Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Benevolent Saudis Pardon Rape Victim | Main | The State of Play (Part Two) »

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Over/Under-reported 2007

Presser: Influence Communication releases a summary of the most important news stories of 2007

"Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq dominate the news in Canada in 2007

Montreal, December 19, 2007 - Influence Communication today released its overview of the news in Canada in 2007.

Review of Canadian News (2207) recalls and ranks in order of media predominance the news stories and events that made their way in broadcast, print and internet news over the last 12-month period.

Over the course of 2007, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq topped the list of the most important news stories in Canadian media. For the most part, news reporting centered around politicians and government officials touring war zones and Canadian casualties.

The report also takes a look back at media predominance of federal politicians, key environmental issues, provincial party leaders (outside their own province) and major Canadian companies.

The annual compilation includes the results of a brief comparative analysis of the referencing of major national media (newspapers and television networks) by other media across Canada.

The report also presents a ranking of the top Canadian news stories that caught the attention of international media over the past 12-month period. Within this category, Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan, the Pickton trial and the Alberta oil sands occupied the first three (3) positions.

The report features a list of the top international news stories of 2007. International news was dominated by the war in Iraq (1st place) and the upcoming U.S. elections (2nd place). Among the 15 biggest news stories in the world in 2007 were the release of the final instalment in the Harry Potter series, the launch of the iPhone, the incarceration of Paris Hilton and Madonna’s challenges in adopting a child."

You can find the full report here:

What do Western Standard readers think are the important stories that didn’t get widespread media coverage in 2007?

In my opinion, there was no bigger story in 2007 than the human rights commission complaints against the Western Standard, Maclean's magazine and Mark Steyn.  A primary pillar of a free society--freedom of the press--is at risk. It’s hard to overstate the importance of that.

--Matthew Johnston

Posted by westernstandard on December 19, 2007 in Media | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fbdd31f8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Over/Under-reported 2007:

Comments

Most under-reported? The other side of the climate change hysteria.

And in a country whose media march pretty much in lock step with the Liberal Party, I'd argue we've never had a "free press".

Posted by: john g | 2007-12-19 1:35:40 PM


This story didn't get much play either:

"Mohammed now second most popular boys' name in Britain"

For the last 13 years Jack has been the most popular boys' name in the land.

But in multicultural Britain children named after the Muslim prophet Mohammed come a close second.

In a reflection of the increasing influence of Islam, figures released yesterday showed the most popular spelling of the name - Mohammed - had climbed five places to 17th in the annual list of top baby names.

However, when the seven other spellings of the name are taken into account, the total comes to 6,347 babies, making it the second most popular name of the year - up from 5,936 last year.

HOW LONG BEFORE Muhammad becomes the number one name in Canada?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23428641-details/Mohammed+now+second+most+popular+boys'+name+in+Britain/article.do

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-19 7:41:54 PM


Think the Canadian media will cover THIS story? Our trolls still maintain that 99.9% of scientists are of one mind:

"U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.

BUT...BUT...BUT...Al Gores SAYS it's a fact. Isn't that proof enough? (S)

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-20 2:55:34 PM


And in a follow-up to the previous post:

"Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions"

by Pat Sajak

The subject of man-made global warming is almost impossible to discuss without a descent into virulent name-calling (especially on the Internet, where anonymity breeds a special kind of vicious reaction to almost any social or political question), but I’ll try anyway. I consider myself to be relatively well-read on the matter, and I’ve still come down on the skeptical side, because there are aspects of the issue that don’t make a lot of sense to me. Though I confess to have written none-to-reverentially on the subject, I want to try to put all that aside and ask ten serious questions to which I have been unable to find definitive answers:

1. What is the perfect temperature?

If we are to embark on a lifestyle-altering quest to lower the temperature (or at least minimize its rise), what is our goal? I don’t ask this flippantly. Can we demonstrate that one setting on the global thermostat is preferable over another? If so, what is it, and how do we get there? And, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we ever have to “heat things up” again if it drops below that point?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24090&s=rcme

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-20 3:43:47 PM


Who does Pat Sajak think he is? Asking a bunch if sensible questions like that. He has no right to ask relevant questions without some kind of environmental background.

Look at the global warming advocates. Every one of them has done research, studied every side of the issue, and come up with an independant assessment of the situation. Right?

Posted by: dp | 2007-12-20 3:58:34 PM


dp ~

. . . and was his column peer reviewed? :)

Posted by: obc | 2007-12-20 4:07:13 PM


obc-

I'm sure that Vanna gave it a quick once over.

Wait a minute. Now that I think about it, Vanna is probably the cause of more than a little global warming.

Posted by: dp | 2007-12-20 4:13:24 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.