Flood museum closed … due to flooding

Comments (9)

1. The Guardian is certainly far more accurate than the New York Post, Fox ‘News’ or any of the other Murdoch misinformation/disinformation outlets.

   Reply

   1. I believe Alexander Pope would say that you have damned it with faint praise.

      I think there’s a difference. The Fox News personnel know they are lying, as you saw in the Dominion discovery process. The Guardian is sincere (I think) but naive.

      Reply

      1. Well, as you say ‘you think’ The Guardian is sincere.

         Most if not all media outlets have their own agendas or narratives. It can be politically, it can be just to sell newspapers through sensationalism. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that I don’t think as long as people are aware.

         There is also the possibility I suppose that those working at the outlets get so deep into their own agendas that they actually start to believe them, you would probably need to see documents similar to the Dominion case. For example, did Fox ‘News” actually believe that Haitians in Pennsylvania were actually eating cats or did they know it was all lies?

         Reply

         1. There is an even greyer case right now in Canada. The major media outlets spent a good part of the last two years accusing Members of Parliament of conspiring with foreign governments (possible treason.)

            This was a result most likely of various CSIS agents (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the equivalent of both the FBI and the CIA,) leaking raw data -essentially unverified rumors- to the media for whatever agenda these agents had and the media outlets breathlessly reporting them as if they were Gospel.

            There have now been three seperate investigations all showing that none of the rumors could be confirmed and casting doubt on their accuracy. Of course, since they investigators were chosen by the government – a ‘special rapporteur’ a select Parliamenty committee, and a retired judge – cynical people might argue this was a coverup. However, all three were also critical of the government and the Parliamenty Committee did believe that some M.Ps may have been duped into providing some assistance unintentionally. This actually isn’t as naive as it may sound – M.Ps obviously provide constituent services and some of those constituents might work for foreign governments.

            So, were these media outlets engaging in sensationalism, were they cynical or were they naive?

            Reply

            1. Not to worry. Trump will clean up that mess when you become the 51st state.

               Or maybe the 52nd, after Greenland.

            2. In Canada I think that it was largely sensationalism at work, although in some cases certain media outlets may have had political agendas.

               Also, small correction, but the judge who investigated the allegations and recently put out her report – Justice Marie-Josée Hogue – is not actually retired but is still on the Quebec Court of Appeal.

         2. They knew.

            The lesson of the Dominion case is that Fox is deathly afraid of losing a chunk of their ultra-right viewership (and therefore ad revenue) to the even wackier right-leaning networks, so they feel obligated to please their base. They will say whatever they need to say to hold viewership. If the truth would make the base unhappy, they’ll have nothing of it.

            It’s all about the Benjamins! (Or for you, I suppose the Bordens, or the Shatners, or whoever is now on your hundred-dollar bill.)

            Reply

            1. Borden

   2. Agreed….also better than WaPo these days.

      Reply