Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

About the scary media...

Prin
January 4th, 2007, 11:16 PM
So I think you know I think the media filters information in order to sway the population to side with which ever side the government and/or dominant figures want us to side with.

But what about when they don't say it? Today Stephen Harper rearranged his cabinet to put super emphasis on the environment. Ok, the public was outraged by the Conservative's first plan for the environment, so that all makes sense. On his first day, the new guy called David Suzuki among other scientists and told in an interview that global warming is a sure thing and needs a lot of attention.

Ok.

And then I change the channel (ADD generation that I'm from...), and there's a commercial from the government of Canada, that I had already seen a couple times, saying please stock up 72 hours worth of supplies so that in the event of an emergency, you have enough to last you while the rescue efforts can focus on the more serious cases and issues...

What's that about? :confused:

technodoll
January 4th, 2007, 11:56 PM
wow, sounds like the canadian gov'ment is adopting our neighbor's scare tactics to beat the crowds into submission and divert attention from what they are really doing... "keep them busy building bomb shelters and stocking up on canned beans, bottled water and batteries and we can slip any bill we want by them, he he he" :evil:

Prin
January 5th, 2007, 12:01 AM
Yeah, but they don't say why we need to stock up. So I think they know something... I think the day after tomorrow is coming. :evil:

technodoll
January 5th, 2007, 12:03 AM
yup, it'll catch us all with our bathing suits on next week :D :eek: :(

Prin
January 5th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Not me... I don't own a bathing suit.:D

Rick C
January 5th, 2007, 10:06 AM
So I think you know I think the media filters information in order to sway the population to side with which ever side the government and/or dominant figures want us to side with.

But what about when they don't say it? Today Stephen Harper rearranged his cabinet to put super emphasis on the environment. Ok, the public was outraged by the Conservative's first plan for the environment, so that all makes sense. On his first day, the new guy called David Suzuki among other scientists and told in an interview that global warming is a sure thing and needs a lot of attention.

Ok.

And then I change the channel (ADD generation that I'm from...), and there's a commercial from the government of Canada, that I had already seen a couple times, saying please stock up 72 hours worth of supplies so that in the event of an emergency, you have enough to last you while the rescue efforts can focus on the more serious cases and issues...

What's that about? :confused:

Why are you confused?

Sounds like common sense.

Particularly in the Montreal/Quebec area where you are recently familiar with the impact of a severe ice storm. Given your location, how could you ask?

http://chealth.canoe.ca/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=19537&news_channel_id=145&channel_id=145

Why would someone derive some sort of conspiratorial scare tactic out of something so inoccuous? Unless you have an agenda yourself. :angel:

I'm in the financial services industry and its not unuusal in my business to tell people to have savings equalling six months of wages . . . . just in case. That's been around for about 30 or 40 years. Am I part of a vast - and apparently multi-generational - conspiracy trying to scare people? :pray:

Regarding media freedom, in your opening sentence, you fell into the trap of using the terms "the government" and "the media," and an apparently mysterious group of "dominant figures" to get around the fact that, again, if you're challenged on that, you would have to break it down to something that would eventually require the co-operation of tens of thousands of individuals, all of whom are apparently silent and willing, which, of course, is an improbability.

The truth is that you, as an individual, have never lived in an era with a greater access to varying information and points of view than you do now, something blindingly obvious if you actually took the time to think about it . . . . and that's something that Noam Chomsky, who hasn't changed his mind in 50 years, apparently has trouble with. :highfive:

A classic example of this would be my favourite conspiracy theorist on another board who recently stated the same thing as you just did about media, then blithely listed BBC and Al-Jazeerah (which I also like to read) as his favourite news sources . . . . it apparently never dawned on him that both those alternative sources were unavailable to him as little as five years ago.

In my office on a typical morning, it's not unusual for me to pound through 15 or 20 newspapers and other news sources, including Al-Jazeerah, all on the web . . . just a habit. I'm a news junkie and I like to read differing opinion pieces.

A recent example of you, the viewer, now controlling access to news - versus the Chomsky belief - was the Saddam Hussein hanging. Most major networks have refused to show the full hanging but its clearly available to anyone should they want to see it at various available sources.

(PS - I found this particularly interesting for CNN which spent months repeating graphic footage of a North Korean firing squad. We might also remember one of the defining footage moments from the Vietnam war, a South Vietnamese officer putting a gun to head of a captured Viet Cong and dispassionately pulling the trigger, a scene repeated on most major networks repeatedly through the years).

And of course, there is the obvious fact that those on both the left AND right who claim the news is filtered for them typically hang out at radical left or radical right wing news filters who tell them what to think every day. They're worse than the networks could ever pretend to be if you sat back and thought about it.

Frankly, if someone asks you what your favourite news source is you should get a blank, confused look on your face . . . . because the correct answer should be "NOTHING." That would imply you are routinely exposing yourself to varying sources instead of a single filter.

And that's all I've got to say about that!! :thumbs up :grouphug: :rip:

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Prin
January 5th, 2007, 05:16 PM
Well, the fact is the newspapers in Canada are really biased. There's no doubt about that. And if the same few people own all the newspapers, whether you get it from one source or another, the story ends up the same, and not necessarily factual. I'm surprised you take the news (and other media nonsense) as it's given to you without questioning it, Rick. :shrug:

I'm in the financial services industry and its not unuusal in my business to tell people to have savings equalling six months of wages . . . . just in case. That's been around for about 30 or 40 years. Am I part of a vast - and apparently multi-generational - conspiracy trying to scare people?
No, but if you walked in tomorrow and told people to stop saving money because there's no point, don't you think people will notice and get suspicious? In my lifetime, the Canadian government has never been direct in asking us to prepare for a disaster. That's why I'm suspicious. Why now?

Particularly in the Montreal/Quebec area where you are recently familiar with the impact of a severe ice storm. Given your location, how could you ask?Given that I'm in Qc, and given that this add is broadcast all over Canada, I wonder. I wonder if there's something coming that they expect but aren't saying, beyond an ice storm here and there. The ice storm was bad, but there wasn't a food shortage and we weren't barricaded in our homes, as the commercial implies we will be.

The BBC is always a favorite because it gives a different point of view and people confuse that with accuracy too. Giving more details doesn't mean you have them all. :shrug:

A recent example of you, the viewer, now controlling access to news - versus the Chomsky belief - was the Saddam Hussein hanging. Most major networks have refused to show the full hanging but its clearly available to anyone should they want to see it at various available sources.
Yeah, and then at the beginning of the war when there was footage all over the place of a "huge" mob toppling a statue of Saddam. But not everybody knows that that mob wasn't so big after all. If the camera had zoomed out, we'd have seen the edge of the mob was right outside the frame they showed on tv. :rolleyes: Meanwhile, we're sitting way over here saying, "Well, I guess if so many people agree, then mayyyybe they did need help from the troops," which is exactly the message whoever shot that was looking to send.:rolleyes:

wdawson
January 5th, 2007, 06:33 PM
prin they tell us that so we are prepared when the aliens come:D

technodoll
January 5th, 2007, 06:35 PM
do the aliens still probe us, or was that only in the 80's and 90's? :confused:

:D sorry for the hijack prin :sorry: :D

Rick C
January 5th, 2007, 06:40 PM
Well, the fact is the newspapers in Canada are really biased. There's no doubt about that. And if the same few people own all the newspapers, whether you get it from one source or another, the story ends up the same, and not necessarily factual. I'm surprised you take the news (and other media nonsense) as it's given to you without questioning it, Rick.

Its looks like my point flew over your head Prin . . . .

I said the common person has never had greater access to a wider spectrum of viewpoints than they do today.

That is factually true. You can't question that. It's an easy point to demonstrate.

But, first, lets examine something called "The Hostile Media Perception" of which you are a walking, talking textbook example:

http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/mpi/gunther/mediabias.pdf

http://www.answers.com/topic/hostile-media-effect

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jpiliavi/965/hwang.pdf

http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/2/116

Having experience in media, I can tell you the news sources you want to favour are those that are accused by both the left AND right wing of bias.

Its like a badge of honour to any journalist to have complaints from both sides, a clear indication you've hit the middle of the target.

Fox will never be accused of left wing bias.

CBC will never be accused of right wing bias (except by one demented former employee I was able to track down).

Most other mainstream sources, however, are in the middle of the target belt. As an example, I know people who think CNN is a hopeless shill for GW Bush and other people who think CNN is hopelessly and irretrievably left wing, forever attacking Bush.

The New York Times Public Editor famously - or infamously - last year said in print: "Of course the Times is a liberal newspaper." And I like the Times!!!

Howard Kurtz's blog on media hiring bias:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/03/28/BL2006032800582.html

Partisans - of which you are one - on both the left wing and the right wing go out of their way to say the other side controls the media, just as you just did in your post . . . . they attempt to marginalize the mainstream media as a weapon controlled by the other, therefore marginalizing anything but their OWN message.

Its a common tactic. And comical.

For yourself, the press is obviously controlled by the right wing via corporate control. But there are others in this country who very stridently and firmly and actually believe with all their heart the media in Canada is a left-wing strumpet.

Hostile Media Perception . . . .

Of course, if you're a common Chomsky accolyte - or even a common right wing fanatic who loves Rush Limbaugh - the chances are pretty good you find comfort in a few narrow filters for your news, filters that are quite obviously far more biased than Canadian newspapers, CBC or Fox could ever claim to be.

An excellent essay on Paranoid politics:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/meyer/main917324.shtml

Finally, an article on the impact off new media sources, of which I've referred to in this thread and which, I might add, partisans like yourself are likely to use as filters, a clear indication of the vastly expanded and independent places to find news and filter your point of view:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15149228/

No, but if you walked in tomorrow and told people to stop saving money because there's no point, don't you think people will notice and get suspicious? In my lifetime, the Canadian government has never been direct in asking us to prepare for a disaster. That's why I'm suspicious. Why now?

Don't eat at Taco Hell Prin. . . . . why would I say that now? Single, young blond females shouldn't go backbacking alone in Afghanistan right now Prin. Why would I say that now?

Good grief.

You know, if I bothered to look, I might find this particular ad campaign originated in a Liberal government . . . . or it wouldn't be too difficult to find its equivalent.

Yeah, and then at the beginning of the war when there was footage all over the place of a "huge" mob toppling a statue of Saddam. But not everybody knows that that mob wasn't so big after all. If the camera had zoomed out, we'd have seen the edge of the mob was right outside the frame they showed on tv. Meanwhile, we're sitting way over here saying, "Well, I guess if so many people agree, then mayyyybe they did need help from the troops," which is exactly the message whoever shot that was looking to send.

I find it pretty hilarious you would use that particular example since its heroically posted on every left wing news filter going.

The complaint from those filters - the places that tell you what to think - is that commentators said there were tens of thousands there. I don't think they're objecting to the word "huge" by the way.

The truth is the majority of mainstream commentators said there were hundreds and/or thousands there . . . the latter being true. I have a Time Magazine special publication from that year that says "hundreds" as one example (you can tell I've debated this one before).

Anyway, I'm probably checked out for the weekend.

Its just debate Prin so don't worry about the harshness of my tone (I hope) . . . but think about The Hostile Media Perception and what it means.

Hope you have a good weekend. :grouphug:

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

jesse's mommy
January 5th, 2007, 07:56 PM
do the aliens still probe us, or was that only in the 80's and 90's? :confused:

:D sorry for the hijack prin :sorry: :D

:sorry: :offtopic: Did someone say anal probe? :D

Frenchy
January 5th, 2007, 08:15 PM
:sorry: :offtopic: Did someone say anal probe? :D

:offtopic: I miss south park :yell:

Stacer
January 5th, 2007, 08:34 PM
When Rick debates something he really debates it. That's alot of research for a rebuttal, like in that other thread about Saddam, crazy amount of info.

wdawson
January 5th, 2007, 08:43 PM
likes to make sure his facts are right.....nothing wrong with that though

Maya
January 5th, 2007, 09:53 PM
I think this is a fairly accurate example of how the media works around here: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/12/al_jazeera.html:) I didn't see the commercial you are talking about but I would be wondering why they are telling me this now?? It's not like the "government" wealthy few are really looking out for everyone's best interests. I think they've made that clear. Some people like to tell themselves they are so that they can sleep at night I guess.

Prin
January 6th, 2007, 02:02 AM
Sorry if it's all a little jumbly..
You know, if I bothered to look, I might find this particular ad campaign originated in a Liberal government . . . . or it wouldn't be too difficult to find its equivalent.Yeah, it probably did. It was probably created after the ice storm. But that's my point. WHY is it released now? Are we supposed to just assume it was finally ready to air?

Its looks like my point flew over your head Prin . . . .

I said the common person has never had greater access to a wider spectrum of viewpoints than they do today.

That is factually true. You can't question that. It's an easy point to demonstrate.No, don't give yourself too much credit there.:D We have viewpoints, fine. But that doesn't necessarily imply that the majority of viewpoints aren't biased or don't intend to manipulate us. If the media is owned by a select few here, what difference would it make anywhere else? Unless a newspaper is fully independent (which would mean it wouldn't ever survive financially), it's easy to link up the information that is purposely biased, either for cross promotion, political agenda, or otherwise. Even articles from "pool" news sources are edited and chopped to pieces before getting published. A writer once sent an article bashing the Toronto star to two papers- the Star and another paper. The two articles that were finally published were completely different. (I have to go find them... It was a stunt pulled by a well-known journalist too...)

We even see it here on the forum. The people fighting BSL in Ontario have had letters published that had been totally mangled to the point where readers would think they were practically supporters of BSL and admitting their own dogs were vicious. :shrug:

Who decides what to publish? Not the reporters and definitely not the public. And that's my point. We're depending on these people at the top for our news and who says we have to trust any of them or that we CAN trust them, despite having "a wider spectrum of viewpoints" than ever? "A hundred million lemmings can't all be wrong." :rolleyes:


So yer man, Gunther, says we see media bias because we ourselves are biased, right? Did I read that right? But if you read another article of his Here (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00002.x?cookieSet=1), you can see it's flawed fairly quickly. He goes on and on saying that the people who say media influences people fail to look at any other possible middle steps between the media and the behavior they say results from it. So then they look at smoking and show that teens are more influenced by prosmoking ads or material in the media than the anti-smoking ads, etc. And he says probably because of their peer perception, they're influenced to smoke (i.e. they think their friends see the ads and think smoking is cool so they think they're conforming to their friends, even though it's all perceived).

Anyway, my point is, after all that, he doesn't once mention that mayyyybe advertisers are much better at selling something than not selling something. Maybe the kids are biased, sure. But good marketing doesn't sell us products we don't need because we're biased either...

He pretends the sources of the ads and material are unbiased because even a tobacco company contributed an anti-smoking ad (oo lala!), which surprisingly enough, made kids smoke MORE! Why? Because they know how to sell their products. They know how to manipulate people, even if they are saying seemingly "bad" things about their product. They're masters of their craft. And big tobacco isn't the only one.

Maybe because I'm at the point where I see the media as one big PR stunt after another, that makes me biased. But the article you posted, "New media a weapon in world of politics", also shows it. Clinton had a bad interview on a "republican" news program, so he blamed the news program as being biased. Lindsay Lohan crashed her car into paparazzi and claimed it was because they were hounding her, when she had already had 2 other car crashes in the few months prior unrelated to any paparazzi. And while the paparazzi is being the scape goat for her bad driving, who do you think tells them where she is all the time?

Yeah, ok so that's tabloidy, but not far from what Clinton pulled, is it?

All that to say, the media sways in favor of whomever has the most to gain (or lose) and not toward the unbiased truth or strict news telling.

For yourself, the press is obviously controlled by the right wing via corporate control. But there are others in this country who very stridently and firmly and actually believe with all their heart the media in Canada is a left-wing strumpet.Not at all. I don't think either the left or the right control the media. It's far more specific than that. Do you really think nobody knew of Mr Black's indiscretions before he sold the company and screwed the new owners of his media empire? :rolleyes: Do I know if Black is right or left? No. Honestly, it probably depends on where the money is coming from on a particular day. :shrug:



The complaint from those filters - the places that tell you what to think - is that commentators said there were tens of thousands there. I don't think they're objecting to the word "huge" by the way.

The truth is the majority of mainstream commentators said there were hundreds and/or thousands there . . . the latter being true. I have a Time Magazine special publication from that year that says "hundreds" as one example (you can tell I've debated this one before). Well, why do different sources say different things? Couldn't they just take one of their clever pics and count the heads? It's not an opinion that varies. There was a certain number of people there that day. Right? Same with the "No" rally in 1995. The English papers said the crowd topped 100 000 while the French papers estimated almost half that. Why? That's a huge difference. (But it was really fun to be there though...)

And I don't think Separatism is either right or left. Some issues aren't about right or left at all. :shrug: Some issues are about money, competition, history, and/or ignorance, among so many other things. :rolleyes:

I'm just wondering what's behind this particular set of overlapping media messages...:shrug:

erykah1310
January 6th, 2007, 02:44 AM
k i ventured in here hehe

I saw that commercial you are talking about Prin, and well since the "tornadoey" activity here this summer ( 5 days no hydro :eek: ) I am now stocked up on a years worth of batteries, power packs , generators, MANUAL CANOPENER (very important with a power outage;) ) and countless other things...
If "something" were to happen tomorrow i am prepared, the government nor the media told me to do it ( neither did the aliens for the gals who are very concerned about anal probing:rolleyes: ) Im just freaked out. I kinda wish there was more "scare tactics" to the whole "just in case" thing BEFORE the power outage.

The commercial that freaks me out is the one with all the water... about global warming. ( american i belive) but i think eye openers are a good idea.

I cant debate like Rick ( dang thats some good points buddy) however i dont think its a conspiracy.

*hope i kinda went the right way on this one, kinda skimmed through*

Prin
January 6th, 2007, 02:47 AM
Ok, so you have your cans, right? But you have no power source (you have a generator, but I don't...;)). What is in those cold cans that is edible without heating? (Just out of curiosity...:o)

erykah1310
January 6th, 2007, 02:52 AM
nuttin Prin, but i have a bbq and since we are avid campers, many many little bbq's ( 2 colemans) an electric one ( runs off a power pack easily) and another fancy dancy brand new little propane dealy as well.

For that week when i was without power and camping in my own house, it took me an hour to make breakfast and coffee.

I think generators are a must for every household. Along with flood lights. those things are great!!!

Prin
January 6th, 2007, 03:04 AM
Yeah... We can't afford a generator these days, but when winter finally comes, I'm sure we'll regret it.:rolleyes:

erykah1310
January 6th, 2007, 03:10 AM
another thing too, i dont think its a conspiracy, i just think that people now a days have seemed to have lost their "survival instinct" if you will.
Camping has become, a cottage larger than most homes with satellite tv, high speed internet and full electricity.
Where as "old school" camping has diminished.
For me camping is pitching a tent beside the truck ( if possible) by a lake or river "somewhere" and fishing and swimming. Toilets are where ever you squat and your food is cooked on the fire.
Too many people will never experience camping like that. People are accustomed to having things when they desire, so emergency situations could almost cause a sociatal crumble to some areas.

chico2
January 6th, 2007, 08:24 AM
I too am a bit of a news junkie,like to know what goes on in the world,just this morning reading the paper page to page,what worries me most is the violence going on in so many parts of the world,it seems worse than ever,but maybe it's always been there,we just did not read about it??
As for Global Warming,IT is a real threat to our lifestyle...Harper appointing Mr Baird(whom I noticed is getting fat and has coloured his hair:D )to deal with our environmental issues,is a real joke:clown:
He is beeing called a"pit-bull"an insult to the pitties:yell:
Mr Baird does not care about anything other than cutting costs,he was the dreaded Mr Harris henchman and is now Mr Harpers and I cannot see him as a saviour of our environment,too little too late...

Stacer
January 6th, 2007, 09:52 AM
He pretends the sources of the ads and material are unbiased because even a tobacco company contributed an anti-smoking ad (oo lala!), which surprisingly enough, made kids smoke MORE! Why? Because they know how to sell their products. They know how to manipulate people, even if they are saying seemingly "bad" things about their product. They're masters of their craft. And big tobacco isn't the only one.

Have you watched "Thank you for Smoking"? It's a pretty good take on how Big Tobacco, manipulates and says "the right things".

description
Tobacco industry lobbyist Nick Naylor has a seemingly impossible task: promoting cigarette smoking in a time when the health hazards of the activity have become too plain to ignore. Nick, however, revels in his job, using argument and twisted logic to place, as often as not, his clients in the positions of either altruistic do-gooders or victims. Nick's son Joey needs to understand and respect his dad's philosophy, and Nick works hard to respond to that need without compromising his lack of values. When a beautiful news reporter betrays Nick's sexually-achieved trust, his world seems in danger of collapsing. But there's always one more coffin nail in Nick's pack.

The movie is a perfect example of how someone who is good at debating can make you believe that something so bad is actually good.

Prin
January 6th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Yeah, I loved that movie. Very well done.:) He never lies, really. Just tells a different side of the truth.:evil:

Maya
January 6th, 2007, 02:49 PM
I find it odd that most people I talk to would rather not think there is conspiracy. It seems to me that it is just as likely or more so considering the wealthy will do whatever it takes to stay that way. It's not like they will say O my we better let everyone know what's coming so no one gets hurt. If "they" know something is coming they will likely be hoarding because they can. During the recent power outage what did all the older folks do who couldn't leave their apartments? They didn't go anywhere, they were in the dark without heat, hot water and electricity. What about myself living below the poverty line? I never have enough in the fridge or the cupbaord. I can't stock up otherwise I won't make it to the next month, sometimes I have to roll pennies by the end of the month just to get through it. I've never even been camping because it involves costs that are out of my reach. I kept thinking when we didn't have power how at least if I was camping I could light a fire. The manager's of our building took off when the power went out and the company that owns the building put signs up saying we should find somewhere else to go if we find it uncomfortable. Um how do you do that if you can't take the stairs? And where are you going to go if you don't have money or family? I'm really doubting that our government or wealthy members will offer assistance to those that are in a better position than myself if there is a natural disaster. I think the warnings are kind of like a way of saying you are on your own don't blame us if you can't help yourself.:shrug:

Prin
January 6th, 2007, 02:55 PM
True, eh? Sort of like, "well, we warned you and it's not our fault if you're not prepared." :rolleyes:

Golden Girls
January 7th, 2007, 10:12 AM
*slowly backing out of this room*

alot of info - right over my head :o

Maya
January 8th, 2007, 12:54 AM
Honestly, it probably depends on where the money is coming from on a particular day. :shrug:

Indeed.


I doubt it really went over your head GG. I think it's a more simple issue/subject than some are making it out to be. Wordy doesn't equal intelligent. It reminds me of Albert Einstein's quote, “It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid.” :crazy: :love:

erykah1310
January 8th, 2007, 02:02 AM
Wordy doesn't equal intelligent.

However far too many people insist on using big words in hopes to intimidate others into backing away.:rolleyes:

Maya
January 8th, 2007, 03:16 AM
However far too many people insist on using big words in hopes to intimidate others into backing away.I agree!! Sometimes it is nice to go a little out of the "usual" vocabulary of course.:) When I was younger I liked learning new words but I remember feeling discouraged because when I would try them out i'd get strange looks, like what's wrong with you.:rolleyes:

I don't think anything will prepare me for the ****probing though.:p O gosh that reminds me they do that at airports sometimes.:yuck: :sad: :grouphug:

trippincherri
January 8th, 2007, 01:26 PM
I just finished reading this entire thread for the first time, and I must say (as a gold medal winner on my debate team) this is brilliant.
All sides are very well expressed, and it is nice to see people with passion for what they belive in.

So many people turn a blind eye to what is happening in our country,our world even our own backyards and not give a second thought to what turning that blind eye could mean.
More people need to read the papers and watch the news.
I myself am an internet junky who reads everything online because I like the array of articles I have access to.
And I too believe that you should never expose yourself to only one side of the story....hear all sides!!

And as an afterthought ;) I think everyone should have some sort emergency plan and supplies available to them.
I do and I live where there's never anything to worry about, but I like to be prepared because you just never know.

dtbmnec
January 8th, 2007, 03:06 PM
And as an afterthought ;) I think everyone should have some sort emergency plan and supplies available to them.
I do and I live where there's never anything to worry about, but I like to be prepared because you just never know.

You sound like my mother...she always believes in being prepared (though not to the point where she's got enough canned beans to last twenty years). In fact she's always buying random gadgets that would help in an emergency (ie. radio that is powered through dynamo, dynamo flashlight, etc.)

We lived through the Ice Storm (*shivers* 8 days and no power and crazy neighbours) and we got through it because of mom. She knew where the candles were, she knew where the blankets were, she helped chop wood. She makes us wear gloves and hats in the car (or at least take them with us) in case we get into an accident (been there done that very cold). She reads survival books for fun!

:offtopic: Back to the Ice storm...we learnt afterwards that the army skipped over our house because our neighbour decided to tell them that no one was home at our place...they finally realised we were home because of the candle we put out in the front room...then they came and helped us cut wood for the fireplace...we asked the neighbour why she told them we weren't home and she replied "well you are the most capable person I know so I knew you could handle this without any help!" :frustrated:

Back to the original topic....I haven't seen this Canadian wide commercial....of course I haven't watched TV in a while....at least not any Canadian channels anyway. CSI isn't on them! LOL I'm curious now and I'm going to have to see where this is....

Megan

Prin
January 8th, 2007, 04:07 PM
Wonder why the army was where you were... We didn't have power for 11 days and nobody ever dropped by.:D

Even if you don't see the commercial, they have a scary website too:
http://www.getprepared.ca/index_e.asp

Stacer
January 8th, 2007, 04:41 PM
I went to that website and checked out what to put into an emergency kit. That's a tonne of stuff, and then they say to put it in a backpack or dufflebag, cripes, you'd need a shopping cart for all of the s**t they want you to have.

Prin
January 8th, 2007, 04:47 PM
lol yep. And I can imagine what family has enough money to have a secret stash with one full set of clothes and extra shoes for each member.:rolleyes:

Rick C
January 9th, 2007, 10:07 AM
Sorry if it's all a little jumbly..
Yeah, it probably did. It was probably created after the ice storm. But that's my point. WHY is it released now? Are we supposed to just assume it was finally ready to air?

No, don't give yourself too much credit there.:D We have viewpoints, fine. But that doesn't necessarily imply that the majority of viewpoints aren't biased or don't intend to manipulate us. If the media is owned by a select few here, what difference would it make anywhere else? Unless a newspaper is fully independent (which would mean it wouldn't ever survive financially), it's easy to link up the information that is purposely biased, either for cross promotion, political agenda, or otherwise. Even articles from "pool" news sources are edited and chopped to pieces before getting published. A writer once sent an article bashing the Toronto star to two papers- the Star and another paper. The two articles that were finally published were completely different. (I have to go find them... It was a stunt pulled by a well-known journalist too...)

We even see it here on the forum. The people fighting BSL in Ontario have had letters published that had been totally mangled to the point where readers would think they were practically supporters of BSL and admitting their own dogs were vicious. :shrug:

Who decides what to publish? Not the reporters and definitely not the public. And that's my point. We're depending on these people at the top for our news and who says we have to trust any of them or that we CAN trust them, despite having "a wider spectrum of viewpoints" than ever? "A hundred million lemmings can't all be wrong." :rolleyes:


So yer man, Gunther, says we see media bias because we ourselves are biased, right? Did I read that right? But if you read another article of his Here (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00002.x?cookieSet=1), you can see it's flawed fairly quickly. He goes on and on saying that the people who say media influences people fail to look at any other possible middle steps between the media and the behavior they say results from it. So then they look at smoking and show that teens are more influenced by prosmoking ads or material in the media than the anti-smoking ads, etc. And he says probably because of their peer perception, they're influenced to smoke (i.e. they think their friends see the ads and think smoking is cool so they think they're conforming to their friends, even though it's all perceived).

Anyway, my point is, after all that, he doesn't once mention that mayyyybe advertisers are much better at selling something than not selling something. Maybe the kids are biased, sure. But good marketing doesn't sell us products we don't need because we're biased either...

He pretends the sources of the ads and material are unbiased because even a tobacco company contributed an anti-smoking ad (oo lala!), which surprisingly enough, made kids smoke MORE! Why? Because they know how to sell their products. They know how to manipulate people, even if they are saying seemingly "bad" things about their product. They're masters of their craft. And big tobacco isn't the only one.

Maybe because I'm at the point where I see the media as one big PR stunt after another, that makes me biased. But the article you posted, "New media a weapon in world of politics", also shows it. Clinton had a bad interview on a "republican" news program, so he blamed the news program as being biased. Lindsay Lohan crashed her car into paparazzi and claimed it was because they were hounding her, when she had already had 2 other car crashes in the few months prior unrelated to any paparazzi. And while the paparazzi is being the scape goat for her bad driving, who do you think tells them where she is all the time?

Yeah, ok so that's tabloidy, but not far from what Clinton pulled, is it?

All that to say, the media sways in favor of whomever has the most to gain (or lose) and not toward the unbiased truth or strict news telling.

Not at all. I don't think either the left or the right control the media. It's far more specific than that. Do you really think nobody knew of Mr Black's indiscretions before he sold the company and screwed the new owners of his media empire? :rolleyes: Do I know if Black is right or left? No. Honestly, it probably depends on where the money is coming from on a particular day. :shrug:



Well, why do different sources say different things? Couldn't they just take one of their clever pics and count the heads? It's not an opinion that varies. There was a certain number of people there that day. Right? Same with the "No" rally in 1995. The English papers said the crowd topped 100 000 while the French papers estimated almost half that. Why? That's a huge difference. (But it was really fun to be there though...)

And I don't think Separatism is either right or left. Some issues aren't about right or left at all. :shrug: Some issues are about money, competition, history, and/or ignorance, among so many other things. :rolleyes:

I'm just wondering what's behind this particular set of overlapping media messages...:shrug:

You know Prin, it would be so easy to take all that and kick your rumpus around the parking lot - figuratively of course - that my my imaginary boot is positively itching . . . . . but I just don't have the time for lengthy internet debates these days (and this from a guy who has 23,000 posts on another board, but only a few there the last few years. I've learned to walk away lately instead of fighting to the death).

You said your thing and I said my thing and that's where I have to leave it this week even if you're ready to scrap some more. Business calls. We'll agree to disagree and promise to periodically joust in the future.

I think I have two pairs of runners, a pair of hiking boots, a big pair of snow walking boots, a pair of cross-country ski boots and a pair of gumbo rubber boots. I use them all in various seasons.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

dtbmnec
January 9th, 2007, 11:22 AM
I went to that website and checked out what to put into an emergency kit. That's a tonne of stuff, and then they say to put it in a backpack or dufflebag, cripes, you'd need a shopping cart for all of the s**t they want you to have.

Didn't you know we ALLL have shopping carts! LOL

See you missed the fine print where it says "pack in a shopping cart for convenience" :P

It makes sense but how many people are going to get the basic kit together?

Megan

4thedogs
January 9th, 2007, 12:49 PM
Every media source will have it's own set of truths and may be different from the next. Having so many sources allows us to access them all and find our own truths. There is more opportunity to do this these days than it ever was in the past. Just like we have different opinions, so does the media.

Preparing for an emergency is nothing new. This has been suggested for decades. The list is longer now because we live with so much more now that we feel we need these things to survive. Our lifestyle, dwellings, transportation, technical abilities, etc are different.
It is possible that you are hearing about this more, not because some event is being hidden from us but because of the lack of snow this winter. It has been said that there will probably be more ice and we all know what can happen with that.

erykah1310
January 9th, 2007, 01:04 PM
It has been said that there will probably be more ice and we all know what can happen with that.

You kinda lost me here:o

Prin
January 9th, 2007, 02:02 PM
Ice storm.. Warmer weather means freezing rain instead of snow like in the last el nino year...

4thedogs
January 9th, 2007, 02:25 PM
I don't know why you were lost, it was mentioned several times throughout this thread.

Clarify:
Environmental factors. Progressive increase in temperature will not act in isolation. Warming will lead to an increase in evaporation from plants, soil and water bodies. At the same time, current climate models indicate a decrease in precipitation in Ontario not only contributing to further soil drying but to a decrease of runoff into lakes and rivers. The extreme weather events of the past few years have been linked to warming and the prediction is an increase in frequency of such events. The 1998 ice storm in eastern Ontario and Quebec affected more people than any other weather event in Canadian history. The reasons were power transmission lines that were under-designed and no back-up infrastructure in the case of widespread power outages.

The effect of warmer temperatures will lead to an increase in the incidence of ice storms in regions where presently winter precipitation falls principally as snow.