|
Post by TheDeuce on Nov 10, 2011 13:38:32 GMT -6
Brodbeck from the Sun wrote a BS column about the whole thing where he basically said they should be sent home because there preventing other people from using the park. The Sun has always been a mouthpiece for conservative propaganda but I found his argument in that particular column to be funny. The people have the right to protest peacefully and by trying to deny them that I think there just going to inspire them to take it to the next level. The Free Press is worse in that it presents itself as a 'balanced' news source, rather than admit it's little more than a dilapidated annex to the Liberal Party of Canada and a megaphone for the Manitoba NDP. The Sun makes no bones about it's political stance - it's very up front about it's right-wing position. In either case it's incumbent upon the reader to be aware of where each paper is coming from, but the Free Press should be more up front about it's hard-core left-wing socialist leanings. m.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Nov 10, 2011 13:50:49 GMT -6
To balance out the "conservative propoganda", just read some of the editorials in the Free Press. Then you'll be good to go. Thats an editorial not the same thing. The WFP may be guilty of bias at times but no where near the same level as the Sun. The Brodbeck piece in question was an editorial as well. And the Freep is just as biased as the Freep. I don't use the word 'guilty' in that there's nothing wrong with having an editorial stance, but the Sun admits theirs. The Free Press does not. m.
|
|
|
Post by labatt50 on Nov 10, 2011 15:21:49 GMT -6
We can argue all day about Freep v Sun (and each side will have more than enough ammo to use), but Brodbeck is particularly annoying. I especially love the way uses slander in his articles in place of facts. Name calling has never sounded so classy. Obviously every editorial writer has an ideology (which they are more than entitled to), but Brodbeck is a windbag, pure and simple. He makes Rush Limbaugh sound like Miss Manners.
|
|
|
Post by selanne405 on Nov 10, 2011 16:12:09 GMT -6
Thats an editorial not the same thing. The WFP may be guilty of bias at times but no where near the same level as the Sun. The Brodbeck piece in question was an editorial as well. And the Freep is just as biased as the Freep. I don't use the word 'guilty' in that there's nothing wrong with having an editorial stance, but the Sun admits theirs. The Free Press does not. m. The Brodbeck piece in question was also put on the front page with with "GO HOME!" (or something like that) with it. If Tom's opinion on the occupy protest is big enough to cover the front page like that it musta been a really slow day.
|
|
|
Post by labatt50 on Nov 10, 2011 16:59:31 GMT -6
That's a good point. There is very blurry line drawn between news and opinion in the Sun chain. You'd never see something like that in the Freep, regardless of whether or not you think they are ideologically driven.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Nov 10, 2011 17:20:06 GMT -6
The Brodbeck piece in question was an editorial as well. And the Freep is just as biased as the Freep. I don't use the word 'guilty' in that there's nothing wrong with having an editorial stance, but the Sun admits theirs. The Free Press does not. m. The Brodbeck piece in question was also put on the front page with with "GO HOME!" (or something like that) with it. If Tom's opinion on the occupy protest is big enough to cover the front page like that it musta been a really slow day. Slow news day or not, that 'headline' was ridiculous. It's about what I expect from the Sun though. m.
|
|
|
Post by lukemiguez on Nov 17, 2011 12:52:13 GMT -6
Brodbeck from the Sun wrote a BS column about the whole thing where he basically said they should be sent home because there preventing other people from using the park. The Sun has always been a mouthpiece for conservative propaganda but I found his argument in that particular column to be funny. The people have the right to protest peacefully and by trying to deny them that I think there just going to inspire them to take it to the next level. The Free Press is worse in that it presents itself as a 'balanced' news source, rather than admit it's little more than a dilapidated annex to the Liberal Party of Canada and a megaphone for the Manitoba NDP. The Sun makes no bones about it's political stance - it's very up front about it's right-wing position. In either case it's incumbent upon the reader to be aware of where each paper is coming from, but the Free Press should be more up front about it's hard-core left-wing socialist leanings. m. This has to be a tongue-in-cheek joke right? You're seriously claiming that the Free Press has "hard-core left-wing socialist leanings" given its consistent history of advocacy for free trade and overwhelming support for the interests of capital in Winnipeg? If anything, the Free Press has the one of the most consistent newspapers in regards to its core ideological position in all of Western Canada over the years. I have never ever read a single article or editorial in the Free Press that has ever even come remotely close to advocating the abolition of private property and the nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy. The Manitoba NDP is also one of the LEAST doctrinaire Marxist NDP provincial branches in all of Canada. This is a socialist paper: www.peoplesvoice.ca/This isn't: www.winnipegfreepress.com/
|
|
|
Post by NHLWinnipeg on Nov 17, 2011 13:04:04 GMT -6
^ Communism is not the same a Socialism. Not all socialists are Marxists.
|
|
|
Post by lukemiguez on Nov 17, 2011 13:24:37 GMT -6
^ Communism is not the same a Socialism. Not all socialists are Marxists. What? Socialism is a political ideology that suggests that ownership and economic planning regarding the means of production are democratized. Yes, Socialism and Communism aren't the same, but we're delving into specifics of Marxist theory that are elaborating upon two systems that for all intents and purposes differ primarily in that the Communist stage of development sees the dissolution of the state. By definition all socialists are Marxists in that they accept the primary tenants of Marx's argument regarding the historical materialist interpretation of history. That and his critique of capitalism and desire to reform society within more egalitarian economic form free from class tension. They differ on the basis of how to achieve those goals, and what exactly the ideal society would look like, but the underlying criticism of capitalism is there. So social democrats can be called Marxists, even though many of them would not like the label due to its revolutionary implications.
|
|
|
Post by NHLWinnipeg on Nov 17, 2011 13:35:35 GMT -6
^ Communism is not the same a Socialism. Not all socialists are Marxists. What? Socialism is a political ideology that suggests that ownership and economic planning regarding the means of production are democratized. Yes, Socialism and Communism aren't the same, but we're delving into specifics of Marxist theory that are elaborating upon two systems that for all intents and purposes differ primarily in that the Communist stage of development sees the dissolution of the state. By definition all socialists are Marxists in that they accept the primary tenants of Marx's argument regarding the historical materialist interpretation of history. That and his critique of capitalism and desire to reform society within more egalitarian economic form free from class tension. They differ on the basis of how to achieve those goals, and what exactly the ideal society would look like, but the underlying criticism of capitalism is there. So social democrats can be called Marxists, even though many of them would not like the label due to its revolutionary implications. Social democrats -- i.e., "socialists" in Western political terminology -- are not Communists. Sure, they employ some Marxist critical theory of capitalism, but they do not adopt Marxist 'prescriptions' or believe his predictions on how society will/should be transform. Socialists in the Western context are democrats. Communism is not a democratic system. To equate social democrats with communists is just wrong. That is all I was pointing out.
|
|