Canwest Media

I did not say anything about Newmans character or reliability. But his is an opinion. How is someone's opinion proof of anything?

LennyJessop wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:

LennyJessop wrote:There is nothing wrong with being pro-Israel. It's when you let your personal convictions interfere with your business ethics and practices.

I absolutely have no clue what this statement means.

Are you saying that people should not bring their personal convictions to bear in their business practices?

If they are concerned about their journalistic integrity, they are best left at home...

Why?

LennyJessop wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:

LennyJessop wrote:There is nothing wrong with being pro-Israel. It's when you let your personal convictions interfere with your business ethics and practices.

I absolutely have no clue what this statement means.

Are you saying that people should not bring their personal convictions to bear in their business practices?

If they are concerned about their journalistic integrity, they are best left at home...

Oh god are you ever naive. If it were not for personal convictions many of us would never go after a story or cover an event.

djh wrote:what i meant by shenanigans and improper dealings are described in the book "Asper nation: canadas most dangerous media company" by marc edge. absolute proof is not necessary to decribe ones opinion on a subject. its a viewpoint not a legal document.

Absolutely. But how does pasting another persons opinion in a forum provide proof of anything?

grumpy old man wrote:I did not say anything about Newmans character or reliability. But his is an opinion. How is someone's opinion proof of anything?

Hey Grumpy,
I know the debate is getting heated, and I hate to inform you that I work at 10PM tonight. Unless you are still awake when I return home at 3:45AM, I'll have to take a raincheck until noon tomorrow to debate...

Okay. Let's assume that Newman is 100% correct. Let's move the debate on.

Why is it improper for an owner of a business to drive his business any way he see's fit.

Heated? That is an overstatement. Debate? Thus far several parties are waiting for key bits of evidence which have not materialized. All we have from the one side is conjecture.

journalists in canada and other western countries generally subscribe to a journaistic ethic or integrity. canwests attempt and action to dictate what can be told and not be told violates that. if they want to control what is said in their newspapers they should have a disclaimer on them.

Other that Newman's editorial is there PROOF that Canwest forced their journalists to void their journalistic integrity?

And if the journalists did, it speaks equally about the journalist as it does about CanWest no?

all i can say is that i believe newmans editorial. if you add up eveything it points to a pretty shady organization mr asper founded. their close ties to the libs dont help them either.

Ummm. Huh?

Add everything up? Like a single editorial by Peter Newman? One editorial = a shady organization? Seriously?

And close ties to the Liberals means what exactly?


I'm lost. What exactly is your issue with CanWest Media?

djh wrote:journalists in canada and other western countries generally subscribe to a journaistic ethic or integrity. canwests attempt and action to dictate what can be told and not be told violates that. if they want to control what is said in their newspapers they should have a disclaimer on them.

One does not subscribe to integrity - one either has it or they don't have it.

With regard to Peter Newman's comments, I just want to point out one thing...Izzy Asper is dead. Helluva man to still have that much influence on CanWest over 6 years after his death.

It would seem, at least when it comes to the Aspers, that death is not really relevant.

djh wrote:journalists in canada and other western countries generally subscribe to a journaistic ethic or integrity. canwests attempt and action to dictate what can be told and not be told violates that. if they want to control what is said in their newspapers they should have a disclaimer on them.

If you don't like it, don't read their newspapers. I don't like the CBC, so I don't watch it (other than when they tell me that I'm above average)

Freeman wrote:With regard to Peter Newman's comments, I just want to point out one thing...Izzy Asper is dead. Helluva man to still have that much influence on CanWest over 6 years after his death.

Izzy has no influence on anything. It's his kids that have influenced the destruction of the company.

JTF wrote:

Freeman wrote:With regard to Peter Newman's comments, I just want to point out one thing...Izzy Asper is dead. Helluva man to still have that much influence on CanWest over 6 years after his death.

Izzy has no influence on anything. It's his kids that have influenced the destruction of the company.

Exactly.
Besides, Izzy had implemented these policies over 10 years ago, when his media empire was flourishing. His children continue to adhere to their late father's wishes.

I really don't understand what the complaints are all about? Is someone complaining that the news being reported is slanted because of the Aspers ownership?
Is that the same thing when one listens to Fox news and their talk shows blast Obama, 87% of the time? Fair and balanced is their motto! And the CBC has a right handed or left handed bias?
Why should a news organization owner have any right to employ people who believe in "his" own interpretation of what he believes?
O'Reilly brags about his "fair and balanced" criticism of the President, and quotes statistice that are very impressive, on his huge audience in the USA. He has 47% of the audience while other stations have about 30%.

fox news in the us has a large percentage of viewers but not, by far, a near monopoly on us news reporting. canwest asper controlled tv doesnt either but their newspaper division is up there. my beef with the aspers is the owners of media should stay out of the business of protecting and promoting their ethnic homeland by banning any critisizm of it in their papers. what would people say if a family from the us ran media empires here and forced their writers not to give the us any negative press? all hell would break loose as it should. what baffles me is why ome people defend the aspers so vigoriously? jewish people are unique in this way, they usually defend fellow jews no matter what. i doubt that all the people who deny what the aspers really are are jews though. its a head scratcher.

djh wrote:what baffles me is why ome people defend the aspers so vigoriously?

What baffles me is why some people so vigorously attack the Aspers.

And as I go through this thread I see zero facts. Just wild speculation and opinion. So, you want to attack someone? Post facts. Or if you are speculatin', say so.

Like this comment:

djh wrote:jewish people are unique in this way, they usually defend fellow jews no matter what.

What makes you believe that Jewish people are any different than the French or Brits or Canadians? Is this a fact or is this your belief?

like most people, i think what i believe is factual. the aspers are a high profile family who have a undeservedly good reputation,in my opinion. what is different between jews and others is that they tend to always play the racist or anti semite card when things dont go their way. jews in the western world comprise 2 percent of the population but hold immense media, political and financial power. how does this jive with teir claims of widespread anti semitism? i suspect it is being used to silence critics and continue usurp money, power and ifluence. just my belief though.

djh wrote:like most people, i think what i believe is factual. the aspers are a high profile family who have a undeservedly good reputation,in my opinion. what is different between jews and others is that they tend to always play the racist or anti semite card when things dont go their way. jews in the western world comprise 2 percent of the population but hold immense media, political and financial power. how does this jive with teir claims of widespread anti semitism? i suspect it is being used to silence critics and continue usurp money, power and ifluence. just my belief though.

Really? You do read the newspapers? Just read today's Winnipeg papers. Then read the Toronto papers. See how others use the race card.

What is this thing you hold against the Jewish people? Have they harmed you? Your family? Winnipeg? Canada? Anyone?

Are they TOO successful? Should we limit their access to media, political and financial power?

What exactly is it that bothers you so?

He still will not provide links to the websites that he figures would raise the ire of some here.....now if one were to engage in speculation one would be led to believe that perhaps some of those source sites of djh's may not pass muster with our Human Rights Code?

Heck, I'd be satisfied with a rational post that really explains why his POV should concern me.

LennyJessop wrote:Well. education has always been a central theme to the Jewish culture and religion, which, IMO, is a good thing. Unfortunately, when one ethnic group dominates an area trade or business, it has the tendency to create problems.

What problems have been created as a result?

media ownership in the hands of the few is a very dangerous prospect. wether people like to admit it or not the media weilds frightening amounts of power in society. if one group of people control the media that is a great disservice to the country and society as a whole. someone might call this "success". i call it media occupation. there have been attempts by ottawa to solve this problem but with no success. to answer your question more directly, 2 percent of the population having so much power really bothers me. wether they were jews or not.