Sometimes a rambling, angry person on the web has a point. Greed kills; There’s no any better way to sum up what is going to happen (and indeed what we’re seeing the genesis of) in the United States economy.
I turned on the streaming radio to John Gormley Live (haven’t done it in a while because my work environment isn’t conducive to listening to radio), hoping to hear about the Regina school closures. Instead, I was confronted with Gormley telling everyone how bad Spitzer was for strictly prosecuting white collar criminals, while he used prostitutes in his private life. It’s as if Gormley wants us to think that the most shameful part of the scandal was how Spitzer hadn’t given wealthy people a break for getting caught at their crimes that destroyed the financial futures of less wealthy people (poor people). Because you know, hypocrites have to give breaks to wealthy criminals. Think of the real victims — old, rich, money junkies who got prosecuted for making more money outside of the law!
Chris explains why Spitzer isn’t “unethical”, even if his action was immoral and unfair to his family and office.
Gormley’s show also covered a drinking/smoking scandal involving kids and adults on a trip out of the country. That is unethical, given the context, and immoral. It was done “on the job”.
I thought it was interesting how Gormley’s show so keenly demonstrated this morning how our main stream media perpetuates the myth that wealth absolves people from acting ethically. He’s acting as a cog in the wheel that is crushing the remaining wealth from middle and lower classes in the world.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Pages tagged "immoral" | 12-Mar-08 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
[...] tagged immoralOwn a Wordpress blog? Make monetization easier with the WP Affiliate Pro plugin. Wealth to Cause Despression saved by 1 others privatecheska bookmarked on 03/12/08 | [...]
huffb1 | 12-Mar-08 at 3:58 pm | Permalink
Did I inspire you to listen to NewsTalk Radio Saskboy?
Saskboy | 12-Mar-08 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
Yep :-)
Saskatchewan Politics - Wealth to Cause Despression | Saskapedia | 13-Mar-08 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
[...] Wealth to Cause Despression Wealth to Cause Despression March 12th, 2008 Sometimes a rambling, angry person on the web has a point. Greed kills; There’s no any better way to sum up what is going to happen (and indeed what we’re seeing the genesis of) in the United States economy. I turned on the streaming radio to John Gormley Live (haven’t done it in a while because my work environment isn’t conducive to listening to radio), hoping to hear about the Regina school closures. Instead, I was confronted with Gormley telli [...]
jlr | 13-Mar-08 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
Isn’t Gormley too (blatantly) right wing to be strictly mainstream? Good for you for managing to tolerate more than five minutes of it. Makes me want to tear my hair out every time.
Saskboy | 13-Mar-08 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
When it comes to popularity (in numbers) in Saskatchewan, you’re hard pressed to find a more well known radio host. Possibly a CBC host like Sheila Coles would be as well known. That, despite the obvious political bend, is what makes Gormley main stream (aside from being on a radio NETWORK show).
Incidentally, I heard Rex Murphy on the National tonight making the same bogus argument that the people Spitzer prosecuted were somehow less criminal than he, because they were not hypocrites as well as criminals.
jlr | 14-Mar-08 at 5:10 am | Permalink
Yeah, I often don’t agree with Rex either. I honestly don’t watch much TV though, but he doesn’t strike me as consistent with CBC’s generally somewhat left bias.
I definitely get why you’d class Gormley as mainstream. My own father listens to him and uses the same stupid arguments he hears on there, although he sometimes shows signs he definitely knows better. It’s just wishful thinking on my part that Gormley’s message should count more than his numbers, and also that his numbers aren’t actually so great…
The medium might also have something to do with the popularity of Gormley. My dad’s a truck driver, and that seems to be the only consistent talk radio available in the province. Even I can’t listen to CBC for long, for whatever reason. Farmers and truck drivers, who else is a target? Security guards, other people with jobs that allow them or encourage them to fill their time with radio.
Louise | 15-Mar-08 at 4:31 pm | Permalink
The only thing about the Spitzer sage that interests me is the question of how long the MSM will remain glommed on to this - yet another sex scandal - while ignoring real news. Here we go again.
And ya, Rex Murphy rules. He’s one of the few saving graces the CBC has going for it, although his lone voice is not enough to provide all those legions of folks who never listen and never call in a reason to come back.
I suppose they think airing Rex’s views actually counter balances the multitude of leftie voices employed at Mother Corp. Pretty hefty complement to the man if they think his stature alone balances off the steady stream of anti-everything from a dozen or so other heavy weight stooges in high places in that organization whose creation of the self perpetuating feedback loop guarantees they will only hear from loyal leftie viewers/listeners, not from those who have been so turned off they left a long time ago.
I agree there ain’t no comparable radio program outside of CBC that could do as good a job for the right as the heavily subsidized Mother Corp does for the left (heavy sigh), yet so many think that with that kind of market share CBC would not do okay if it was privatized. Just one of those curiosities about leftie groupthink.
jlr | 15-Mar-08 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
“The only thing about the Spitzer sage that interests me is the question of how long the MSM will remain glommed on to this - yet another sex scandal - while ignoring real news. Here we go again.”
Complete agreement here.
Saskboy | 15-Mar-08 at 4:43 pm | Permalink
It is a time waster, for sure.
“no comparable radio program outside of CBC that could do as good a job for the right as the heavily subsidized Mother Corp does for the left (heavy sigh), ”
Oh come on, you’re arguing for replacing what you see as partisanship with more partisanship? That only ensures that there will be a constant struggle from one “side” to muzzle the other. If you argued for fair and independent media, then this stupid “right vs. left” media argument would fall into the background, and the media would stop wasting time on partisan and sex filled BS like Spitzer.
Louise | 15-Mar-08 at 7:57 pm | Permalink
Oops. That should have been “saga”, not “sage”.
Funny that this should appear on another blog today about the issue of CBC bias. Pretty much sums up my point.
Saskboy, what I’m arguing for is that any media should be accountable to those who pay for it, which is utimately the viewer. If a television network, for example, pisses off a certain segment of the population, that population will likely not view it, which is fine, but that lost audience will no longer be a source of revenue for the network. In other words they won’t have to pay for what they don’t watch.
Since they will no longer be viewing what the network’s advertizing is trying to push at them, and the advertizers will take their money elsewhere. The network then has to decide how to bring those viewers back and either modify their programming, or, if they prefer, become more focused only on those viewers which they still have. Both options are intelligent responses to the market. CBC has consistently chosen the second option.
But the difference is, those of us who no longer watch CBC still have to pay for it. Since CBC has consistently responded to the decline of their viewership in the second way, then they should not expect the rather large proportion of the market they no longer hold to keep paying and paying and paying for stuff that gets further and further and further off balance.
Canadian citizens can choose to listen to Gormley and his ilk and patronize the radio station’s advertisers. They can also choose not to listen, and may never spend so much as a thin dime on any of the services and products hocked by Gormley’s advertizers. But with CBC, Canadians simply do not have that choice.
A quote from the above link should sum up rather nicely:
“I proposed that a publicly financed broadcaster ought to restrict itself to programming that private broadcasters, for reasons of profit and loss, cannot or will not produce. On this point, my CBC interlocutor seemed to feel we had some common ground, and began to enthuse on the topic of CBC’s drama and comedy series.
What I had in mind, I replied, was more on the order of public hearings and service announcements, not shows that are unprofitable by virtue of being breathtakingly bad. Sadly, the CBC’s perceived responsibility to produce fictional series has had taxpayers footing the bill for unbearable, politically correct harangues from King of Kensington to Little Mosque on the Prairie.”
And by the way, having once watched Carol Off being sharply rebuked for her left wing blather by a prominent American personality on a show she once hosted, and seen her face go all hurt and confused by it, I’m betting the CBC journalist mentioned in the article I link to is one and same CBC leftist darling. But I could be wrong. There are so many of them who consider their contempt for the right to be beyond reproach and certainly no smear on their journalistic integrity.
My guess is you haven’t been around long enough to know what CBC once was. IMHO, when the CBC top brass decided several decades ago to start competing for prime time ratings with the American networks, they did themselves in. Unfortunately, since they are shielded from the forces of the market with tax dollars, they do not have to correct their course and now that new media has opened up a vast array of alternatives to television, they have become even more irrelevant. They are simply an expensive dinosaur hell bent on keepng themselves from extinction by focussing more and more on smaller and smaller audiences and all the while it is not just your tax dollars they are using, Saskboy. It is everyones.
Saskboy | 15-Mar-08 at 9:25 pm | Permalink
“Since they will no longer be viewing what the network’s advertizing is trying to push at them, and the advertizers will take their money elsewhere. The network then has to decide how to bring those viewers back and either modify their programming, or, if they prefer, become more focused only on those viewers which they still have.”
That is so naive. It’s something that may have been true once upon a time, but today it’s a fairy tale. Look at who owns the products, and also the media, Louise. Then tell me if you honestly believe if the owners care if a handful of people stop watching and the ratings drop. The people who switch, turn on another channel from the SAME BROADCASTING COMPANY. And even if they do switch, do you think Coke will only advertise on CTV, or just CBC, or merely Global? When they cover every base, why even bother tying to play baseball with those advertising poop-holes?
At least CBC is owned by the people of Canada, whatever that means at this point. It’s only partially in the pocket of advertising corporations. Every other station is out to make money, not to unite us as a country, and inform and entertain.
Louise | 15-Mar-08 at 10:17 pm | Permalink
Sorry, that’s no excuse for state funded media.
Are you a journalism student BTW? You are spouting old memes about corporate ownership that have been the mainstay of academe for many, many years. Who the fuck cares about Coke and where they advertize or who owns the broadcasting company? I don’t. It’s old media. You have a very low opinion of that average citizen’s capacity to discern what the media does and does not do, which is typical of academic “discourse” (one of their favorite words, by the way).
Even on the internet when advertizers push up their annoying intrusions on to the middle of the page, I search for the “close” button as quickly as I can. I do not now nor have I ever been duped by advertizing.
Oh, and if the CBC is “owned” by the people of Canada, why can’t I sell my shares?
Your profs haven’t kept up with the times, it seems. If you are studying journalism and if you are being taught this kind of garbage, I feel for you. Sorry if your chosen profession is fading fast, but life sucks. Then it moves on.
Saskboy | 15-Mar-08 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
“You have a very low opinion of that average citizen’s capacity to discern what the media does and does not do”
Not the average - just people. And it’s not a low opinion, it’s the truth. We collectively don’t handle bombardment well; why do you think people still spam? Because there are idiots still buying! Marketers have the low opinion, and they cash in big time.
I’m not a journo student by the way.
“Oh, and if the CBC is “owned” by the people of Canada, why can’t I sell my shares?”
You sound like Harper, Harris, and Manning, all ready to cash in their shares in Canada. None of them deserve to be Canadian citizens!
Louise | 15-Mar-08 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
“You sound like Harper, Harris, and Manning, all ready to cash in their shares in Canada. None of them deserve to be Canadian citizens!”
That’s hilarous. What a privileged, snot-nosed brat of a statement!!! Keep it up, Saskboy. More statements like that will reveal the liberal lefties for what they really are. You’re doing us a big, big favour.
BTW, I don’t need television to define for me what it means to be Canadian. I’ve always been very comfortable in my Canadian skin. I’ve never felt the all too Canadian liberal-left inferiority complex which compells so many to spend their waking hours waxing disparagingly at our neighbour to the south as if being Canadian means one has to be anti-American. If Canada has to lose one of its mainstream anti-American screeching networks, Canada will not come to an end. In fact, we might just regain our stature in the world as a country with a backbone that refuses to spend its time whining about things like globalization or worshipping corrupt and bankrupt organizations like the United Nations that puts the world’s worst human rights abusers in charge of the human rights portfolio. Just sayin’, Canada has seen better days and we could, and hopefully will, get that back.
Saskboy | 15-Mar-08 at 11:24 pm | Permalink
Louise, I think you need to read this, and let go of your obvious hero worship.
http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2007/05/09/fraser-institute-report-a-traitors-document/
“BTW, I don’t need television to define for me what it means to be Canadian.”
No kidding, neither do I. But it’s hard to deny that culture still spreads over TV first, and the Internet is gaining but not quite there yet. When the CBC was made, first it was radio, and in many ways that is where it is most strong and useful. If you want to reach a large audience to culturalize them, the TV is the way to go.
“I’ve never felt the all too Canadian liberal-left inferiority complex which compells so many to spend their waking hours waxing disparagingly at our neighbour to the south as if being Canadian means one has to be anti-American.”
Sorry Louise, but in this discussion it’s you who comes across as the one insecure about our country’s current identity, and I never made any mention of “anti-Americanism”. Here’s the score: being for Canada does not make one “anti-American”. If you can’t agree to at least that simple fact, there’s not much else I can say that will make sense to you.
“In fact, we might just regain our stature in the world as a country with a backbone that refuses to spend its time whining about things like globalization or worshipping corrupt and bankrupt organizations like the United Nations”
Siamese twins who share a backbone would be seen as both severely crippled in most peoples eyes. You’d have Canada share its backbone with the States. I think we are both stronger and better as our own independent countries.
Louise | 16-Mar-08 at 12:29 am | Permalink
“Sorry Louise, but in this discussion it’s you who comes across as the one insecure about our country’s current identity, and I never made any mention of “anti-Americanism”. ”
I never said you did. I’m simply pointing out that we don’t need a state funded television network that blathers on and on and on against all things American. Carol Off is one of the worst the CBC has to offer when it comes to their anti-American screed-generating automatons. Mother Corp is a relic from the past and she should be assigned to the dust bin.
“I think we are both stronger and better as our own independent countries.”
Indeed we are. But some folks on the liberal-left spectrum here in Canada believe that to be “independent” we should never be on the same side of issues as the Americans. I’m not saying you are among them, nor am I saying you’re not, cause I just don’t know, but this statement of yours that I’ve just quoted seems to suggest you might be.
According to that camp, if the US says yes, we must say no and if the US says no, we must say yes. That’s just about as dependent on US positions as you can possibly get.
And once again, the CBC leads the way. It is very fond of lambasting Canadian governments, both provincial and federal, for siding with the Americans, even when it is in our interests to do so.
Louise | 16-Mar-08 at 7:23 am | Permalink
Interesting tidbit of MSM leftward bias
CBC is not alone, which of course is no surprise to anyone who is watching media bias.