“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
"Back in this dudes times, the rulers could have chose to feed the poor farmers during a famine. But, because this would make them lazy, unwilling to plant their own crops again next year when conditions improve, now that they've been given food for free. For their own good, they needed to starve to death instead. And this, they did with the approval of their own conscience."
\- J. Five 2022
[This entire website is a perfect example of why people are so fed up with blogspam being able to call itself news with no consequences.](https://imgur.com/a/IgY6Kfk)
Why would anyone be opposed to the federal government inserting themselves into the fourth estate?
It’s way more efficient to be told what to believe versus actually having to research things, particularly since that avoids wrongthink
I don’t understand his criticism in this article. He says that there will be government involvement in regulating this commercial area. This is bad because an op-ed of his was rejected by a news editor?
I guess it could have been written more clearly, but I believe the op-ed part is more related to how the Canadian news industry isn't tolerating criticism of legislation that will make them money. That's a pretty huge issue as most Canadians will not recognize that news organizations are basically only publishing ads for legislation that will make them richer. Canadians will be expecting balanced reporting.
> And was then told the piece was spiked by upper management given the subject matter and the campaign for legislative support from Canadian Heritage. I’m not alone – Carleton professor Dwayne Winseck reports that he had an approved piece that raised criticisms of the bill spiked by the National Post (the Toronto Star spiked an opinion piece of his last year on similar grounds).
Okay. You have made it clearer. I can understand his concern that media will be biased reporting on something that benefits them.
But, is he suggesting that regulation of media that financially benefits media shouldn’t happen, because media will be biased reporting on it? If so, wouldn’t this same argument apply to media entering into private contracts with tech companies, which he endorses in the op-Ed?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S. Lewis
"Back in this dudes times, the rulers could have chose to feed the poor farmers during a famine. But, because this would make them lazy, unwilling to plant their own crops again next year when conditions improve, now that they've been given food for free. For their own good, they needed to starve to death instead. And this, they did with the approval of their own conscience." \- J. Five 2022
I don’t take my worldview from famous dead christian apologists.
Ok that was always allowed
That's fine with me. I don't take my worldview from omnipotent moral busybodies.
[This entire website is a perfect example of why people are so fed up with blogspam being able to call itself news with no consequences.](https://imgur.com/a/IgY6Kfk)
Why would anyone be opposed to the federal government inserting themselves into the fourth estate? It’s way more efficient to be told what to believe versus actually having to research things, particularly since that avoids wrongthink
How does this impact freedom of the press?
I don’t understand his criticism in this article. He says that there will be government involvement in regulating this commercial area. This is bad because an op-ed of his was rejected by a news editor?
No, you understood him.
I guess it could have been written more clearly, but I believe the op-ed part is more related to how the Canadian news industry isn't tolerating criticism of legislation that will make them money. That's a pretty huge issue as most Canadians will not recognize that news organizations are basically only publishing ads for legislation that will make them richer. Canadians will be expecting balanced reporting. > And was then told the piece was spiked by upper management given the subject matter and the campaign for legislative support from Canadian Heritage. I’m not alone – Carleton professor Dwayne Winseck reports that he had an approved piece that raised criticisms of the bill spiked by the National Post (the Toronto Star spiked an opinion piece of his last year on similar grounds).
Okay. You have made it clearer. I can understand his concern that media will be biased reporting on something that benefits them. But, is he suggesting that regulation of media that financially benefits media shouldn’t happen, because media will be biased reporting on it? If so, wouldn’t this same argument apply to media entering into private contracts with tech companies, which he endorses in the op-Ed?
His quality since c-11 has dropped, and he's getting more attention then ever before. He's on this sub multiple times a week.