Canada In Trouble Again

[Theodoric]

It must be the right time of the year as yesterday's Guardian had a full page adert with the headlines, "BOYCOTT CANADA SAVE THE SEALS". It continued in this calm, reasonable fashion with such phrases as "brutally clubbed or shot", "skinned whilst still conscious", "the slaughter is subsidised" and so on. In fact, it would seem that they were so overcome with emotion that they didn't notice that they had misspelt tourism. The obligatory, large photo of a brutal Canadian clubbing a helpless seal seemed a bit on the blurry side; perhaps there is only one photo that is recycled every year.

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of this practice; as I understand it, the Canadians claim that the seals eat too many commercially valuable fish. Their opponents, naturally, deride this and say that it is more to do with Canadian governments bowing to pressure from fishermen. Mind you, considering how Canada catastrophically mishandled the almost total collapse of the Grand Banks cod fisheries, there is probably more than a grain of truth in this. For anyone who wants to delve deeper this site was given in the advert.

In my more cynical moments, I can't help noticing that for an animal to be protected by expensive, full page adverts in the national press, it needs to be mammalian, furry and cute. I am still patiently waiting for the first full page advert calling for a ban on the cruel, year round slaughter of rats. The're mammals, they're furry and they are probably more intelligent than seals. Unfortunately, they lack that crucial attribute, cuteness. Ah, well, they'll probably still be around long after the human race has disappeared from the face of the planet.

Originally Posted by Theodoric

Guardian

And you're surprised, why exactly?

[basa]

Originally Posted by Theodoric

I am still patiently waiting for the first full page advert calling for a ban on the cruel, year round slaughter of rats. The're mammals, they're furry and they are probably more intelligent than seals. Unfortunately, they lack that crucial attribute, cuteness. Ah, well, they'll probably still be around long after the human race has disappeared from the face of the planet.

Hey...rats are cute !!!

We had a Fancy Rat ('fancy' is used for the type of rat used as pets) pet a while back. He was the friendliest, most sweet natured and clean rodent my family have ever had ! And they are extremely intelligent. Unlike those vicious hamster things !!

Unfortunately he died from unnatural causes !

And yes they will still be around (together with the cockroaches !! ) long after we humans have nuked everything else off the planet !! Now that's resourceful !

[aliferste]

Originally Posted by towny

And you're surprised, why exactly?

Whats up with the Guardian?

Originally Posted by aliferste

Whats up with the Guardian?

Everybody has an agenda ... the Guardian's agenda is one I happen to have little time for.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by towny

Everybody has an agenda ... the Guardian's agenda is one I happen to have little time for.

Care to enlighten us ?

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by towny

Everybody has an agenda ... the Guardian's agenda is one I happen to have little time for.

It was an advert. Like all newspapers, the Grauniad will publish most adverts if you put a big enough bundle of used fivers into their grubby, little mitts.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about cute, furry animals, or even cute, furry Canadians if that's what you fancy.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Care to enlighten us ?

What's to enlighten? The Guardian is a left-wing pamphlet for the chattering classes. This is no secret, it's not something the Guardian is ashamed of and neither should it be. It is good at producing the material its target audience wants to read (much like the Sun in that respect).

I don't feel challenged or engaged by any writer whose position on any given subject is such that I can guess what they're going to say before they even start writing. I like to read balanced, well researched material, not essays by people with an agenda to push, unless I have deliberately set out to investigate that agenda for myself.

Yesterday's fromt page lead in the Guardian, which (like the BBC) sought to talk up the possibility of mass protest at every possible opportunity, strayed beyond factual journalism and well into leader-writing territory, yet it was presented as a straight news story.

Incidentally, I would make broadly the same criticism of the Daily Mail, before you all conclude I'm some narrow-minded Tory-voting little Englander

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by towny

<Snip>Yesterday's fromt page lead in the Guardian, which (like the BBC) sought to talk up the possibility of mass protest at every possible opportunity, strayed beyond factual journalism and well into leader-writing territory, yet it was presented as a straight news story.

I would beg to differ on this. I've just re-read yesterday's article. On my reading, it was mainly a factual account, peppered with a few mildly sarcastic comments. It didn't support the visit, but it definitely didn't encourage protests.

Para 1 said "controversial visit". This is factually correct.

Para 2 said "700-strong entourage worthy of a travelling medieval monarch" in the middle of a factual description of his arrival.

Para 3 said "With up to 100,000 anti-war protestors planning . . . Downing Street maintained a stiff upper lip". A reasonable guess. The rest of para was neutral and was only supportive in that terms such as "renta-mob" were not used.

The next 10 or so paras reported, without any slant, comments made by British and US government spokesmen, discussed the Gaurdian poll that showed pro-American support and discussed possible topics for the Blair-Bush talks; again all factual matters, all presented in an unbiassed fashion.

There was a paragraph discussing the probable make-up of the protestors and a statement from Ken Livingstone calling for any protests to be kept peaceful and warning about the costs.

Originally Posted by Theodoric

I would beg to differ on this. I've just re-read yesterday's article. On my reading, it was mainly a factual account, peppered with a few mildly sarcastic comments. It didn't support the visit, but it definitely didn't encourage protests.

Para 1 said "controversial visit". This is factually correct.

Para 2 said "700-strong entourage worthy of a travelling medieval monarch" in the middle of a factual description of his arrival.

Para 3 said "With up to 100,000 anti-war protestors planning . . . Downing Street maintained a stiff upper lip". A reasonable guess. The rest of para was neutral and was only supportive in that terms such as "renta-mob" were not used.

The next 10 or so paras reported, without any slant, comments made by British and US government spokesmen, discussed the Gaurdian poll that showed pro-American support and discussed possible topics for the Blair-Bush talks; again all factual matters, all presented in an unbiassed fashion.

There was a paragraph discussing the probable make-up of the protestors and a statement from Ken Livingstone calling for any protests to be kept peaceful and warning about the costs.

Journalistic turns-of-phrase like 'up to' can be used to justify the wild inflation of guestimate figures, as in 'up to 100,000'. Phrases like 'medieval monarch' speak volumes and as for 'controversial' - well, I think this is an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's only controversial because the agenda-setters tell us it is so.

What is telling is not so much the number of instances of comment of this kind in the article, but where they appear. As you have shown, they are in pars 1, 2 and 3. This is where any journalist deploys what he considers to be his biggest punches.

[Boom]

Originally Posted by Theodoric

It must be the right time of the year as yesterday's Guardian had a full page adert with the headlines, "BOYCOTT CANADA SAVE THE SEALS". It continued in this calm, reasonable fashion with such phrases as "brutally clubbed or shot", "skinned whilst still conscious", "the slaughter is subsidised" and so on. In fact, it would seem that they were so overcome with emotion that they didn't notice that they had misspelt tourism. The obligatory, large photo of a brutal Canadian clubbing a helpless seal seemed a bit on the blurry side; perhaps there is only one photo that is recycled every year.

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of this practice; as I understand it, the Canadians claim that the seals eat too many commercially valuable fish. Their opponents, naturally, deride this and say that it is more to do with Canadian governments bowing to pressure from fishermen. Mind you, considering how Canada catastrophically mishandled the almost total collapse of the Grand Banks cod fisheries, there is probably more than a grain of truth in this. For anyone who wants to delve deeper this site was given in the advert.

In my more cynical moments, I can't help noticing that for an animal to be protected by expensive, full page adverts in the national press, it needs to be mammalian, furry and cute. I am still patiently waiting for the first full page advert calling for a ban on the cruel, year round slaughter of rats. The're mammals, they're furry and they are probably more intelligent than seals. Unfortunately, they lack that crucial attribute, cuteness. Ah, well, they'll probably still be around long after the human race has disappeared from the face of the planet.

Glad to see the other ppl aren't as swayed by Guardian's view point which, as a Canadian, I find laughable.

First, I agree the Canadian government panders to fishermen for votes, but then the liberally-minded one party-state ( yes, LIBERAL government! Left if you will) couldn't organise a p!ss up at a pub.

As for the Grand Banks, they are not in Canada's 100 or even 200 mile offshore international limit. Traulers from all over the world fish there. The moratorium on Cod catching is still in effect while not having completely stopped fishing, has at least made a token jesture towards culling fishing, is still more than any other nation has done.

So when is it exactly that the fishing in the North Sea is banned, or has it already been over-fished by Brits, Nordics, and Northern Europeans?

Originally Posted by towny

What's to enlighten? The Guardian is a left-wing pamphlet for the chattering classes. [snip] Incidentally, I would make broadly the same criticism of the Daily Mail, before you all conclude I'm some narrow-minded Tory-voting little Englander

And the Torygraph is a right wing pamplet for those who only want their views corroborated by an "official source"

And the Sun is for those who don't care who runs the country as long as she has big knockers!

Originally Posted by Graham

And the Torygraph is a right wing pamplet for those who only want their views corroborated by an "official source"

And the Sun is for those who don't care who runs the country as long as she has big knockers!

As we seem to be saying a lot lately, everyone has an agenda of one kind or another.

[downquark1]

It's only controversial because the agenda-setters tell us it is so.

I think the mass public protests are proof enough of the controversiality. Controversial is a very neutral word, unlike 'stupid' or 'brilliant'. Controversial in its self implies there are two views.

Originally Posted by downquark1

I think the mass public protests are proof enough of the controversiality. Controversial is a very neutral word, unlike 'stupid' or 'brilliant'. Controversial in its self implies there are two views.

But how do you define 'mass protest'? The demonstrators claimed there were 200,000 people out today - the police said more like 30-40,000. Personally, I think the police are more likely to know what they're talking about, so the protesters fell well short of their aspirations.