Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I'm not saying reasonable people can't agree with him. I'm saying the basic premise of this thread, that somehow he's entitled to a specific amount and type of coverage/platform based on how popular he is, and that somehow the lack of coverage is indicative of some sort of bias is nonsense. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why Peterson doesn't receive acclaim, coverage, etc.
|
He's not entitled. But I've worked as a journalist, took a course dedicated to analyzing news values, worked as a media monitor, and followed the CBC for the entirety of my adult life. The CBC interviews dozens of people a week. Any Canadian author sells 500 books and they fall all over themselves promoting it. There's no doubt in my mind that any other Canadian figure with Peterson's profile would have been interviewed and profiled by the CBC at least once, and probably multiple times, in the last year as his prominence on the cultural landscape soared.
You're either wholly ignorant of how the media works, or you're just being disingenuous for ideological reasons. Why do you think a half-dozen British news organizations interviewed and ran profiles on Peterson in the last week? Are the BBC and the Guardian in thrall to the alt-right? Are they bad at recognizing news values?