How do you feel about Quebecor’s plan to launch a conservative news network in Canada? -

How do you feel about Quebecor’s plan to launch a conservative news network in Canada?



How do you feel about Quebecor’s plan to launch a conservative news network in Canada?

  1. Oops another poll gone wrong. I guess the lefties even think more conservative views are needed.

    • Personally, I could care less. I dont need to and wont view it, other then for comedy perhaps (if it even gets approved).. and it wont be on the air long if all it can attract is people of Ezra Levant's mindset.

      • Scott_Tribe…..its a free country. Like all tv the eyeballs will decide on its success or failure. However, given the reaction I think the lefties of this country are worried. If its only Conservative propaganda then ignore it.

        • Not sure why you're offering those two pieces of advice to Scott – he already indicated that Quebecor is free to launch the network, and that he will be ignoring it.

          • This news network will showcase the nutbars for what they are just like Fox news does and I welcome it! Birds of a feather…..
            The Canadian public will judge for themselves realistically when the station is launched and just like the National Post they will lose money I predict because Canadians can't really stomach BS. Watching that poor excuse for a commentator on the CBC showcased what he was all about and it was not pretty.

  2. Quebecor is hoping for "must carry" status. Then it won't matter if anyone watches it or not, because they'll still squeeze $60 million odd dollars from cable subscribers.

    If they don't get a favoured spot on the dial, and Harper doesn't (or is forced not to) overrule the CRTC, you'll see this collection-of-rejects-and-failures go away pretty quickly because Quebecor isn't going to lose money on this; they can't afford it.

    • Anon 001 ……well said. However, I suspect given the viewership of Fox News in Canada there are many people who would like a perspective that reports the news without the Liberal bias.

  3. I wish for a society in which news isnt predeterminally biased.

    • hear hear

    • Unfortunately, that is the way of media. The majority of it is liberally biased, forcing those who are of a conservative mind set to go crazy and yell at the television.

  4. It's about time, all other forms of media are overwhelmingly leftist or 'liberal'. The post-modern 'liberal' point of view is very narrow-minded, which is obvious by their reaction to the idea that someone might be allowed to air one publicly.

    • The notion that the media is left wing is utterly laughable. It is impossible for the corporate media to be truly left wing when it relies on corporate advertising for it's survival.

      If it looks left wing to you, it's only because you accept capitalism as the starting point from which all other discussions flow. This is not objective in the slightest.

  5. The CBC's Don Newman's view of the matter speaks volumes: he's against it. And says so uncivilly, thereby displaying his left/lib intolerant arrogance.

    No one will force you to watch it Don, it's a free world. Like no one forces me to watch the CBC, which I don't. And it's not looking for a 1 Billion dollar subsidy to keep it going like the CBC. I'm forced to pay for that.

    • Doesn't 'must carry' status count as something of a subsidy?

      • You don't have to watch tv, it is your choice, but we do have to pay taxes.

      • … must carry apparently involves 65M of revenue. CBC's subsidy is 1B, (somehow I think that's a lowball figure). That means 6.5% – we're talking apples and oranges Sean.

        • I'm no fan of the money we pour in to CBC, just to be clear. Does all of that billion go toward news programming?

          • Two minutes on Google tells us that 80% of CBC expenditures goes towards operations (regional stations) and programming.

            Given the various sources of government financing, that subsidy (closer to 1.2 billion, according to the CBC web site) probably amounts to something like $35 per year for the average taxpayer.

          • Also, assuming apples & oranges to have similar value, perhaps grapes & watermelons would be a better metaphor.

        • i am a fan of the money we pour into the CBC. I think a public broadcaster is among the most important elements of a civilized society. you do understand the difference between a public and private broadcaster jarrid?

    • Yeah, you don't like the CBC. I get it. In fact, it's so bad that nobody would ever hire one of their journalists. Oh, wait, except the "Fox News of the North".

      • The problem with the CBC is not the fault of its journalists.

  6. Why don't those who are unhappy with the current media offerings push for an objective news service? How is differently biased news going to help?

    • "Why don't those who are unhappy with the current media offerings push for an objective news service?"

      I don't believe there really is such thing as objective news. People often don't agree with themselves about certain topics, never mind agree with others on interpretations of what just happened.

      I think it is best to have 3 or 4 different views and people can come to their own conclusions.

      • So, an objective news service could at least commit to incorporating three or four different views on a routine basis?

        • "So, an objective news service could at least commit to incorporating three or four different views on a routine basis?"

          How weird that would be. I am thinking of tv news – it could have three anchors and they tell the news from their view point.

          For instance, Israel/Palestine conflict and the boarding of the terrorist boat the other week. We could have left viewpoint – push all the Jews into the sea – we could have centre – we must not pick sides both sides are equally right/wrong – and right wing – push all Palestinians into the sea. And then move on to next story of the day.

          • Most Canadians are not so simple-minded. They might laugh at your Rightwing News for the Hard of Thinking, but they would soon get bored by the earnest humourless dimwittedness of it all.

          • Yeah, just like they did in the U.S.

            Wait, scratch that comment . . .

          • Why do you think the American have to import so many comedians?

          • In other words, we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.

          • Laughing as in braying like jackasses, the national symbol of Democrats.

          • that is a great slogan Holly, you should make t-shirts!!!

          • To suggest that anyone with a "right wing" view point is "Hard of Thinking" is only suggesting that maybe you are the one who is "Hard of Thinking". Seriously, how narrow-minded do you have to be to think that all conservatives are stupid?

          • This is the problem with TV news in general. Your summation of 3 possible viewpoints is laughably simplistic, but it does capture the Fox news black-and-white view of the world. Is there really zero room for nuance in the news? No matter what bias?

          • bergkamp, your comment is confined to the leftist meme that there is no truth, just different viewpoints and they are equal.

            There are such things as facts/truth and some viewpoints cleave closer to them than others. For example, Palestinians routinely vote for Hamas that has in its charter and repeats ad nauseam its intention to rid the Mid East of Israel and all Jews. The same attitude toward Muslims on its own or neighboring soil is not the documented or stated intention of Israel.

            In addition, Gaza like Mid-East Muslim countries HAS been cleansed of Jews i.e. they not only state their intention but carry it out wherever they have the power. Israel on the other hand continues to include a significant Arab Muslim population that has more rights than they would have in any Muslim state.

            Ignoring the role of Turkey's Prime Minister in making domestic political hay and pro-Palestinian propaganda out of flotillas of useful western idiots who don't recognize the would-be terrorists standing right next to them is playing the monkeys who neither see, hear or speak of evil.

            Facts cannot be rebutted by those whose agenda they inconvenience so they try to suppress or bury them in a morass of relativity. Only a blindly biased person can make the equivalence you made where there is none.

      • I agree We need acess to Aljazera News.It tells it the way it is. Unbiased and un-North America filtered.

  7. I don't plan to watch the new Conservative TV or whatever they plan to call it. I'll be curious to see whether they can force cable stations to carry it. (Or whether the government plans on openly or surreptitiously funding it.)

    It will be interesting to see what the range of opinions is – will it be all Conservative talking points all the time, or will there be an attempt to promote any kind of honest debate? My guess is the former, but who knows?

  8. I guess it depends what the other choices to take up airspace are. I'm not necessarily against it, but it's unlikely to add anything of use to political debate.

    • It's hilarious that someone thinks political "debate" goes on now on televised media. The "debate" on CBC is always between left and far left.

      When is the last time a conservative was allowed to debate the opposing view one on one without a gang up by several lefties including the putative "moderator"? Leftist arguments are so weak they have to shore them up by having several bodies repeat the same thing. They can't get away with mere repetition in formal i.e. balanced debate. Leftists can never stand on their own without a gang or a moderator biased in their favor. Al Gore runs from debate like a fleet gazelle.

      • Do you watch the news programming on the CBC?

        The National's "At Issue" Panel, consists of a Conservative (Gregg), a conservative (Coyne), and whatever Chantal Hebert is.

        • This may come as a surprise to you, particularly if you've restricted yourself to the CBC, but there is an entire half of the socio-political spectrum to the right of Coyne.

          • Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But I will say that if what you say is true, that is a pretty funny looking bell curve representing the population of Canada on the socio-political spectrum.

  9. It is the height of hyprocrisy for Quebecor, which made a large part of its fortune through a state-enforced cable-tv monopoly and tens of millions in government loans to now start a conservative tv channel advocating for less government intervention.

    Quebecor has no credibility as a conservative voice. Unless conservatism means "milking the system for as much as it's worth and then working to shut off the tap so that no upstart can catch up".

    • Welcome to Harperite Conservatism.

      • When did Harper buy Quebecor?

    • Actually, that seems to be exactly what conservative stands for. At least using an American heuristic.

    • You pretty much summed up "NeoConservatism".

  10. Canadians are forced to pay for left-wing news and views through the CBC, whether we agree with their hard-core leftist views or not. A cable news channel is a choice and the hard-core leftists are against even that!
    Liberals, leftists, 'progressives' are so narrow-minded they don't even want people to hear rational opinions because it undermines their ideology, which proves the point of the need for this channel.

    • Anywone who claims that CBC is "hard-core leftist" is not credible.

      • Anyone who denies it is not credible. Among other things, CBC is the farm team for Al Jazeera that recruits there regularly.

        Why don't "friends of CBC" put their money where their mouth is and give up the billion dollar government subsidy? There should be no problem getting money from private subscribers for an unbiased news station which is what they pretend the CBC is.

        The reality is that not even enough lefties would pay to listen to their broadcaster so taxpayers are drafted.

  11. The notion that the media is left wing is utterly laughable. It is impossible for the corporate media to be truly left wing when it relies on corporate advertising for it's survival.

    If it looks left wing to some, it's only because you accept capitalism as the starting point from which all other discussions flow. That is not objective in the slightest. That is called having a right wing bias.

    • I have often heard this view, but it isn't very convincing. Lets assume that corporations prefer to promote right wing views (that isn't necessarily true, but whatever). Why would any given corporation spend its own money to influence the public, when there are plenty of other corporations out there that could do the same thing? From the standpoint of corporations, influencing the public is a public good (ie. it provides benefits to all corporations, regardless of whether they spent money to influence the public). The problem with public goods is that everybody has a strong incentive to freeride on their delivery. In other words, your argument presumes that corporations are altruistic.

      Corporations advertise in order to sell their products (or to improve their brand… so they can sell more products). If you want to advertise, a diversity of media makes the most sense. Left wing people are consumers too (indeed they are some of the best ones). Failure to do so will harm the profitability of a product, and reduce the survival odds of the corporation. There may be some niche goods that appeal more to one group or another (Che Guevera t-shirts?), but they are the exception.

      Media is a consumer product, responsive to market demand both directly through sales, and indirectly through advertising. It does have some built-in biases, though they are not ideological. Rich people are more desirable targets for advertisers, so upscale publications may have some advantages (though in Canada class is a poor predictor of ideology). Politicians sometimes have leverage over the media because of their control over access, and their ability to shut out some publications from scoops. Journalists are substantially more likely to be left wing than the general public, which may cause some issues. However, the real problem is that journalists aren't really experts in anything, and have difficulty analyzing important issues or locating the real experts.

      If you really believe that left wing views are being shut out, then you have just located a significant business opportunity.

      • Thanks, hosertohoosier. This is a classic example of the lack of self-awareness with which so many right-wingers assess media bias. So you concede that corporations need to buy advertising to sell products, and you concede that, as a result, they prefer to target the rich.

        Well, understanding that the media need to sell audiences to advertisers, doesn't it make sense then that they too will target the rich? And how do you suppose the wealthy feel about socialist ideas such as increasing taxes on the rich to provide from the poor? Or raising their employees' minimum wage? Or tightening labour standards or tenants rights policies?

        Considering they have to deliver a product-buying audience to advertisers, who do you think the media are going to side with in a labour dispute? The $8.50 an hour McDonald's employee or the franchise owner? Come on.

        If you think the media aren't constantly weighing their content against the potential for advertiser revolt, I have a piece of land in Florida to sell you.

  12. it is also fully annoying because it is going to have the effect of anointing a group of overly right commentators who up until now were relatively obscure. think ezra levant and the like. shudders. i hope this venture goes broke and fast before it becomes a trend.

    • It's about time then that these commentators became unobscure.

    • sena_n_mountains…….I don't what all you lefites are worried about. If nobody watches it will go broke. However, to malign the new station without having even seen what is offering shows the concern you guys have in having another voice in the market place. I would think given your so called values you would welcome it. Hypocrisy.

      • We're worried about propaganda and how that works on the young. I'm worried it's potential affect on people who are vulnerable to extreme right wing view points. You guys put out scary stuff! Like, scary sad :(
        I wish i could understand you, and your people, but i don't know how to. What makes you a conservative? Why?

        • You're more likely worried that the Left's propaganda monopoly in public education and the media will be lifted a fraction. That's if you're conscious of their strong left wing bias.

          If you actually think that CBC et al are presenting unbiased news then your brain chip is so firmly installed you're hopeless.

        • You're asking the right questions. There are many reasons people are conservative. Generally chief among them is the belief that people should run their own lives, and the government should be more of a passive dispute settler every now and then. For me personally, I originally read the arguments of libertarian philosophy and generally came to agree with them… I've since then toned down a bit (if you believe in true libertarianism, it's not far from anarchy).

          The main agitator I had when I identifed myself as liberal, was that it simply seemed "too easy" to just dismiss conservatives as "evil." I figured the answer to the good-evil paradigm was more complex than simply believing liberals were good and conservatives not. There was a user named "Ross B Can"… google that name and see what you find. Good luck on your journey!

        • There are generations of people who have been already propagated by the school system and media. There is such a thing as critical thinking and children put through the public school system are not allowed to think critically. They are told that their view point can be A, B, C or D, without letting them know about the options E, F, G and H. Sad, really, the effect that school and media have already had on the young.

          As well, I am rightly worried about the potential affect on people who are vulnerable to extreme left wing view points.

          Get a grip, people!

          • Name one "extreme left wing view point" you've seen in the news lately. I can't wait to hear it.

      • there have already been hints about what it plans on offering, and the fact that is leader seems comfortable comparing it to Fox suggests we have a good idea of what will be on offer. we can learn from the experiences of others, you do understand? i am worried about the quality of our governance and civic discourse. i think fox news hurts that in the states and i think there is a risk it will do the same here. and that includes if there is a mix of far/hard left and right voices. celebrating polarization rarely is beneficial in my experience.

        • sea_n_mountains…… I must apologize for the numerous typing errors in my previous comment to you.

          While you may be right. However, everything you said is pure speculation at this point. From the interview with Hurst/Clark/Teneyke on CTV yesterday it was obvious they are very worried about the impact on CTV. Both Hurst/Clark were dismissive, arrogant and gave a real sense that they are elitists. They actually proved Kory's point.

          I guess its ok to see the same boring stuff that we have become accustomed to day after day. Same old biased reporting. Same old tired politicians spouting the same old rhetoric day after day. Reporters interviewing reporters who are always spinning their way through whatever the subject is. There is a real need to shake up the media in Canada and this is a good start. Maybe it will force everybody to up their game.

          • look we actually agree that most of the news converage we get on the tv is crap in canada. but i am not sure that polarizing opinion stuff, while perhaps entertaining, is not helpful in improving news coverage. i hope you are right about upping the game, but what Korn Kob Kory seems to be selling (i.e., cdn news is too 'politically correct') does not reassure me.

          • Korn Kob Kory

            What's up with that? Just Kory is OK if you can't spell his last name…

          • uhm, i think i handle his last name Phil but thanks for your concern. my understanding is that he was given the nickname when he worked as an ethanol lobbyist/spokesperson.

          • Ahh, that makes a bit more sense….

            I pointed it out because the use of nicknames (such as Harpo, tubby, Iggy, Iffy, etc) often seems to raise hackles, and without any benefit, as best I can tell.

            On a completely unrelated note, did the Netherlands seem competent in their World Cup game?

          • point taken Phil, although, I wish folks were able to chill a bit with the reactions but i do wish people refrained from the purposefully demeaning nicknames like tubby. oddly, and this only speaks to your good character, you are raising this on a thread discussing ushering in a new media entity that is committed to "taking on political correctness."

            was the latter point a shot (jk). uhm, my take was that they had a bad day that against a better team would have been there undoing. my sense was that the Dutch were a tad timid and reverted to traditional Dutch style (conservative ball control) of play. which is not as well suited to the more explosive offensive talent they have which screams out for, and perhaps demands, a more aggressive game. we will see what tomorrow brings. one thing for sure tho, it is a hoot to watch it over here. yo been watching any?

          • Wrt "taking on political correctness"…I have no concern about having a group of people (TV channel, its viewers, etc) deciding that they disagree with a wide range of viewpoints, many of which they believe have come to be because of a desire by or need of some other group of people to be "politically correct". If some or all of those "polictically correct" viewpoints have no basis in fact, then they should be shunned.

            But I would prefer that the challenge be made in a respectful and non-hyperbolic fashion. I suspect that challenging in that manner will also be much more successful in terms of achieving actual changes in beliefs. Sometimes I'm not quite sure if folks who like to challenge those beliefs actually want changes, or if they might actually be happier just doing the complaining.

            In any event, I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of this effort.

            Wrt World Cup, not a shot, wasn't really sure. I haven't followed closely, yet. Due to heritage, I'm cheering for Orange.

          • yeah i suspect that is the key (is this about challenging viewpoints or just challenging). too often i see people taking aim at 'political correctness' as just a proxy form either wanting to hear what they already believe and/or wanting to express it in, as you say, hyperbolic and disrespectful terms. i can live without more outlets for that. hopefully the endeavour will outpace my low level of expectations.

          • hopefully the endeavour will outpace my low level of expectations.

            It is also my preference that the endeavour outpaces your expectations!

            I did watch some of the news conference the other day, and one of Kory or his boss did mention that they wanted the discussion to be more "raw"; we will have to wait and see what that means.

          • I agree with both you and sea_n_mountains re: your hope (but not expectation) that this channel will challenge ideas of political correctness civilly, and that it will add to rather than degrade our civic discourse.

            I don't think we need a conservatively (or Conservatively) biased, partisan, "raw" news channel. What we really need in this country is a non-partisan, out-of-the-box, willing to take on difficult topics civilly, intelligent and innovative news channel.

            Tragically, this appears to be a missed opportunity for Canadians.

          • How would you rate TVO wrt your ideal news channel? The Agenda, with Steve Paikin, in particular.

            Possibly not what Tenycke has in mind, but definitely not CTV or CBC either.

          • i know the Q was directed at Smith Phil, but i will add bmy two cents. Steve Paiken is the best news show in the country in my opinion. and i think yo are right he is not CBC or CTV but I suspect not what is coming next.

          • Both Hurst/Clark were dismissive, arrogant and gave a real sense that they are elitists

            Hi H:

            Just taking a moment to review the entire thread, and that part of your post caught my eye…Now I haven't seen the interview, but I was wondering if there was something in particular that makes you characterize Hurst/Clark as dismissive or arrogant or elitist, or is it just a general feeling? And, just to be 100% sure that I understand you, you would prefer that Hurst/Clark were somewhat less dismissive, arrogant and/or elitist.

  13. Three cheers if it becomes Fox News (North). Send CNN, CBC, CTV et al into the trash bin.

  14. I was unable to find a radio button on this poll that described my real feelings about the kind of "news" that Fox claims is actually journalism. If you are on Twitter I am sure that #foxisnotnews is a familiar hashtag!

    At least it will give Canadian litigaters and Stairlift sales companies a more responsive audience. And who knows? Slap chop and fake gold coins should go through the roof. I always get a kick out of the kinds of ads that are on the Fox Channels. Harper will be a major advertiser on it as well. Oh Joy, oh Bliss!

    O Bad Idea all around (would have been my choice)

  15. Rather than more "partisan" news networks somebody should produce a meta-news network, focused on the lies, deceptions and skewed reporting that seem to dominate the media these days, not to mention politics. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert may skewer politicians, media personalities and stories, but they refrain (for the most part) from adopting a formal mandate about it. Why haven't the news networks done so? Likely because the audience would be too small to sell to advertisers.

    Besides, from what I've seen of American conservative news channels (FOX, CNN — yes, CNN — et al.) there isn't much news, just tirades and talking points. So why bother. What can a Canadian conservative channel offer that is any different? Also, I don't know that our politicians have the celebrity or audacity to funnel the kind of wild rhetoric necessary for right-wing media. (Or maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse…)

  16. To all the leftists who merely repeat what other leftists say about Fox in an eternal echo chamber. (It would be beneath them to dirty their eyes and ears by actually watching it).

    Fox is the most balanced news station according to a 2003 media study (Groseclose & Milyonot) from UCLA, not exactly a hotbed of conservatism, which took subjectivity out of it by counting the times each media outlet cited various think tanks in "news" pieces. Fox News Special Report and the Drudge Report were the most centrist. Read the report and weep. Or don't and continue to parrot leftist disinformation.

    Here are four reasons to watch Fox:
    best place to get your news because they've never used phony documents to discredit a president. (CBS)

    They never made a deal with the dictator of Iraq to allow him to edit their reports from his country in return for access.(CNN)

    There is no email record of their corporate President forcing a reporter to report a phony story on the US President that the corporate President had donated to (CNN)

    They never ran a front page story about a false rumor of an affair based on speculation about a candidate whom they opposed (McCain) while suppressing reports of an actual affair of a candidate they supported (Edwards) (NY TIMES)

    • You forgot "their commentators don't routinely denounce liberals." Oh wait, yes they do.

      • Nothing wrong with denouncing the wrong.

  17. You know you are on-target when you start drawing flack. The usual lefty talking-heads are crying foul, which can only mean good news!

  18. You right-wingers should be careful what you wish for. Your most rabid spokespeople are always your worst enemies. At least respect your own history.

    Giving Ezra and Myron Thompson a pupit on AngerTV will put you right back into Reform territory where Canadians will not follow. So, good luck with all that.

  19. I already subscribe to a Quebecor Newspaper – they certainly do have some far right writers – too bad none of them dare write in French. Quebec could use a little more Conservatism and Alberta a little less. One of there writers just last night that was trying to convince us that the US health care system was so much superior to ours. He had to carefully avoid the question of why a stay at a US hospital costs 25 times as much as a stay at an equally good Canadian Hospital.

  20. If it's anything like the Fox news channel I'll watch it for comic relief .I love the Fox news channel , it's like a parallel universe , funny but sometimes scary to think they may be serious . Still , Canada has its share of huckleberries , crackers , bible thumpers and one-toothed gun nuts , so they probably deserve a news channel of their own . Should go over big in Alberta .

    • How arrogant you are to assume that anyone with a conservative view point is a red neck. Go back to school… wait that is where you were propagated with that idea in the first place. How about start thinking for yourself and stop allowing the school system and the media to do it for you.

      • Oops, touched a raw nerve there didn't you abeskatch ? G.M.

      • I'm impressed , you sure use big words for a regressive conservative .

  21. just call my psychic for updates

  22. abeskatch…the CBC news channel I'll watch it for comic relief. I love a left wing news channel, it's like a parallel universe, funny but sometimes scary to think they may be serious. Still, Canada has its share of donkeys, pot smoking hippies, amoral atheists and pony-tailed marxism spouting academics, so they probably deserve a news channel of their own. Goes over big in Toronto.

    Unlike the Fox viewers they like to criticize, lefties get their stuff paid for on the public dime. Cheap and hypocritical.

    • Well ,I'm not delusional , so I am an atheist , but amoral , I like to think not . I believe in live and let live , even for regressive conservatives .

  23. It's about time! Where do I sign up