To answer your question: a whole frickin' lot. More than the vast majority of Canadians really understand. The media, and who owns and/or sponsors the media, plays a deciding role in what we hear, and how we hear it.

I have seen the Sun lie outright concerning the NDP. The Post will not publish news embarassing to the Conservatives.

Then the Right complains continually about the "Left Wing bias of the media"

Sheer twaddle!

I have no doubt that the new is often biased by the media.

The newspapers, radio, and televison all get a lot of advertising dollars from political parties, more from some parties than from others.  They therefore try not to embassess their biggest advertisers, and may occasionally withhold news if it makes the party look bad.  Also some prime ministers and cabinet ministers are more open with the media and therefore get better treatment in the news. 

This is the main reason we have to base our own opinion on issues, and make sure we understand all sides of an issue.

Canwest makes no secret of its bias. It has said publicly that it supports Israel, and that it uses its news to do so. I know something, for example, of the Netanyahu riot at Concordia university in Montrreal. That was a setup to glean sympathy for Netanyahu. And, oh, it worked.

As Bush was preparing for war with Afghanistan, the atmosphere was loaded with news reports and web stores about how terrible the Taliban were, especially toward women. The stories were true, of course. What was left out was the reasons we were going to invade - which had nothing to do with liberating women.

When the US supervised the genocide of 200,000 Maya in guatemala, most north american news media never carried the story at all, not even whenClinton publicly apologized for it.

It must have been a good twenty years ago that a Baltimore paper broke the story - with lots of documention - that the US army was routinely using torture and, in fact, was instructing latin american dictatorship in it - and had been doing so for decades. Almost all north american news media ignored it.

When Lt. William Calley's platoon murdered hundreds of vietnamese villagers right down to babies, it took tremendous pressure for most media to pick up the story. And they never did look at the story that two neighbouring villages suffered the same fate on that same day from two other platoons.

In war in particular, most news reporting is really propaganda.

In peace, read the columns of L. Ian Macdonald. Frequently an analyst on TV and in print he was always an unashamed hack for Brian Mulroney. And it's probable that well over half of all "analysts' fall into the hack category.

Similarly, most newspapers will give immediate and prominent space to any report from a so-called think tank like the simon fraser or the CD Howe. In fact, most of these are simply propaganda agencies for right wing causes.

For the war journalist part of this, read a book called The First Casualty. It's an excellent histoy of a profession with a shameful record.

graeme

Thanks very much for your replies to date.  They have been very enlightening, in particular, Graeme's.  What a good memory you have, Graeme.  Who is the author of the First Casualty?  I found several books online with that name that might be the one you refer to.

For anyone who is interested in this topic, I would highly recommend seeing the NFB film, Manufacturing Consent. Most libraries should have a copy but it can be viewed at the link I provided. It's an excellent analysis of this very topic -- here's more information at Wikepedia.

Fakirs, I can't remember. It may have been called Truth: The First Casualty. But I think it is just The First Casualty. I'll try to check and get back to you on it. (My sons keep kicking me off the computer.)

Oh, an incident I forgot. Camilien Houde was a mayor of Montreal in the 1930s to 50s. He was very fat,  had a large an bulbous nose,  - and was hated by the Toronto Star. Whenever it ran a story on him, it was always accompanied by a low angle camera shot that looked up to his belly and nose, and made him look evernmore grotesque than he was.

graeme

Another problem is a more insidious one and that is simply unreliable or incompetent reporting.  When I was a crown counsel I would often run trials for 2 or 3 weeks at a time.  The court reporters of course had deadlines and were covering more than one story at a time.  There was no way that they could sit in my court room often only one or two days a week for a few minutes at a time.  The result of this was that the story that appeared in the newspaper often bore little resemblance to the case that I was prosecuting.  The problem thus, becomes the judgment when rendered often seemed completely ridiculous to the reader because it was based on an incorrect or grossly lacking recitation of the facts.   I suppose that one could say that it was incumbent on the crown and defence to tell the reporters what the facts are but the reality is that the lawyers are too busy during one of those trials (generally working 16 -17 hours a day just putting on the trial) that they do not have the time to brief the press as well. 

re elizabeth's comments:  as, for example, in the recent case of the press reports that Omar Khadr had positively ID'd Maher Arar as someone he had seen in an al Qaeda camp - a story that later turned out to be false; but by that time, significant damage had been done to Maher Arar.

I've worked in media for more than 30 years and got out because, almost single-handedly, Rupert Murdoch screwed integrity out of the business and left "ethical" decision-making in the hands of defamation lawyers (who replaced proof-readers); he also pumped up "celebrity journalism" (an obvious oxymoron) and infotainment, and purged "serious" from the media.

Essentially, news is not heavily censored because it doesn't have to be. Newsrooms are full of younger, naive but ego-driven writers under a lot of pressure to fill the space between the ads. They face tight lot time constraints and are poorly resourced to think critically, investigate thoroughly or take risks. The quick and easy story with a bit of sex or drama is what gets the readers and the bylines. Painstaking critique just doesn't do it.

Newsroom staffs are far smaller than they used to be and few publishers think further than advertising revenues. Editors try to promote news but they work within tight staffing and cost budgets and will not hold their jobs if they start upsetting advertisers, losing audience, attracting lawsuits or allowing their news service to get out of step with the mainstream.

Newsroom staffs are themselves immersed in popular culture and susceptible to all of the confusing cross-currents — political, emotional and fashionable — that run through society and, therefore, seldom buck whatever trend is about. Most journalism merely amplifies popular stupidity. Overt censorship isn't needed.

And that's a shortcoming of the vanity, vacuity and opinionated conceit of an under-educated but hyper-acquisitive populace that's in desperate need of unrelenting entertainment and bling. Popular culture vigorously discourages deeper values, critical thought, self awareness and discernment, reflection, an appetite for understanding, concern for others…. And there's sure no room for rebels.

It always surprises me how seriously people who ought to know better take the "mainstream" media.

There is bias in everything we do and say.  There is no way around it, you have opinions on things and they affect how you react to what you hear and say.

I agree that out right censorship isn't needed, reporters slef censor everytime they speak.

Of course inflammatory language, used in reports , words that imply things not proven are used to get us riled up.

no way around that.  There is no such thing as basic facts, everything has somesort of slant.

Traditionally various news outlets have had well known slants, and in many ways, by reading all of them you get a fairer picture of the story.  The Star, gives a left slant, the globe a slightly more right slant and the post and far right slant.  The truth is somewhere inbewtween.

But I have to agree with Elizabeth,  whenever I have know the facts in a story, whether it is a medical issue or a business issue, it is reported incorrectly.

Perhaps it is exaggerated, or maybe not researched, or maybe the reporter has a position......  i have never read a report that I am involved in where the facts as presented are correct.  that leads me to believe that it also the case for all reports, hence i read the various slants

The media is censored.  We only hear of what they want us to hear, but it is possible to find out more to looking for independant news sources online.  Also, reading papers and online magazines from other countries helps to give a different perspective or shed more light on a given issue.  Like the online version of a german magazine called Der Spiegel.  There is an english version of it available online, and I found an article there about the economic crisis we are in right now, and how GW Bush did nothing to stop it when top economists told him a few years ago that it was coming because of bad mortage debt in the US.  Did you hear any of that in Canada or the US?  Or even how a lot of news media is heavily slanted towards Israel.  During the current Gaza conflict, I never read or heard from any north american news source that not only were israeli troops were advancing, but that the israeli army was using bulldozers to destroy farmers crops in Gaza, making their humanitarian crisis that much worse.  You are right to question things, and you question things often.  If something doesn't sound right to you, then there is a reason for it....  that's because it isn't.

I'm in substantial agreement with everybody above, though real control does exist, too. For example, When the body of a missionary priest was taken to Montreal for a medical examination about ten years ago, iit was reported. But none of the press items said why.

So I checked into it, and did a radio piece about it. He had been killed by Guatemala troops who, under the direction of the CIA, had nurdered 200,000 Maya Indians. The priest was killed for working with the Mayas. The examination ws to determine whether he had been tortured first.

Except for my radio piece, not one of montreal's news outlets ever reported the reasons he was exhumed. Of course, how could they? They had never reported the mass murders or the CIA involvement in the first place.

An anti castro cuban blew up a cuban airliner killing some 170 people. I think that's what's called terrorism. He's in the US,  has been ever since. The American government has been protecting him from prosecution. How many papers have you seen that story in?

graeme 

Graeme — I agree. But I get a little uncomfortable with the tendency towards conspiracy theory in this thread.

The reality is that few people will buy a newspaper that challenges their prejudices, fails to entertain them or is equivocal about affirming their sense of superiority. This is why the commercial media find it virtually impossible to halt the rise of totalitarian regimes or stand in the way of things like the invasion of Iraq. In Canada, no-one wants to know very much about youth suicide rates, especially if it involves inuit or Aboriginal youth; people don't really want Taser International called to account — and things have been reported in mainstream media that bear on issues like these, certainly enough for people to get interventionist if there was the slightest will. A shameful proportion of Canadians won't get off their butts long enough to vote.

Blaming the media is too easy: the media are just a part of the mainstream and no more to blame than other shapers of attitudes — cosmetics manufacturers, the fashion industry, the molly-coddlers of pets, the entertainment industry… line 'em and they look like far too many of US! And it is us — we — who are the real problem. But God forbid that we examine ourselves for blame or failure.

Better to go watch a video.

ain't it the truth.

I quite agree that the media can get overblamed for our faults. i do have my hates in the media, though. There are those who exercise control as well as pander. Down here we have the Irving press in that category. It does more than keep the Irving family off the news pages. It also promotes causes which, I suspect, are dear to the family's heart. The same is true of the Aspers.  There is a pattern to the  columnists favoured by the Gazette of Montreal.

But it is true as well that most people don't want to see news that will foul up their prejudices.

graeme

ain't it the truth.

I quite agree that the media can get overblamed for our faults. i do have my hates in the media, though. There are those who exercise control as well as pander. Down here we have the Irving press in that category. It does more than keep the Irving family off the news pages. It also promotes causes which, I suspect, are dear to the family's heart. The same is true of the Aspers.  There is a pattern to the  columnists favoured by the Gazette of Montreal.

But it is true as well that most people don't want to see news that will foul up their prejudices.

graeme

@ graeme:  care to tell us the names of the priest and the terrorist?

damn. you're sending me back to search. Okay. I'll do it tonight. The priest was Raoul Leger. The whole story is in a fairly recent book about the pathologist in Montreal who examined him. It's by Kathy Reichs, and it's called Deja Dead. The terrorist is living in Miami, where he is much celebrated by the local cuban exile community. I'll get his name tonight.

graeme

the name of the cuban exile terrorist if Luis Posada Carriles. The airliner bombing was in 1976. (I had the number of dead wrong by a wide margin. It was 73).

Carriles has also public boasted of bombing in Havana tourist spots in the 1990s, and of plots to kill Castro. As well, there is considerable evidence that he has been a contracted agent of the CIA. There are quite a few sites that deal with him.

In particular, the US has refused to extradite him to Venezuela for criminal offences under Venezuela law.

Last I heard - several months ago - he was still living in Miami.

On an older request, the book on war reportinig is Philip Knightley, The First Casualty. (a shortening of an old saying, "The first casuatly of war is the truth."

graeme

Okay, I've done a little online query re the lay missionary Raoul Leger.  I couldn't find a lot of credible-sounding material pertaining to him in English, and, I blush with shame to say it - but those French classes were totally wasted on me.  Here are few mildly interesting URLS directly pertaining to him:  www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/01/04/leger020104.html    www3.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche/    www.davidstonehouse.com/articles/brothers_death.htm   So then I decided to leave Leger out of the search terms; and instead, I googled 'Guatemela' 'Maya' and 'CIA' and that got a lot more interesting:  query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html   american.edu/TED/ice/peten.htm     www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/discoveringdominga/resources.html     www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/guatemala/history.html    www.democracynow.org/2005/7/27/wife_of_guatemalan_rebel_killed_by   - and that's just for starters.

Now on to the case of Cuban exile and alleged terrorist Luis Posada Carriles:

The U.S.'s alleged reason for keeping him under its wing and away from Cuba and Venezuela who want him bad on terrorism charges does look a little bit fishy:  articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/15/nation/na-posada15   on account of its triviality www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/January/07_nsd_011.html   www.txwd.uscourts.gov/opinions/cases/posadacarriles/default.asp  relative to the charges of terrorism and the murder of 73 people.  www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/world/americas/08posada.html    www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1892133.htm  www.democracynow.org/2007/5/7/documents_linked_to_cuban_exile_luis 

Thanks for those sites, especially the ones on leger. I suppose his closenss to my home makes him especially interesting to me.

graeme

Isn't conspiracy theory getting to be a hack expression to get tired of?

I have been accused of believing in CT for years by my authoritarian friends who would hate to see the present order of things change.

Consider the largest CT to be one of dumbing down the population! Now is that a form of confined desires ... covenanted loves of ulterior context?

Statistics say we use far less than 10% of our mind and we hate to see it utilized in critical space. That's what you were given a head fer m'n!

In  a monotheistic world that would believe in only ONE idealism ... desire, alone, without a clue ... that's plain St. Upide without some form of cognizance ... a bit of Light in the shade of acacia bush! Now St. Paul that is a thorny issue.

I'll chose Deistic perspective against the singular aspect ... now isn't that the devil to a one track mind? Sophia is justice ... there needs to be two sides in the balance ... what two Pans?

It makes the Dah Vin Chez Qode-like mind giggle with glee ... a bit of fire to wake the dead ... and thaw the code out there. It is a brutal, chilling world and we do not see ... like blind old Gods that cannot change without someone bringing them the story: "What have you learned my child?" Then there others like hors' bring them to water and they will not drink ... they just think they're so hot!

They're without clue ... just th' ought without care ... d' void, rapturous ... have you seen a sign and missed it in your busyness? One must slow down and listen read the skatt Eired word from time to time ides fecund! The whole's Tory is amour Fuzzy loci! Butte ... how much offered is seen?

Cos ... Moe ... Logical!

What people need to understand is that we see and think and also react what the media wants us to see and think and react. Media has exclusive rights to capture events and deliver them to us but I can tell that they manipulate it to such extent that they make us believe from their viewpoints and sometimes only one side, it's also very safe to say that they influence major things such as elections, polls etc. I can safely confirm this because my dad used to work in the media sector, and what you see is hardly what it is for real. Feel free to argue or oppose :)

Peace.

Graeme:  I think that you at least will be interested in this article on the alleged complicity of the U.S. government in the cases of "disappeared people" in Guatamela:  www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/18/2564354-group-says-files-show-us-knew-of-guatemala-abuses

I agree with a lot of what is said, but it's inprecise to talk about the media as if it's a single body of newspapers and TV stations that is controlled a certain way.  In the age of the Internet, the media is more dispersed and more de-centralized than it's ever been.  If you've got a webcam and know how to post a video on Youtube, you're part of the media.  Online news and blogs have exploded the control of the local newspaper, which is why it's a bit disingenuous to talk of news being limited when Amazon can deliver pretty much any book or magazine pretty much anywhere, or when you can double-check what the Globe is telling you with a simple Wiki search.  You can live in the heart of red-neck rural Alabama and still have "The Joys of Gay S&M" delivered to your door-step.  The playing field is levelling out. 

I always find it a bit fresh when publications like Adbusters claim they're alternative when they're just as much a part of this bogeyman called 'the media' as The Economist.  We all are.  If more people aren't reading The Socialist Worker, whose fault is that?   

fakirs - thank you for  that note. I'm afraid it's even worse than that. For some years now, a team of American doctors has been digging up mass graves and conducting autopsies. What they have found is not just selected assassination, but a real genocide with whole village wiped out. Few media have paid any attention at all.

That brings us to freethinkers points - which are quite true. I would add on additional point, and one qualm.

1. Much of news is based on what we want to see. If you don't want to see it, we will not read it or watch it. note all those who find CBC too wildly leftist if not revolutionary, and insist on watching Fox.

2. Despite the variety of media sources out there these days, we still get some crazy ideas floating around. Very large numbers of Americans still believe Obama is moslem, that Saddam Hussein was behind the bombing of 9/11, and so it goes.

I despair of drawing any conclusions from that.

graeme

"1. Much of news is based on what we want to see. If you don't want to see it, we will not read it or watch it. note all those who find CBC too wildly leftist if not revolutionary, and insist on watching Fox."

A big concern is that because media is so dispersed, everyone will read whatever suits their bias.  At least back in the days of the local newspaper, everyone was reading that one paper, and had at least something in common to refer to. 

As concerned as I might be, there are still sources like the BBC which produce excellent quality news.  Furthermore, the ability to expose a story for the bullshit that it is with something like Youtube makes it a lot more difficult to claim certain things.  People were concerned that conservative talk radio in the US would replace the newspaper and create a populist uprising, but look at its condition now. 

Here is an refreshing interview with Douglas Rushkoff on Media and other things:

http://digitalmindsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/media-resistance-interview-...

Resistance weakens, be like water,

Inannawhimsey

Another series of ideas:

I can censor media as well.

Whatever I watch, after it enters my brain, is my creation. If I forget that, I can see the news as something that happens *to* me and that I am helpless to change.

But if I recognize the fact of my role, then I can treat news as entertainment.

Then I can fool around with it. Try on different points of view. 'Hack it', as some say.

Is that really a chair,

Inannawhimsey

to InannaWhimsey:  I think that's a very good thought, and it is closely connected to a special interest of mine:  the power of naming.  I will get back to this thread with more tonight, I hope.  I've been deeply preoccupied for several weeks and today is the first day I've been back to wondercafe.

As one creature of Light stated: examine it all, throw what isn't helpful to the paradigm down the sewer ... fecund knowledge for those that can grow it out of a field of pure Love!

Difficult for the stone mesons to penetrate unless you rub it with a similar material ... sort of like diamond dust on a wheel ... simple sign or a symbol? Is there fire in d' jinn's tone as it turns?

Paradox, enigma, parable to make m'n kynd think? Often an awkward OX in the heavens ... must be refined by fire!

Hi Fakirs,

While I am sure all media outlets have a bias (or point of view), I would hesitate to call what they do outright censurship.  Mostly, I think they are in over their heads and don't know or take the time to know their subject matter.  Also, they are in business to generate revenue by selling their stories and ads: I am sure their stories are targetted by what they consider to be their revenue streams.

It is naive to see the media as a portal for social justice; they just aren't capable.  Maybe the only thing the media really knows is the game of politics, not policy or governance, just the game.

Peace

Could we say they operate in blind faith of business ... without a thought? Habaes corpus ... husks of dead anima! Something to muse ova?

The media, by definition can not "censor" anything. That ability falls exclusively within the scope of government. If media restricts information to suit its bias, it is entitled to do so. If you don't like it, don't read/view it. If enough people stop listening/reading, the "media", as a private enterprise seeking profit will be forced to adjust and present more information.

To reiterate the point in relation to your comment, the media is not a social entity. It is a private enterprise. It seeks profit. It is not in the game of politics unless politics happen to be profitable news to the consumers.

Why condemn a private enterprise for pursuing profit? If you don't like it, don't buy their product.

There are more ways for the media to profit that selling papers, hello.

I am conviced the media is making more money with sponsership than selling papers.

? They only make money if you're interested enough in to buy their paper, listen to their news. What other ways are you proposing? 

What has you so convinced? 

Those who control the media control the world.

Nothing forces you to assume as truth the "news" you receive, nor prevents you from starting your own company and investigating the news as you determine it necessary.

Thanks for posting that SnP. saved me alot of typing.

It goes much further than what is descibed in that video, those people running the CFR are sockpuppets for a far more sinister group.

Ha! I finally found a use for that term sockpuppets! GR uses that term quite liberally. LOL!!

Bolt

The real question should be, "How much does the government control the media and news?" And thats not even really a question. Answer: 100%

Is the government interests based on people concerns or business concerns? Look at the analysis of who makes up the vast portion of government authority ... poor or medium peoples? Is it a joke by the powers above ... Gods that really don't care about the underworld?

What is the nature of the story ... subliminal news? Have we missed the interpretation of the symbols as the medium is corrupted from above? It is an odd isolation in thinking space eh ... reality as the authority sees IT? Learning space for whatever is on the other side of empire .. control of everything is the foci eh! Is that God-like or just the devil in humours, plasma-red suite?

If this is the case, why did the CBC refuse to air the conservative attack ads against Ignatieff?  Obviously the government is not 100% in control of them, or do they just want us to think that way?

Charles T, trying watching Manufacturing Consent (click on it and you'll go to a link where you can watch it). Although dated, its analysis of this issue gives an accurate view of what's happening with our media, including the CBC.

I was making sort of an off the cuff response to HHG saying the govt. is 100% in charge of media.  I actually know why the CBC refused - it is because they have a policy refusing political ads except during election campaigns.  I will watch that though, because this topic does intrigue me.

Excellent documentary, thanks, I have not seen that before.  Noam Chomsky is brilliant.

Bolt

Oh, I'm young, but I've seen plenty of liars in the media, as well as bias reporters swaying their viewer's opinion.

I have also seen enough 9/11 conspiracy theories to convince me the media is most certainly under government control and they sway facts easily, or bring up another issue fast to distract the viewers. Although I don't have an in-depth understanding of Swine Flu, I see it as another issue the media is running with for the sake of blocking our thoughts from other issues in the world.

The saying is that "the media controls the world", but then who is really controlling the media? It's easy enough to figure out. Any information we are given on television, in a newspaper, or anywhere should not be taken as definite fact - only a guide to what the real situation is, and the only information we will most likely be given regarding it.

Grand perspective Zhenny ...

Like a tree in the desert (decrees) ... just an ethic for the fluid to find a wah around and make gravid ground for hew thoughts!

Paraphrase form a powerful Rabbi who's numinous label, I just can't recall at this instant of in-Eire-tia! Crossing incident in alien space when the end caresses the beginning ... yahkol tales?