Buy Canadian
A community dedicated to buying Canadian products.
Une communauté dédiée à l'achat de produits Canadiens.
Rules:
1. Posts must be related to buying Canadian-made goods and / or using Canadian-owned services
2. Absolutely no bigotry will be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.
3. AI Content Policy
Not allowed: AI-generated images or articles
Tolerated: AI-generated post summaries
4. Only content in French and English is permitted
5. Declare all self-promotion
Users are encouraged to report any content that violates our community guidelines
Règlements :
1. Les poteaux doivent être en lien avec l'achat de produits et / ou de services opérés par des canadiens
2. Aucune bigoterie ne sera tolérée. Ça comprend, mais sans se limiter à, le racisme, le sexisme, l’homophobie, la transphobie, etc.
3. Politique sur le contenu IA
Non permis : Images ou articles générés par l'IA
Toléré : Résumés IA de publications
4. Seul le contenu en français et en anglais n'est toléré
5. Déclarez toute auto-promotion
Les utilisateurs sont encouragés à signaler tout contenu qui ne respecte pas nos directives communautaires
Related communities: Communautés connexes :
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ___
view the rest of the comments
Many articles are horrendously biased in the US. For lulz, I just went to the CBC website and found most of those articles quite dull, actually. (I ignored most of the articles about US politics) Even an article about a con-artist stealing $300k from his soon to be ex-wife was kind of dry.
But, bias is still there. It's extremely mild compared to what I am used to, but it's there. Interestingly, it shows in how articles are arranged, not in specific words. Good things first, controversial last for a "negative" article as an example. (How an article is structured determines how a reader feels after they finish reading. There was an article about a Chinese Bubble Tea chain right now I could use as a good example of this.)
The "I don't like this article, which means it's biased" point is still extremely valid. I would hesitate to call is strictly a US construct because it seems like a standard reaction for people who do not have the capability to be objective. The world is filled with those kinds of people.
I bounced around a bit with my point, but a poor reader will probably default to bias as an excuse for any emotion they feel. Unfortunately, the US does have its fair share of poor readers.
(Side note, I try to follow some structure with my posts online when talking about these kinds of subjects. The last paragraph will likely be something more people can find common ground with, like I did here. It's not fake or made up, but showing compromise or understanding last is less likely to result in a hostile rebuttal.)
Journalistic bias exists. But most well written news stories contain enough truth that dismissing them as biased says more about the reader than the writer. I don't know about the state of journalism in the US, but ignoring entire news outlets seems excessive.
Yes. Canadian journalists are excellent at putting their readers into a coma.
Nice. I've been trying to do the same. I've been trying to avoid inflammatory language and have a clear statement on top-level comments. It's harder when responding, because people tend to raise multiple points.