I have learned that you have to be very careful around the media when coining an analogy to describe a given situation. For example there was the time I described Jim Flaherty’s utter negligence as being the “Financial equivalent of the Walkerton water manager. Stan Koebel”.
Derek DeCloet of the Mail and Globe took this analogy to the absurd extreme, in order to malign the argument being made, and constructed the false inference of me saying people were killed by Flaherty’s negligent actions, rather than simply Flaherty’s incompetence serving to kill a vibrant $200 billion sector of Canada’s economy.....the death watch of which occurs daily before our very eyes.
As such I need to be more careful when using analogies around the excitable and intolerant press.
Meanwhile, on behalf of income trust taxpayers, I am always searching for new ways to communicate this income trust issue to the more intellectually challenged people in our midst. I have observed that sex is a popular analogy with many of the “lame of mind” out there.
First there was the classic Parliamentary debate in which NDP Pat Martin referred to income trusts as the ultimate corporate “wet dream”. Almost makes me feel as sleazy as Pat Martin, just to write those words.
Then there was the erudite Terry Corcoran who in one of his moments of childish and prurient glee wrote about the Town Hall meeting that John McCallum hosted in Toronto at the Design Exchange as the “Town Hall Lesbian Kiss Off”. I’ll leave it to Terry to attempt to explain that one to anyone interested in that train of logic. Not that logic is a good descriptor when dealing with Terry the Terrible.
All of which leads me to solicit (no pun intended) from you the following question. Which analogous term best describes the gross editorial and journalistic bias that resides within the Mail and Globe on the topic of income trusts?
Do you consider the Globe to be performing the analogous role of:
(1) Pimp
(2) Prostitute
(3) Other
Please advise, as I can ill afford a repeat of the gross misinterpretation by the media over my daring use of the term “Walkerton Water Manager” to describe Jim Flaherty’s gross negligence and incompetence.
I won’t be going out with this until I hear back from you. Thank you in advance.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Globe and Mail: Pimp or prostitute?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Allow me to be the first one to boldly go...
Harper's the Pimp.
The Globe's the Prostitute.
Is this a trick question??
Is the gov`t spying on us??
Is Brent Fullard a CSIS pawn??
Do I wear a tin foil hat while working next to my furnace??
All good & very relevant questions.
Now pimp or prostitute or something else??
Hmmmm.
The something else makes me ponder things for which I will have my head washed-out with soap later.
As much as I would like to pick that one because of the scurrilous nature of the Globe & Mail , I think I will say they are the Pimp in this case.
DeCloet & Corcoran are paid by the Globe to perform & perform they do---they jump thru hoops , bend , contort & do their master`s bidding.
I vote Pimp.
Dr Mike Popovich.
I am going with #1. Pimping for Flaherty
Prostitute , but the pimp could be in the running
ROTFLMAO
Farm1234
Its got to be prositute. To be the Pimp is to control what product is being sold top the common "man". In the case of the Globe & Mail, they are simply following the line put out by their pimps.
Tedster
Which analogous term best describes the gross editorial and journalistic bias that resides within the Mail and Globe on the topic of income trusts?
Why use an analogy?
Call them what they are...... F&%*#@g idiots.
Factrbest
You mean the same, ahem, "Mail and Globe" which is part of that other company with absolutely "no interest in this matter, whatsoever" ("Ding-Donger World Media" or something like that?)???
I don't know what you mean... LOL...
Private "media" in this country needs to be more regulated, and the "oligopolies" need to be broken up, or (in Mr. Harper's words), we're all "screwed". I worked for one of these conglomerates, so I know how much the "bottom line" means in each and every aspect of their existence - right down to the local interest programming that is painted falsely as a "public service"...
A nation as small as ours' is in much greater danger from media monopolies than a larger nation like the US - where the large population allows for a few more companies in the mix... Still, even the US displayed the joke of a "free press" they have when the Gulf War started.
With our smaller population, having 2 or 3 companies control everything is a huge threat to our sovereignty. These companies care about nothing but "market share", and their advertisers. The frightening thing is, they can influence public opinion, and do so routinely. It's not like they're the local hardware store, so let them go about their business... They are insidiously penetrated into our homes... Go to any Canadian home, and you'll find one of their papers on a coffee table, their magazines, one of their stations playing on the radio, and definitely the same one of these three's TV programming on the tube.
Worse still, in order to boost profits, and get cheaper, ready-made programming, these Canadian broadcasters are pumping Canadians full of trash programming from the US - replete with all the commercial and political influence from South of the 49th. When they are challenged on this from Canadian sovereignty advocates they cry out about "offering choice" to their customers. Wrong. It's all about the bottom line. Cheaper programming - which has the unfortunate side effect of "Conservatizing" - in the American way - the entire population, as South of the border values are imposed on our population... Without anyone noticing it, these values have been influencing our population - especially our TV-watching younger generations...
How true Western Grit, our Canadian values are rapidly being eroded to a commercialized consumer based society. You are also correct to state that in America the populations are so huge that their still remains a healthy number of people that do not tune in. In the case of pimp or prostitute, I would have to say prostitute, the same as Harper, both prostitutes for big business, the real pimps!
"...the unfortunate side effect of "Conservatizing" - in the American way - the entire population, as South of the border values are imposed on our population..."
-----------------------------------
Stevie and his "spiritual adviser", "Dr." Doolittle Charles McVety, love it that way.
Be afraid, Canada, very afraid!!!
The so called news media in this country, the Globe & Mail being the prime example, are nothing more than propaganda agents whose job is to build consensus for what ever screw job our elite want to impose on us. The Globe's reporting on Income Trusts being a good example. So Whore is the term I like. Just like Harper the Whore who peddled his ass out to the Israel Lobby before he was even elected, and after to Power Corp, Manulife and all those other peddlers of mutual funds.
Canada's media is weak lazy and stupid and owned and controlled by the same group of wealthy and powerful individuals who pressured Harper and Flaherty in this atrocity.
Diane Francis is the exception.
RRSP's can not be shared. You could already share CPP so the pension sharing is false when fully 75% of Canadians can't do it. It is just for the privileged group again.
And the privileged group can hold income trusts tax free in their pension plans and the wealthy can hold them in the private equity or family trusts,
the rest of us are SOL.
Fc13
Post a Comment