Sun News: You Get What You Pay For

I was one who, when I first heard that the Sun News Network was coming, was hopeful that we would finally get a quality news service that would start to balance out the extreme leftist bias in the media. If there could be a service that would rival the CBC and CTV in quality of programming while giving a different perspective that Canadians could grasp, it would no doubt be a wonderful thing.

It has been a couple of days since Sun News Network launch. And while it's great to see Ezra Levant and Charles Adler with their own TV news shows and it's nice to see a non-leftist news source out there, I really have no choice but to say it...

It looks truly and utterly awful.

Sorry, but it does.

It looks like it was done on the cheap using lighting technicians, cameramen, editors, segment producers, sound engineers, makeup artists and facilities designers of the cheapest order.

Let's take a look at one segment as an example. Here is a segment called "America: From Makers to Takers" from the Caldwell Account. Now, it's a great discussion topic. But the presentation is so utterly horrible that one has to wonder who was in charge in making it.

1. The cameras they are using are obviously not of the highest quality. That or the videographers just don't know how to set them up properly.
2. Theo Caldwell's makeup is terrible. It's patchy and he has circles under his eyes. This may seem petty but let's be realistic. Looks are everything in modern television. And you can't have hosts that look like they just walked in from the street.
3. The lighting in the studio has most certainly been just thrown up. No thought process went into it and I would be willing to bet that there are standard room style florescent ceiling bulbs on above as well. This basically sucks the contrast of the host out so that he becomes washed out and nothing but another element to a room full of equally important backdrops.
4. The camera is positioned in a downward angle on Theo (it's looking down at him). Anybody who knows anything about camera angles knows that a downward angle is used to denote a lack of power and authority. It's the very reason why whenever you see iconic images of people of power or you see product commercials where a person is being presented as decisive and powerful and self-assured, the camera is always, always angled upwards. This is one of the most basic principles of photography and videography that I have a hard time believing that the person on the camera isn't doing it on purpose.
5. The camera has also obviously been placed at a far distance away from Theo with the lens zoomed in. You don't do that if you want the person to look anything but small. A person's appearance is all dependent upon a camera's position. If you don't believe me, take a picture of a person at a distance with your camera zoomed in and then walk close to the person and take another picture such that the person fills the same amount of the screen. You'll see that the closer you get, the larger and more rigid your features are.
6. Theo sounds like a boy. Why? Because the audio engineers have done nothing to his voice. Nothing! They have not equalized it so that his voice is thicker and appears deeper. Instead, it sounds tinny and weak. Once again, this is basic audio engineering that reduces his appearance as authoritative, powerful and captivating.
7. At 0:06, there is a video clip from a manufacturing plant. No problem except that the video is on pause for 3 seconds before it gets going. On pause! This is as amateur hour as one can get. If it's video, you leave it running from start to finish. If it's a still, you leave it as a still. But you don't start a video segment with it in pause.
8. At 1:04, the camera moves to the right for no purpose and then back to the left to stop at 1:05. It then sits there for 2 seconds before it starts to move to the left again to position Theo on the right hand side of the screen. For no reason! What is with that?!?! It's ridiculous.
9. At 3:10, the camera shifts up so that Theo stays in the frame. This is one of the reasons why a camera should be placed at a low angle: when the camera is low and facing up, a person moving back and forth, up and down will always stay in frame because they will actually look like they are getting every so slightly closer and ever so slightly farther away from the camera. Once again, basic videography.
10. At 5:07, the camera moves slightly back to the right and stops then moves slightly down and stops so that it is basically back to where it was at the very beginning of the segment.
11. At 5:27, the camera once again has to shift around to keep Theo in frame.
12. At 5:42, it switches to a second camera on Ezra Levant. And I couldn't believe what I saw. Behind the opaque backdrop behind and to the right of him (just over the SunNews logo) you can see that the light is flickering. Why? Because they're using dying lightbulbs in their backlights! It's insane and looks just downright awful.

Now, some might say I'm just nitpicking. Nonsense. If a news organization wants to paint itself as refreshing, new and competitive, it has to at least get the basics down. It has to look as good if not better than its competition.

Let's compare it to the network it was being linked to, Fox News.

Here is a Bill O'Reilly segment called "Donald Trump Closer to Running for President" that is a straight angle on the host and has segments with a guest just like the above video.

Notice how O'Reilly looks larger on camera and seems more authoritative. It's because the camera is closer to him physically, is zoomed in further and isn't looking down on him.

Notice how his features are more defined. That's because with him being closer, the camera's angle on his features draws certain things forward (nose, lips, forehead) while pushing other things back (ears, hair).

Notice that he stands out from the background. That's because he is being lit more than the background thus contrasting him against it rather than having him washed out with it.

Notice how little the camera has to move to keep him in view. When a camera is positioned properly (straight on or from below) the host's movements aren't as drastic.

Notice how deep O'Reilly's voice is. This is because the person at the soundboard has actually taken the time to mix him properly.

Notice when Trump joins the segment. The image is stable and consistent in colour and tone because cheap backlights aren't being used and overhead florescent lights aren't being used.

As well, when the front camera is on, both are on the edge of the screen but closer together. This creates dramatic tension because it adds the sense of combativeness like two titans facing off.

Notice that O'Reilly is off to the side of the screen only when there is something that is to take up the other side such as notes and quotations. By having more than just a face on the screen, it creates more to grab the eye.

Now, this is just a cursory evaluation of one Sun News segment and I didn't even dissect it all. But having watched a few Sun News segments I have to say that there isn't much of a difference between any of them. Honestly, you get what you pay for. And I imagine that whoever they hired to design, produce and craft this channel, it was as cheap as they could get.

It is really too bad because, were they just to employ some very basic production principles, the channel would really be a threat to the CBC and CTV news channels. Here's hoping that they start to recognize that they need professionals really doing their job if they want the channel to be anything more than Wayne's World being cut using iMovie.

Lost track of how many faces...

It seems farcical.

The Liberals and leftists are wrongly accusing the Conservative government of being cozy with US special interests while they themselves are cozy with US interests. (h/t Coyne)

All this not a stone's throw away from the left embracing and protecting another US special interest group trying to interfere with Canadian politics... with that group lying to do so.

It really begs the question: how does the left stay upright with their feet planted firmly in the mouth of both of their faces?

Where's ACTRA on the censoring of Sun TV?

Last year the arts community -- especially ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists -- came down hard on Stephen Harper's government Bill C-10 which would in part effectively cut funding to artistic endeavors that were contrary to public interests. Some, such as director David Cronenberg, went so far as to call this censorship.

Bill C-10 in no way would prevent artists from creating, displaying or performing their works. It was simply telling them that they would have to get support from other sources. That is not censorship. If it was censorship then the government would effectively have a responsibility to fund all artists on demand.

I'm an artist. And I get it.

But where is ACTRA and all these arts community figures now that Sun TV (erroneously called "Fox News North") is under attack by the media on all sides? Where is the arts community when we have so many people calling for this private, non-public funded news outlet to be prevented access to the airwaves?

From Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

Censorship is not the denial of funding from one source. It is suppression. No artist was being suppressed from performing or creating under Bill C-10. Sure they would have to find alternate sources to create their artistic works at the level of expense that would be optimum. But that's not suppression.

Suppression is when we have the media demanding a voice to be silenced. Suppression is when we have politicians wanting voices to be silenced.

And what has the arts community said against these expressions of desired censorship? Well, I'm more likely to hear the birds chirping outside ACTRA's downtown headquarters while standing beside one of Emirates A-380's when taking off on a runway at Toronto's Pearson airport than hear one of their representatives on TV defending Sun TV's free expression.

Why? Because they aren't the champions against censorship they claim to be.

Hypocrites.

Free Speech VS Permissible Speech

It is somewhat disturbing to see the cavalier attitude that the political Left has with the idea of freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of Speech is defined as one of our human rights which Leftists will scream to high heaven they are the defenders of and the Right want to throw away.

However, the Left seems to be the ones who are eager to curtail freedom of speech further and further. First they push for hate crime legislation based upon what people say. And we can see the result being totalitarian enforcement by seemingly all-powerful organizations such as Canada's Human Rights Tribunal. They even have no issue in demeaning freedom of speech as an American Value.

(I'm sorry... is that supposed to be an insult?)

Then we see the Left wanting to restrict what one can say politically. The current brouhaha over Sun TV -- or as propagandists and their enablers call it "Fox News North" -- has revealed the political left for the opportunistic hypocrites that they are. The so-called defenders of human rights have revealed their true intention to transform the concept of freedom of speech into a freedom of leftists-speech.

But speech is either free or permissible. One can either be free to speak or permitted to speak. Just like life and death, married or not married, animal or mineral, there is no in-between for free speech and permissible speech. If one is under political pressure not to speak, that is an infringement on one's ability to speak freely. And at the very moment that speech is regulated, the absence of free speech is created.

It's as definable as something and nothing.

Some people will of course come back and say, "Well, what about Holocaust deniers? Do you think they should have the freedom to deny the Holocaust?"

Uh... yeah! They should! How else are we supposed to ensure that our children know that the Holocaust is real and that there are morons out there who refuse to acknowledge something with insurmountable evidence? In fact, letting Holocaust deniers speak gives us the best opportunity to deny them.

Sweeping a mess under the carpet doesn't clean up the mess. It just puts it somewhere else where it can build in the dark until it's a much bigger problem.

I'm an artist which of course means I'm a little bit sensitive to the notion of censorship. In my view, there can be no greater error in society than to deny expression. Whether we agree or disagree, we cannot give up this right. In conjunction to the right to life, it is the most important right in that afford all other rights.

If we cannot speak, we cannot fight for our rights. And if our speech becomes subjected to any other's opinion, we have lost everything.

The Left should celebrate an entity such as Sun TV. Unfortunately, they have failed the first test of freedom of speech, that being respecting the right to opinions they would disagree with. It is impossible for any person to be a champion of free speech at the same time demanding the prevention of opposing views.

The efforts of the Left to prevent Sun TV is nothing short of utter hypocrisy. And it is truly disgusting.

Just what the Toronto Star needs...

...a twice weekly dose of the ever nasty, unprofessional and immature Heather Mallick.

How anybody can even consider the Toronto Star anything more than a propaganda factory is beyond me. The fact they have no problem employing a hack with a complete lack of professional journalistic standards is beyond me.

It's too bad we don't have a news outlet in Canada that would hold Mallick and her ilk to task for the outrageousness she spews. At least, not yet anyhow.