# Sun News: That didn't take long....



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Actually, this is a brilliant political tactic by the Right. Raise the hackles of liberals who support respect for diversity, the resulting "call to arms" by the thin-skulled muslim-haters who traditionally vote Conservative is energized... it's all in the timing, of course. We'll see how it plays out...

*Sun News launches, shows controversial cartoon of Prophet Muhammad*

*Levant's show raises the ire of Toronto imam*

*Ezra Levant brings back Muhammad cartoons during Sun TV launch*


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ConspiracyMark is at it again.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Wow, three links to basically the same story, (the centre one a 404) and one is supposedly left to wonder what CM's agenda might be? I think not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Wow, three links to basically the same story, (the centre one a 404) and one is supposedly left to wonder what CM's agenda might be? I think not.


SINC, some people prefer a clear field for leftist propaganda.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

The first linked article was an AP story. The latter two are SUN media (Toronto and Vancouver). The now-404'd article worked at the time it was posted. But I'm sure y'all know how to search through Google News to find any one of the many stories on the subject.

If I were such a conspiracy type, I'd suggest that the SUN-published article was pulled because someone at SUN didn't like the tone of the story. But that's not something I would do...

And, again, how nice to see the Conservative supporters in here attack the messenger, rather than deal with the topic at hand. Classic misdirection and denial.

*UPDATE*: _a search of the Toronto Sun's site turns up the link and show one-liner, but the page is still dead. Looks like it was, indeed, pulled._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> And, again, how nice to see the Conservative supporters in here attack the messenger, rather than deal with the topic at hand. Classic misdirection and denial.


You were the one accusing the station of some sort of plan to help the Conservative party win the election. It is not implicit in your links.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

I am left to agree with Macfury and Sinc on this one... it seems like quite the stretch.


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

I thought the Liberals were very smart running commercials in prime time on the channel I also thought it was a bit ironic.


John


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Out of curiosity, is there such thing as a non-controversial cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad? It seems to me (no matter how he is depicted) you're going to get your neck sliced.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

First off, SUnTV was a cool place to watch movies. Though some of them were cheesy, it was one of those channels one could waste a little tv time on quite often, you were almost guaranteed an 80s movie or something at some point. Now, this.

I tried to watch about 15 minutes of it. I did. But it -horrible-. It was, pretty much embarrassing for anyone involved in that car wreck of a news station.

Here, from the national post even, he nails it square on the head...
Scott Stinson: The further Sun News gets from its opening, the better | Full Comment | National Post

Yeah. Awesome weather, weather that really matters, to us. Not that Socialist CBC weather! 

Give me, an blankin' break. That first day was like watching a car wreck in slo mo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nobody's saying the show was any good, 'groove. We're saying it's not some conspiracy designed to get CubaMark wetting his pants.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't think he thought that either. Seems you guys have tin foil hats on.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Everyone be prepared for the intelligence of the audience to drop considerably.

This is a sad day for Canadian democracy.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> This is a sad day for Canadian democracy.


I think you got that backwards.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> I think you got that backwards.


It's democracy day for sad Canadians? 


:lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

CubaMark said:


> It's democracy day for sad Canadians?
> 
> 
> :lmao:


It's a Canadian day for sad democracy.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Lefties are all about freedom of speech. As long as its from the mouth of a fellow lefty. Carry on with the handwringing. 


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Everyone be prepared for the intelligence of the audience to drop considerably.
> 
> This is a sad day for Canadian democracy.


Freedom of speech can be a bitter pill to swallow, huh?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Ycarcomed Naidanac rof yad das a si siht?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Ycarcomed Naidanac rof yad das a si siht?


Which means?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Ycarcomed Naidanac rof yad das a si siht?


That's right--they got it backwards!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> It's a Canadian day for sad democracy.


:lmao::clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> That's right--they got it backwards!


Ah, got it now, thanks.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Lefties are all about freedom of speech. As long as its from the mouth of a fellow lefty.


I don't know about "lefties", but in here I'd just like to see a "righty" actually engage the topic, instead of taking cheap potshots at people. Misdirection, as we have seen so clearly with the Right south of the border, is the top move in the playbook.

Avoid discussion of the topic, and let peoples' "common sense" rule their actions, without any basis in reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> I don't know about "lefties", but in here I'd just like to see a "righty" actually engage the topic, instead of taking cheap potshots at people. Misdirection, as we have seen so clearly with the Right south of the border, is the top move in the playbook.
> 
> Avoid discussion of the topic, and let peoples' "common sense" rule their actions, without any basis in reality.



Excuse me, but your "topic" was just a conspiratorial potshot at "the right." Tit for tat.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Excuse me, but your "topic" was just a conspiratorial potshot at "the right." Tit for tat.


Actually, it was another instance of CM posting an article along with his viewpoint, followed by several members making comments directly at CM, totally ignoring the actual topic the information and details in the post.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Actually, it was another instance of CM posting an article along with his viewpoint, followed by several members making comments directly at CM, totally ignoring the actual topic the information and details in the post.


I don't know Mr. Mayor... seems pretty provocative and confrontational in nature to me:



> by the thin-skulled muslim-haters who traditionally vote Conservative


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I never said the 'righties' shouldn't be allowed their voice. But that won't prevent me form making fun of the channel if it appears to be a bit of a joke, which judging by the first day, thee should be some real entertainment value coming off of. 

Maybe they need uh, some guy in a, ah, bow tie or something!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Actually, it was another instance of CM posting an article along with his viewpoint, followed by several members making comments directly at CM, totally ignoring the actual topic the information and details in the post.


His topic was that the Sun News was engaged in some sort of underhanded plan to juice votes for the Conservatives. No proof. No argument. Just accusations.

When there's no substance to the allegation, the poster's prejudice becomes the _de facto _topic.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> His topic was that the Sun News was engaged in some sort of underhanded plan to juice votes for the Conservatives. No proof. No argument. Just accusations.


Your comment above is a perfect rebuttal then. 

"ConspiracyMark is at it again", a comment specifically directed towards him, is not. 

While CM OP comments are provocative and confrontational, they are not directed to any particular ehMac member, but a side of an opinion. 

I thought we didn't want it tame here?  Please feel free to go after left wing or right wing ideologies on both sides and point to articles and events and discuss and has away. 

Just please don't attack the person posting the comments is all I kindly ask.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Just please don't attack the person posting the comments is all I kindly ask.


OK got it. I will restate.

The premise is not at all supported, and the accusation smacks of left-wing conspiracy.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

ehMax said:


> While CM OP comments are provocative and confrontational, *they are not directed to any particular ehMac member*, but a side of an opinion.


Were I to consider myself a conservative, I'd think it shoots pretty damn close though.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

....for the record, I wasn't accusing anyone_ in here _of being a "thin-skulled muslim-hater"... Just that those are the kinds of people who tend to vote Conservative. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an NDPer who irrationally hates muslims, perhaps a few in the Liberal ranks... the Greens, who knows, apart from environmental progressiveness I'm not entirely clear on their broader platform orientations...

But I agree that I need to change my posting style. It used to be that people were hated on for posting links to stories without any commentary... I'll endeavour to post items of interest and then enter the ensuing discussion in the postings that follow, just so as not to confuse my esteemed fellow citizens.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> ....for the record, I wasn't accusing anyone_ in here _of being a "thin-skulled muslim-hater"... Just that those are the kinds of people who tend to vote Conservative. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an NDPer who irrationally hates muslims, perhaps a few in the Liberal ranks... the Greens, who knows, apart from environmental progressiveness I'm not entirely clear on their broader platform orientations...
> 
> But I agree that I need to change my posting style. It used to be that people were hated on for posting links to stories without any commentary... I'll endeavour to post items of interest and then enter the ensuing discussion in the postings that follow, just so as not to confuse my esteemed fellow citizens.


I think commentary with the headline is wanted, I don't like links being posted without any commentary, in general I think it is lame, every once in a while it is warranted.

However, I think it is just that there is no need to "single" out any group of people with such broad strokes as Conservatives or Liberals etc. when we all know that even within those broad groups everyone is an individual and differ from one to another. Nonetheless, they still have an affiliation with that group and I think it is just generally disrespectful and confrontational to frame your comments in such a way as to potentially offend probably about half the posters here.

But hey if that is a role you wish to take on that is your choice, just don't be surprised or offended though when people react to your provocations.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> ....for the record, I wasn't accusing anyone_ in here _of being a "thin-skulled muslim-hater"... Just that those are the kinds of people who tend to vote Conservative. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an NDPer who irrationally hates muslims, perhaps a few in the Liberal ranks...


This is pure speculation and has no place in real debate. It is a prejudiced viewpoint.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> This is pure speculation and has no place in real debate. It is a prejudiced viewpoint.


Naw, it's statistically sustained.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

There's plenty of speculations in debates, like say, the lefties would clearly spend way more than the righties. Speculation, because it's based on what someone apparently said. 

Hello Kettle.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> This is pure speculation and has no place in real debate. It is a prejudiced viewpoint.


Agreed. My brother is a big Conservative supporter but is not religious at all nor does he discriminate anyone for any reason. I have many Conservative supporter friends, they're all good people. Sorry CubaMark and Adrian., it is a prejudiced viewpoint.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I like both Conservative and Liberal people. I don't like making characters out of them. 

Issues are extremely important and its worth hearing both sides. Very tired of people making left wing vs right wing politics like a WWE wrestling match.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> There's plenty of speculations in debates, like say, the lefties would clearly spend way more than the righties. Speculation, because it's based on what someone apparently said.


Heck, I'll say it - lefties do tend to spend more than righties (apologies Mr. Mayor for letting this carry on). We tend to *care* about social programs, the environment, etc. - things that have little immediate, private-sector profitable return on investment. We tend to see the bigger picture - that education, health care and jobs programs helps to develop society as a whole, making us as a people more productive, happier and better.

It's like essential utilities, like power corporations, that should never be privatized. There is a societal gain to not having the bottom line be the bottom line. Ask anyone in Nova Scotia about Nova Scotia Power and the Progressive Conservative privatization rush...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

The issue with publishing the cartoons had nothing to do with hating Muslims as CM is suggesting. The cartoons set off a firestorm of violence and murder around the world. The cartoons were news. 
The issue with publishing the cartoons was one of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. No media outlet in Canada had the cahones to publish or display them only because they feared for their safety. Withholding them had nothing to do with respecting religious sensitivities. 

Case in point:
French museum reopens after crucifix art attacked - Arts & Entertainment - CBC News

Do you think CBC would have posted a picture of this offensive image with this story if it were an image of Mohammed submerged in urine? In fact we'll likely never know since no "artist" would be so edgy as to venture down that road. They know the boundaries as do the media.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Heck, I'll say it - lefties do tend to spend more than righties (apologies Mr. Mayor for letting this carry on). We tend to *care* about social programs, the environment, etc. - things that have little immediate, private-sector profitable return on investment. We tend to see the bigger picture - that education, health care and jobs programs helps to develop society as a whole, making us as a people more productive, happier and better.
> 
> It's like essential utilities, like power corporations, that should never be privatized. There is a societal gain to not having the bottom line be the bottom line. Ask anyone in Nova Scotia about Nova Scotia Power and the Progressive Conservative privatization rush...


but why have the last two conservative governments, mulroney, and Harper, left us with record debt?

Harper has spent faster, and bloated government bigger than any in Canadian history. And all we have, is speculation that someone would do worse. Then we hear whining about speculation?

pffft.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Another thought on this. 
Lavant was dragged before the thought police at a human rights tribunal for posting the cartoons in the news magazine he owned on charges of hate speech. Paying for his defence nearly bankrupted him and forced his magazine out of business. Was it right for Lavant to have faced these charges? 
All things being equal, why should the CBC get a pass for posting an image of an offensive "artwork" of a Christian symbol bathed in urine with this news story?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's possible, that there may have been a difference. One that an owner of a magazine, should likely know.

To say there's no difference, clearly shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

groovetube said:


> To say there's no difference, clearly shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.


What am I not understanding? Please explain.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Perhaps you should go to the middle east and burn the koran. Express your opinion to the people involved. Maybe, they can enlighten you.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Groovetube,

There is no difference in that Jesus soaking in urine and a depiction of Mohammed are both terribly offensive and disrespectful to the religions involved. As you so eloquently illustrated, there's a huge difference in the risks involved with offending the Muslims. There doesn't seem to be any contradiction in how you and I understand the issue.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Groovetube,
> 
> There is no difference in that Jesus soaking in urine and a depiction of Mohammed are both terribly offensive and disrespectful to the religions involved. As you so eloquently illustrated, there's a huge difference in the risks involved with offending the Muslims. There doesn't seem to be any contradiction in how you and I understand the issue.
> 
> ...


Perhaps the fact that it's posted, everywhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_Christ


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Heck, I'll say it - lefties do tend to spend more than righties (apologies Mr. Mayor for letting this carry on). We tend to *care* about social programs, the environment, etc. - things that have little immediate, private-sector profitable return on investment. We tend to see the bigger picture - that education, health care and jobs programs helps to develop society as a whole, making us as a people more productive, happier and better.
> 
> It's like essential utilities, like power corporations, that should never be privatized. There is a societal gain to not having the bottom line be the bottom line. Ask anyone in Nova Scotia about Nova Scotia Power and the Progressive Conservative privatization rush...


Absolutely false--lefties see their own picture and call it "the bigger pcture." Many of the policies devised by the left actually harm the actual causes they claim to care about.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

I am glad to see we are all getting along.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No kidding! Pots griping at kettles. Biz as uze.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Join the fun or get back...




....to Maxland where you came from.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max iz abouts as leftie as they come. Don't let him fool you.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Join the fun or get back...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you must be living in Incognitoland. Trembling there, for that matter.

----------------
I think the right and the left are artificial mental constructs created so that we might better categorize stuff. Hence the pot and kettle reference.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

interestingly, macfury's the one who hasn't shown his mug yet wondered about the anonymous opinions.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and... faceplant.

Apparently, this line was heard on SunTV...

"Let's assume for a second that the Liberals don't want to harm children...""

I wonder if that sort of thing has been heard on the CBC.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> and... faceplant.
> 
> Apparently, this line was heard on SunTV...
> 
> ...


GT, did you have higher expectations for SunTV?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, when it comes to the right wing and their obsession with half truths to outright lies, I guess not.

It's really quite unbelievable. I watched about 5 minutes when sitting there ticked the movies were all gone replaced by just ridiculous stupidity I was just amazed, at the level of numbskull logic flying on that channel. I don't think they even hold a candle to Fox. Calling them fox news north, is an insult to the real fox news.


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

Sun TV = Fox News North = Titillating Tabloid TV Thrilling Those Twittering Thumbsucking Teabaggers :baby:







The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism


----------



## Sitting Bull (Feb 4, 2008)

I am OK with it, They will get it together in time. I am just glad to see an other option out there as well as a different opinion. I think I am capable of filtering the good from the bad and reach my own conclusions on issues. I believe in freedom of speech and if I do not like what I hear or see I am always free to change the channel.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ha ha ha.


> Wow, they’re like little kids who’ve built a cardboard fort, and now they’re pretending dragons are attacking it.


Mad as hell? Come ride Sun TV’s roller coaster of rage - The Globe and Mail

man, the few times I've tried to wathc it, it's 90% announcements on how they're on my side, different from the others, bringing me news that matters to me, and 10% WTF.

Where are the movies that this channel used to be good for?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Good article in the Globe and Mail:

Mad as hell? Come ride Sun TV’s roller coaster of rage - The Globe and Mail

Some tidbits:



> They don’t tell you much news, in either the strictest or the most lenient sense of the word, but they do tell you what to think about it. On Wednesday from time to time an anchor would turn briskly to the camera and say, “Here’s what’s happening now,” then replay a story from the day before. Which hadn’t actually happened then, either.
> 
> For example, in demonstrating an understanding of the rules of our parliamentary system, Michael Ignatieff did not actually threaten to commit a crime. Either that or we’d better build even more new prisons, for Canada’s clearly underutilized civics teachers.





> I think I understand the idea behind Sun TV, and behind Fox News before it: These are places where angry people go to have fun. They’re like anger theme parks. Their hosts are larger-than-life cartoons, welcoming the eager angry with buffoonish gestures and catchphrases.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Good article in the Globe and Mail:
> 
> Mad as hell? Come ride Sun TV’s roller coaster of rage - The Globe and Mail
> 
> Some tidbits:


Sounds like the perfect anecdote to CBC Whineland where the put-upon go to seek solace!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sun TV is nothing more than a Liberal front. Imagine, running a picture of our beloved leader, PM Harper, and then commenting upon his drinking habits, his ability to lead when intoxicated, his honesty and integrity. I, for one, shall not watch this travesty of the democratic expresssion of free speech if what they show is so obviously slanted in favor of free-thinking, leftist leaning liberalism. What's next, free-love and hippie love beads???


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Sounds like the perfect anecdote to CBC Whineland where the put-upon go to seek solace!


Right on, Brother Macfury. I have signed up for "The Conservative Channel". It is 24 hours of non-stop speeches made by PM Harper and his top cabinet ministers. Sort of like the yule log channel, only with more interesting commentary and pictures.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sounds like the perfect *anecdote* to CBC Whineland where the put-upon go to seek solace!


I'm sure SunTv's anecdotes won't be perfect but they'll most certainly come before those pesky facts real journalist's strive to employ.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

My god. I think Sun TV may be on to something! They showed an image of Jack Layton, next to Greece's government leader, and illuminated me to just how similar they look!

My god! They look the same! Soooooo, they must be, separated at birth! My god, we'll be Greece if Layton became PM!

It's just astounding, reporting!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> My god. I think Sun TV may be on to something! They showed an image of Jack Layton, next to Greece's government leader, and illuminated me to just how similar they look!
> 
> My god! They look the same! Soooooo, they must be, separated at birth! My god, we'll be Greece if Layton became PM!
> 
> It's just astounding, reporting!




Oh, the humanity!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ...we'll be Greece if Layton became PM!


It's true, but the resemblance has nothing to do with it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oh jeez you wouldn't wanna use big words and stuff to explain why you believe that to be so. So goes the righteous right's way of convincing people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Oh jeez you wouldn't wanna use big words and stuff to explain why you believe that to be so. So goes the righteous right's way of convincing people.


It's just shorthand for why socialism is already on the ash heap of history.


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It's just shorthand for why socialism is already on the ash heap of history.


And moronic, knuckle dragging fascists are once again slithering out from under rocks to make another stab at world domination. :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gene B said:


> And moronic, knuckle dragging fascists are once again slithering out from under rocks to make another stab at world domination. :clap::clap::clap:


I've got to say it's always refreshing to see someone applauding their own posts.

Who are the Fascists who are slithering from under rocks to get to you, Gene B?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Sitting Bull said:


> I am OK with it, They will get it together in time.


are you familiar with Sun Media newspapers? the only thing they excel at are sunshine girls and full page electronics ads. The only thing i expect they could "get it together" on their News station would be shorter skirts and more 2001 Audio Video commercials.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Fascists, Socialists and Commie pinkos can beat it.







+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think sun TV will have a difficult time trying to translate what they do in their newspapers to a news tv format. 

Probably gonna see more plunging necklines, more manpig content coming when they see their ratings not doing so well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I think sun TV will have a difficult time trying to translate what they do in their newspapers to a news tv format.
> 
> Probably gonna see more plunging necklines, more manpig content coming when they see their ratings not doing so well.


In a world of 200 channels showing programming that costs a nickel an hour to produce, if you can find 200 people to watch, you can probably keep it going for a longggggg time.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, I would imagine sunTV with all it's programming, movies had a nice size viewership, I definitely watched it a lot. My guess is advertising will be tougher with far less viewership.

But hundreds of channels on cable makes for way more commercials and crappier programming.

What ticked me was I thought sun news was going to be a cable channel, and the one I got over the air would stay the same. It's like I lost a channel.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since SUN-TV NEWS, or whatever it's called, is owned by Quebecor, having a TV news presence is often less about ratings and more about the notion of being a big media player. They'd keep it going for a couple of years at least even on dismal ratings. I've got zero interest in it myself.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I haven't known too many corporations who'd hang on to something bleeding red ink for too long. Word is, for advertising on sun news, the 'price is right'.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I haven't known too many corporations who'd hang on to something bleeding red ink for too long. Word is, for advertising on sun news, the 'price is right'.


Three or four years is nothing to these guys. Often, the thinking is not whether the enterprise makes money but how it fits into their "overall corporate strategy" so if media saturation is the name of the game, they're in.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

unfortunately the hole in your theory, is viewership.

Without that, there is, no saturation.

fail.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> unfortunately the hole in your theory, is viewership.
> 
> Without that, there is, no saturation.
> 
> fail.


You're dead wrong here. It's about having a presence in all of the markets to meet some corporate strategic objective. SUN TV may not be the eventual goal at all, but a placeholder in the market.

The notion of this sort of convergence doesn't seem to have worked well (TIME-LIFE, Izzy Asper) but doesn't prevent others from going down this same road.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so what exactly are you arguing here? You're basically confirming what I am suggesting, that this channel, as sun news may not survive. I wouldn't call a 'placeholder', much of a success.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I'm arguing is that it isn't dependent on viewership if the company has decided they are going to get into media saturation. So the short-term failure of SUN-TV, if that's what happens, may not be an important issue for them for several years.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, since I'm actually talking about sun news itself, not sure what tangent you've gone on here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

'round and round she goes, eh groove?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes indeed. Not sure how we got rom talking about the possible failure of sun news, to Quebecor's quest for media saturation.

Good try though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> yes indeed. Not sure how we got rom talking about the possible failure of sun news, to Quebecor's quest for media saturation.
> 
> Good try though.


I know you're not sure groove... that's what I like about ya.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Always nice when friends get along.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Always nice when friends get along.


Hi, pally.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

i-rui said:


> are you familiar with Sun Media newspapers? the only thing they excel at are sunshine girls and full page electronics ads. The only thing i expect they could "get it together" on their News station would be shorter skirts and more 2001 Audio Video commercials.


Actually, I just went through an interesting exercise. 

The McGinty Government is putting school bus bidding out to tender over multiple boards. It is causing chaos in that local bus companies will be shut out and the contracts will go to multinationals. I read about it in the paper from where I used to live up north. It is basically going to put every bus company north of North Bay out of business. It is a huge issue and a straight out money drain from Northern Ontario to Toronto. That's the news story.

The exercise was a Google search as to who covered that story. It was covered in just about every small town rag in the province. The only major paper coverage I could find in two pages of my Google Search was a Christina Blizzard column in the Toronto Sun.

I have found that in the Sun before. They do not just cover the centre of the universe and they do cover stories of interest to every day people in that they have an affect on their lives.

So maybe we should wait and see what is covered and how.

As for the full page adds - hey they have to pay their own bills. They are not asking you to do it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Hi, pally.


G'day eh.
______________

I'm sure I'll run across this brave new channel in my TV surfing one day. Meantime most TV is a drag anyway and I limit my exposure as a matter of principle. The net must have replaced my TV time long ago, when you get down to it. Far more flexible. More breadth, more depth, more lateral movement, less constriction, less rigidly doctrinaire. But then again, about ten thousand times more horse puckey per square pixel of real estate. Bigger in so many ways, really.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well between getting pwned on bogus info on Iggy and the Iraq war, and now the Layton bawdy house thing, the SNN has pretty much levelled themselves with the little rags you buy at the checkout featuring juxtapositions of Michael Jackson and aliens.

I heard the ratings were beyond horrible, in particular that sorry excuse for a 4th rate Glenn Beck Ezra Levant. Maybe I can get my channel back with movies and stuff.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Maybe I can get my channel back with movies and stuff.


You've got an unusual twitch for those crappy movies.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

who doesn't? It was a good time waster when there was nothing else on. RTV will have to do I guess.

But SNN's ratings made me laugh. Even I didn't think it could be that bad.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> who doesn't? It was a good time waster when there was nothing else on. RTV will have to do I guess.
> 
> But SNN's ratings made me laugh. Even I didn't think it could be that bad.


Or The Incredible Hulk! Much more plausible than SunTV news.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that one's on RTV actually. But yeah. I tried to watch ezra levant for a while and that guy really, should consider just going back to blogging.

They're just gonna have to resort to more low cut blouses and sex scandals. Conservatives watching fox just fall for that sort of thing.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

So the wonderfully ethical folks at the brand-spankin' new SunTV are on the job, creating a "scandal" to stem the NDP surge...

*Smear Campaign Launched*



> It's fairly obvious this news came out during the last few days of the election to attack Layton's character and credibility. Do you really think this story would have made the headline news had the NDP not surged in the polls...


(Local2)


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> that one's on RTV actually. But yeah. I tried to watch ezra levant for a while and that guy really, should consider just going back to blogging.
> 
> They're just gonna have to resort to more low cut blouses and sex scandals. Conservatives watching fox just fall for that sort of thing.


I seem to recall The Hulk and The Beachcombers being broadcast in the late afternoon on Sun.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> So the wonderfully ethical folks at the brand-spankin' new SunTV are on the job, creating a "scandal" to stem the NDP surge...


Is Mexico in a time warp CM? Old news.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

stick a fork in it...

Sun News Network – Canada’s new comedy central TV - The Globe and Mail

I wonder if they will even be able to turn around the sheer stupidity of their shows. I mean if I were a conservative, I'd be embarrassed and push to shut this joke down. Seriously.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> stick a fork in it...
> 
> Sun News Network – Canada’s new comedy central TV - The Globe and Mail
> 
> I wonder if they will even be able to turn around the sheer stupidity of their shows. I mean if I were a conservative, I'd be embarrassed and push to shut this joke down. Seriously.


You may be the only one watching it groove. I haven't even checked it out.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

just reading the news and laughing. I did catch it a few times a while back but couldn't stand more than 5 minutes of it.

This the best the right has to offer?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> just reading the news and laughing. I did catch it a few times a while back but couldn't stand more than 5 minutes of it.
> 
> This the best the right has to offer?


I don't believe "the right" is offering anything. This is the offering of a particular cable news channel. The right, instead, concentrated on delivering a majority government to Canada.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I love how when something goes real bad, they just throw 'em under a bus.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I love how when something goes real bad, they just throw 'em under a bus.


No surprise there at all. Anything (or anyone) touched by Quebecor since they bought our former group has been destroyed, written off, real estate sold, news rooms gutted, sales commissions slashed and I could go on forever about the pain and suffering they have inflicted upon thousands of fine journalists and production and sales reps and their families across this country. 

The harm done to small communities by firing a half dozen publishers and giving a single publisher responsibility for a half dozen newspapers as an absentee publisher. Never mind eliminating the only contact that community had with a senior decision maker from the paper, who was most likely on the chamber executive, a hockey or ball or soccer coach or whatever else responsible publishers did for their communities.

They have but one short sighted goal; CASH. As much of it they can get their hands on. It's a crying shame what they have done to small town Canada community newspapers. Oddly enough, their 50 odd community papers in Quebec seem to have escaped the slash and burn treatment. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and that they're called... "Quebecor"! To an Albertan that has to the be the salt in the wounds.

Interestingly, they aren't the only ones to slash and burn the smaller ones. It still isn't an excuse to suck, so damn hard though.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> No surprise there at all. Anything (or anyone) touched by Quebecor since they bought our former group has been destroyed, written off, real estate sold, news rooms gutted, sales commissions slashed and I could go on forever about the pain and suffering they have inflicted upon thousands of fine journalists and production and sales reps and their families across this country.
> 
> The harm done to small communities by firing a half dozen publishers and giving a single publisher responsibility for a half dozen newspapers as an absentee publisher. Never mind eliminating the only contact that community had with a senior decision maker from the paper, who was most likely on the chamber executive, a hockey or ball or soccer coach or whatever else responsible publishers did for their communities.
> 
> They have but one short sighted goal; CASH. As much of it they can get their hands on. It's a crying shame what they have done to small town Canada community newspapers. Oddly enough, their 50 odd community papers in Quebec seem to have escaped the slash and burn treatment. Coincidence? I think not.


I thought that is how free markets work though? I must be mistaken, I guess.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Wait until August...Digital will be the norm then,
Are you ready for "Pirate T.V." Here comes UHF and VHF T.V. with a vengeance.

It'll be an interesting war to keep the UHF and VHF rebels at a standstill while digital takes the air waves.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> I thought that is how free markets work though? I must be mistaken, I guess.


Freedom allows one to make good and bad decisions. Simple, no?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lawrence said:


> Wait until August...Digital will be the norm then,
> Are you ready for "Pirate T.V." Here comes UHF and VHF T.V. with a vengeance.
> 
> It'll be an interesting war to keep the UHF and VHF rebels at a standstill while digital takes the air waves.


What's up with that? Sounds intriguing.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

things aren't going so well.
CRTC officially revokes CKXT licence ending free access to Sun News | J-source.ca

Wondered why it suddenly went dark.

and revenues massively down Specialty channels launch pushes TVA Group into red - The Globe and Mail

ouch. And after half a billion in tax payer subsidies? At least the CBC is a popular station. This one, not so much.


----------

