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: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:31:35 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvnnE4.4u8@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >
: >Yes, but 
: >
: >1) This is breaking Canadian Law 
: 
: A little civil disobedience to facilitate informed debate at a crucial
: point in my country's history is a crime for which I am more than willing 
: to plead guilty.  I seriously doubt whether I am causing the Globe and
: Mail and the Toronto Star grievous financial damage...and I am certainly
: not breaking the law for personnel gain.  So be it if they hang me!

Does your employer know you are using their equipment to break the law?

Everybody on the Net gets a bad reputation if it is used for illegal
purposes. Would you use the same argument and post copyrighted software if
you wanted people to discuss it? (I don't think Lotus has a good user
interface, here is my copy of it...)

If you really believed you were providing a service to people who couldn'y
get the Globe and Mail, you would only have posted to soc.culture.canada,
since can.politics is ONLY available IN Canada.

If you really believed you were providing a service to these people, you
would have said,

1) The article is in Issue # of G+M -- here is the phone # to order it by
fax.
2) I will make it available to you if you convince me you cannot get it
legally. (Mail to outside NA, outside major cities)
3) Obtained permission from the G+M.
4) Asked the Copyright Clearance Center what the procedure was

: 
: >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.
: >
: 
: I am sure most people are intelligent and sophisticated enough to
: discount my unhidden views on the issues at stake.

My point exactly. This copied article is NOT YOUR VIEWS. It is the views of
someone else.

: 
: >: 
: >: 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.
: >
: 
: This is still perpetuating the myth of objectivity in journalism...the
: journalist has a point-of-view...the honest journalist will make that 
: point-of-view obvious to the viewer or reader.  North American
: journalism tends to be more dishonest because North American journalism
: tries to disguise the point-of-view of the journalist and perpetuate
: the myth of objectivity.  The best that journalism can do is to try
: not to distort the opposing point-of-view...i.e. to provide a level
: of justice and fairness through a journalist's subjectivity.


Of course the journalist has a point of view. That is why the paper employs
more than one journalist. Each has a point of view, they balance as a whole.
By abstracting only one side of the balance, you bolster your argument in a
dishonest fashion.

: 
: >
: >Well, I can't get the Crown Jewels -- this doesn't give me the right to steal
: >them.
: >
: 
: The thief will profit from stealing the crown jewels...my civil
: disobedience is for the cause of informed debate.

Your civil disobedience, as you call it, is a crime under the Canadian
Criminal Code, and results in the loss of income to others. It gives us all a
bad reputation. It discourages people from writing for papers if they feel
their ideas will be stolen and reprinted without permission.

Calling it civil disobedience may make it ok with your conscience. It brings
to mind noble images of Ghandi, etc. It is, however, not this. It is theft,
pure and simple. You aren't doing this for some "greater good". You are doing
it to bolster a partisan argument.

: 
: >PS: For all following this thread, please take your comments to email to me
: >since it doesn't belong here.
: >
: 
: The issue of journalistic bias has a lot of relevance to the referendum
: debate...seeing as how the mainstream media is pro-YES, pro-ELITE, and
: pro-Establishment.

You are absolutely wrong. The CBC on Sunday night had a half-hour piece on
bias. They use a STOPWATCH to time the amount each side gets. The do their
best to ensure the time is effective for each side, with an equal amount of
credible people speaking. The newspapers are the same way.

You unjustly tar the media by calling them pro-YES. Pro-ELITE.
Pro-Establishment. I can rarely remember when I have seen the media
interested in helping the establishment. The media informs us. They are quite
unfettered.

Pro-Elite. How do you figure this? What Elite? The Rich? Journalists don't
earn that much, and don't really favour the rich. The powerful? The media
loves to hate the powerful, the Conrad Black's, the Irvings, the Reichmanns.

Pro-YES? They report both sides equally. I'm sure many journalists personally
favour one side or the other. This doesn't stop them from doing their jobs.
You are being highly unfair to the media. You accuse them of crimes they do
not commit in a medium in which they cannot respond. You steal their
articles. How is it that the media is so-biased, so unfair, and yet you can
find things in it you agree with. If you really think the media is so biased,
accuse them openly, in a letter to the editor of the Star, perhaps. This
back-stabbing snivelling about how unfair they are is simply hogwash. Sour
grapes. 

If the YES side wins, you'll be one of the people bitching for months
about how biased the media was, how you were really right, how unfair the
world is, how stupid the rest of Canada is. You'll be one of those pathetic
has-been losers saying "it wasn't my fault. They were all against me". This
is paranoia.


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