echo chamber

Getting out of the echo chamber

“I have spent almost thirty years in journalism and I can confidently tell you that a couple of hundred pro-choice protesters will get almost as much coverage as thousands of people at a March for Life – if any of it is covered at all. It’s worthwhile if only to remind ourselves that we aren’t an insignificant minority, but there are times when old political habits need to be reconsidered and priorities refocused. Parties lose elections and politicians eventually retire but morality is eternal, and we need to remind ourselves that we’re pledged to the service of a moral obligation and not any political party.”

  • andycanuck

    I remember going to Chinatown one Saturday and there was a parade with the paper dragons, drummers etc. and I thought to myself, “The Sunday Star is going to have photos of this, I’m sure.” Then I saw that many of the paraders had “Taiwan” American Legion caps on and I knew it wouldn’t be covered by the Star at all… and I was right.

  • SDMatt

    Your daily snort: the MSM is banding together to tell you how you really, really need them – despite all evidence to the contrary.

    • Oh Brother.

    • Clink9

      Ha Ha. “Professional journalism”. The second oldest profession.

      • FactsWillOut

        3rd oldest.
        The oldest is extortionist.

    • FactsWillOut



  • G

    Part of the problem is that journalists absolutely refuse to recognize or acknowledge their bias in even the smallest way. if you say that journalists are overwhelmingly left wing they will point to one or two examples of conservative journalists and be satisfied that those two individuals are enough examples to win the argument.

    If you accuse a given paper of ignoring a story they will argue that it has been covered enough in other papers even though they gladly follow the herd on any liberally favorable story or they will point to some 1 column-inch blurb the size of a classified ad on page 43 as an example of how they “ran” the story.

    I don’t even bother with newspapers or TV news anymore. I’m tired of being preached to by a gaggle of overbearing, predictable assholes who think they have all of the answers.

    • It is pointless.

    • Alain

      I agree but the root of the problem in my opinion is the marxist indoctrination they all receive in the so-called schools of journalism. This comes on top of all their prior schooling which again was marxist indoctrination in lieu of education.

      • G

        I took a year of journalism at a community college to get some easy credits that were transferable to the degree I wanted. Plus I was in love at the time.
        Yikes! Was I stupid!

        I’ll tell you these assholes are lefty right from day one and arrogant as hell. Some of them have maybe 50 days of college in and already they are talking about how “they have to educate the public!”

        Most of these dicks never had a job where you go your hands dirty – EVER. But they sure thought they had some sort of gift.

        The courses were the stupidest pablum you can imagine. Anybody with a reasonably decent IQ could breeze through two years of journalism with about 8 weeks of hard work. Yet it takes these dicks 2 years. THAT says something right there. Yet despite their intellectual shallowness they seem to have an opinion on ANY given subject matter. They also seem to think THEIR opinions are somehow more valuable than anyone else’s.

        Remember the old Globe & Mail TV ad with the catch line “Anyone can have an opinion, but is it informed?”. In other words: “We are so much wiser than you peasants”.

        • Clink9

          Hilarious. So fun watching their business shrink.

        • Norman_In_New_York

          My favorite saying on this is, “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.”

  • disqus_PwGxBXHn8l

    With respect, I think that Rick McGinnis is missing the point. Pro lifers have nowhere to go. Whether it is abortion or euthanasia, the vast majority of Canadians think it is okay to kill their relatives for their own convenience.

    That is simply the country Harper’s party is governing, and any other party would empty the old age homes and children’s rehab hospitals much faster.

    It won’t even be that long before speaking against euthanasia becomes a form of “hate speech.” (“She implied I was a MURDERER!!! Sniff. sniff. Bawlllll!!!!”)

    About all those of us who oppose it can do now is support Rebel Media, avoid providing any support, including advertising, to the legacy media, and fight for our right to continue to advocate the right to live. – Denyse O’Leary, Ottawa

    • Alain

      Sorry but I must disagree that the vast majority of Canadians agree with abortion on demand without any restrictions as it exists now or with euthanasia. The chattering class including the media party want us to believe that the vast majority are on board with this, just as they did with SSM and a lot of other cultural marxist causes. The only way to know the truth on any of these issues would be a national referendum and that is not allowed due to knowing they won’t get the answer they want.

      • disqus_PwGxBXHn8l

        The reason there is no referendum is that there is no popular demand for it. Few will fight. Those who do not participate just let things happen.* Catholics, for example, vote their union and not their church, and until that changes, the Liberal Party flak can just afford to sneer at people like me, as one did recently. – Denyse O’Leary, Ottawa

        * Later, they WILL participate in killings, because that will be easier than just doing nothing and arousing suspicion.

      • It’s a little more complicated. While some Canadians agree that abortion should never be limited, quite a few are against public funding for it:

        People have rather schizophrenic attitudes on pro-life issues and I shant wade into them right at this moment but if the funding is any indication, most Canadians are seeing abortion as either elective or at least something they just don’t want to pay for.

        • FactsWillOut

          The fine line between freedom and personal responsibility.
          Two things that scare the bejeesus out of most folk.

          • People might want to exercise personal responsibility before a third party comes along.

          • FactsWillOut

            “People might want to exercise personal responsibility before a third herdmaster comes along.”

          • Oh, look – you’re trolling again!

          • FactsWillOut

            I see. To disagree with you is to be a troll.

          • To talk to you is to be trolled.

        • Alain

          Exactly and the majority of Canadians do not support full term abortions either. My point was that only a radical minority support what we now have: abortion on demand at any time, any stage, for any reason and paid for by tax payers. If it becomes allowing abortion in the very early stage of pregnancy for rape victims or if it endangers the mother’s life, then I would guess that the majority of Canadians would support it. There are what I call the two extremes, one says no abortions allowed ever and the other supports the present system without any restrictions and publicly funded; neither one has the support of the majority of people.

          • I think, if Harper was smart about this, he would demand proper statistics on abortion (who is getting abortions, why, what after-effects), present the findings and get people to vote in a referendum on funding alone. It’s a bit weaselly because it removes whatever scruples politicians should have in discussing this but it’s a start. The majority of abortions are for convenience. I suspect many people would oppose that or paying for it.

          • FactsWillOut

            Don’t spend money on that.
            1st trimester OK, after that, illegal, or whatever.
            Make a fucking decision or fuck off.

          • Look, everyone- Facts is angry!


          • Justin St.Denis

            I think, if ANYONE was smart about this, they should ask a few questions, such as: Why is it necessary to anesthetize a foetus in order to perform life saving surgery on it? Because a foetus can feel pain, that’s why!

            Maybe we should suggest the legislated use of anesthetics on any foetus past the first trimester that is to be aborted. After all, that is only HUMANE, right? And it might give a murderous bitch or two pause before they proceed to kill their babies…..

          • People go out of their way NOT to admit that a genetically separate being is in fact the human offspring of a pregnant woman. They certainly won’t anesthetise him.

            This is why I oppose sex ed in schools. Clearly someone isn’t doing his or her job if people are stumped by how babies are made.

          • disqus_PwGxBXHn8l

            Most Canadians will not change their vote on this issue. “Cougars” – who ARE pro-abortion – will vote for Justin! Justin! Justin! and then be legally murdered by their heirs for the inheritance. The problem isn’t that. That’s just nature unfolding in the human arena as it must.

            The problem is what rule by cougars does to the rest of us. But who will change their vote on that account? That’s the only question that fundamentally matters. – Denyse O’Leary, Ottawa

          • I don’t think the “cougar” vote is what it used to be. These broads are dying off and being replaced by people other than them.

          • disqus_PwGxBXHn8l

            I hope you are right, OK just above. My sense is that they are recruited from age groups below. Maybe the government will legislate them to be as attractive to guys as women of 18. Legislate that all their mistakes and busted relationships are triumphs and vindications.

          • Colleges are breeding grounds for idiocy so you will have groups like that but pro-lifers actually stopped to have kids whereas pro-abortionists did not.

            And let’s not forget the ethnic vote.

  • BigBlueWave

    Couldn’t agree more. Also blogged that article. The main idea was very good.

  • FactsWillOut

    Test for echo:
    Libertarians and free-market anarchists are right.

    • Justin St.Denis

      Anarchists are assholes. Libertarians are, in my experience, usually very limited in educational background or intelligence. In essence, libertarians are selfish assholes.

      Any more tests?