Fox News? No. Fair debate? Yes

In this story the usually reasonable Lorrie Goldstein sets out a strong case for the benefit of having yet another TV news channel. Anyone who still believes the media is unbiased is incredibly naive – the CBC worst of all. For example, on the fundamental issue of big interventionist government vs small, pro free-market government, how could we even expect a media corporation where 100% of its employees are 100% dependent on a massive ($1 billion is still massive isn’t it?) tax-funded subsidy for their jobs to be unbiased?

So, until government gets out of the business of journalism and journalists discover the value of simply reporting honestly and as objectively as possible, the best option is for their to be competition between the snidely and dishonestly leftist media and the openly and honestly right-wing media.

So let the games begin. I look forward to a network where all the sacred cows of Canadian socialism are bashed with a dose of cold reality. The result should be plenty of beef for everyone.

Fox News? No. Fair debate? Yes: Goldstein | Lorrie Goldstein | Columnists | Comment | Toronto Sun.

Comments

comments

One thought on “Fox News? No. Fair debate? Yes

  1. in her column: When in doubt, blame somoene else I still maintain, as I did a while back on a similar topic, that creating distrust of our institutions, be it for partisan political gain or for whatever other reason, now seems to be the automatic response. No matter what action or solution is advanced by somoene in authority, in any position of power, there is usually a negative, sometimes quite virulent, reaction among the commentariat. Everyone’s a critic but seldom does anyone offer a viable practical solution, except “I’m right and you’re wearing a tin-foil hat”.The left side of the political spectrum thinks problems would disappear merely by throwing more funding at them. Progressives seem to think all criminals are basically poor and misunderstood; given compassion and opportunity, all would be right with the world.The right side of the political spectrum thinks jailing perpetrators and throwing away the key would partly solve the problem of criminal activity. Small-c conservatives apparently believe criminals are simply evil people who must be restrained from committing their evil deeds. But how does society identify the evil ones , the James Holmes of this world, before they can commit their evil deeds?The libertarians on either side of the political spectrum apparently think getting government out of people’s lives is the answer. Legalize pot and prostitution, thus eliminating the middle man , and the gangs would somehow magically disappear. I would add that they would turn into boy scouts but that organization’s reputation too has been tainted.Of the three I mentioned above, I lean towards the small-c conservative tenet but I also recognize the need for other kinds of early intervention. What should that be?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *