Freedom of the press for the Canadians out there...

Moral hollowness at work

Billionaire George Soros has made a living wrecking the lives of others. Now he wants to mess with Canadians

By Ezra Levant, QMI Agency


George Schwartz was born in Hungary in 1930 — not the luckiest time and place to be born a Jew.

George’s father Theodore tried to change the family’s fortunes by changing their name to something less Jewish-sounding. It didn’t help. And soon war came.

When the Nazis took total control of Hungary in 1944, the Holocaust followed. In two months, 440,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to death camps.

To survive, George, then a teenager, collaborated with the Nazis.

First he worked for the Judenrat. That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis to do their dirty work for them. Instead of the Nazis rounding up Jews every day for the trains, they delegated that murderous task to Jews who were willing to do it to survive another day at the expense of their neighbours.

Theodore hatched a better plan for his son. He bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let George live with him. George helped the official confiscate property from Jews.

By collaborating with the Nazis, George survived the Holocaust. He turned on other Jews to spare himself.

George moved to London after the war and then to New York, where he became a stockbroker. He’s rich now. Forbes magazine says he’s the 35th richest man in the world. Maybe you’ve heard of him. He goes by the name his father invented: George Soros.

How does Soros feel about what he did as a teenager? Has it kept him up at night?

Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? “Not at all,” Soros answered.

“No feeling of guilt?” asked Kroft. “No,” said Soros. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.”

A Nazi would steal the Jews’ property anyways. So why not him?

That moral hollowness has shaped Soros’ life. He’s a rabid critic of capitalism, but in 1992 when he saw a chance, he speculated against the British pound, causing it to crash, devastating retirement savings for millions of Britons. Soros pocketed $1.1 billion for himself. If he didn’t do it, someone else would, right?

In 2002, Soros was convicted of insider trading in France, and fined millions of dollars. He admitted buying the shares, but denied it was a crime.

Last year, when he made $3.3 billion off the banking collapse, he called the world’s financial crisis “the culmination of my life’s work.”

This is a man who boasted he offered to help his mother commit suicide. Apparently he didn’t see enough death in Hungary.

Soros is a sociopath. But he’s a sociopath with $14 billion, and he likes to spend it on politics.

Sometimes his gifts are large, like the $24 million he spent in 2004, trying to defeat George W. Bush. Sometimes they’re small, like $20,000 to a woman convicted of helping terrorists.

Now Soros has turned his attention to Canada.

One of his front groups, called Avaaz, is lobbying to stop Sun Media’s license for a TV news channel. Soros doesn’t know anything about Canada — Avaaz called the Sun newspapers the “Suncor newspapers” — but we’re his latest toy.

Avaaz is sending a petition to Canada’s TV regulator, the CRTC, claiming that thousands of Canadians want to censor the Sun and keep it off the air.

The petition is a fraud — it’s an Internet petition, and anyone can sign anyone else up without their permission. Fake names are permitted, and so are foreign citizens. And the whole campaign is run out of New York.

Do you think Soros should determine what you can watch on TV? Do you think that decision should be made in New York? Is our freedom of speech just another trinket for him to buy and sell?

Hasn’t Soros silenced enough voices in his life?

Fight back.

Visit www.suntvnews.ca.

Are you serious ?

You are talking about Avaaz the organisation that supports the Dalai Lama. The same organisation that also started a petition so there wouldn't be a budget cut for CBC. They also reacted to the stoning a the iranian woman.

This Avaaz ? Avaaz campaigns

I didn't find the petition your talking about on their site.

It might be on Soros's site. The open society organisation.

This article seems to cover the whole story.

Globe and Mail

I saw another article regarding the same kind of stuff where Harper was wanting to let the FOX network become part of the Canadian airways. Petition about not letting it happen as the FOX network loves to spread hate media all over the world.

Dancamp wrote:

This article seems to cover the whole story.

Globe and Mail

"poised to launch using a Fox News model of hard news reporting and opinion shows"
I stayed in US hotels 12 weeks last year for work. Watched some late evening TV, had a look at Fox News. Seemed to be an opinion show channel, sprinkled with a little bit of opinionated news. IMHO. I suppose it could have been due to the time-of-day when I had a look?

"The CRTC has asked for public comment on the application, and will hold a hearing in Gatineau, Que., in November to consider the licence."
That should be an interesting hearing. It's close to me, I'll see if I can attend.

deerHater wrote:

"The CRTC has asked for public comment on the application, and will hold a hearing in Gatineau, Que., in November to consider the licence."
That should be an interesting hearing. It's close to me, I'll see if I can attend.

To keep the freedom of press really free there should be a way to keep it free of political control or indue influence.

I always thought that journalists are there to inform us, not to think for us. I hope it will revert to that.

I don't know why the mainstream media has had a liberal bias for as long as i can remember.. It also seems to me the bias is getting much worse.. without Fox news carrying some of the critical pieces, we'd all think Obama was still wonderful & the us was in a vibrant economic upswing. News is information. Those who pitch it have an agenda. It is up to us to take in as much information as we can, try to filter out the BS, & come to a reasonable point of view. All i see in the mainstream us media is left wing indoctrination.. same as i had in college, & see in the schools my kids went to. At least now in 'the information age', we have access to more information.. much of it is crap, to be sure, but we have access to it! Totalitarian regimes have to control the information.. that is why the old USSR finally fell.. they could no longer control information.. the lousy economy didn't help, either. China is having the same problem, now.. they try to block internet info, but it is harder to do. Fortunately for them, they have a booming economy, even though the common worker is getting screwed. They will rebel. We always do.

Personally, i prefer the old fashioned style of American Liberty. My ancestors have been around since the pilgrims, & self reliance & freedom is what they wanted, & it works for me, too. I get a little weary of the left always smearing the right as 'bigots', or 'hate mongers'. There is as much or more bigotry in the left.. it's just ok because it is usually directed towards white people. Let's cut the smoke screen of smear tactics & look at the basic agendas. Argue the issues, don't just smear the opposition. But that is not the tactic of the left. They rely heavily on race smear & white guilt. But i think many are finally seeing through them.. remember when all women were allegedly left leaning feminists? .. you know, women's issues? Now in American politics, there are lots of very conservative women running for office, not just voting. And their 'issues' are quite different from the left wing feminists who claimed to speak for all women. The same is true with the so called minorities.. people can think for themselves.. we don't have to do what the media says our particular race is ascribing to, like the media likes to portray it.

Canadians will have to do what they want for their country.. just like Americans. It's kind of funny how the left seems to spend (& raise!) lots of money to promote their agendas in free countries. Why not target the totalitarian regimes? Speak out for human rights in Iran, for instance. But if i were Canadian, i would be greatly offended if what is posted above is true.. why should some crackpot american be spending money to restrict Canadian information?

Religion & politics.. still inappropriate conversation for polite society. But freedom from oppression & totalitarian govt control is not free, cheap, or easy. That is the natural state Governments go to. We have to keep that in check. We should not fear the govt. They should fear us.

scotty
..don't tread on me..

Medias are businesses. If you feel it had a liberal bias that's because that was what interested customers. The news are now presented almost the same way movies are. Fiction sleeps with reality and people get mixed up by that. Everything is set up to provoke. That divides people instead of the other way around.

We are witnessing the result of hiring image makers and communication specialists. The target of these people is not to convey the meaage as clearly as possible, it is to win at all cost. It leads to information being more about demolishing people having different opinion that debating these opinions. It looks like if they think that an opinion is the absolute truth.

My perception is htat the right specializes in demonishing those who differ in opinion. They call to sentiments like fear to get their message. The left calls to the virtuous sentiments. Neither of them base their message on intelligence and knowledge.

I witness how the opinions are changing in the US. It looks like if everyone thought that an economic situation that took more than a decade to develop could be changed in months. Someone tell me if I'm wrong but the people that are suffering the more about this situation are not the one that caused it.

I hope there will be someone that will find a way to find a middle term in the US because the way I see it people are more fighting than building these days. And when you get something by fighting you don't just win a war, you also win enemies. Right and left must build together instead of fighting each others, they live together after all.

Hi All:

Regarding Soros, he's a cut throat SOB, that is for sure but he did not cause the British Pound crisis. He did however take advantage of it to the tune of a few $Billion USD's just as any of us could have... If we would have known it was going to crash.

Buffett is a bit cleaner but guess what happened when Berkshire Hathaway got their hands on Harley. Milwaukee was put up against Kansas City for wage renegotiations and give backs.

Media... To pay the bills, the media is in bed with the interests that pay its bills. Remember CNBC's Kramer and how his horns were pulled back in by exec's when he said sell, sell sell everything almost two years back? Two days later he was pumping up the general market because his paycheck was at risk.

Those with the $'s decide the news, have an agenda and will do whatever it takes to make a profit. Even at the expense of the truth.

Finally, take a look at the new controlling interests of Fox News and it is an eye opener. We keep giving $’s to our friends in the Middle East to use their black gold and eventually they will purchase something of ours worth owning.

News media let alone big business is not about truth in most cases, it is all about the $’s. It is up to us to look at other sources to try and come up with the truths as they occur, not believe them as they are presented during the daily ritual of being spoon fed the diatribe.

Scott, I was referring to the right with some of the above as well.

Good Luck

Wayne

Too ugly to ride today... Medski might arrive here in the middle of winter...

Dancamp wrote:

Are you serious ?

Yes

Quote :

You are talking about Avaaz the organisation that supports the Dalai Lama. The same organisation that also started a petition so there wouldn't be a budget cut for CBC. They also reacted to the stoning a the iranian woman.

Name seems to be the same. If they're getting some things right, there's an old saying that comes to mind:
"Even a blind pig finds the odd acorn".

Quote :

I didn't find the petition your talking about on their site.

Try this one:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_fox_news_canada

Their first paragraph pretty much says it all:
Prime Minister Harper is trying to push American-style hate media onto our airwaves, and make us all pay for it. His plan is to create a "Fox News North" to mimic the kind of hate-filled propaganda with which Fox News has poisoned U.S. politics. The channel will be run by Harper’s former top aide and will be funded with money from our cable TV fees!

This is right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, which include the tactic of demonizing the opponent and the end justifies the means.

Does PM Harper have anything whatsoever to do with this application to the CRTC? None whatsoever, but if you lie about it you will tap into that percentage of Canadians who hate the PM so much that if he gave them a gold brick they'd complain about the weight.

"American-style"... coming from an American backed, American organization. However, it is also a fact that there are a lot of Canadians for which dislike of the United States is their national sport, along with the only way they can give themselves an identity. Linking anything coming to Canada with the United States is going to work with these people. BTW, does Avaaz mention anywhere that they are funded by an American and based in the US? Ummmm... no.

Does Fox News have anything whatsoever to do with this application? No. But again, "Fox News" pushes a button with a lot of Canadians who will automatically oppose anything you link with Fox News. They've never watched it, but like the term "neo-con", where they couldn't name one if you offered a financial reward, they instinctively know that the words "Fox News" indicates Something Bad.

"hate filled propaganda with which Fox News has poisoned U.S. politics". Right. Oddly enough, despite all Canada's hate speech criminal law, those same shows air in Canada and Fox has yet to be investigated, much less charged. Fox News has no more poisoned US politics than MSNBC has - they do however skewer policies and people the left adulates (as MSNBC and others skewer others on the right), and thus, they are the devil incarnate.

Has Sun applied for ANY funding from the CRTC as Avaaz is stating they are? No they haven't - but CBC News Network (not to be confused with the entirety of that black hole called CBC) gets about $63 million each year from fees mandated by the CRTC. CTV News Channel gets about $15 million in mandated fees. Unlike all these other news channels, Sun is unique in not asking for taxpayers to subsidize their business venture - something you'd assume out of a news channel Avaaz is trying to link to conservatism.

So here we have another lie deliberately intended to demonize, another example of the end justifying the means.

This is what George Soros' American extreme leftist groups are doing in the name of "Canadianism". And they post this kind of stuff while saying with a straight face that Fox News is a propaganda machine and hate filled.

For those who believe that the end justifies the means, who want media limited in Canada to the kind that groups like Avaaz agree with, then those who think this way shouldn't have a problem with this.

For Avaaz to accuse others of using propaganda is a bit staggering, because their entire model of community organizer-radicalism is centered around the use of propaganda. They have not only adopted Alinsky's rules for radicals, but the mindset and tactics of the greatest propagandist we have ever seen, Joseph Goebbels. Some of what Goebbels said about swaying public opinion fit rather nicely here:
"“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

“Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street.”

Dancamp wrote:

This article seems to cover the whole story.

Globe and Mail

Well, no, not the whole story.

Why style it as a "Fox News type" of channel? Why not say "MSNBC type of channel? Or even "Fox News/MSNBC type news channel". Or even "CBC News Network" type channel - CBC likes to try and sell that to Canadians as hard hitting news programming. Linking anything with "Fox News" or anything else American that a significant percentage of Canadians love to hate has the desired results.

Journalists know that your choice of language has meaning - for example, the perception differences between saying, for example, "The RCMP spokesman acknowledged..." versus "The RCMP spokesman admitted..." You can accurately say they mean the same thing, but the perception the reader is left with is very, very different - when somebody "admits" something, we usually link that with being caught in some sort of unacceptable behavior.

And of course, the story also forgot to mention that while CTV is objecting to the application, CTV does get about $15 million a year in taxpayer handouts through mandated fees that Sun isn't asking for. And they had mandatory access at one time as well when establishing themselves. When you sort of forget to mention that minor bit, how is it you're telling "the whole story"?

There's a bit more relating to that story, but if the issue is one of media bias, then the story in The Mop and Pail is just indicative of more of the same.

Media bias isn't a problem per se - but when it is presented as unslanted news or presumed to be "the whole story", it is.

Dancamp wrote:

To keep the freedom of press really free there should be a way to keep it free of political control or indue influence.

I always thought that journalists are there to inform us, not to think for us. I hope it will revert to that.

There are various ways of looking at that.

I'd be prepared to argue that CBC is decidedly left wing by Canadian standards and introduces a heavy bias into it's reporting. Of course, peer reviewed research in both the US and Canada has concluded that the vast majority of journalists are well to the left to begin with (along with a similar majorities in those bastions of free thought and speech, our universities and colleges). As an interesting sidebar to that, political party donations by the current CBC board of directors according to Statistics Canada:
Liberal donations 82%
Separatist donations 15%
Conservative party...3%

Apparently, nobody contributed to the Dippers or Greeds...

Which leads me to the unhappy conclusion that the CBC board of directors collect their rather grossly excess salaries, paid for by money squeezed out of Canadian taxpayers, and kick part of it back to their ideological partners. They're free to do that, of course, but when you use contributions to identify the political/ideological identity of the people who decide what will and what won't appear on CBC, it is pretty obvious that conservative values and lifestyles are going to get short shrift. Now if you're inclined towards socialism and the nanny state, that's a good thing and maybe all discussion ends there. But if you're conservative, identify more with the philosophical values that originally founded the nation... then, not so good.

The bottom line is, if freedom of the press means hands off from government interference (something I'm whole heartedly in favour of) the CBC would not exist. A large segment of Canadians are continually angered by the clearly leftist slant of the CBC, an organization which is supposedly representative of ALL Canadians. Complaints about this slant are rife, as are calls to end the over $1 BILLION dollars the CBC receives in taxpayer dollars each year to continue its existence. In a free marketplace, the CBC does not have the public support that would allow it to survive beyond the boundaries of large cities. When you're funded by the taxpayer, you have no such thing as a "bottom line" as private media companies have to live and die by.

So if you want something like CBC, then you have to allow a government to create and fund it with taxpayer dollars, and a government that will invariably have input, even if only through the political creatures called "bureaucrats" that they appoint to run it - people who are not accountable to the people who pay their salaries. If you want to kill the CBC by telling them to sink or swim on the appeal of their programming to ALL Canadians, rather than taxpayer handouts, then count me in.

You also have to drive a stake through the heart of the CRTC, and their Byzantine regulations regarding Canadian content and every other rule guaranteed to make a free and independent broadcast media almost impossible. In my view, ultimately it does nothing to advance "Canadianism", but simply guarantees that mediocrity from Canadian writers, producers, artists, etc is of sufficiently high standard to achieve "success". Shows and programming which would die a quick and ugly death without CRTC protection and CBC programming drag on for years, and when the Crown is saying "good enough for broadcasting", why should you realize your present effort is dismal and put more effort towards excellence when your country's government is telling you your present effort is wonderful?

Example? The Afghanada radio show, crowed about as Award winning drama. A load of BS, thoroughly loathed within the CF - who, not surprisingly, have never been consulted to obtain accuracy in this "hard hitting and realistic view into the lives of soldiers shipped out(sic) to Afghanistan". It portrays a female Sgt commanding an infantry section (ignoring the fact there never has been a female Sgt section commander in the Infantry battalions - and few men get that far), which of course is appropriately politically correct, and gets worse from there as the soldiers go on at times about their distaste for working with Americans. That would be the Americans who provide us with the fast air and tac air support Canada doesn't, not to mention the gunship overwatch on our convoys that almost guarantees no IED strikes when we get that overwatch. Yeah, CF soldiers just hate working with Americans. We played it once in the mess, and finally had to turn it off when the laughter about the outrageousness of it all turned ugly and the stereo was about to join the endangered species list. That show wouldn't survive beyond the first few episodes in the free market, yet it survives for years on CBC and gets awards and accolades for hard hitting realism. That is the CBC for you, made possible by government support, protection from competition, and enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars.

If most of CBC's programs were of the quality of shows like Rex Murphy's Cross Country Checkup, not only would CBC legitimately be able to claim it is representative of all of Canada, but it wouldn't have to depend on government protection and taxpayer dollars for its survival.

I digress... suffice it to say, as the article relates to media in Canada, all media in Canada operate under heavy government control, and oversight. And many depend on government handouts using taxpayer dollars to ensure their survival and (ignoring the CBC for the moment) profitability.

There's a reason Canada's best and most talented tend to go to the US, where the bar is higher for achieving public demand for your creativity, but so are the rewards...

And again, if you're all for killing off the CRTC's control over every aspect of broadcasting, then I'm all for that as well.

In my view, the idea that "journalists are doing our thinking for us" identifies more the nanny state mindset of society than journalism.

Yes, many, many journalists these days bring their personal bias to their news reporting. On the other hand, since when did we receive orders that we have to accept what journalists write without applying any critical thought to it? When were we ordered to accept what journalists write or broadcast without question? To accept what any journalist presents without critical thought - particularly in the age of the Internet, where the quality might not be guaranteed but access to all information almost is - is the same kind of mentality that believes that governments and organizations have a right and duty to "protect us from ourselves". Please, don't make your own decisions, don't think for yourself, don't accept the consequences of your actions. Just let the government mandate how you should live your life, the media tell you what you should and should not think and believe, groups like Avaaz tell you who you should and shouldn't allow to be news media, etc.

Blaming journalists and news media for our intellectual slothfulness might help us feel better about ourselves, but the real culprit is the refusal of so many to think for themselves. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people who have to apply critical and analytical thought in running their business, in properly meeting the standards of their chosen profession - in even running their household budget - apparently lose that ability the very second they turn on the TV, turn on the radio, or open a newspaper or magazine.

Annddddd... another columnist on the smear campaign Avaaz is running against Sun...

Anti-Sun TV News campaign in U.S.
By BRIAN LILLEY

Avaaz.org, a group based out of New York, has started an online petition in an attempt to stop SUN TV from hitting the airwaves.

OTTAWA - A far left-wing American lobby group funded by U.S. billionaire George Soros wants you to be scared, very scared. There might soon be more competition in the world of TV news.

A group called Avaaz.org operating out of New York City is warning their supporters that SUN TV News Channel, which has yet to launch, will bring “American-style hate media onto our airwaves.” Odd, I didn’t realize that Manhattan was part of Canada.

Proof that this outfit and campaign is being run out of New York can be seen in the e-mail they are sending to their Canadian supporters and anyone who signs the petition. In the e-mail, Avaaz refers to Sun Media as Suncor.

Suncor of course does not own this newspaper nor are they applying for a TV Licence; they are an oil and gas company based in Calgary.

But obviously this American outfit knows what is best for Canadians.

The deluded people behind this campaign base their assumption on quite a bit of their own hatred and a groundless column from the Globe and Mail’s Lawrence Martin.

In an August 19 column, Martin claimed that if the Canada’s broadcast regulator the CRTC does not grant Sun Media the TV licence they want, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper would replace Konrad von Finckenstein as chair of the CRTC.

None of Martin’s claims are backed up by fact. The prime minister’s communications team deny the story and so too do those who are close to the PM personally. One source said they’ve never heard the PM speak about SUN TV News Channel.

Part of the campaign to stop SUN TV News Channel from launching focuses on the idea that Canadians could be forced to pay for this venture. Author Margaret Atwood took to Twitter to denounce this.

The fact is, SUN TV News Channel has never asked for mandatory fees.

CBC News Network gets about $63 million each year from fees mandated by the CRTC. CTV News Channel gets about $15 million in mandated fees.

What this petition is about is a group of left-wing Americans supporting interests in Canada that don’t want to see competition in news broadcasting.

Avaaz operates out of the New York offices of Res Publica, a collective of left-leaning church groups. In addition to Res Publica, Avaaz is backed by MoveOn.org a lobby group that has taken millions of dollars from currency speculator George Soros.

Unlike the wild speculation about Prime Minister Harper pulling the strings at an arm's-length government body, these details on the politics of the Americans trying to dictate Canadian television are fact.

Canadians deserve to know the facts.

xcel wrote:

Hi All:

Regarding Soros, he's a cut throat SOB, that is for sure but he did not cause the British Pound crisis. He did however take advantage of it to the tune of a few $Billion USD's just as any of us could have... If we would have known it was going to crash.

Buffett is a bit cleaner but guess what happened when Berkshire Hathaway got their hands on Harley. Milwaukee was put up against Kansas City for wage renegotiations and give backs.

Media... To pay the bills, the media is in bed with the interests that pay its bills. Remember CNBC's Kramer and how his horns were pulled back in by exec's when he said sell, sell sell everything almost two years back? Two days later he was pumping up the general market because his paycheck was at risk.

Those with the $'s decide the news, have an agenda and will do whatever it takes to make a profit. Even at the expense of the truth.

Finally, take a look at the new controlling interests of Fox News and it is an eye opener. We keep giving $’s to our friends in the Middle East to use their black gold and eventually they will purchase something of ours worth owning.

News media let alone big business is not about truth in most cases, it is all about the $’s. It is up to us to look at other sources to try and come up with the truths as they occur, not believe them as they are presented during the daily ritual of being spoon fed the diatribe.

Scott, I was referring to the right with some of the above as well.

Good Luck

Wayne

Sun TV didn't applied to get any fundings. They first applied for a type of licence that automatically would have give them the funds, it did not work. Then, and it is the case we're discussing now, they applied for another type of licence but they ask to benefit from an exception of the rule. This exception gives them funding for the first 3 years of operations.

From my point of view people that owns the whole truth coming from left or the right are full of ... There are different people with different hopes and different experiences. Most of us are being used by people coming from the left as well as from the right. Whatever the side, it's always the same that keep cashing the benefits and the same that gets shaved.

Anyone from either orientation that keeps a language that divides instead of uniting people together is someone that thinks only, and thinks is a big word, of its own guts and has no respect for others. I have my own opinion about many eople and I don't try to convince others to have the same. It wouldn't be constructive at all.

I will never sign the petition from Avaaz. Not because they don't tell from what country they come, just because they are not exclusively from Canada. There are a lot of other organisations that come from US or other countries that support political parties in our country. Their actions here all smell the same to me and it's not roses. And all canadians can be reassured that Avaaz don't have any influence on the CRTC. The decision that it will render will be based on rules established well before the request. And if Quebecor thinks that it is not the case, it as the right to appeal to the appropriate courts. We are living in a society of rights, so everyone that pretends to defend it will approve that.

It is true that CBC is reputed to be on the left by people from the right and to the right from people from the left. So I guess they are in the middle. It is not because CTV or CBC don't take side that they are toward the left. That sounds a little like "if your not for me, you're against me". And if who donates to what, I guess Rupert Murdoch would have a lot to tell about that. And I will always support CBC. Since it is under government control, it is under citizens control. We are in a democraty so sometimes it pleases some and sometimes it pleases the others. The private networks are under private interests. That represents a lot less people. Anyway I think that all information should be under public control with strict rules. The kind of rules that would be related to exactness and fullness of information not to how it sells. I'm a dreamer.


About the canadians that go elsewhere to make money. Good for them, they will get money. They are

xcel wrote:

Those with the $'s decide the news, have an agenda and will do whatever it takes to make a profit. Even at the expense of the truth.

Finally, take a look at the new controlling interests of Fox News and it is an eye opener. We keep giving $’s to our friends in the Middle East to use their black gold and eventually they will purchase something of ours worth owning.

The comment about agendas at the expense of the truth and the "new controlling interests of Fox News" is interesting. As are the parallels.

Rupert Murdock and family always have and continue to be the controlling interests of Fox News. It is true that the left wing consisting of people such as Jonathan Leibowitz (aka Jon Stewart of the Jon Stewart Show) have recently accused Fox of hypocrisy and reported a Saudi Prince being the "new controlling interest" in Fox News. Many empty vessels who depend on sources like the Jon Stewart Show for their "news" have soaked this up as fact. The reality is that Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal first bought 5% of Murdock's company back around 1997. In the 13 years since that initial purchase, his ownership has risen to a whopping 7%. I seem to recall that the 7% he owns is also not made up entirely of voting shares, but I'll leave that to somebody else to investigate.

So, aside from the fact Murdock has always owned controlling interest in Fox News, and the fact there is nothing "new" about a Middle Easterner owning a small percentage of News Corp, it is pretty hard to accept the claim that you can have control of Fox News when you only own - at most - 7% of the voting shares. In other words, claiming that a Middle Easterner just acquired the controlling interests of Fox News while owning 7% is about as truthful as... oh, I don't know... saying the AMA encourages their members to ride without helmets.

IF we were to apply another dose of critical thought to these claims from the left about a Saudi just buying control of Fox News, we'd probably have to ask ourselves why the FCC hasn't stepped in at this point if indeed a Saudi does own the majority interest in an American news media outlet. Murdock was investigated for this very thing, even though he also held US citizenship in addition to Australian. So is the backstory that the FCC has quietly allowed a foreigner to obtain control of News Corp, or what?

And with a bit more critical thought, we'd have to wonder if this Muslim Middle Easterner did indeed own the controlling interest in Fox, why he would sit in the back and do nothing while Fox News and it's commentators put the new Islamic Center planned for Ground Zero under such critical review.

One last piece of critical thought: News Corp is a publicly traded company listed on the NASDAQ. How, exactly, could Fox News or it's majority owner prevent a Saudi or anyone else from purchasing publicly traded stock? And given that they could, what would be the response from Fox's rabid haters if Fox could and did block a Middle East Muslim from buying their stock?

The screams from the left and the re progressives of how this was proof of Fox's racism, hatred of other cultures, etc would still be echoing through the land.

Furthermore, while it is easy to say those with the money control the news, the fact of the matter is money cannot change the events of today in the world, or of yesterday, or of any day before. You can of course try to put a slant on that news. But in the end, unless you're prepared to make your news business a money losing proposition, your news has to be sufficiently factual enough that people look to it as news, rather than simply a fable or poorly spun propaganda. When you do that, you lose your viewers and your ratings - just like CNN and MSNBC... Which means if it is about making money, you play with the truth at your peril.

The real issue in this topic, however, is that American George Soros is spending millions on having his US organization's attempt to stop a news organization that he believes will have a conservative basis from gaining a license to broadcast in Canada. That attempt to interfere in Canada and control who can and can't broadcast news in Canada - attempting to ensure that news in Canada remains as leftist as possible - is the real story.

Hi Jager:

The Saudi has more controlling interest and shares than you or I ever will... This is not the only thing our (I mean their) US Petrol $'s are buying either...

Same topic, different day: A Venn diagram of me and Ron Paul

Wayne

Dancamp wrote:

Then, and it is the case we're discussing now, they applied for another type of licence but they ask to benefit from an exception of the rule. This exception gives them funding for the first 3 years of operations.

No. That's a Category 1 license.

Quebecor has asked for a Category 2 specialty licence. The difference is that they aren't asking for public funding or mandatory basic carriage like CBC enjoys, but they do want to be offered on at least one tier or package by each distributor.

Quote :

Anyone from either orientation that keeps a language that divides instead of uniting people together is someone that thinks only, and thinks is a big word, of its own guts and has no respect for others.

How you are going to find a language that units those who believe in freedom with statists who believe the government has every right to intrude in your life is beyond me. Neither side is going to accept the other's view of where government's role in your life will end. And frankly, a lot of people are not interested in attempting to mollify people whose philosophy we not only consider to be wrong, but morally wrong. Making the inability to bridge such an impossible gulf the indicator of "no respect for others" is pretty thin.

Quote :

It is true that CBC is reputed to be on the left by people from the right and to the right from people from the left. So I guess they are in the middle.

That doesn't seem to be the case at all, given not only the CBC's own review of itself concerning a leftist bias (a report they forgot to give to the government once completed), but from outside studies as well.

Bias on the CBC? A study of Network AM Radio
Profs. Barry Cooper and Lydia Miljan of the University of Calgary and Maria Vigilante of Carleton University agree with the increasing number of Canadians who are upset about CBC News and Current Affairs treatment of important public issues. The authors state that there is somewhat of a “leftist orthodoxy” among CBC staffers and quote internal CBC studies which conclude that its hosts and producers are “products of the more radical sixties and appear unsympathetic to the new conservatism of the eighties” and that public complaints of a leftist slant have been significant and growing since the early seventies. The authors also find that criticism of the federal Tory Government from the Left was covered five times more often than criticism from the Right.

I'm unable to find any studies that found CBC to have a right wing bias. Or, for that matter, CBC investigating itself to find out if it has a right wing bias. If you can refer me to any such studies, I'd probably be interested in reading them.

Quote :

And I will always support CBC. Since it is under government control, it is under citizens control.

That's an interesting dichotomy, coming from somebody who just posted "To keep the freedom of press really free there should be a way to keep it free of political control or indue influence." How government can control the CBC and yet have it free of political control and influence is an interesting concept indeed.

The other side of that is that the only time government truly is under the public's control is election day. If government were indeed under citizen control, many unpopular government decisions of the past would never have happened.

I'm glad at least one person supports CBC. When they get over a billion dollars of taxpayer money each year and protection from competition, somebody should think they're getting their money's worth. I know I sure don't.

xcel wrote:

Hi Jager:

The Saudi has more controlling interest and shares than you or I ever will...

No. We have exactly the same amount of controlling interest as the Saudi has:

Zero.

You don't control a corporation when you have only 7% - at most - of the votes. You can vote whatever way you want on the direction of the company all day, every day, for the rest of your life. When the other guy DOES have the controlling majority of votes, the company does whatever he votes it will do, and whatever way you vote simply does not matter. In fact, you may as well not even bother to show up to vote.

Does he have more shares than we do? Certainly. But that does not make it a controlling interest.

Hi Jager:

Where did you ever come up with the idea that you need a 50% share stake for a controlling interest?

Here is just one of hundreds of small stake ownerships taking over a company. Motorola and Carl Icahn Reach Agreement

If you own < 1% of a company, your influence is going to be zilch. I will assume you belong to that group as do I. If you own 5% or more, things are a lot different.

Wayne

xcel wrote:

Hi Jager:

Where did you ever come up with the idea that you need a 50% share stake for a controlling interest?

Here's a better question:

Where did you get the idea that a Saudi just purchased an interest in Fox News when it happened over ten years ago? No, wait a minute, that isn't the question I was going to ask... oh yes, here it is:

Where did you get the idea you have a controlling interest in Fox News when you have a 7% share stake and Rupert Murdoch has many times that? That's assuming your 7% are voting shares to begin with, as his are.

Let's see... you have 7 votes... he has 14. Who has control?

You have 7 votes... he has 21. Who has control?

You have 7 votes... he has 28. Who has control?

You have 7 votes... he has 35. Who has control?

I could go on, but I think the concept is obvious.

Anyone who wants to chirp up and say yes, the Saudi actually does have controlling interest in Fox News and Rupert Murdoch doesn't, should just plainly say that.

Any takers on that, xcel? Want to make your case that your claim that this Saudi controls Fox News and not Rupert Murdoch was true? Start out with "Yes, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal has controlling interest in News Corp, not Rupert Murdoch, and here's why:"

Hi Jager:

Who said it just happened and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Same analogy.

In addition, board of directors and the direction of companies can easily be influenced by minority shareholders “with interest”. That is how takeover specialists work. If they had to buy 50% of the company stock or even a majority interest in some cases for control, they would not have the money in many cases to do so. Most of the time it’s a minority stake and they only need to convince the shareholders of record that their actions will be more profitable for said shareholder then the current BOD or management’s direction.

It is not the guy that owns more shares than you do, its convincing the rest of the group of shareholders that you know how to best make a better return on their investment then the guy with the most shares currently. Majority rules and it is the cumulative total vote, not the individual vote tally that counts.

Wayne

The more shareholders a company has, the less shares you need to make the decision. If you own more than 1% of the shares and that the balance of the shares is owned by thousands of people you might be in a situation where you take all the decisions. It is more related to the shareolders implications in the general assemblies that it is with the number of shares you own. Divide to rule.

CBC's corporate policies

If someone thinks that they don't respect that, they just have to contact the ombudsman.

To see how the ombudsman adresses complaints. Findings

xcel wrote:

Finally, take a look at the new controlling interests of Fox News and it is an eye opener.

Now followed by:

Quote :

In addition, board of directors and the direction of companies can easily be influenced by minority shareholders “with interest”.

Once again, is Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal "the new controlling interests of Fox News" as you claimed, yes or no?

It's an either/or thing, just like asking you whether you favoured legal sanctions with fines, courts, and imprisonment for overweight people, smokers, etc who make poor lifestyle choices, just as you favour that government action for those who would not wear a helmet.

But I expect getting a simple answer out of you on either of those questions is unlikely. It would require you to back up your position, and getting you to do that is not unlike trying to nail Jello to a wall.

My position on nanny state laws on individual lifestyle choices is clear enough. So let me be clear on this as well: Rupert Murdoch comfortably holds enough voting stock that it is not possible for other stockholders to control any vote or decision of Murdoch regarding Fox News - a fact people in the business world have bitched about. Liberty Media did hold a significant amount of voting shares, enough that Murdoch bought them out to preclude the possibility of the very thing you're talking about. Al-Waleed has exactly zero possibility of being the controlling interest at News Corp, much less Fox News.

Further, claiming that Al-Waleed's 7% interest in News Corp is either "new" or gives them "controlling interest" can only be an act of parroting leftist garbage specifically intended to attack Fox News or a glaring example of posting "facts" which in reality you know nothing about.