There is nothing redeeming about being forced to subsidize propaganda. Since when do we have to accept "mandatory carriage" for something that entirely insults the senses, basically a wing of a political party. This proposal might just be the biggest political subsidy imaginable. I don’t want to pre-judge, but look, Kory Teneycke is a political hack, and his cheerleaders like Ezra Levant suggest a radicalism that the CRTC doesn’t have to promote.
An early sign, listening to Levant say Canada needs a network to show the "other side" of the climate change debate. Anybody who has seen the "debate" down south, realizes how powerful a misinformation debate can be in forming public opinion. It is not the job of mainstream networks to put forth pro and con, as though equally viable, when the later enjoys almost NO acceptance amongst the expert community. 98% of Canadian climatologists believe in global warming, and a responsible journalist weighs this inherent fact when deciding who is given voice. About the only defence of the deniers, scientists are now partisans, radicals, so we then turn to this nonsensical questioning of accepted practice, that we teach every child in this country. I’m sorry, but giving licence to wingnuts and marginal voices isn’t "choice", it’s the decay of simple reason. Show me a slew of Canadian climatologists supporting the denier, and we’ll talk, until then, leave the stupid to themselves, don’t promote them to the dial, particularly if my cable bill is supporting the insanity.
You can question the political bent of certain outlets, but they bear no relationship to the philosophical bent that this new network is entertaining. A touch of irony that Kory Teneycke leaves CBC to start this project. That fact alone speaks to a certain balance which this new medium will never entertain, should it manifest itself as advertised. Again, when Ezra Levant has a boner that could cut a diamond, let’s do away with the "straight shooter" nonsense that recent hires attempt to soothe.
Funny, the argument of choice, to justify the creation of something that offers no such thing. At the very least, let the marketplace determine the value, but please, please, don’t treat the manifestation of a far right ideologue as though "news". It’s advocacy, plain and simple, the "news" is FIXED, so let its proponents support it. And, before someone chimes in with the most lame of all examples CBC, I defy anyone to watch an edition of Power and Politics, or At Issue and tell me a wide perspective doesn’t find voice.
This debate isn’t about journalism, more news networks, it’s about bringing propaganda to the masses, in effect it’s about a cultural war that a bunch of zealots want to wage. You can dress it up anyway you want, and I suspect a deliberate THRUST right now to appear somewhat moderate, but if the underlying intention is correct, its like parsley on the side.
I have spent about 10 minutes of my life watching FoxNews. I don’t subscribe to it on my cable package, and that’s my choice, others are free to do what they wish. I hardly think it’s progress, that a advocacy group should get an artifical revenue stream to prop up their presentation, which insults every fibre in my body.
We`re at war, and that isn`t hyperbole.