It was inevitable that one day a Liberal politician would drop the mask on this. The temptation to rub it in is just too much. Especially if his/her political fortunes are in jeopardy.
There will come a day when the measurements of democracy - of which a free press is one, change for Canada. And people will wring their hands and wonder what happened. And yet it’s plain as day - the government has their boot on the neck of the press. The only true freedom of the press is now in independent media who doesn’t take government money. (Thank you “The Line” for taking a stand!)
The ironic thing is people wring their hands about Facebook pulling news links. But most of them can’t be bothered to actually pay for a subscription to support having a free and independent media.
The mainsteam media is now an arm of the state, just to keep the chattering classes from rebelling against the Laurentian Elite. It's literally the playbook you see in China, Russia, Hungary, etc.
Throw in the English/French ethnic politics (that the Liberal base is obsessed with) and the vast regional transfer of money and power, and I'm getting serious late 80s Yugoslavia flashbacks. Yugoslavia fell apart very quickly once the US didn't care if it fell apart anymore. Canada is in the same spot.
The question needs to be asked, why are the Liberals so adamant on keeping a pliant media alive? With the Liberals, everything goes through Montreal and we all know how in the Franco mind social justice comes from the state. They don't see a state media as something illegitimate, unlike in North America. This is a payoff to keep the Franco media from pushing for separatism and the Anglo media to stay on the team. They fear a media that isn't part of the establishment, their whole being from Pierre Trudeau on depends on the media being on their team just as much as the legal profession and the senior civil service. It's all a house of cards.
I don't know what more MSM can do for them. I save and occasionally get around to batch-clipping the Star (not that I consider it a reliable information source, but for historical purposes), and you can hardly find an issue of the Star that doesn't contain at least three flattering pictures of Trudeau. Pics of opposition leaders are scarce, of poorer quality, and often accompanied by hit pieces, sometimes alarmist. That seems like a pretty good pubic relations return on investment for the Liberals to me.
I generally agree, but I'd think the US, from both a military/security/strategic perspective and a natural resources/financial view, would retain a keen interest in what happens in Canada.
The rot has certainly set in stateside as well, and they are likely distracted with domestic affairs and their own geopolitical issues with Russia, China, and the Middle East, but you'd think NOT letting Canada slip completely into one of those enemies complete control would be a pretty important priority for them, no?
I'm gonna be hated for this, but maybe it's time to let the press die a quick and painless death post-subsidies, rather than let the agony continue.
I realize news and information advocates will tell me "But how will we be informed?". Well, for one, there ain't much actual information (factual, mostly unbiased reporting) going in in corporate media and second, something else will spring up (The Line, anyone?), I have no doubt about that. Nature abhors a vacuum.
As I am well into my 40's now, I recently realized two things:
- Being "informed" is wildly entertaining and for a notorious procrastinator like me, the perfect excuse to avoid work on a Thursday morning.
- Not being informed makes more productive and really doesn't affect in any meaningful way both my personal and professional lives.
I wilfully ignored the news for most of my 30's, instead focused on starting a business and read lots of books. My life was measurably better and less stressful.
Now to bring this home: perhaps the complete defunding of all media by the government is desirable. All the "essential" functions that the media provide, can be replaced by other means, with a little creativity and will.
Being informed is important; the mistake lies in presuming that informing you is MSM's mission. It isn't. MSM has zero interest in informing, educating, or providing you with opportunities to develop your critical thinking and improve your judgment. MSM's sole interest in you is as a consumer, and its mission is to hold your attention for advertisers, hour after hour, 24 hours a day.
If you want to be informed your alternatives are books and the internet, and it should go without saying that in both realms it's imperative to be selective because of the sheer volume of material available. Sturgeon's Rule tells us that 'Nine-tens of everything is crud,' but even if this is true it still leaves available more terrific philosophy, history, science and literature than you could ever digest in a lifetime. So go to it, simply taking care to ensure your selection criteria aren't narrowly religious, political or ideological, as that would self-defeating.
I find that often, the more informed I am on a subject, the less informed I realize the media is. I am not anti-media, of course, but I realize their limitations and recognize that they need to be challenged, much like anything else I read, really.
I seem to remember Eric Weinstein saying in an interview (this is years ago, probably pre-pandemic) that an unbiased media that concerns itself with substantive matters is "vitally important! Someone should invent it!"
Books remain the tried and true antidote to ignorance, though if our corporate elites had their way fewer and fewer people would read them, just stare mesmerized at screens on which the messaging can be controlled (as we know, they're working hard to eliminate the last unregulated spaces). Aside from sports scores, and whether or not you should take an umbrella with you today, what beneficial thing would you learn from watching CP24, for example? You can live without knowing every detail of the latest shooting or stabbing.
But won't you think of the poor Terry Newmans of our great society? Without subsidies, who will rise to the noble cause of being paid to spew repetitive conservative bile at all hours?
Sarcasm aside, I wholeheartedly agree with your stance on being informed and how it relates to stress and personal productivity; I've been reducing my news intake significantly for a while and I've noticed the same effects you mentioned. Hear, hear!
Of course, the same arguments could apply to the CBC, much as the BBC in the UK also relies on a license fee paid by citizens in exchange for viewing rights. It just seems odd that Mr. Noormohamed decided to be so blunt and intimidating about this reality, especially in the context of a government that has become much more heavy-handed in terms of ensuring that the "correct" narrative is disseminated in the press (the Covid pandemic being a perfect example). A truly liberal government should not be in the business of being the thought police.
J.S. Mill used to say that a clearer perception and livelier impression of truth is produced by its collision with error. That's the attitude that should adopted by government officials, rather than making petty and implicit threats about shutting down a publication because they have the temerity to criticise your policies.
'It just seems odd that Mr. Noormohamed decided to be so blunt and intimidating about this reality, especially in the context of a government that has become much more heavy-handed in terms of ensuring that the "correct" narrative is disseminated in the press'
J.S. Mill is a great quote later in your post, and wouldn't it be great if the PM, Mr. Noormohamed, and the rest of this government would heed it. Alas, this is a government chock full of narcissists who are completely unaware of their own narcissism, taking their lead from their Narcissist-In-Chief.
Jeffrey Kluger has a great quote that explains a lot of this government's initial popularity back in 2015 and the gradual erosion of their electoral fanbase in the last decade:
'It's a deep and all but certain truth about narcissistic personalities that to meet them is to love them, but to know them well is to find them unbearable. Confidence quickly curdles into arrogance; smarts turn to smugness, charm turns to smarm.'
I suspect during the next election, if the polls continue as they are, statements like this from liberal MPs facing defeat will become the norm rather than the exception.
I doubt he's made any commitment at all. The campaign has been pretty short on commitments.
I find the editorial comment from The Line on this issue quite persuasive... no one wants to be the politician who was there when the big media companies go under. (Still fewer want to be the guy who pulled the trigger.)
So until Mr. Poilievre actually elminates that funding I assume it'll stay in place. Much like the massive subsidies all the political parties receive in terms of tax credits to them and to donors.
I can't find a SINGLE politician who will defend the fact that you get more of a tax deduction paying for them to run a brainless attack ad than you do paying for a meal at a shelter for abused women and kids.
But I also can't find a SINGLE politician who will commit to changing that.
You said "the idea of Canada exists only because the US allows it." I thought you were implying that countries exist as geographic entities and also as ideas. I agree with that. My point was that while the US might be able to decide not to allow Canada to exist as a sovereign geographic entity, I don't think the US can decide whether Canada exists as an idea.
That's very fair. I'm say though that if Canada doesn't exist as a sovereign geographic identity it will cease to become a mainstream idea within a generation, tops.
The idea of Canada has been diminishing since 1995 within E glish Canada. I doubt there would be the same push for no next time from English Canada
As a matter of principle I no longer pay for mainstream Canadian news. They know they work for Trudeau, Trudeau knows they work for Trudeau, I know they work for Trudeau. My children know they work for Trudeau. So I refuse to add to the money Trudeau steals from me (and everyone else) to pay them. They will do their best get him re-elected and, as most of them are younger than I am, they will have to live with the consequences. We no longer live in healthy democracy.
Free press or subsidized press I would still not vote for a wanker like Noormohamed. Besides that the MP this twit replaced has a much bigger set of cojones on her than this wanker has. The wanker Noormohamed is a good reminder for me to send my quarterly donation to the Line.
For those who haven't put it together yet, this is the same state of affairs that existed at the time of the Covid pandemic, when dissenting voices were censored, alternative treatments (that actually worked) were suppressed, and government edicts went unquestioned. Freedom of the (mainstream) press is already dead.
Not wanting to go down this rabbit hole too much (although a worthy topic), but ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, Vitamin D, IV Vitamin C, and others in combinations had extraordinary track records. Naturally, they were vilified and suppressed, so not to threaten the Big Pharma plan. Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik, amongst others, treated thousands of extremely ill patients with a near 100% success rate. Loads of studies backed up their work. Any physician who pursued these treatments successfully was pursued, de-licensed, and defamed. What does that tell you about the medical establishment? Something is very wrong with out system.
Not to go down the rabbit hole here but none of those showed any evidence of efficacy against Covid in humans. The ivermectin "evidence" was theoretical and those results were extrapolated to humans. The problem if ivermectin would have been effective in humans the dose was so astronomical that it actually would have been dangerous for any of us to use. Yet it was still prescribed, at ineffective doses, to people who more often than not would have gotten better on their own (as is the case with most viruses). When you see someone promote a near 100% success rate you should immediately begin to question them. It boggles the mind that people who dont trust government or big pharma (which is totally understandable) put 100% faith in charlatans who were also using the pandemic as a way to become famous and make money. If ivermectin actually worked and the choice was to shut down the economy or use the drug, it would have been used 100 times out of 100. And it wouldnt have stopped us from making or using a vaccine because with virus we'd rather use preventative methods as oppose to reactive methods
Pull the plug on the MSM and let’s get on with it. Sink or swim, shit or get off the pot, rip the bandage off. Public funding of anything only prolongs the agony.
It was inevitable that one day a Liberal politician would drop the mask on this. The temptation to rub it in is just too much. Especially if his/her political fortunes are in jeopardy.
I do believe you've hammered the proper nail into the correct place, psychologically speaking.
There will come a day when the measurements of democracy - of which a free press is one, change for Canada. And people will wring their hands and wonder what happened. And yet it’s plain as day - the government has their boot on the neck of the press. The only true freedom of the press is now in independent media who doesn’t take government money. (Thank you “The Line” for taking a stand!)
The ironic thing is people wring their hands about Facebook pulling news links. But most of them can’t be bothered to actually pay for a subscription to support having a free and independent media.
I became aware of more publications and subscribed to them BECAUSE of Facebook.
The mainsteam media is now an arm of the state, just to keep the chattering classes from rebelling against the Laurentian Elite. It's literally the playbook you see in China, Russia, Hungary, etc.
Throw in the English/French ethnic politics (that the Liberal base is obsessed with) and the vast regional transfer of money and power, and I'm getting serious late 80s Yugoslavia flashbacks. Yugoslavia fell apart very quickly once the US didn't care if it fell apart anymore. Canada is in the same spot.
The question needs to be asked, why are the Liberals so adamant on keeping a pliant media alive? With the Liberals, everything goes through Montreal and we all know how in the Franco mind social justice comes from the state. They don't see a state media as something illegitimate, unlike in North America. This is a payoff to keep the Franco media from pushing for separatism and the Anglo media to stay on the team. They fear a media that isn't part of the establishment, their whole being from Pierre Trudeau on depends on the media being on their team just as much as the legal profession and the senior civil service. It's all a house of cards.
They are paying to control the message and are now pissed that they aren’t getting the return they want.
I don't know what more MSM can do for them. I save and occasionally get around to batch-clipping the Star (not that I consider it a reliable information source, but for historical purposes), and you can hardly find an issue of the Star that doesn't contain at least three flattering pictures of Trudeau. Pics of opposition leaders are scarce, of poorer quality, and often accompanied by hit pieces, sometimes alarmist. That seems like a pretty good pubic relations return on investment for the Liberals to me.
I generally agree, but I'd think the US, from both a military/security/strategic perspective and a natural resources/financial view, would retain a keen interest in what happens in Canada.
The rot has certainly set in stateside as well, and they are likely distracted with domestic affairs and their own geopolitical issues with Russia, China, and the Middle East, but you'd think NOT letting Canada slip completely into one of those enemies complete control would be a pretty important priority for them, no?
Security is a preoccupation of the USA, and a big part of that is controlling the borders and what goes on in Canada.
I'm gonna be hated for this, but maybe it's time to let the press die a quick and painless death post-subsidies, rather than let the agony continue.
I realize news and information advocates will tell me "But how will we be informed?". Well, for one, there ain't much actual information (factual, mostly unbiased reporting) going in in corporate media and second, something else will spring up (The Line, anyone?), I have no doubt about that. Nature abhors a vacuum.
As I am well into my 40's now, I recently realized two things:
- Being "informed" is wildly entertaining and for a notorious procrastinator like me, the perfect excuse to avoid work on a Thursday morning.
- Not being informed makes more productive and really doesn't affect in any meaningful way both my personal and professional lives.
I wilfully ignored the news for most of my 30's, instead focused on starting a business and read lots of books. My life was measurably better and less stressful.
Now to bring this home: perhaps the complete defunding of all media by the government is desirable. All the "essential" functions that the media provide, can be replaced by other means, with a little creativity and will.
Being informed is important; the mistake lies in presuming that informing you is MSM's mission. It isn't. MSM has zero interest in informing, educating, or providing you with opportunities to develop your critical thinking and improve your judgment. MSM's sole interest in you is as a consumer, and its mission is to hold your attention for advertisers, hour after hour, 24 hours a day.
If you want to be informed your alternatives are books and the internet, and it should go without saying that in both realms it's imperative to be selective because of the sheer volume of material available. Sturgeon's Rule tells us that 'Nine-tens of everything is crud,' but even if this is true it still leaves available more terrific philosophy, history, science and literature than you could ever digest in a lifetime. So go to it, simply taking care to ensure your selection criteria aren't narrowly religious, political or ideological, as that would self-defeating.
I find that often, the more informed I am on a subject, the less informed I realize the media is. I am not anti-media, of course, but I realize their limitations and recognize that they need to be challenged, much like anything else I read, really.
I seem to remember Eric Weinstein saying in an interview (this is years ago, probably pre-pandemic) that an unbiased media that concerns itself with substantive matters is "vitally important! Someone should invent it!"
Books remain the tried and true antidote to ignorance, though if our corporate elites had their way fewer and fewer people would read them, just stare mesmerized at screens on which the messaging can be controlled (as we know, they're working hard to eliminate the last unregulated spaces). Aside from sports scores, and whether or not you should take an umbrella with you today, what beneficial thing would you learn from watching CP24, for example? You can live without knowing every detail of the latest shooting or stabbing.
But how else will we discover the “Canadian angle” to everything that happens elsewhere? 😅
😅
Absolutely correct.
But won't you think of the poor Terry Newmans of our great society? Without subsidies, who will rise to the noble cause of being paid to spew repetitive conservative bile at all hours?
Sarcasm aside, I wholeheartedly agree with your stance on being informed and how it relates to stress and personal productivity; I've been reducing my news intake significantly for a while and I've noticed the same effects you mentioned. Hear, hear!
Oh my! The shock! the horror! As Charlie Munger once said "You show me the incentive, I’ll show you the outcome."
Of course, the same arguments could apply to the CBC, much as the BBC in the UK also relies on a license fee paid by citizens in exchange for viewing rights. It just seems odd that Mr. Noormohamed decided to be so blunt and intimidating about this reality, especially in the context of a government that has become much more heavy-handed in terms of ensuring that the "correct" narrative is disseminated in the press (the Covid pandemic being a perfect example). A truly liberal government should not be in the business of being the thought police.
J.S. Mill used to say that a clearer perception and livelier impression of truth is produced by its collision with error. That's the attitude that should adopted by government officials, rather than making petty and implicit threats about shutting down a publication because they have the temerity to criticise your policies.
You asked:
'It just seems odd that Mr. Noormohamed decided to be so blunt and intimidating about this reality, especially in the context of a government that has become much more heavy-handed in terms of ensuring that the "correct" narrative is disseminated in the press'
J.S. Mill is a great quote later in your post, and wouldn't it be great if the PM, Mr. Noormohamed, and the rest of this government would heed it. Alas, this is a government chock full of narcissists who are completely unaware of their own narcissism, taking their lead from their Narcissist-In-Chief.
Jeffrey Kluger has a great quote that explains a lot of this government's initial popularity back in 2015 and the gradual erosion of their electoral fanbase in the last decade:
'It's a deep and all but certain truth about narcissistic personalities that to meet them is to love them, but to know them well is to find them unbearable. Confidence quickly curdles into arrogance; smarts turn to smugness, charm turns to smarm.'
How could Buddy have been so stupid?
(I know I know ... "It's a rhetorical question.")
And with all them degrees!
As a society, we have never been more educated yet we have never been less productive.
Expertise is regularly wrong with no accountability.
I am pro expertise. It just seems like the new experts seem a lot worse than experts from 20 years ago.
I suspect during the next election, if the polls continue as they are, statements like this from liberal MPs facing defeat will become the norm rather than the exception.
He just made PPs argument for him. In a debate about this, all PP had to do is show this tweet.
Is that Mr. Poilievre’s argument?
Pierre Poilievre is says a Conservative government will eliminate all that government funding, tax credits, subsidies etc. ?
That’s news to me.
If I recall correctly he has promised to defund one entity, the CBC and that’s it. The rest of the government funding would stay in place.
Did Pierre Poilievre say the rest of the funding would stay in place, or did he not mention it at all? There is a difference.
I doubt he's made any commitment at all. The campaign has been pretty short on commitments.
I find the editorial comment from The Line on this issue quite persuasive... no one wants to be the politician who was there when the big media companies go under. (Still fewer want to be the guy who pulled the trigger.)
So until Mr. Poilievre actually elminates that funding I assume it'll stay in place. Much like the massive subsidies all the political parties receive in terms of tax credits to them and to donors.
I can't find a SINGLE politician who will defend the fact that you get more of a tax deduction paying for them to run a brainless attack ad than you do paying for a meal at a shelter for abused women and kids.
But I also can't find a SINGLE politician who will commit to changing that.
I hope so. If they have any thoughts to share about the travesty they have been involved in perpetuating, I would love to hear.
I wonder when the Americans will say "enough" and step in?
We must never forget that the idea of Canada only exists because the US allows it.
The country as a physical entity maybe, but not the idea.
What does that even mean?
You said "the idea of Canada exists only because the US allows it." I thought you were implying that countries exist as geographic entities and also as ideas. I agree with that. My point was that while the US might be able to decide not to allow Canada to exist as a sovereign geographic entity, I don't think the US can decide whether Canada exists as an idea.
That's very fair. I'm say though that if Canada doesn't exist as a sovereign geographic identity it will cease to become a mainstream idea within a generation, tops.
The idea of Canada has been diminishing since 1995 within E glish Canada. I doubt there would be the same push for no next time from English Canada
So the Line,Rebel News,True North,The Hub and others survive without government subsidies.
Why can't the MSM????
As a matter of principle I no longer pay for mainstream Canadian news. They know they work for Trudeau, Trudeau knows they work for Trudeau, I know they work for Trudeau. My children know they work for Trudeau. So I refuse to add to the money Trudeau steals from me (and everyone else) to pay them. They will do their best get him re-elected and, as most of them are younger than I am, they will have to live with the consequences. We no longer live in healthy democracy.
I refuse to subscribe, but I know very well I've paid for it ;-)
This was the whole reason why it was put into place in the first place. It wasn’t altruism. It was to get favourable press.
Did we just find an honest Liberal????????????
Nope, just a desperate one.
Same thing at this point me thinks
An honest Liberal is an oxymoron, methinks.
Free press or subsidized press I would still not vote for a wanker like Noormohamed. Besides that the MP this twit replaced has a much bigger set of cojones on her than this wanker has. The wanker Noormohamed is a good reminder for me to send my quarterly donation to the Line.
For those who haven't put it together yet, this is the same state of affairs that existed at the time of the Covid pandemic, when dissenting voices were censored, alternative treatments (that actually worked) were suppressed, and government edicts went unquestioned. Freedom of the (mainstream) press is already dead.
What alternative treatments actually worked?
Not wanting to go down this rabbit hole too much (although a worthy topic), but ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, Vitamin D, IV Vitamin C, and others in combinations had extraordinary track records. Naturally, they were vilified and suppressed, so not to threaten the Big Pharma plan. Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik, amongst others, treated thousands of extremely ill patients with a near 100% success rate. Loads of studies backed up their work. Any physician who pursued these treatments successfully was pursued, de-licensed, and defamed. What does that tell you about the medical establishment? Something is very wrong with out system.
Not to go down the rabbit hole here but none of those showed any evidence of efficacy against Covid in humans. The ivermectin "evidence" was theoretical and those results were extrapolated to humans. The problem if ivermectin would have been effective in humans the dose was so astronomical that it actually would have been dangerous for any of us to use. Yet it was still prescribed, at ineffective doses, to people who more often than not would have gotten better on their own (as is the case with most viruses). When you see someone promote a near 100% success rate you should immediately begin to question them. It boggles the mind that people who dont trust government or big pharma (which is totally understandable) put 100% faith in charlatans who were also using the pandemic as a way to become famous and make money. If ivermectin actually worked and the choice was to shut down the economy or use the drug, it would have been used 100 times out of 100. And it wouldnt have stopped us from making or using a vaccine because with virus we'd rather use preventative methods as oppose to reactive methods
You're entitled to your point of view Steve, but, without going into details, it's entirely incorrect. Best of luck.
Im assuming thats because I have provided details and you have no details to provide. Have a great weekend pal
You assume wrongly, but what would be the point of continuing. All the best.
Pull the plug on the MSM and let’s get on with it. Sink or swim, shit or get off the pot, rip the bandage off. Public funding of anything only prolongs the agony.
Ending media subsidies and defunded CBC are yet other reasons to look forward to a CPC victory and massive budget purge.