Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[neo45]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Always remember, whenever Conservatives complain, they are really just projecting:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1647990360394592256

This sort of proves Twitter entirely right, no? Label is accurate

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by neo45

This sort of proves Twitter entirely right, no? Label is accurate

No it doesn't. There is a difference between being "factual" and being "right".

The label is factual. The CBC is funded predominantly by funding provided by and with financial oversight by the government.

But it isn't "right" because it is done with malice in order to allow people to exploit the fact that it is easy to confuse "government funded" with "state-run". PP has already done this by trying to use the flag as some sort of call to arms that the CBC is a Liberal Propaganda machine because of it.

There is ample evidence that this isn't true, however facts don't matter as much as spin.

I agree that if a media outlet is at the behest of a government that should be tagged, but there is nothing gained from putting "government funded" anymore than "private funded" except to cause strife and division.

That isn't the right thing to do, but it seems to be more and more the Right thing that is done.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by neo45

This sort of proves Twitter entirely right, no? Label is accurate

I don’t think anyone is debating whether or not the CBC is government funded.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by neo45

This sort of proves Twitter entirely right, no? Label is accurate

You know if you read the other words on the page from other people that have posted, you'd know why this is not strictly the case. It has already been explained that Twitter's labels are defined in such a way that makes the label dishonest and disingenuous.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by belsarius

No it doesn't. There is a difference between being "factual" and being "right".

The label is factual. The CBC is funded predominantly by funding provided by and with financial oversight by the government.

But it isn't "right" because it is done with malice in order to allow people to exploit the fact that it is easy to confuse "government funded" with "state-run". PP has already done this by trying to use the flag as some sort of call to arms that the CBC is a Liberal Propaganda machine because of it.

There is ample evidence that this isn't true, however facts don't matter as much as spin.

I agree that if a media outlet is at the behest of a government that should be tagged, but there is nothing gained from putting "government funded" anymore than "private funded" except to cause strife and division.

That isn't the right thing to do, but it seems to be more and more the Right thing that is done.

Oh, I fully agree that this is being done in malice in this case. I just don’t think it’s over the line, or a slippery slope, or anything like that

I think bigger picture - people knowing who funds their news coverage and caring about it - is a good thing, and the culture war bickering is funny if you don’t take it too seriously.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by neo45

Oh, I fully agree that this is being done in malice in this case. I just don’t think it’s over the line, or a slippery slope, or anything like that

I think bigger picture - people knowing who funds their news coverage and caring about it - is a good thing, and the culture war bickering is funny if you don’t take it too seriously.

So you think it's important that people know who funds their news coverage, but the fact that in this case it's being done dishonestly and with malice is no big deal?

Like, do you actually even give a sh-t or not?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by neo45

Oh, I fully agree that this is being done in malice in this case. I just don’t think it’s over the line, or a slippery slope, or anything like that

I think bigger picture - people knowing who funds their news coverage and caring about it - is a good thing, and the culture war bickering is funny if you don’t take it too seriously.

Is it though? I have no idea who the majority owner of Post Media is, and even if I did it wouldn't change how I view them. Or the Toronto Star, no clue, but I know to expect a left bias. Is Murdoch still in charge of Fox news? Is Ted Turner still owner of CNN? Honestly I have no clue, but I understand what to expect from either of them.

And then when I get a news source I am not familiar with, I will google them and check media bias sites to get an idea of what to expect when reading them. If I am solely looking at who funds them and making a preconceived judgement about them based on that, am I really being open to the reporting?

People shouldn't need to car about who funds their news coverage, people need to consume media from a variety of sources with different viewpoints because every single media outlet has some kind of bias.

But that's just me. What benefit do you think people get from seeing where their news is funded from? Do you know the funding for all the media you consume?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by neo45

Oh, I fully agree that this is being done in malice in this case. I just don’t think it’s over the line, or a slippery slope, or anything like that

I think bigger picture - people knowing who funds their news coverage and caring about it - is a good thing, and the culture war bickering is funny if you don’t take it too seriously.

didnt you just say this?

Originally Posted by neo45

I don’t put much stock into slippery slope arguments but the clear defining line here is that one is publicly funded by the government and one is privately funded, so expecting equal levels of transparency of their financial statements doesn’t make any sense to me.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1648401347010789380

Some good barbs back and forth today.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Ped

To be fair though, you cut out the "may have" part. "May have is certainly different than "will have" or "does have," and to me, says that government control is not necessary to be considered government-funded.

Is there really an argument that the CBS is not government-funded. Yes, there are bias implications that Elon and twitter are banking on by doing this, but the CBS is funded by the government. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but it is a fact.

*Sigh*... This isn't about whether the CBC gets government funding. That's not what Twitter/Musk mean when they categorize the CBC as "government-funded media": it's about whether there's government involvement and control over the editorial content.

With respect to the CBC to say they "may have varying degrees of government involvement over editorial content" is categorically false: in accordance with the clauses in the Broadcast Act that form the foundation of the governance of the CBC, the government may not involve themselves in the CBC's editorial content.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I'm glad CBC has paused their activity on twitter, in fact I would like to see more media outlets just leave altogether. It's pretty obvious Elon is running what was once a decent platform straight into the ground, throwing in immature and unserious tweets and comments along the way. Let's be honest, it's become a joke. If the platform is being run by a 9 year old trapped in a man's body I don't see the harm in leaving at all. Good for them.

I've been on Twitter since around last summer it's been getting better and better. Cry baby media outlets (and individuals) leaving is a win not a loss. As for Twitter as a company, going forward it is going to be wildly financially successful unlike it has been since the business started. Quote me on this and revisit it in the future.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I have to admit this is kind of funny. It's also a little rich coming from him given how he built his empire largely on government handouts.

This didn't happen. From ChatGPT

Tesla did receive government assistance in the form of loans, but it was not a bailout. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Tesla a $465 million loan as part of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program, which was created to support the development of advanced vehicle technologies. The loan was used to help finance the development and production of the Model S electric sedan and other vehicles.

Tesla repaid the loan in full with interest by 2013, nine years ahead of schedule. In addition, the company also received tax incentives and credits for its electric vehicles, which are available to all manufacturers of electric cars. So, while Tesla did receive government assistance, it was not a bailout and the company has since become profitable and successful on its own.

[The Fonz]

PP stood a pretty decent chance at winning the next election had he just crawled in a hole and stayed there till it was over. Instead, he's acting like a dumbass and likely re-electing Trudeau.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

PP stood a pretty decent chance at winning the next election had he just crawled in a hole and stayed there till it was over. Instead, he's acting like a dumbass and likely re-electing Trudeau.

Agreed. He needs a platform besides "Trudeau bad". That's all he talks about.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

PP stood a pretty decent chance at winning the next election had he just crawled in a hole and stayed there till it was over. Instead, he's acting like a dumbass and likely re-electing Trudeau.

That’s what the last two CPC leaders did and they didn’t fair well.

Lots of runway left but Liberals better get ahold of these scandals one after another.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1648325515382497286

[timun]

Originally Posted by zamler

This didn't happen. From ChatGPT

Dafuq? We're just mindlessly asking a chatbot to factcheck reality?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by zamler

Agreed. He needs a platform besides "Trudeau bad". That's all he talks about.

I tried communicating that to him a while back through a very close liaison of his who shall remain nameless. True story.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by zamler

I've been on Twitter since around last summer it's been getting better and better. Cry baby media outlets (and individuals) leaving is a win not a loss. As for Twitter as a company, going forward it is going to be wildly financially successful unlike it has been since the business started. Quote me on this and revisit it in the future.

Drug cartels are wildly financially successful, but that doesn’t make them a positive contribution to society.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by timun

Dafuq? We're just mindlessly asking a chatbot to factcheck reality?

Not mindlessly, that describes your post you put zero effort into fact checking. ChatGPT summary is correct.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Drug cartels are wildly financially successful, but that doesn’t make them a positive contribution to society.

And some businesses are both financially successful and a positive to humanity. Like Tesla, the company has forced entire industries to move away from burning oil.

[Fuzz]

The problem for the Conservatives is they don't really have allies. If they get a minority, who do they work with? The BQ is about the only option that will have seats, will they have enough though? A minority doesn't allow them to do much, which I guess is a good thing.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by zamler

Not mindlessly, that describes your post you put zero effort into fact checking. ChatGPT summary is correct.

Did you ask ChatGPT about this?:

Originally Posted by Looch City

Lol too true, this article is back from 2015:

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...531-story.html

Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies




He’s a hypocritical man child.