Bibliographic record
Abstract
As author James Winter explains, MediaThink is "the second in a trilogy of books" (the third has yet to be written) that purport to examine how and why the corporate media lie to us.It is Winter's view that documenting the orthodox bias of big media companies will reveal that they are little more than propaganda machines set on promoting and protecting the agenda of Canada's capitalist elite.MediaThink is meant to be a scholarly work that positions itself as a much-needed voice of contention, a watchdog that reveals and challenges the "increasingly myopic and orthodox picture" of the world perpetrated and perpetuated by "media owners, managers and workers" (p.xxvii).Winter seeks to place himself within the scholar/activist tradition of Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti, both of whom he quotes extensively.Like Chomsky and Parenti, the author sees media corporations as self-interested conservative entities that do not operate in the public good.MediaThink is an accessible, often withering critique in which Winter takes the now familiar position-articulated more than two decades ago by, among others, Stuart Hall and Ian Connell-that the corporate mass media lie because they are intimately involved in the promotion and support of political ideologies and special interests that support media business interests.In other words, the corporate media use their considerable ability to influence public opinion to keep themselves and their like-minded friends in power.To support his argument, Winter has selected five case studies in which, in his view, the influence of "mediathink" is glaringly obvious: "To Win Their Hearts and Minds" deals with Indonesian atrocities in East Timor; "Feminism Did It" analyzes anti-feminism in the media; "The Nuclear Desert" dissects the war in Kosovo; "Nellie McClung Rolls Over" is concerned with media coverage of a sexual assault case; and "Just Desserts" deals with racism.The author analyzes the media coverage of these cases, examining the content of reports, columns, documentaries, and editorials to uncover the manner in which the corporate agenda is promoted through intentional bias.It is Winter's position that Canada's corporate media are not just thoroughly self-interested; they are sexist and racist in a profoundly reactionary sense.Having set the stage for a definitive and scathing denunciation of Canada's corporate media, and having promised to reveal how the media lie in order to influence public opinion and government policy, James Winter is simply unable to prove his case.There are serious problems with his methodology.In short, Winter cherry-picks material that supports his position.His documentation is culled overwhelmingly from newspaper sources, chiefly the Toronto Star, the National Post, and the Globe and Mail.With one notable exception, the influence of television on the news and information agenda is all but overlooked.There is virtually no mention of radio, particularly CBC Radio, which, for a significant number of Canadians, is a credible source of information and analysis.Aside from a passing reference to the Québec sovereignty movement, no mention is made of the views expressed by the French-speaking Canadian media.In two of the five case studies, Winter's views are predicated almost exclusively on a critique of coverage in the National Post.Since former owner Conrad Black created the National Post as a platform for Canadian right-wing views, it would be expected that the newspaper would take a conservative position on matters of public concern.This is the case, for example, in the chapter titled "Nellie McClung Rolls Over," in which Winter critiques the Post's defence of an Alberta judge who issued a controversial ruling in a sexual assault case (the now-famous Ewanchuk case in which the Supreme Court overturned the judge's decision).Throughout his critique, however, Winter makes no reference to how the case was covered by the Globe and Mail, Le Devoir, the Toronto Star, La Presse, CTV, Global Television, or the CBC.This gravely
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.018 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".