From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Royal Bank hypocrisy and the Telecommunications Sellout
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:37:15 GMT

Peter Bartlett (uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk) wrote:
: >Are you comfortable with having Gerald think for you? Is his opinion
: >of what is newsworthy in lockstep with yours? Are you aware that the
: >Globe and Mail actually provides balanced reporting, and not just
: >one-sided articles? Have you seen the balance to the articles that
: >were posted? The corrections? They apologies? Letters to the editor
: >condemning them? No? Why not? Gerald didn't post them? Why do you
: >suppose that is?
: 
: I think we are all aware of all of these things, and the limitations
: of getting things second hand through the Net.  Recall that for us,
: the other option is not getting them at all.  Note that your comment
: applies to ALL comment on the net-- you are my major source of
: information about the Charlottown Accord.  A collection of more biased,
: one-sided and extreme views it would be difficult to imagine.  Based
: on your argument, it seems we should stop reading the net completely in 
: this regard, lest our minds be "corrupted" by the fact that the
: texts contain opinions.

Yes, but 

1) This is breaking Canadian Law
2) You can get the Globe + Mail in other fashions
    i) The paper
    ii) electronically
    iii) by fax
3) You are not getting the whole picture, you are getting what one person
thinks. I do not hide that I am biased. My articles make up the balance in
this group, and you can see the point/counterpoint. If, however, I was to
make a synopsis of this group and only show you those articles I agreed with,
you would come away with a rather different picture.

: 
: And, by the way, if you seriously believe in unbiased, or "balanced" 
: reporting as you call it, I think you need to read some textual crit.

The CBC had a piece on last night on balanced reporting and this referendum.
They use a stopwatch to make sure each side gets the same time. They also try
to ensure that each sides time is as effective re: credibility, etc. They
showed the Globe+Mail, and interviewed the editors of it. The G+M does the
same thing with space.

: 
: >If you let other people think for you, censor what you see, you will
: >end up thinking like them.
: 
: Do you really think I am in danger of thinking like Gerald?

No. I believe you are in danger of thinking that everyone thinks like Gerald.

: 
: >: (iii) Gerald's posting of articles add more to the ongoing discussion 
: >: than your criticisms of his postings.
: 
: >Nobody is discussing any of these articles. We are discussing our own
: >viewpoints, logic, and rhetoric. I submit that it would be better to
: >say, "So and So said that [2-line summary]. I think that..." than to
: >simply copy verbatim an entire article with nothing of your own added.
: 
: The articles obviously (according to your argument) represent Gerald's
: viewpoint.  And they do actually seem to be related to topics which are
: being discussed on the net.

The articles in question are only half there -- the other half comes from the
counterpoint articles printed in the same newspaper.

: 
: A tip:  if an article really irritates you, all you need to do is touch
: the n key on your keyboard, and the article will fade blissfully away.
: This seems a small concession to those of us who otherwise don't have 
: access to the articles at all.

You have access to these articles if you wish. Get it legally, or quit
complaining. It is no argument to say that, "I can't get it. Therefore, it is
legal to steal it".

Well, I can't get the Crown Jewels -- this doesn't give me the right to steal
them.


PS: For all following this thread, please take your comments to email to me
since it doesn't belong here.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics