ever broken a cover-up that really mattered?
Oh - maybe I'm being too conspiratorial - I'll just go read what Irving has to say about it.
Right on!
So then just where do you get your "news" anonymous 11:33? And if all that is in the main stream media is suspect do you just automatically believe your sources? Are they actually always right or are you really just so many (on the left and right) that really only believe what you already want to believe anyway? The truth is good...as long as its your truth?
Dear Just Passing:
I gauge the news (to "get" it implies uncritical acceptance) through comparing what was said versus what turned out to be "true". You're correct in that my opinions will drive what I perceive as ultimate truth.
The Iraq war is a great example - when main stream media trumpets WMDs, Iraqi Freedom and irrational timetables and budgets to justify an oil war - I think many of us begun asking whether they were fooled or simply complicit once the truth met the light of day.
On the other hand, much "truth" is certainly cultural and hard to decipher.
When the final chapters are written on Afghanistan, our media will do their damnedest to spin a brave story of liberation to justify the trauma and death among our soldiers.
Perhaps on some cosmic truth scale, the negatives here (thousands of dead Afghanis, collusion with warlords, explosion of drug trade) far outweigh the good we'll do. Despite this, our Nationalistic instincts will require our media to console us. This paper-overing of past errata is also a good measure of honesty in journalism.
At a local scale, when you compare the reality of New Brunswick (rampant switch to service industry, barriers to competition, crony capitalism, massive emigration) to the cloudy spin delivered by Irving - the obvious conflict of interest should be enough to raise concern for rational thinkers.
My only solution has been to seek out information from secondary sources (i.e. the CBC / government reports). With the rise of politics on the internet, I hope to hear more from independent bloggers on the state of New Brunswick.
Overall, I disagree that this is a matter of opinion - more a matter of what facts are allowed to come out. How can you possibly hope to come to an informed opinion when the information is fed to you piecemeal through a corporate filter?
Thus, I have no truth or belief - only questions and evidence. If I wanted to chose blindly to trust certain sources, they certainly wouldn't be those with agendas radically opposed to admitting fault or accepting responsibility.
Post a Comment