We cancelled our TV last year as we watch almost no sports, movies get interrupted by ads constantly and the Canadian news is so biased. Issues such as man’s impact on climate change, bloated public sector salaries, union power, immigration, public sector debt, crippling of our economy through dumb policy decisions or inaction and content in our education system is so poorly covered in Canada from both sides of the aisle, if at all.
Whereas in the US, and quoting from the article below ” on almost any day of the year, year in year out, Fox News draws more viewers than CNN. More than MSNBC. Often, Fox News draws more than both of them combined. While many major media are in decline, losing audience due to competition from social media and new media, Fox News keeps setting records.
We are seeing a flight to quality. Non-Fox news fares poorly because it’s mediocre — timid, politically biased and untrustworthy. Fox fares well because it’s meritorious — unafraid, politically balanced and trusted, as advertised. Unlike its competitors in the U.S. or, for that matter, in Canada, Fox doesn’t distort world events through a politically correct lens; it brings events into focus with expert commentary and news-breaking reportage, and is rewarded with viewers’ trust.”
Continued …
Where is the Canadian equivalent of Fox News ?
In my opinion, it is unfortunately missing in our sea of left meaningless politically correct mushiness like CTV or tax payer funded CBC for more balanced reporting on such topics as the last federal election but also:
1) persecution of Christians in the Middle East
2) substance abuse on native reserves
3) Ontario’s massive debt, the highest in the world per capita of any sub-nation (aka province or state)
4) WCS vs WTI (i.e. the price oil producers receive in Canada) and the impact of pipelines on this price differential (it is in the billions of $s)
5) the massive economic impact of oil & gas production in Canada and the massive tax benefits provinces and the federal government receive
6) the many falsifications of data of the global warming crusaders
7) the waste of tax payer $s sending 300+ politicians to the climate summit in Paris last December (the biggest contingent, by far, of any nation, even close by European nations)
8) the rocket attacks on Israel
9) unsustainable pensions paid to public sector workers and politicians
10) the cost of green energy
11) the massive subsidies paid to Quebec
12) tax payer subsidies to news outlet in the internet age
etc ..

Comments

  1. In the spirit of thanking you for putting yourself out there as a guest editor of this blog, Thomas, I will take some time to respond seriously to this post.
    You have provided no evidence (nor did the Financial Post) that CNN, MSNBC, CTV, or CBC are biased to the left, let alone that they are more biased than Fox News is to the right. The only supporting argument you present is that Fox News is successful, and therefore it must be of high journalistic quality. This is not only logically weak, it flies in the face of the argument you are trying to make about media coverage in Canada.
    We had the Sun News channel, if you recall. But it went out of business for lack of audience. I guess we have seen a “flight to quality”, as the Financial Post says.
    If you want to cry bias in the media, Thomas, bring some evidence.

    1. For example the election coverage last fall. Liberals promised to increase CBC budget, and Conservative promised to cut it somewhat [ I personally would have preferred no tax payer $s to any news organization]. CBC decided to support the Liberals.

      1. “CBC decided to support the Liberals.” I missed when that happened (and I read the CBC web site every day). Do you have a link?
        I didn’t miss, however, when the G&M and National Post endorsed the Conservatives.
        What else have you got?

      2. No or almost no coverage on:
        1) persecution of Christians in the Middle East
        2) substance abuse on native reserves
        3) Ontario’s massive debt, the highest in the world per capita of any sub-nation (aka province or state)
        4) WCS vs WTI (i.e. the price oil producers receive in Canada) and the impact of pipelines on this price differential (it is in the billions of $s)
        5) the massive economic impact of oil & gas production in Canada and the massive tax benefits provinces and the federal government receive
        6) the many falsifications of data of the global warming crusaders
        7) the waste of tax payer $s sending 300+ politicians to the climate summit in Paris last December (the biggest contingent, by far, of any nation, even close by European nations)
        8) the rocket attacks on Israel
        9) unsustainable pensions paid to public sector workers and politicians
        10) the cost of green energy
        11) the massive subsidies paid to Quebec
        12) tax payer subsidies to media outlets in the internet age
        etc …

        1. The exchange a business show on CBC talks about most of those issues, in fact it used to be cohosted by Kevin O’Leary.

        2. Yup .. we need far more of that, incl. Rex Murphy .. an island of wisdom in a sea of mushiness and political correctness ..

        3. Thomas, I’ve read quite a few articles on the CBC covering those topics. I think you’re just seeing what you want to see.

  2. Fox News (and MSNBC) explicitly frame the news as something to be angry about. That that’s a very strong way to engage an audience, and one of your favourite tactics, it’s in no means balanced.

    1. Read the article. It explains it. None of this left wing bias we get shoved down our throats … with $1B subsidies to boot … in Canada.

  3. The only reason Faux News exists in the U.S. is because the Fairness Doctrine (formerly a FCC regulation) was vetoed by the Reagan Administration in 1987. This paved the way for Faux, otherwise known as the propaganda wing of the G.O.P. This should be all you need to know! Who’s to say there’s a left wing bias in the media? I see no shortage of “economics” studies (in the media) from those AstroTurf organizations such as the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, which bear as much resemblance to real economics as creationism does to science. In this day and age, and with corporate concentration in the media, I think that left wing bias is a myth. The only media outlet that even comes close would probably be the Toronto Star.

  4. I wouldn’t expect anything else from someone who thinks climate change is of little concern. The real world is something foreign to Thomas.

  5. “Fox fares well because it’s meritorious — unafraid, politically balanced…” Are you being serious? You can’t be serious. Fox News is The 700 Club for people who only go to church on holidays. It’s Soviet Pravda for those who clip their cell phones to their belts. It’s as politically balanced as an abstinence rally.
    If you’re assuming that Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC because of a “flight to quality”, then let me tell you about this amazing bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn. Only a fool would pass this up…

  6. How about this one from Fox’s Megan Coulter: “I used to think women should not be able to vote and now I think liberal women should not be able to hold office.” It sounds just so, well, progressive! And balanced.

  7. Folks on the left love to think conservatives are just morally bankrupt idiots. That “reality has a well known liberal bias”. But take a moment to consider the implications of that. Seriously consider whether conservatives might genuinely believe what they say, and whether they may have a point on some things.
    Yes I think Canada would benefit from a Fox News. Yes I think the mainstream media in Canada has a liberal tilt (and supplying “evidence” of this is not easy, but I still think it’s true). I think academia has a liberal tilt as well. Jonathan Haidt is a liberal psychologist who has documented the lack of intellectual diversity in his field – there are practically no conservative psychologists. And it may not be a coincidence that psychologists love to pathologize conservatives as immoral and paranoid and low IQ. And that conservatives don’t trust the ivory tower or the media – the “liberal coastal elites”.
    I don’t like the liberal arrogance towards conservatives. They really don’t understand where conservatives are coming from, and are utterly convinced of their rightness and of the stupidity of conservatives. But you should consider why over half the population holds these opinions if they are so dumb, and try not to be condescending. You’re not as smart and enlightened as you think.

    1. I am merely stating an opinion in this sea of deception and double-talk we see from our politicians and tax payer supported Pravda
      Well, only 40% of the populace lifted Justin into the thrown .. yet he behaves as a king for all Canadians with his “sunny ways” ..
      People love handouts, free stuff. That is why more than half vote for handout givers in most modern democracies, increasing our debt at the expense of future generations. Party now, pay later. Look to the deteriorating EU states where that will end with their higher debt, far higher taxes, lower living standards, higher unemployment, increased poverty, high energy prices .. and why the UK wants to leave the EU, as an example !

      1. Future generations would be utterly destroyed without social programs. The cycle of violence and poverty never ends in the U.S.
        “Free handouts” reduce crime. Free college would give poor people the opportunity to elevate themselves, instead of being stuck working menial jobs. The average age of a fast food worker in the U.S. is 29.
        I don’t get this topic at all. Fox News is a joke.

      2. Thomas, what was the percentage of Canadians that elevated Harper to a majority in 2011? I’ll save you the effort, 39.6%….not much different than the 39.5% that voted for Trudeau in 2015.
        And why is it that when a right-leaning party proposes using debt to fund investments (see your previous comments on BC Liberals using debt to fund bridges and transit), that’s considered rational and appropriate in order to take advantage of low interest rates, but when it’s a left-leaning government it’s suddenly poor fiscal management and a generational burden??
        Any reason that you don’t feel comfortable simply admitting that you lean further right and don’t share the views of others that lean further left, and leave it at that?

    2. When you’re talking about conservatives in the States, you do really have to wonder because they are about to vote Donald Trump in as their representative in the next federal election. And in that election, Trump will receive votes from nearly half the country.
      How does an intelligent person show support for somebody like Trump?

    3. I don’t like the liberal arrogance against conservatives. They really don’t understand where conservatives are coming from, and are utterly convinced of their rightness and of the stupidity of conservatives. —Spank
      This critique is not unique and adheres to the common technique of putting words and thoughts into other’s mouths and heads without offering any explanation of why conservatives are worthy of praise for being constructive and reasonable.
      I would counter-argue that people like Peter Lougheed, former premier of Alberta, was noted for two very wise things: The creation of the Heritage Trust Fund that was originally based on some excellent management principles which were, but the way, adopted by Norway which built a sovereign trust fund now worth over $1 trillion, but which were later diluted by successive conservative dupes in office in Alberta; and for going head-to-head with the elder Trudeau on negotiating the Constitution and Charter of Rights, which was made better for it. Lougheed could have been a great prime minister if he had not chosen to go back to the private sector.
      I struggle to find intellectual equals in the conservative frame of mind. Willian F. Buckely? I wouldn’t think so after reading how he steadfastly opposed and demeaned blacks in his National Review writings and debates during the civil right movement. Deifenbaker? Solid, but not a visionary like Laurier, Pearson or PET who each did far more to build modern Canada. Andrew Coyne? I could accept him for his well written and turned analysis, though he does tend to stretch it with conjecture. Thatcher? They are still fixing the damage she wreaked on the UK, and paid for with the royalties from non-renewable North Sea oil (which is now far into decline). No real wisdom there that I can see. Reagan? Still waiting … and waiting and waiting … for the Trickle Down Effect the Great Sleepyhead Horoscope-consulting Communicator said would arrive. Harper? Where’s the evidence that he was anything but a dismantler and a bombastic, impractical ideologue with a simmering meanness? There are more, but no one really stands out.
      We do have all the hotheads on the Fox Network who routinely fail to check facts and are too busy pontificating practice investigative journalism. The ascent of screamers and blamers is not the finest hour for conservatives. And with this guy
      http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/55918b77ecad04a3465a0a63/nbc-fires-donald-trump-after-he-calls-mexicans-rapists-and-drug-runners.jpg
      the US conservative movement has a big problem, as will the entire world if he gets elected president.
      There was a CBC Fifth Estate episode in 2005 devoted to the angry white folks on Fox TV. Yes, it was very critical. But it was also very fair. How? The host, Bob McKeown, countered Bill O’Reilly’s angry refusal to be interviewed by a “commie” broadcaster, so McKeown made the very democratic offer to have a debate with O’Reilly on mutually agreeable neutral ground with both CBC and Fox crews filming in front of a live audience with one condition: That both networks broadcast the debate in its entirety unedited. O’Reilly refused.
      What O’Reilly did do was go on an extended fulminating diatribe on his show about the CBC and Canada, pinkos, socialist medicare systems and a lot more. What that tells me is that O’Reilly and all the other hot button pushers and scandalmonger producers at Fox are scared silly if they cannot control the message.
      I note that the CBC is not perfect, but at least they are capable of questioning their sources, accommodating the challenge of real debate, and occasionally broadcasting extensive pieces of investigative journalism. For that, conservatioves call them “biased” and “too left wing.” Further, they are not bought out by their sponsors, not even the most right-wing government we have known who, despite their cuts to the CBC’s operating grants and appointment of Harperite executives to manage the cuts as well as attempt to control editorial content (it didn’t work), never caused the CBC to fold.

    4. “They really don’t understand where conservatives are coming from”.
      There are disingenuous people everywhere, but to dismiss an entire group of people (“liberals”) by saying they just don’t understand is (a) counter-productive, and (b) hypocritical.
      Speaking as a self-identified liberal, I very much understand where conservative ideology and ideas come from. I’m always willing to listen to reasoned arguments, and I’m often willing to listen to unreasoned arguments. I’m not, however, willing to listen to the same unreasoned argument coming from the same person more than once – they need to show that they are listening to my counter-points or I’m out of there.
      That’s my main objection to Thomas. (I’ve stated this before.) He keeps coming back with the same old naked assertions and the little evidence he provides is paper thin at best.
      “Yes I think the mainstream media in Canada has a liberal tilt (and supplying “evidence” of this is not easy, but I still think it’s true).”
      I think that the mainstream media in Canada has a conservative tilt. I can easily provide some pretty strong evidence by way of the two national newspapers’ (and all the local newspapers in the Postmedia chain) endorsements of the Conservative party over the last federal election. (Not to mention past federal elections as well as a large number of provincial elections.)
      “I think academia has a liberal tilt”
      Of course it does. Conservatism, by definition, wants to keep things the same. It’s academia’s role to ask questions and push boundaries.
      “You’re not as smart and enlightened as you think.”
      Neither are you.

  8. Oh, Thomas…..You started strong with your subsidized parking article and now you delve into this crap. Not a good way to end your week. And what does this have to do with Urban Design? Gordon we’re getting off topic……

    1. Actually I started with an open house story of a new mixed-use building on Nelson @ Burrard. Here is that link to that story, with new photos from the well attended open house last night.
      Urban design needs a balanced view and input from all constituents: young and old, rich and poor, car-loving or car-hating, able or disabled, left and right, immigrant or old stock, pro-X and anti-X, believers in low taxes and believers in big taxes, i.e. from everyone. Facts matter. People’s opinion, on both sides of an argument matter. My point is that many views are suppressed or drowned out, especially if you have a state subsidized news media like CBC with subsidized offices in every major city in Canada. How can they not be biased ? Many universities even suppress views, as some are deemed “offensive”, be it on abortion or Israel or homosexual marriages or the environment.
      When have you seen a debate on abortion, for example, on TV or on campus lately ?
      Not everyone has the same values or worldviews, and they clash all the time, especially in big dense cities.
      The internet is now 20+ years old. We need subsidies for news ?
      Important topics need balanced coverage. Not bias.
      What is the opposite of university ? Diversity !

  9. Before we get too bashy on Thomas (because I know I wasn’t exactly non-controversial during my week) … I will agree that there are definitely conversations to be had about many/most/all of Thomas’s 12+ points.
    The thing is, FOX news doesn’t have conversations about things. I lived in the USA for long enough to know this well. FOX news adopts positions on things and reports based on those positions, unfortunately for your argument, the opposite of “politically correct mushiness” is not ideologically based, nationalistically shouted, morally corrupted, and corporately sponsored fluff.
    I have a conversation with a good friend often, about how saying that any party is lowercase ‘c’ conservative is a bit of a misnomer, because none are … that what passes for ‘C’onservative in both Canada and USA is not in any way true to the root ‘c’onservative values (having had all kinds of religious and ideological views added which are in no way conservative at all).
    I would welcome a conservative mouthpiece to speak on the world, I think that such a view would allow objective dispassionate discussion about the merits of many ideas, both liberal and conservative.
    The thing is, FOX isn’t conservative. It is ‘C’ONSERVATIVE(tm) and this allows no discussion, it allows little objectivity, and while it adds another voice to the mix, if that voice speaks with as many untruths as FOX does, how does it do anything but be society’s ‘Boy who cried wolf’? There very well may be good things in there, but there is so much that isn’t that how is one to separate?
    Finally, I think we can agree that at the core, the ‘C’onservative view is not one that does a great deal of ‘help thy neighbor’, whereas the ‘mushy liberal’ side might well spend too much time/money in doing so (this is a valid discussion, which a ‘c’onservative media organization might well have) … on balance, I would verymuch prefer to err on the side of more help than less.
    When was the last time you could associate the word ‘Callous’ to members of the ‘mushy liberal’ side of the coin? Now how many times might you be able to do so for the FOX side?
    Honestly, given the choice between FOX and nothing, I’ll take nothing. If you want to come back with something which might actually represent ‘c’onservative views, then you’ll have a receptive ear.

  10. Speaking of the “flight to quality”, I’ll be giving PriceTags a pass for the foreseeable future. I hope you heal soon Gordon.

    1. Too controversial for your sensibilities ? Not left wing enough this week ? Not enough socialism ?
      No need to read every person’s view on the world. Many people have a different world view, and we all live in the same city.
      What specifically did you not like ?

        1. Well it is a blog on Vancouver related urban issues. Maybe I should have called it “truth or media” or “dumbing down of the electrorate” or “democracy in decline” or “your tax $ at work to support journalists, and as such, no $s for TransLink or the homeless” or “buy yourself benefits with your vote: free parking, free roads, free water, .. debt or the truth, who cares?”
          Topics are related.
          Loads of commentary this week, on controversial topics. Isn’t this what we want in a blog ? If everyone agrees, why have a blog ?
          Blogs, like facebook, is for mutual enlightenment and education. Everyone leaves better informed ! [ yes, even I !]
          Have a good weekend. I’ll be cat-skiing in interior BC. Slow or no wifi. With a bunch of green-oriented entrepreneurs. Should be interesting. We couldn’t get the e-cat as it was to weak to pull 12 guys up the hill. Diesel powered cat will do. Like JT’s visit to the White House or our politicians flying to Paris. Everyone talks a good game, but as to action, to give up one’s comfortable affluent life style derived from cheap fossil-fuel based energy and production: not so much.

  11. I don’t know what your issue is Thomas. The mainstream media is dominated by people who spout the same nonsense you are passing off as some kind of truth. For decades they denied or deliberately confused the science behind human influenced global warming. Only since it has become irrefutable and visible have they come around out of necessity to salvage some sliver of credibility. Same goes for many other issues where the corporate owned media is merely a propaganda machine for the corporate agenda.
    You’d have point if the media were owned by labour unions or environmental organizations. It is abundantly clear who influences mainstream media content and the bias in which it is presented. It is the precise opposite of what you claim.

  12. Congratulations Thomas on being brave enough to post your thoughts here. That said I doubt anyone else in the world (including those who work at Fox news) views Fox news as balanced.

  13. We don’t have any real news in Canada. CBC has movies, and CP24 talks about puppies and wall-a-thons. We need news that will put academics on the channel and let them debate on policies and major issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *